SM-DAILY-NEWS\LETTER: Caltrain bike parking plan doesn't add up
Jym Dyer
Letters to the Editor
San Mateo Daily News | Thursday, 21-Aug-2008
Caltrain bike parking plan doesn't add up
Dear Editor: Caltrain's proposal to spend $13 million to
upgrade bicycle parking and signage to its stations seems
a tad expensive when one considers that these improvements
generate negligible revenue, while the present 2,400 passengers
a day who bring their bikes onboard at an average ticket price
of $3.60 provide an ongoing stream of income.
The Bicycle Access and Parking Plan states the cost of a new
rail car with 139 seats is $2.65 million. Sticker shock makes
bike rack installation appear prudent and reasonable until
one considers that $13 million will buy four cars, which would
provide 64 more actual bike spaces that would accommodate
a minimum of 384 bicycles and produce fare-box receipts of
$1,382 per day (assuming the car is used three times each way
during morning and afternoon peaks).
Fill the remaining 107 seats on that car and a whopping $2,311
is added to that day's earnings, bringing the total day's take
to $3,693. According to Caltrain passenger count studies, most
cars fill to under 90 percent and bring in $3,600 a day if the
car is not outfitted to carry bikes, a net loss of $93. Yet,
50 ticket-holding cyclists a day are denied boarding due to
lack of space. It doesn't take an economist to see that this
plan just doesn't add up.
Pat Giorni,
Burlingame
SMS
> Yet,
> 50 ticket-holding cyclists a day are denied boarding due to
> lack of space. It doesn't take an economist to see that this
> plan just doesn't add up.
LOL, and nearly all of those 50 ticket-holding cyclists get onto a later
train.
Lots of other errors in that letter as well, such as not accounting for
any of the added expense of hauling the extra cars around, extra staff,
and station modifications for longer trains.
However I am shocked, if it's true, that CalTrain claims that it will
cost 13 million dollars for upgrade bicycle parking.
Steve Pope
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>> Yet,
>> 50 ticket-holding cyclists a day are denied boarding due to
>> lack of space. It doesn't take an economist to see that this
>> plan just doesn't add up.
>LOL, and nearly all of those 50 ticket-holding cyclists get onto a later
>train.
Right. What is the target? Obviously you'd be overspending on capacity
if you had zero non-boardings per day.
50 non-boardings is about one user per 800, meaning an added incidence
to weekday riders of being inconvenienced once every four years.
I would say as a non-bicycle, non-everyday-transit user I
am unable to board a BART, Muni or AC Transit vechicle a couple
times per year. (Mostly after games, or on Gay Pride day
or similar huge events, but sometimes in rush hour.)
Presumably daily commuters run into this more often. It comes
with the territory.
Steve
cph
> I would say as a non-bicycle, non-everyday-transit user I
> am unable to board a BART, Muni or AC Transit vechicle a couple
> times per year.
But those systems are very frequent, compared to Caltrain. Miss a
Caltrain trip.
and you may be waiting up to a hour, depending on the time of day...
We have this same problem down in Southern Calif: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_10270383
Steve Pope
>On Aug 22, 9:44 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> I would say as a non-bicycle, non-everyday-transit user I
>> am unable to board a BART, Muni or AC Transit vechicle a couple
>> times per year.
>But those systems are very frequent, compared to Caltrain. Miss a
>Caltrain trip.
>and you may be waiting up to a hour, depending on the time of day...
This is a reason to run more frequent service, not a reason
to change bicycle policy.
Steve
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
It's a lot easier and cheaper to change bicycle policy then it is to fund more
frequent service. And one or two more trains a day isn't going to
have much effect on frequency of service. OTOH, adding a few more
trains at times when there's a bicycle space crunch improves service
for everyone.
73, doug
Steve Pope
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> This is a reason to run more frequent service, not a reason
>> to change bicycle policy.
>It's a lot easier and cheaper to change bicycle policy then it is to fund more
>frequent service. And one or two more trains a day isn't going to
>have much effect on frequency of service. OTOH, adding a few more
>trains at times when there's a bicycle space crunch improves service
>for everyone.
You would have to balance the benefit of running longer trains
to avoid de-boarding of bicyclists, with the benefit of running
more trains which is an improvement for all passengers, not
just bicyclists.
If two additional trains/day cost the same as two additional
cars on each train, and the latter change benefits only bicyclists,
then obviously you want the additional trains.
Steve
SMS
> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> I would say as a non-bicycle, non-everyday-transit user I
>> am unable to board a BART, Muni or AC Transit vechicle a couple
>> times per year.
>
> But those systems are very frequent, compared to Caltrain. Miss a
> Caltrain trip.
> and you may be waiting up to a hour, depending on the time of day...
That's true, but the bicycle access problem is not during off-peak when
trains are an hour (or more on Sundays) apart.
I hope CalTrain can come up with a practical solution.
SMS
Itnteresting article. Looks like Metro's trying to partially solve the
problem with lockers, but that doesn't solve the problem if the commuter
needs their bicycle at the end of their bus ride. Yet another problem
for which folding bicycles could be a solution.
I'm going to give Josh Hon an e-mail to suggest that his company look at
doing a bicycle specifically designed for trains and buses.
Don Freeman
Bayshore are two that come to mind immediately. During the peak times
they still have trains an hour apart.
SMS
Yeah, that's true. Just think of College Park too! You have to wait 24
hours or more. Sunnyvale has some peak time gaps of 47 minutes, and
Belmont has 60 minute gaps. Of course in each of these cases, if you
have a bicycle, it's pretty simple to ride to the next closest station.
Don Freeman
Sarcasm noted, but both SSF and Bayshore are somewhat isolated and it is
not all that easy to get to the next station in the period of time that
the next train would show up anyway.
SMS
> Sarcasm noted, but both SSF and Bayshore are somewhat isolated and it is
> not all that easy to get to the next station in the period of time that
> the next train would show up anyway.
