Prepared by: Los Angeles County CALSTART Metropolitan Transportation Authority 48 S. Chester Ave. One Gateway Plaza Pasadena, CA 91106 Lo s Angeles, CA 90012-2952 www.calstart.org metro.net April, 2011 With Funding from: Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Team Fernando Castro Caltrans Charles Lau Caltrans Anthony Jusay Metro Lynne Goldsmith Metro Nathan Baird Metro Whitney Pitkanen CALSTART Fred Silver CALSTART David Kantor CALSTART Project Working Group Traci Fretheim ACIRE Dale Benson Caltrans Keith Sellers Caltrans Mark Von Wodtke CDGE/ Cal Poly Pomona Diana Chang City of Culver City John Rivera City of Culver City Michelle Mowery City of LA, Department of Transportation Jenny Cristales City of Pasadena Luis Morris City of Santa Monica Jennifer Klausner Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Kent Strumpell Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Devon Deming Los Angeles World Airports Paula Carvajal Metro Cory Zelmer Metro Dave Sotero Metro Hector Rodriguez Metro Jennifer Gill Metro Rufina Juarez Metro Jessica Meaney Southern California Association of Governments We wish to thank all of those who provided valuable input in the development of this document. We hope that this effort addresses various community needs while balancing some of the complex issues of bicycles and transit. 2 FOLDING BIKE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION V. SURVEY RESULTS AT FIVE STATIONS SECTION I: INTRODUCTION A. SURVEY METHOD A. PROJECT BACKGROUND Survey Results B. PROJECT BENEFITS B. COMBINED SURVEY RESULTS C. NEXT STEPS Demographics Trip Frequency SECTION II: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Travel Mode A. DIRECT INCENTIVE PROGRAM Mode Shift Potential B. EMPLOYEE PROGRAM Switch to Folding Bike Potential C. SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM Folding Bike Price Points D. RETAIL DISCOUNT PROGRAM Incentives E. MANUFACTURER / RETAILER DISCOUNT Rebate PROGRAM Survey Results by Mode F. NEEDS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Survey Results by Gender G. BICYCLE EDUCATION AND EVALUATION Online Responses General Survey Conclusions SECTION III: FOLDING BICYCLE ATTRIBUTES Potential Data Abnormalities A. SELECTION CRITERIA B. SELECTED ATTRIBUTES SECTION VI. APPENDIX C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. MANUFACTURER/ MODEL INFORMATION B. SURVEY DATA SECTION IV: LOCATION ANALYSIS AT FIVE STATIONS A. LOCATION INDICATORS B. LOCATION ANALYSES 1. North Hollywood Metro Red Line station 2. Highland Park Metro Gold Line station 3. Balboa Metro Orange Line station 4. Aviation Metro Green Line station 5. Norwalk Metro Green Line station 3 TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Boarding light rail train with 16” wheel-sized Figure 19: Metro 2010 Bike Map – Highland Park Station folding bike Figure 20: Bike lockers at Balboa Station Figure 2: Traveling via Amtrak with folding bikes Figure 21: Metro 2010 Bike Map – Balboa Station Figure 3: Effect of economic incentives on SOV rates Figure 22: Bike lockers at Norwalk Station Figure 4: Accessing bus transit plaza with folding bike Figure 23: Metro 2010 Bike Map- Norwalk Station Figure 5: Eight speed derailleur and 3 speed internal hub gear types Figure 24: Bike lockers at Aviation Station Figure 6: Carrying rack and front and rear wheel fenders Figure 25: Metro 2010 Bike Map- Aviation Station Figure 7: Nine folding bikes take a fraction of space in a Figure 26: Age of all female survey respondents parking stall for one vehicle Figure 27: Age of all male survey respondents Figure 8: Discussing various folding bike attributes Figure 28: Travel mode to station of origin Figure 9: Adjusting bike for proper fit Figure 29: Potential mode shift to bicycling from SOV Figure 10: Test-riding one of many folding bike models to Figure 30: Potential switch from conventional to folding evaluate performance bicycle Figure 11: Exiting bus with folding bike Figure 31: Familiarity with folding bicycles Figure 12: Sixteen inch wheeled folding bike underneath Figure 32: Folding bicycle price points rear seat on board 40ft Neoplan Figure 33: Stated preference for improvements/ Figure 13: Twenty inch wheeled folding bike underneath incentives rear seat on board 60ft NABI Figure 34: Amount of incentive compared to purchase Figure 14: Reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per price household as residential density increases Figure 15: Aerial view of North Hollywood Station and Park-and-Ride lots Figure 16: Bike racks at North Hollywood Station Figure 17: Metro 2010 Bike Map – North Hollywood Station Figure 18: Bike lockers at Highland Park Station 4 FOLDING BIKE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transit service providers could do more to encourage non- motorized options to access transit rather than taking a Bicycling has become increasingly recognized as a typical approach and provide vast