SM-DAILY-NEWS\Riders say bike plan falls short / Caltrain struggles
Jym Dyer
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10252649
Riders say bike plan falls short
Caltrain struggles to meet capacity demands
By Shaun Bishop
San Mateo Daily News | 20-Aug-2008
Whether motivated by high gas prices, global warming or physical
fitness, thousands of Caltrain's regular passengers are lugging
their bicycles aboard.
But the same incentives are also driving more commuters out of
their cars and into the trains, causing a logjam inside to rival
the gridlock on nearby Highway 101.
And when push comes to shove, it's the bicyclists who get left
behind, or in Caltrain parlance -- "bumped."
More and more, bicyclists who feel they're doing the
environmentally correct thing are being asked not to board
a crowded train car, or the next one, or the one after that.
"Leaving San Jose anytime between 5 and 7 (p.m.) is just nuts,"
said Robert Cox, who rides the train there from his home in
Redwood City. "I've seen people get bumped a lot and it's just
going to get worse."
That's not news to Caltrain, which recently completed a report
that recommends several possible solutions such as building more
bike lockers at stations, starting a bike sharing program or
charging a fee for allowing bikes during peak ridership hours.
But bikers, who now make up an estimated 8 percent of Caltrain's
weekday riders, say the report misses the point, and that the
train services should free up some space for their bikes either
by removing more seats or adding more train cars.
Caltrain officials don't want to buy more rail cars now because
they'll be replaced in a few years as the agency considers
moving to an electrified system. And they're reluctant to take
out more seats for bikers, noting there already aren't enough
for passengers during rush hour as the line experiences record
ridership.
"We're experiencing capacity problems on a lot of our trains
during the peak and that's going to increase," said spokeswoman
Christine Dunn. "It's a happy problem to have, but the bike
riders are not the only ones."
Caltrain's Bicycle Parking and Access Plan, released last week,
gives a broad look at issues bicyclists face when using Caltrain.
It was initially called the Bicycle Master Plan, but cyclists
complained that it focused on parking and access at Caltrain
stations and ignored the 80 percent of cyclists who carry their
bikes on the train. So the name was changed, but bikers say the
focus didn't change much.
One relatively easy project, which the report even mentions,
would be to make the bike-holding capacity of trains more
predictable, said Andy Thornley, program director for the
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.
He said bicyclists are frustrated when a 7:30 a.m. train has
spots for 16 bikes one day and 64 spots the next, making it
near impossible to predict whether they'll get bumped.
Eugene Kim, who commutes to Redwood City, said he gets bumped
"all the time" at the station in San Francisco, where he
lives. He guesses about three of every five bike cars he tries
to board are filled, and now has to get to the station early
just to account for delays.
The bike plan suggests posting the train configurations the
night before on a Web site or installing a system to monitor
available spots and display them at stations in real time.
Other potential solutions include installing more bicycle
lockers at the stations or subsidizing residents' purchase of
folding bikes that can be stored under seats.
But Caltrain, which struggles to balance its budget every
year, doesn't have the funding to implement any of the report's
recommendations, officials say.
Supervisor Jerry Hill, who sits on Caltrain's board, said he
wants to ask cyclists whether they would use the suggested
improvements before seriously considering them.
"If we build all these alternatives and they're still lining up,
getting (bumped) from the train all the time, it's not solving
the problem," Hill said.
The bicycle coalition crafted its own bicycle plan, which it
distributed to Caltrain board members at a recent meeting.
Thornley said he hopes officials will consider their
suggestions, including taking out more seats.
"It's not that we're against better parking at the stations
or access to or from stations," Thornley said. But, he added,
"they really need to start with the bikes-on-board service."
Jym Dyer
| distributed to Caltrain board members at a recent meeting.
=v= You can find the plan (and other documents) here:
http://www.sfbike.org/?caltrain_bob
A handy analysis of Caltrain's plan, with comparisons to the
SFBC plan, can be found here:
http://www.sfbike.org/?caltrain_analysis
<_Jym_>
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:Jym.20Aug20...@scorcher.org...