It's not bad to go from SSF to San Bruno. It's 2.5 miles, and a pretty
straight shot.
For the Bayshore station it's a lot worse.
emccaughrin
>
> However I am shocked, if it's true, that CalTrain claims that it will
> cost 13 million dollars for upgrade bicycle parking.
The eLocker installation is expensive, because it requires
power (and possibly telecommunication link), as well
as lighting and other amenities.
More shocking is that Caltrain actually thinks they
can get $13 million in grant funding for this. The
most obvious funding sources (Safe-routes-to-transit
and BAAQMD) would only pay a small fraction
of that amount. Plus, there is additional staff
time to maintain and police the lockers.
David Nebenzahl
Hmmmmm, $13 million: just wondering how much of a dent that money would
make in the problems Caltrain *really* oughta be solving:
o Level boarding
o Replacing those horrible railcars
o Electrification
o Mo' trains
--
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I
will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the
population into concentration camps and turn the country into a
wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do
that. Let ME do it.'"
- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority".
Jym Dyer
| due to lack of space.
>> LOL, and nearly all of those 50 ticket-holding cyclists
>> get onto a later train.
> Right.
=v= Wrong. As has already been pointed out several times,
according to Caltrain's own surveys, a good number of them
give up and start driving. *Known* latent demand is more
than half the current bikes-on-board ridership.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
>> will cost 13 million dollars for upgrade bicycle parking.
> The eLocker installation is expensive, because it requires
> power (and possibly telecommunication link), as well as
> lighting and other amenities.
=v= Part of the problem here is that Caltrain cobbles things
together from temporary, grant-based funding sources. The
hodgepodge of supposedly-innovative stuff in their draft
Bicycle Parking Plan reflects this.
=v= The existing locker system, cobbled together as it has been,
is a chaotic mishmash. The Palo Alto Bikestation was great, but
the funding ran out, so we're on to something new: zing! pow!
exciting new eLockers!!! Never mind that this is worse service
for fewer people. They are truly lucky to have a a true bike-
parking pioneer and innovator running Warm Planet, but it hasn't
got the funding for full coverage or for years into the future.
=v= They can scare up one-time funding for the anti-TOD parking
garages at Sunnyvale, or a shuttle from Belmont to Hillsdale.
All this is ultimately *more* expensive and *less* in line with
Caltrain's stated mission and goals, but it's new and shiny.
=v= Bikes-on-board isn't new and shiny, it's just economical
and dependable.
<_Jym_>
SMS
The two groups are different. Those 50 cyclists aren't riding home to
get their car. The people that are driving because of latent demand not
being met are different group, and it's a lot more than 50.
Sad to say, but the latent demand group of cyclists will just have to
drive if CalTrain is unable to find ways of getting cyclists to either
have a bike on each end, or using folding bikes.
Unless a reservation system or a fee is implemented, what will happen is
that the trains will fill up with bicycles at the first large station,
and everyone trying to get on at stations close to those large stations
will have no access. This is the problem I continually ran into in San
Bruno.
A large part of the problem, which I saw when I used bikes on board on
CalTrain, is the behavior of the bicyclists. Because there are a
sufficient number of arrogant and clueless cyclists, CalTrain would
never consider allowing bikes on every car, forcing the normal
passengers to have to deal with bicyclists in every car. Any plan that
envisions distributing regular bicycles across the entire train is
doomed to failure.
Jym Dyer
> trains to avoid de-boarding of bicyclists, with the benefit
> of running more trains which is an improvement for all
> passengers, not just bicyclists.
=v= You're setting up a false distinction here. There's no
inherent conflict between more trains and capacity for more
bikes. Indeed, both are the goal.
=v= Another problematic distinction is embodied in the phrase
"all passengers, not just bicyclists." Actually it helps the
entire system, and thus all passengers, to encourage bikes.
=v= The complete journey is door-to-door, not from train station
to train staiton, so it's useful to consider the transportation
mode(s) used at each end of the train journey:
(1) walking to and/or from the station,
(2) biking to and/or from the station.
(3) using public transit to and/or from the station, and
(4) driving cars to/from the station.
Those who stick to #1 and #2 are a much smaller burden on the
region's transportation infrastructure and on Caltrain itself.
Those who do #3 have a greater impact, and of course those who
do #4 have the highest impact of all.
=v= The potential ridership of group #1 is vanishingly small,
due to the region's land-use patterns. Caltrain ought to be
encouraging this anyway, by promoting walkable land-use around
their train stations. (Which would mean *not* building huge
parking garages in such primo locations.)
=v= The greater potential is with group #2, bicyclists, and
indeed where Caltrain has put good effort into this group,
the entire system, and all its passengers, has benefitted.
The only problem is that Caltrain isn't building on its own
success, which is foolish.
<_Jym_>
Steve Fenwick
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
The point of Caltrain is not to reduce the overall burden on the
region's transportation infrastructure. It's to get drivers,
particularly solo drivers, off 280 and 101 between San Francisco and
points south during rush hour. It has the side effect of reducing the
need for parking in urban areas where land is even more restricted than
in the suburbs. #4 is somewhat of a canard; almost no one has cars at
both ends of the trip--they may use a car at one end, if they are
commuting to San Francisco; they may use no car at all if commuting from
San Francisco. At the destination (the away-from-home end), the vast
majority are 1, 2, or 3. So adding bike cars primarily reduces burden on
the local streets at the home end.
The fundamental problem is that, looking at Caltrain's data
(<http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_commute_fleet.html>), provisioning
for each rider with a carry-on non-folding bicycle permanently removes
one seat, in the form of space allowed for the bike. If Caltrain is
running full trains with all seats, bike or otherwise occupied, they can
get more cars off 101 and 280 by adding regular cars or trains (if they
can, and if parking and/or local transit support bringing in additional
riders). Again, if the trains are full, all seats occupied, and cars
cannot be added due to platform limits, changing cars to bike cars will
reduce total ridership.
