Case studies examined how airport operators addressed bicycle access to their properties and the motivations and obstacles that they faced in light of new policies to integrate bicycles, along with transit and walking, into transportation planning, design, and construction and to increase the bicycle's role in the transportation system. Eight influential elements that emerged from the review of policy documents and research literature were used to guide interviews: governance structure, location, access roads, self-perceived environmental stewardship, spending restrictions on nonaviation transportation improvements, proximity to transit, policies and mandates to reduce environmental impacts, and land use constraints. Seven cases were selected on the basis of their inclusion in studies on key aspects of airport ground access: Oakland International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport, California; Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, Washington; Boston Logan International Airport, Massachusetts; Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport, Minnesota; and Portland International Airport, Oregon, an exemplar recommended by several informants. The discussion was limited to employee bicycle access, the focus of airport operators that invested in programs to reduce single-occupancy-vehicle travel at airports. During aggregation of the interviews, replicable approaches for improving bicycle access were identified, as were examples of innovative funding for multimodal access that used revenues generated through passenger facilities charges. The following areas are suggested for additional research: commute needs of airport employees, mode choice for ground access, and airport operator costs and benefits of bicycle access investments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities. In Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009.
2.
Urban Bikeway Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials, New York, 2011.
3.
PucherJ., and BuehlerE.Final Report: Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
RaglandD., and OrrickP.Transportation and Health: Policy Interventions for Safer, Healthier People and Communities. Partnership for Prevention, Washington, D.C., 2011.
6.
Ricondo and Associates, Inc., DMR Consulting, and Resource Systems Group. ACRP Report 34: Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
7.
Leigh Fisher Associates, M. A. Coogan, and MarketSense. TCRP Report 62: Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
8.
FreestoneR.Planning, Sustainability, and Airport-Led Urban Development. International Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009, pp. 161–176.
9.
BruegmannR.Airport City. In Building for Air Travel (ZukowskyJ., ed.), Prestel-Verlag, Munich, Germany, 1996.
10.
GoslingG.ACRP Synthesis 5: Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
11.
RicardD.Exploring Airport Employee Commuting and Parking Strategies. Final Scope, ACRP Synthesis 11-03. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
12.
Sustainable Airport Planning, Design, and Construction Guidelines for Implementation on All Airport Projects, Version 5.0. Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles, Calif., 2010.
13.
FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2011–2031. FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
14.
YinR. K.Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4th ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 2009.
15.
Bicycle Master Plan. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Jersey City, N.J., 2010.
16.
KingS., GatelyJ., BeckP., CampbellB., and MarrenH.Portland International Airport Bicycle and Pedestrian PlanPort of Portland, Ore., 2003.
17.
LuX., GoslingG., CederA., TungS., TsoK., ShladoverS.E., XiongJ., and YoonS.A Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Approach to Planning for Improved Intermodal Connectivity at California Airports. California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways, Richmond, 2009.
18.
DMR Consulting, Jacobs Consultancy, M. A. Coogan, and Resource Systems Group. ACRP Report 35: Planning for Offsite Airport Terminals. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
19.
LeighFisher, Dowling Associates, JD Franz Research, and WILTEC. ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
20.
Regional Airport System Plan Analysis. Regional Airport Planning Committee, San Francisco, Calif., 2010.
21.
SFO Climate Action Plan. San Francisco International Airport, Calif., 2010.
22.
Association for Commuter Transportation. http://www.actweb.org. Accessed July 30, 2011.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Regional Airport Plan. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/air_plan/index.htm.
36.
Airport Development Program: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP). Port of Oakland, Calif., 2011.
37.
Wilbur Smith Associates. BART-Oakland Airport Connector Ridership Update. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, San Francisco, Calif., 2009.
ArringtonG., and CerveroR.TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
54.
OrrickP., FrickK., and RaglandD.Bicycle Infrastructure that Extends Beyond the Door: Examining Investments in Bicycle-Oriented Design Through a Qualitative Survey of Commercial Building Owners and Tenants.Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., 2011.
