Legislation seeks to increase bus bike rack capacity
AB-652, introduced by East Bay Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, would allow bus agencies to install 3-bike racks on their 40' buses. Currently, buses are restricted to bike racks that extend no more than 36" from the front of the bus. Once this loophole is closed, it would allow larger bike racks, such as the Sportsworks Trilogy bike rack.
Click on EBBC letter of support for ideas to include in your own letter of support.
- Eric McCaughrin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Legislation seeks to increase
Maybe some of you guys realize that Cannondel already make single/mono shock bike. It is very interesting :-)
Legislation seeks to increase
These racks are already in use on the Highway 17 Express buses between San Jose and Santa Cruz.
Legislation seeks to increase
Three bikes is definitely better than two, but my casual, somewhat uniformed opinion is that three is still far too few to encourage a significant use of combined bike-bus transport. While this represents a whopping 50% increase in bike capacity, currently only about 4%, or 1 out 25 potential riders, can have a bike on the bus, and adding one more space only improves this to 6% or 1 out of 17. With only three spaces, cyclists will continue to be turned away if they attempt to board buses in significant numbers, and a single experience like this is enough to lead many potential riders to abandon on this approach entirely, giving the illusion that perhaps 2-3 bikes per bus is an appropriate number.
I appreciate and support the effort to improve the law incrementally, but I think there is a real need to re-imagine the bike-bus interface altogether, if there is an earnest intent to increase the integration of these modes of transport.
I'd be curious to learn more about the real (not arbitrary) constraints that suggest this is the best that we can expect right now. Unless there are fundamental obstacles or impracticalities, I would hope that EBBC would also foster a dialog about, and advocate for, a more visionary solution for high bike capacity on buses in addition to these smaller changes.
Perhaps there are also local restrictions, but my reading of the CA vehicle code regarding bike racks on buses indicates there might already be a provision for ten feet of bike rack on the back of a 40 foot bus (section 8). Am I missing something? It just says bus and not public agency bus, but the public agency (section 9) description talking about three foot front racks indicates this can not be in addition to a rear rack described in section 8 which suggests 8 is inclusive of public buses. Is there a reason that bus operators and/or riders don't like rear racks?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=35001-36000&file=35400-35414
A ten foot fixed rack could probably handle 8-10 bikes, but in the context of what is currently proposed, why not add the new three bike rack to the back for a total of 5 per bus rather than throwing the old two bike racks away? This would require a modification of the law to allow racks on both ends, but doesn't seem to be in conflict with the current spirit of the law allowing up to 50 feet length for a 40 foot bus with racks.
I've heard some complaints that folding three bike racks are very heavy. Anyone have experience with that?
For a real increase in bike capacity, why not have articulated buses where the trailer portion is an open but covered bike rack?
Rear-mounted racks work well
Rear-mounted racks work well in a "shuttle" operation, like between Downtown Berkeley BART and Lawrence Berkeley Lab. On shuttles there are neither problems with dwell time, getting the driver's attention when loading/unloading, or concerns about theft. EBBC has suggested that certain lines, like Line #51, could be operated like a shuttle when crossing the estuary. We have also recently proposed allowing bikes on board to overcome this barrier (See: rideOn, March 2009).
Our positive experience with bikes onboard crowded transbay All-Nighter buses has demonstrated that the policy could readily be extended to additional bus lines. The way it works is bicyclists pay the fare then board through the rear door. This system also works on the Golden Gate #40 & #42 over the RSR Bridge when no wheelchairs are on board. The new Las Vegas BRT lines include racks inside at the rear.
In February 2007 AC Transit amended their transbay policy to permit bikes in the luggage bays of all such buses, not just the Line M (San Mateo Bridge) that is equipped with luggage bay racks as a mitigation for Caltrans not providing direct bridge access.
You raise an interesting point about the weight of the triple rack. I have only deployed the LAVTA model and did not notice a problem. Sportworks specs for the Trilogy Rack note that "lifting weight is less than 30lbs," about the same as a bicycle.
Has GGT changed to
Has GGT changed to exclusively rear door buses on 40/42 or is it a mixture? I haven't taken it after I got stuck in San Rafael last summer when five bikes were after two rack spots. It would have been a two hour wait for two more cycles of the route, before I could get my bike on the bus. At that time they were running fancier "commuter" style buses (four bucket seats per row) with no rear door and the driver was adamant that no bikes were allowed on board, which is fairly reasonable for a bus with high entrance steps and a narrow aisle. Given that there is no alternative route over the RSR bridge without a bike lane, it would be nice if GGT provided consistently high bike capacity on that route (i.e. always running the rear door buses).
I agree that rear racks require a little more attention to logistics, but nothing that couldn't be addressed with some input and thought from the various parties involved. It still seems the most viable path to greatly increased capacity. If there was a separate "rear bike only" call button near the back door, a cyclist could clearly signal rear unloading and a rear view camera could help with logistics as well as driving safety if not already mounted. A fare provision at rear doors would also help minimize dwell time to match that of front racking. Simple rack locks could be used to address theft concerns, but at some cost to the speed of use. Ultimately, providing riders with a view of their bike from the bus is probably best (although difficult for rear engine buses--another screen displaying the rear mount camera view?), since they have the most motivation to pay attention and nothing else competing for their attention. I don't think relying on the driver's observation can be expected to control potential theft, even on a front mounted rack. It is perhaps a psychological deterrent to have someone looking at you out the front, but a bold thief could probably successfully take advantage of the current situation, just as easily as on a rear rack.
Bikes on board is great if the buses are well designed for it. But without good intentional design, it can end up limited in scope, somewhat haphazard and awkward, like bikes on BART when there is more than sparse ridership. It will be slow to replace/refit the existing stock of buses with those well designed for on board bike handling. Certainly this should still be encouraged, but rack attachments will probably play a majority role for the near future, if bikes and foot passengers are to be equally well served. I would be curious to poll the drivers about where they would prefer to see a significant number of additional bikes located. It seems like enlarging front mounted racks to accept three bikes, will make sharp right turns in tight intersections even more difficult for them without clipping the curb.
Given the effectiveness of bikes for local transport (a parallel function of some buses) it may not be very important to radically increase bike rack capacity on all buses, but certainly for those longer routes without good bicycling options there needs to be a broader solution to take bikes from a position of relative obscurity on buses to enable much more common usage. Ultimately, bikes on buses remain an afterthought and a joke if buses are only designed to handle the small number of bikes that most passenger car bike racks can handle. At least, this status quo of twos and threes is highly inconsistent with the concept of "mass" transit.
You can track the progress of
You can track the progress of AB 652 on EBBC's Legislation page.
Legislation seeks to increase
These racks are already in use on the Highway 17 Express buses between San Jose and Santa Cruz. This service is part of the Amtrak California system, directly managed by the State (Caltrans). The buses also permit 2 additional bikes inside (room permitting). A poster child of bike access, so no excuse to put off that trip to sunny Santa Cruz.