Caltrain is a traditional heavy-rail transit service, connecting suburbs
to an urban core. Adding bicycle cars will satisfy the existing demand
for bicycles, but will not in and of itself convert someone who is
driving from end to end to cycling and riding Caltrain. Drivers have
shown that they would rather change their cars to smaller models than
give them up. The Peninsula and South Bay are not cycling-friendly
areas, in most places--too many at-grade, in-the-street bike lanes,
which most commuters simply will not use. But, give them better transit
infrastructure--more buses, with better coordination with the trains, or
more employer-sponsored shuttles at the work end, and/or more parking at
the home-end--and you might get more drivers to convert to Caltrain
riders.
As a side note, for the city-dwelling commuters who work in the suburbs,
at least one major employer is now running buses from spots in San
Francisco directly to their offices. That method may increase if demand
continues to increase, although it is still limited to a small set of
pick-up and drop-off points and a limited schedule. It probably doesn't
work in reverse unless employers in the city aggregate their worker
pools into rider pools. This would help, I suspect, mostly along 280.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Jym Dyer
> on the region's transportation infrastructure. It's to get
> drivers, particularly solo drivers, off 280 and 101 between
> San Francisco and points south during rush hour.
=v= I don't see a contradiction there, except that you're
limiting the scope to much less than what Caltrain's own
mission statement says.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> Sad to say, but the latent demand group of cyclists will
> just have to drive if CalTrain is unable to find ways of
> getting cyclists to either have a bike on each end, or
> using folding bikes.
=v= Again you repeat your unsupported assertion.
> Unless a reservation system or a fee is implemented, ...
=v= And another one, again repeated, still unsupported.
> A large part of the problem, which I saw when I used bikes
> on board on CalTrain, is the behavior of the bicyclists.
> Because there are a sufficient number of arrogant and
> clueless cyclists, ...
=v= And now you resort to _ad_hominem_ overgeneralizations.
> ... CalTrain would never consider allowing bikes on every car,
> forcing the normal passengers to have to deal with bicyclists
> in every car. Any plan that envisions distributing regular
> bicycles across the entire train is doomed to failure.
=v= A dedicated bike car is a distinct feature of Caltrain,
and its success is certainly of interest. Yet many other
systems follow the BART pattern of allowing bikes on multiple
cars, which doesn't support this "doomed to failure" assertion.
=v= I'll note that one of the "innovative solutions" proferred
at one of Caltrain's few public meetings on these issues was
to have text-messaging conductors (that's the gosh! wow! zing!
part) updating the overhead displays to indicate where there's
room for folding bikes. Why this couldn't gosh/wow/zing for
full-sized bikes is an unsolved mystery .
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> ... provisioning for each rider with a carry-on non-folding
> bicycle permanently removes one seat, in the form of space
> allowed for the bike.
=v= You're stating the very obvious, (except that I'm not
entirely sure whether by "rider" you're referring to bike riders
or train riders). Yes, of course, obviously, it takes space to
accommodate a bike (or a stroller, or luggage, etc.). That's
not the question. The question is whether that's fruitful use
of the space.
=v= The track record so far shows that it's very fruitful
because it is effective at attracting passengers. Low-impact
passengers at that, and yes, that's taking into account the
impact of that use of space. And the evidence so far shows that
it could be fruitful to expand this use of space a bit further,
to latent demand and a modest amount beyond.
<_Jym_>
Jack May
"Steve Fenwick" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:nospam-19F814....@news.motzarella.org...
> But, give them better transit
> infrastructure--more buses, with better coordination with the trains, or
> more employer-sponsored shuttles at the work end, and/or more parking at
> the home-end--and you might get more drivers to convert to Caltrain
> riders.
The evidence is strong that drivers seldom give up driving to switch to
transit. That should be highly obvious since most people place a high
value on their time. About the only way drivers will switch to transit is
if transit becomes faster than cars. Transit is very slow compared to
cars, so it is a hopeless failure.
Additional transit mainly just shifts around existing transit riders, not
get people out of their cars. The people using transit tend to be poor or
are train fetish types (Technology Laggards)
Steve Pope
>> You would have to balance the benefit of running longer
>> trains to avoid de-boarding of bicyclists, with the benefit
>> of running more trains which is an improvement for all
>> passengers, not just bicyclists.
>=v= You're setting up a false distinction here. There's no
>inherent conflict between more trains and capacity for more
>bikes. Indeed, both are the goal.
This is silly. If one is going to spend money on an improvement
one has to balance whether more improvement could have been
gained by spending the same money in a different fashion.
Funds are not unlimited.
>=v= Another problematic distinction is embodied in the phrase
>"all passengers, not just bicyclists." Actually it helps the
>entire system, and thus all passengers, to encourage bikes.
Well, part of the equation is that a bicyclist does take up
more speace, and thus more resources, than a non-bicyclist
passenger. "Encourging bikes" is not actually an ultimate
goal. It is an interim goal, valuable for the time being
when transit systems are not as comprehensive as they
should be. The ultimate goal is transit that is sufficiently
comprehensive that bikes do not add much in the way of
transit convenience. They should still be accomodated, but
a declining fraction of transit users will have them.
>=v= The complete journey is door-to-door, not from train station
>to train staiton, so it's useful to consider the transportation
>mode(s) used at each end of the train journey:
>
> (1) walking to and/or from the station,
> (2) biking to and/or from the station.
> (3) using public transit to and/or from the station, and
> (4) driving cars to/from the station.
>
>Those who stick to #1 and #2 are a much smaller burden on the
>region's transportation infrastructure and on Caltrain itself.
>[snip]
You do agree that (2) presents more of a burden than (1), true?
A bicycle takes up space. Probably the space of three passengers,
but at least two. It is therefore ultimately the less efficient mode.
Most efficient is sufficient buildout so that nobody really
needs bicycles, but of course those who want to take them
on trains can. (Just as those with luggage or other bulky
items should be able to ride.)