Since regional planning just isn't going to do the job (due to funding each
transit agency separately, so they don't have an incentive to make the
overall picture better), and I don't see how that's going to change in the
near future, the only solution I can see is to look for federal action that
would provide financial incentives for transit improvements that helped
reduce congestion and parking problems in urban areas.
Somebody has to take responsibility for the big picture, and have the means
to force (laws) or coerce (money) to get it done.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
SMS
> Since regional planning just isn't going to do the job (due to funding each
> transit agency separately, so they don't have an incentive to make the
> overall picture better), and I don't see how that's going to change in the
> near future, the only solution I can see is to look for federal action that
> would provide financial incentives for transit improvements that helped
> reduce congestion and parking problems in urban areas.
The most effective federal action is one that no politician will touch
with a 10 foot pole--an increase in the federal gasoline tax.
While the CalTrain bicycle plan is very comprehensive, even the modest
proposals they've made have no funding source. The SFBC plan is like a
wish list of what would happen if CalTrain had unlimited funds to add
more cars and more trains. I can only imagine what the reaction of
CalTrain officials was to the SFBC plan. The down side is that the SFBC
actions give a bad image to all cyclists, not just the few people that
got together to put together their "plan."
Mike Jacoubowsky
I've read the SFBC plan. It doesn't give all cyclists a bad image; it's not even the case that it gives the SFBC a universally bad image. What it does do is paint an image of the SFBC as being bike-centric (wow, big surprise there!) and rather ignorant of how Caltrain is funded and what their mandate is, when the truth is they know full well what the local and regional politics are. To some extent Caltrain suffers their wrath because they opened the door to cyclists in the first place.
We really need a regional approach to funding and transit mandates that would recognize the degree to which cyclists (as commuters) can literally save our congested city areas. Caltrain should be financially rewarded for their efforts to alleviate parking issues in downtown San Francisco, for example... not just transporting people into town. The more bikes Caltrain delivers into SF, the less the strain on the rest of the transportation infrastructure. That saves somebody $$$, but it's Caltrain providing the benefit and cost (without sharing in the savings).
I'm sure SFBC is capable of looking at the big picture, but the reality is that Caltrain's timetable is such that there isn't enough time to come up with a suitable big-picture plan that will preserve and even enhance their bike-carrying capabilities. So instead they see a need to act fast and reactively, before it's too late, which puts Caltrain into the villain mode, and the SFBC as a selfish organization looking out only for the needs of a narrowly-defined commuting cyclist. It is possible that it's the only way, but I fear it's a game in which cyclists can come across looking a bit too smug & arrogant instead of helping to pull everyone together into a comprehensive solution in which bikes play an even-more important part than they do now.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:wZnrk.11225$vn7....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Jym Dyer
> The SFBC plan is like a wish list of what would happen if
> CalTrain had unlimited funds to add more cars and more trains.
=v= Steven M. Scharf continues to malign the work of some smart
and dedicated volunteers with bogus mischaracterizations. You
can judge for yourself: I invite everyone to read the SFBC's
Draft Plan for Bicycle Carriage on Caltrain, which includes a
more complete financial analysis than Caltrain's own document:
http://www.sfbike.org/?caltrain_bob
> I can only imagine what the reaction of CalTrain officials
> was to the SFBC plan.
=v= Your imagination could use some work. The Joint Powers
Board actually mostly seemed to appreciate it.
<_Jym_>
Mike Jacoubowsky
| > was to the SFBC plan.
|
| =v= Your imagination could use some work. The Joint Powers
| Board actually mostly seemed to appreciate it.
| <_Jym_>
Then let's see the JPB actually come up with some funding. Make a statement that bicycles are an essential part of the transportation solution, and that all agencies will be doing their part. There should be a requirement for any transit funding that accomodation of cyclists needs are met, and if unable or impractical to do so, then they must provide funds (basically be taxed) for improvements elsewhere. Much the way you can buy & sell pollution credits. Unless somebody comes up with a better way of getting bikes moderately close to their destination than CalTrain, CalTrain will remain the key ingredient to any cycling solution.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message news:Jym.22Aug20...@scorcher.org...