amounts of automobile transportation solution helping to improve various parking, which is significantly cost prohibitive.1 A common environmental, economical and societal aspects. A variety of concern is that people are unwilling to walk ½ a mile to a bicycle designs and set-ups for utility are used to help carry transit station or stop.2 The inclination then tends to be to personal belongings, groceries, children and much more. drive to a transit station. For bicyclists, their concern is that One particular utility bicycle is the folding bicycle. Its design trains and buses are not always capable of providing enough allows users to easily transport the bike using less space capacity to accommodate full sized bicycles simultaneously. when the bike is “folded” in to a compact size. When using a Providing incentives to encourage folding bike usage can folding bike with a bike-transit journey, it allows individuals address some of these issues. the ability to board transit vehicles and seamlessly complete first-and-last mile connections. The versatility of a folding The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation bike is also appropriate for air travel and for when inadequate Authority (Metro) has developed the Folding Bike storage and bike theft is a significant concern. Implementation Plan (“the Plan”) as an initiative to encourage the use of folding bikes with transit, and promote them as a transportation demand management solution. The goal of the Plan is to identify implementation strategies to jumpstart incentive programs for the distribution of folding bicycles through public and private means. The Plan is a conceptual-level document developed through working group collaboration. It evaluates various folding bike model types and identifies favorable attributes with respect to performance, design, function, and how they work with transit. Market analysis commenced through primary and secondary research. Public outreach surveys were collected at five 1 Shoup, Donald. The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. March 1, 2005. Shoup presents evidence that aboveground structured parking often costs about $10,000 per space and that underground parking often costs about $25,000 per space. 2 Schlossberg, Marc. How Far, by Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Figure 1: Boarding light rail train with 16” wheel-sized Pedestrian Preference. 2007 TRB Outstanding Paper Award. folding bike 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY particular Metro stations to determine perception and interest of folding bicycles and incentives. The analysis is intended to help Metro and other cities and/or transit agencies strategize and identify potential scenarios to launch and target folding bike programs. Key Findings • Public survey results indicate that offering a cash buy- down on the purchase price of a folding bicycle is likely to be the most effective incentive for end users. The amount a transit rider would pay for a folding bike is largely independent of the amount of money he or she makes per year (refer to Section II, A and Section V, B). Figure 2: Traveling via Amtrak with folding bikes Photo Credit: Dave Sotero • Portability is the most important attribute of a folding bike when used in conjunction with transit. It is equally important that bikes are available for purchase from local vendors to ensure a high level of service and support (refer to Section III). • Residential density, the level and quality of nearby public transit, and the level of bicycle friendliness are effective indicators for determining levels of bicycle usage in a given community (refer to Section IV, A). • The majority of surveyed transit riders are generally aware of folding bicycles but do not fully recognize their value given that few would pay more than $200 to purchase one. In order to effectively stimulate the folding bike market, early cash incentives should bring down the purchase price to users’ expectations (refer to Section V, B). 6 FOLDING BIKE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This page left intentionally blank. 7 SECTION I: INTRODUCTION SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 8 FOLDING BIKE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION 3. Establishes indicators for analyzing potential locations for targeting that can be applied by Metro, cities, and The Folding Bike Implementation Plan seeks to expand the other agencies to implement folding bike programs. “bike-transit” option for commuters searching for added flexibility, convenience and access to transit systems. It also 4. Identifies potential interest for launching a folding bike aims to assist commuters who would like to avoid some of the program through transit rider surveys performed at five obstacles of wanting to board a train when it may be too Metro stations. crowded or waiting for a bus with available bike rack space. It is