Caltrain poses a problem because, inexcusably, most of its
rail cars cannot accomodate bicycles at all, making load
balancing difficult. That's the real root of the most of
the problems in this here thread. For once, BART got something
right.
Tangential story: last night, when there was a large BART passenger
load of people coming back from the concert at the Polo Fields,
a bicyclist boarding at Montgomery was instructed by the
operator to board the lead car, since all other cars were
too crowded. (Kudos to the operator for taking initiative and doing
something useful.)
When the bicycle deboarded at 12th street, of course the Richmond Train
operator started yelling at him, telling him never to ride
on the lead car. Felt sorry for the dude.
Steve
Jym Dyer
> than a non-bicyclist passenger.
=v= More space, right. That's the blitheringly obvious
part, as I've already mentioned.
=v= More resources? Wrong. You're ignoring the resources
used by passengers getting to and from the train station.
These cost Caltrain real money. It also costs other transit
systems (including those comprising Caltrain's board) real
money. And, of course, the Bay Area's regional funding body
spends real money picking up the tab for those who drive to
and from Caltrain stations.
<_Jym_>
Steve Pope
>> Well, part of the equation is that a bicyclist does
>> take up more speace [sic], and thus more resources,
>> than a non-bicyclist passenger.
>=v= More space, right. That's the blitheringly obvious
>part, as I've already mentioned.
>=v= More resources? Wrong. You're ignoring the resources
>used by passengers getting to and from the train station.
I'm not ignoring these, you are being obtuse. As I
described, with sufficient build-out, bicycles are the
less efficient mode.
You are continuing to argue by repeat assertion.
>These cost Caltrain real money. It also costs other transit
>systems (including those comprising Caltrain's board) real
>money.
You're acting as thought busses and other modalities have
no value whatsoever, other than to transport people to
Caltrain. Even if Caltrain were not in the picture,
we'd be better off with a comprehensive bus network.
The fact that such a network would also save resources by
making bicycles less necessary on Caltrain is just icing
on the cake.
Steve
cph
bikes on any given train.
Sure, you can convert another coach into a bike car, but that would
take away seats. Again,
you get the conflict between people who want to carry a bike on the
train, and those
who don't, and just want a seat.
There's a practical limit to the length of any given train, based on
the platform length, and
how many cars a locomotive can haul, so that might limit simply adding
another bike car.
Add more trains? Can the current track infrastructure handle them (to
say nothing of the costs)
While taking your bike on the train is a Good Thing(tm), I doubt that
Caltrain will ever be
able to accomodate everyone who might want to take a bike on a given
train, unless
they start operating from the position of assuming that every
passenger plans to take
a bike and reducing seating/adding additional cars/trains as
appropriate....
Steve Fenwick
It's fruitful, but could those spaces be more useful as seats to get
non-biking passengers off the road? Caltrain could take out more seats,
but would that net out to more warm bodies in the trains, or fewer? I'd
argue that one could get more non-biking passengers on the trains by
adding better transit at the stops and the ultimate destination, and
reducing bike capacity, assuming that train sizes are at or near their
limits and all seats are filled.
Steve Fenwick
> =v= A dedicated bike car is a distinct feature of Caltrain,
> and its success is certainly of interest. Yet many other
> systems follow the BART pattern of allowing bikes on multiple
> cars, which doesn't support this "doomed to failure" assertion.
That's a canard--BART doesn't allow bikes during peak commute hours. If
Caltrain moved all the bike cars to off-peak trains, so that peak
commute trains had no bike cars and off-peak had extra, that would be a
closer analogy.
Steve Fenwick
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
Uh, yeah, Caltrain is at capacity because people got off SamTrans and
VTA. Really not.
Transit is the standard mode of transportation in most dense urban
areas. The MTA serves a population of about 14 million, and carries 2.6
billion passengers a year. Sounds like an abject failure.
Steve Fenwick
If the trains were designed as all-bike trains, they'd carry fewer
passengers than now. That's obvious. How do you miss the point that this
would cause Caltrain to use more fuel, payroll, etc. per passenger than
by stuffing the cars full of fare-paying passengers?
Caltrain doesn't pay for the buses, company shuttles, etc. that are used
to get to and from stations. Again, the goal is to get cars off the
highways, and the best way to do that is to get the maximum number of
passengers on to Caltrain, BART, and other transit. If you can get them
to bike, that's great, but even the Chinese are buying into the auto
culture in droves and getting away from bikes (who wants to bike in
winter in Beijing, or summer in Shanghai?)
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> The Bicycle Access and Parking Plan states the cost of a new
> rail car with 139 seats is $2.65 million. Sticker shock makes
> bike rack installation appear prudent and reasonable until
> one considers that $13 million will buy four cars, which would
> provide 64 more actual bike spaces that would accommodate
> a minimum of 384 bicycles
This calculation seems overly conservative. In Europe,
one finds many cases where commuter and regional rail
operators have taken old discarded railcars and converted
them into cheap bike cars. They strip out the seats and
carpet, install some hooks and racks, and perhaps a
few jump seats. The cost for doing this is WAY less
than $2.65 million, and they hold a lot of bikes too.
Bicyclists load up bikes in the bike car, then head
into the rest of the train to find a seat.
The additional operating cost for 1 extra car
on peak trainsets is very negligible (esp.
compared to a $13 million bike locker
installation). And unlike BART, Caltrain does
not have platform length issues. So, this
does sound like yet another situation where
Caltrain stuff is hostile to its paying customers.
Steve Pope
>If the trains were designed as all-bike trains, they'd carry fewer
>passengers than now. That's obvious.
I think there's a difference between "all-bike trains", and
trains in which each car can carry some bikes.
Generally speaking, a large enough open area can carry either
bicylists, other passengers, or a mix of both. There's no
reason any urban train car shouldn't have one or two such areas.
Steve
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
By "all-bike train", I meant trains with all cars as existing bike-car
types; Bombadier cars with 123 seats and 16 bike spaces.
I think most passengers would prefer not to stand for long periods in
the open space of a bike car; are there even handrails to allow that
safely?
Steve Pope
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> I think there's a difference between "all-bike trains", and
>> trains in which each car can carry some bikes.
>> Generally speaking, a large enough open area can carry either
>> bicylists, other passengers, or a mix of both. There's no
>> reason any urban train car shouldn't have one or two such areas.
>By "all-bike train", I meant trains with all cars as existing bike-car
>types; Bombadier cars with 123 seats and 16 bike spaces.
>I think most passengers would prefer not to stand for long periods in
>the open space of a bike car; are there even handrails to allow that
>safely?
Most trains with runs under two hours benefit from some
standing passenger space. Typically, a train is totally packed
for only some fraction of its run, and no passengers
need to stand for an entire two hours. Even passengers with
bikes are often able to sit down on BART while holding their
bike. Similarly on Denver light rail, or London Overground,
from what I've seen.
I don't really see the point of dedicated bike positions
in bike cars on the train. It is, I think, a Caltrain weirdness.
Steve
SMS
> I don't really see the point of dedicated bike positions
> in bike cars on the train. It is, I think, a Caltrain weirdness.
It's mass-transit versus commuter trains. AmTrak also has dedicated
bicycle space.
Tri-Rail, similar to CalTrain, allows only two bicycles per bike car.
I think the point is that CalTrain's non-bicycle passengers would be
very unhappy if they had to deal with bicycles and bicyclists in every car.
In a practical sense, it prevents cyclists from having to run up and
down the length of a platform looking for cars that have bicycle space.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> I don't really see the point of dedicated bike positions
>> in bike cars on the train. It is, I think, a Caltrain weirdness.
>It's mass-transit versus commuter trains. AmTrak also has dedicated
>bicycle space.
I can visualize this distinction. I can't visualize why it
should apply to Caltrain, i.e. why doesn't Caltrain fall into
the "mass transit" side of the equation?
Steve
Jym Dyer
=v= Yes. In the Draft Plan for Bicycle Carriage on Caltrain at
http://www.sfbike.org/?caltrain_bob
you can find three scenarios. The best-case and most-probable
scenarios both show bikes on board to be more economical than
that letter's (back-of-the-envelope) figures.
> In Europe, one finds many cases where commuter and regional
> rail operators have taken old discarded railcars and converted
> them into cheap bike cars.
=v= I actually think the goal of lighter, more electrifiable
cars is a good one, though of course they need to do a better
job of configuring them to meet the demands of bikes on board.
We wouldn't be in the spot we're in now if they'd only planned
ahead for this, and told Bombardier it was a design goal.
> The additional operating cost for 1 extra car on peak
> trainsets is very negligible (esp. compared to a $13 million
> bike locker installation). And unlike BART, Caltrain does
> not have platform length issues.
=v= Thanks for that. You're absolutely right. Now how do we
get others in these newsgroups to stop ignoring the high cost
of bike lockers and concocting platform length issues?
<_Jym_>
SMS
I can think of two reasons:
1. Mass transit crams as many people as possible into a vehicle or rail
car, allowing standees, while commuter trains won't allow more
passengers than seats.
2. Mass transit has much more frequent service. I.e. on BART you just
show up at a station and get on the next train that comes along, with a
pretty short average wait, especially on weekdays. On CalTrain, you plan
on which train you're using because trains can be 45 minutes to an hour
apart.
Don Freeman
> In article <N_6dncvayfJgyC3V...@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Additional transit mainly just shifts around existing transit riders, not
>> get people out of their cars. The people using transit tend to be poor or
>> are train fetish types (Technology Laggards)
>
> Uh, yeah, Caltrain is at capacity because people got off SamTrans and
> VTA. Really not.
>
> Transit is the standard mode of transportation in most dense urban
> areas. The MTA serves a population of about 14 million, and carries 2.6
> billion passengers a year. Sounds like an abject failure.
>
It's pointless to argue with Jack May using logic. The 60's weren't
good to him.
Steve Fenwick
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Other BART-like systems (NYC subway, Washington Metrorail) allows bikes
at any time.
Other Caltrain-like systems (LIRR, PATH, MetroNorth) only allow bikes
during off-peak.
The Bay Area seems to be the odd-duck, as compared to the policies at
other stations.
Caltrain carries about 10.5 million passengers per year; that feels more
like a commuter train number than a mass-transit number, for the size of
the population served.
Steve Pope
>Caltrain carries about 10.5 million passengers per year; that feels more
>like a commuter train number than a mass-transit number, for the size of
>the population served.
Yes, but the logic is a bit circular: if the system were
more freqeunt, and better served by local busses, there
would be more passengers, proportionately fewer bicycles,
and it would start to resemble mass transit.
Steve
SMS
You keep harping on "local buses." Just where do you think the money for
more local buses, which have a fare box recovery that's much worse than
CalTrain (which is in turn worse than BART) is going to come from?
Bicycles are the perfect accompaniment to the ride to and from the
CalTrain station and home or work. CalTrain just needs to figure out how
to get bicyclists to keep bikes at each end, or use folding bicycles,
since increased space for full size bicycles is not available at peak times.
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
They'd have to add a lot more trains to get away from the need to plan
trips. I think they'd have to eliminate the express and baby bullets,
too; AFAIK, everything in the BART/NYC subway/WMATA-style "mass transit"
is local trains.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Yes, but the logic is a bit circular: if the system were
>> more freqeunt, and better served by local busses, there
>> would be more passengers, proportionately fewer bicycles,
>> and it would start to resemble mass transit.
>You keep harping on "local buses." Just
I'm not "harping" on local busses. I'm just mentioning them
as something desirable.
>where do you think the money for
>more local buses, which have a fare box recovery that's much worse than
>CalTrain (which is in turn worse than BART) is going to come from?
Implement sufficient housing density on the penninsula and busses
will become more economic.
Steve
Steve Pope
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >Caltrain carries about 10.5 million passengers per year; that feels more
>> >like a commuter train number than a mass-transit number, for the size of
>> >the population served.
>> Yes, but the logic is a bit circular: if the system were
>> more freqeunt, and better served by local busses, there
>> would be more passengers, proportionately fewer bicycles,
>> and it would start to resemble mass transit.
>They'd have to add a lot more trains to get away from the need to plan
>trips.
I'm not sure what this criterion means. I plan trips on BART,
based on its schedule. When in New York, outside of daytime hours
I plan subway trips by schedule. If there is a schedule
(as opposed to, say, Muni) it is usually worth taking a look at it.
I think they'd have to eliminate the express and baby bullets,
>too; AFAIK, everything in the BART/NYC subway/WMATA-style "mass transit"
>is local trains.
WTF? NYC subway has loads of express trains. If there were
no express subway trains you would have screaming murderous
New Yorkers on your hands. The total lack of express trains in BART
(including not having 4 tracks through the tube) is a notorious design
defect (although one that could be partly overcome even using
the existing rail structure).
Everyone believes that BART should have had express trains from the
outset, except for a handful of apologists.
Steve
kkt
Yes, but even with only a two-track tube capacity could have been
considerably greater by having four tracks at the West Oakland and the
Market Street stations. It was a mistake turning over the upper level
of the Market Street tunnel to Muni.
-- Patrick
Steve Pope
>even with only a two-track tube capacity could have been
>considerably greater by having four tracks at the West Oakland and the
>Market Street stations.
An interesting proposal, and one I haven't heard before. You're
probably right. Trains could speed through the tube even
with a static train at the other end, if there were a second
platform to go to.
Steve
kkt
Yes, it should help a lot. The stations are more of a bottleneck than
the tube.
The early BART proposal was for the Market Street stations to have
four tracks, and two of them splitting off at Van Ness bound for Marin
County. When Marin pulled out of BART, they still built the four
tracks through Market Street but turned them over the Muni. It was a
little ackward for Muni at first because the doors needed to be on the
both sides of the light rail cars instead of the right side.
At this point, I'm not sure if it would be easier to build a new
subway for Muni and then convert the upper level of Market Street for
BART, or to build a new subway for BART under a different street.
Or we could just live with the limitation on BART's capacity and when
necessary put standard rail in another tube.
-- Patrick
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >Caltrain carries about 10.5 million passengers per year; that feels more
> >> >like a commuter train number than a mass-transit number, for the size of
> >> >the population served.
>
> >> Yes, but the logic is a bit circular: if the system were
> >> more freqeunt, and better served by local busses, there
> >> would be more passengers, proportionately fewer bicycles,
> >> and it would start to resemble mass transit.
>
> >They'd have to add a lot more trains to get away from the need to plan
> >trips.
>
> I'm not sure what this criterion means. I plan trips on BART,
> based on its schedule. When in New York, outside of daytime hours
> I plan subway trips by schedule. If there is a schedule
> (as opposed to, say, Muni) it is usually worth taking a look at it.
I rarely plan trips on BART or Metrorail except to note when the last
train of the day is--the delay between trains rarely merit it. Caltrain,
especially off-peak and/or at smaller stations (e.g., California Avenue)
needs detailed planning to avoid long waits.
> Everyone believes that BART should have had express trains from the
> outset, except for a handful of apologists.
Again, that makes it more complicated to use the system, not less. More
and more frequent trains are more useful.
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
>> =v= The track record so far shows that it's very fruitful because
>> it is effective at attracting passengers. Low-impact passengers at
>> that, and yes, that's taking into account the impact of that use of
>> space. And the evidence so far shows that it could be fruitful to
>> expand this use of space a bit further, to latent demand and a
>> modest amount beyond. <_Jym_>
>
> It's fruitful, but could those spaces be more useful as seats to get
> non-biking passengers off the road? Caltrain could take out more
> seats, but would that net out to more warm bodies in the trains, or
> fewer?
Fewer. OBVIOUSLY.
An extra seat on an individual train gains at MOST one peak round-trip
(= one human), assuming that lack of seats was the limit to use,
which it isn't in practice on Caltrain, and assuming that you also
pay $30k for a parking space so somebody can drive to the station to
use that seat, and/or or spend $10+/day running a free-to-user shuttle
from a station somewhere for that one extra passenger.
This is based on the blindingly obvious facts -- to anybody who actually
uses Caltrain as opposed to blathering about some hypothetical
train in some parallel universe -- that
(a) Caltrain consists make only one round trip per peak per train
per day (give 2.5 to 3.5 hours SJ-SF-SJ turn times);
(b) that no drive-alone/kiss-and-ride/walk/Muni-god-help-them/etc
passengers are turned away from riding Caltrain for want of seats
(ignoring completely-irrelevant-to-daily-use nit-picking about
past-Giants rolling drunk tank trains);
(c) that even given (b), loadings are still significantly heavier
in one direction (SJ-SF am, SF-SJ pm) than in the other, meaning
that a hypothetical-turned-away-for-lack-of-seating passenger
would only be in one direction per peak;
(d) that passengers with bicycles are turned away from multiple
successive trains in both directions throughout and beyond the
peak hours every day of the year (we're talking after 8pm even).
If you like you can add to all of this
(e) that providing peak service is the very most expensive for
any transportation undertaking, and that off-peak riders or
reverse-peak riders are pure profit, filling space that comes
"for free".
Add this all together -- which isn't that hard, and doesn't take
that much observation or that much deductive skill -- and you can
see that turning away a (hypothetical) single upright respectable
non-bike-toting passenger per day while gaining two or three
horrible self-entitled bratty uppity bike riding scum (one in the
peak direction, and a couple reverse-peak, plus the possibility
of extra off-peak pure-profit cases in both directions) results
in a higher overall use of space and a better return on
investment.
In contrast, buying a seat in a new rail car (~ $19k/seat capital
cost alone) that attracts at most one extra round-trip per day,
or buying a parking lot space that attracts at most one extra
round-trip per day (~ $30k/space) is ruinously unproductive.
The question, as ever in Bay Area transportation "planning",
is how much one wishes to make cost-effective investments based
on data which maximize objective public benefit, or how much
one continues to undertake business as usual because that's the
way we always do things around here.
Until Caltrain is at a position where **AM southbound** riders
who arrive at 4th&Townsend **by foot or by Muni** are turned
away from riding to their sad peninsular cubicles for
physical lack of space on most or all peak-hour trains, it
will be the case that Caltrain has a better and cheaper way
to attract extra riders and extra revenue. (And what, in the
end, are the odds of anybody anywhere associated with
ba.transportation in any official, budget-setting capacity
will ever care about either better _or_ cheaper?)
Steve Fenwick
Richard Mlynarik <M...@POBox.COM> wrote:
> Steve Fenwick wrote, On 2008-08-23 17:56:
>
> [...]
>
> >> =v= The track record so far shows that it's very fruitful because
> >> it is effective at attracting passengers. Low-impact passengers at
> >> that, and yes, that's taking into account the impact of that use of
> >> space. And the evidence so far shows that it could be fruitful to
> >> expand this use of space a bit further, to latent demand and a
> >> modest amount beyond. <_Jym_>
> >
> > It's fruitful, but could those spaces be more useful as seats to get
> > non-biking passengers off the road? Caltrain could take out more
> > seats, but would that net out to more warm bodies in the trains, or
> > fewer?
>
> Fewer. OBVIOUSLY.
But the rest of your argument (which contains so much vitriol it's
unclear if you're pro- or anti-bikes-on-board) tries to show that the
way to increase ridership given current loads is to allow more bikes on
board, which, by current ridership figures, could increase ridership.
> An extra seat on an individual train gains at MOST one peak round-trip
> (= one human), assuming that lack of seats was the limit to use,
> which it isn't in practice on Caltrain, and assuming that you also
> pay $30k for a parking space so somebody can drive to the station to
> use that seat, and/or or spend $10+/day running a free-to-user shuttle
> from a station somewhere for that one extra passenger.
Should we get rid of all parking and free shuttles? Will that improve
Caltrain ridership? Maybe eliminating all parking with a 1/2 mile radius
of Caltrain stations, so the only practical way to get there is to walk
(at least 1/2 mile), bike, or ride an approved other form of mass
transit?
What is the lifetime cost of that parking space--how often is it
repaved, and at how much cost? How much is charged to use it, and could
it be more?
Where does the $10/day/passenger figure come from?
> This is based on the blindingly obvious facts -- to anybody who actually
> uses Caltrain as opposed to blathering about some hypothetical
> train in some parallel universe -- that
> (a) Caltrain consists make only one round trip per peak per train
> per day (give 2.5 to 3.5 hours SJ-SF-SJ turn times);
> (b) that no drive-alone/kiss-and-ride/walk/Muni-god-help-them/etc
> passengers are turned away from riding Caltrain for want of seats
> (ignoring completely-irrelevant-to-daily-use nit-picking about
> past-Giants rolling drunk tank trains);
Try Googling "caltrain parking lots full". It looks like potential
non-biking drivers may effectively be turned away by a lack of available
parking.
> (d) that passengers with bicycles are turned away from multiple
> successive trains in both directions throughout and beyond the
> peak hours every day of the year (we're talking after 8pm even).
>
> If you like you can add to all of this
> (e) that providing peak service is the very most expensive for
> any transportation undertaking, and that off-peak riders or
> reverse-peak riders are pure profit, filling space that comes
> "for free".
Why is that--extra staff on board? How does it compare to the cost of
fuel and maintenance for the run? A full passenger load is about 29,000
pounds (a little on the heavy side--148 passengers at about 200 pounds
each) against a car weight of 110,000 pounds, so once the run is on,
even an empty trainset is over 80% of the mass of a full train,
particularly after the engine mass is factored in.
> Add this all together -- which isn't that hard, and doesn't take
> that much observation or that much deductive skill -- and you can
> see that turning away a (hypothetical) single upright respectable
> non-bike-toting passenger per day while gaining two or three
> horrible self-entitled bratty uppity bike riding scum (one in the
> peak direction, and a couple reverse-peak, plus the possibility
> of extra off-peak pure-profit cases in both directions) results
> in a higher overall use of space and a better return on
> investment.
>
> In contrast, buying a seat in a new rail car (~ $19k/seat capital
> cost alone) that attracts at most one extra round-trip per day,
> or buying a parking lot space that attracts at most one extra
> round-trip per day (~ $30k/space) is ruinously unproductive.
>
> The question, as ever in Bay Area transportation "planning",
> is how much one wishes to make cost-effective investments based
> on data which maximize objective public benefit, or how much
> one continues to undertake business as usual because that's the
> way we always do things around here.
It certainly sounds like there's a case to be made to increase bike
slots on some trains that are not otherwise full. It's not clear that,
solving other problems like a lack of parking wouldn't also get more
drivers on to Caltrain, which would put the pressure back on. $30k a
parking space is cheap compared to adding lanes to 101 or 280, which is
the real goal of Caltrain.
> Until Caltrain is at a position where **AM southbound** riders
> who arrive at 4th&Townsend **by foot or by Muni** are turned
> away from riding to their sad peninsular cubicles for
> physical lack of space on most or all peak-hour trains, it
> will be the case that Caltrain has a better and cheaper way
> to attract extra riders and extra revenue. (And what, in the
> end, are the odds of anybody anywhere associated with
> ba.transportation in any official, budget-setting capacity
> will ever care about either better _or_ cheaper?)
Caltrain cites reverse commute ridership as the fastest-growing segment,
up almost 12% year-over-year, vs. less than 3% growth for bikes. 4th and
King is not the only reverse-commute boarding location; AWR boardings
there are about 8k, vs 12k AWR reverse-commute. Logistically, can
Caltrain manage having extra bike cars in the morning southbound
direction and evening northbound directions only, to avoid displacing
non-biking riders in the traditional peak commute directions?
Steve Fenwick
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> =v= Thanks for that. You're absolutely right. Now how do we
> get others in these newsgroups to stop ignoring the high cost
> of bike lockers and concocting platform length issues?
> <_Jym_>
What are the concocted platform length issues? Platforms are finite in
length; at California Avenue, it's not currently permitted to board or
disembark from the last (or last two?) cars. This should be a temporary
situation, corrected when the new platforms are opened.
How long can the trains be, system-wide? What are the limiting
factors--platforms, sidings, something else?
SMS
> It's fruitful, but could those spaces be more useful as seats to get
> non-biking passengers off the road? Caltrain could take out more
> seats, but would that net out to more warm bodies in the trains, or
> fewer?
In the near future, fewer. CalTrain is trying to plan for the time,
coming soon, that the peak trains are full to capacity and they are
turning away passengers for lack of seats. It doesn't happen very often
yet, but they know it's coming soon. They're trying to do cost-benefit
analysis to accommodate increased passenger loads, rather than listen
only to one small, but vocal group of passengers. CalTrain opened this
can of worms and they should have made clear at the start that there was
a practical limit to how much capacity they would give up for bicycles.
Losing more seats is something they don't seem willing to do. Remember
these seats aren't used just once per day. That peak train from San
Francisco to San Jose is also a peak train from San Jose to San
Francisco later in the day.
CalTrain is extremely concerned about maximizing revenue at this time,
because fuel costs have caused significant deficits. The public didn't
show up to yesterday's public meeting on fare increases, where CalTrain
has proposed 25¢ per zone increases of a way of closing the budget gap.
That's a huge fare increase, that they try to make look small by talking
about it "per zone." Fare increases are dicey if they're so much that
they'll result in significantly fewer passengers, but CalTrain's commute
passengers aren't all that price sensitive.
One suggestion was that CalTrain should be charge more at peak times,
and even more on the express trains, and less at off-peak times. This
would hopefully free up some space on peak trains for both bicyclists
and regular passengers, as those that are more flexible with their
schedules switch to off-peak. However CalTrain pointed out that it's the
off-peak trains, that operate at very low ridership levels, that
actually cost the most per passenger to operate. Still, the peak trains
and express trains are more in demand, so they could price based on
demand rather than operating cost. I just hope they don't plan to cut
the costly off-peak trains, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The current system, where bicyclists eventually get on a train, even if
it's a local when they'd prefer an express, or when they have to wait
for a later train, is about as good as it'll get for those that must
have a full
One thing for sure is that buying and operating more rail cars isn't in
the cards, so there is unlikely to be any increase in bicycle capacity.
Even 16 bicycles per train is more than any other transit system in the
country allows, and many of the CalTrain trains provide space for 32
bicycles. The positive thing for bicyclists is that all their efforts
are going to at least mean that CalTrain is unlikely to cut bicycle
capacity below its current levels.
Ultimately, the best option for CalTrain would be to convert to the
Karlsruhe Model of operation, which would be especially good for the Bay
Area as it could link the San Jose and San Francisco light rail lines
without the need for a Caltrain extension into downtown San Francisco.
See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model". When they electrify
the system they should consider this at it would save a lot of money and
make the system more usable.
SMS
>> It's fruitful, but could those spaces be more useful as seats to get
>> non-biking passengers off the road? Caltrain could take out more
>> seats, but would that net out to more warm bodies in the trains, or
>> fewer?
>
> Fewer. OBVIOUSLY.
Hmm, you got the correct answer even though your reasons were incorrect.
SMS
I was in a meeting recently regarding ABAG's housing requirements for
Bay Area Cities. While ABAG has no enforcement power, there are groups
that run around suing cities that don't have a plan to meet the ABAG
numbers.
What's happened recently is that school boards have woken up to the fact
that you can't build massive amounts of new housing without building
more schools, but no one wants to pay for the land or construction costs
of the schools. There's a good article about this at
"http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10084779".
The developers are reaping huge profits when land is rezoned from
commercial to high-density residential, yet the property taxes generated
from the housing barely even begin cover the cost of services. Since the
school districts are required to accept all students, the solution has
been to simply pack the existing schools to the max with portables, have
split sessions, etc. I'm so happy that the Santa Clara school board
finally had the balls to step up and demand that the developers pay some
of the cost of the services that their developments will need.
In Cupertino, the school board has feigned disbelief that suddenly
enrollment has skyrocketed in some elementary schools because they
colluded with the developers in claims of absurdly low numbers of new
students being generated from high-density housing that just came
on-line. They're claiming that there must have been a sudden huge
increase in fraudulent registrations, something that's highly unlikely.
Steve Fenwick
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Losing more seats is something they don't seem willing to do. Remember
> these seats aren't used just once per day. That peak train from San
> Francisco to San Jose is also a peak train from San Jose to San
> Francisco later in the day.
Yes, thus my question--could they manage the logistics of have more
bicycle cars on the reverse-commute trains? If every train does an even
number of one-way trips a day, it seems like it could work. But, if the
reverse commute ridership continues to increase, I think there will
eventually be pressure to reduce bike cars if they are increased this
way.
> CalTrain is extremely concerned about maximizing revenue at this time,
> because fuel costs have caused significant deficits. The public didn't
> show up to yesterday's public meeting on fare increases, where CalTrain
> has proposed 25¢ per zone increases of a way of closing the budget gap.
> That's a huge fare increase, that they try to make look small by talking
> about it "per zone." Fare increases are dicey if they're so much that
> they'll result in significantly fewer passengers, but CalTrain's commute
> passengers aren't all that price sensitive.
They could reduce the impact by going to point-to-point fares instead;
there software and UI issues, but then the trips could be more fairly
priced.
> The current system, where bicyclists eventually get on a train, even if
> it's a local when they'd prefer an express, or when they have to wait
> for a later train, is about as good as it'll get for those that must
> have a full
Your statement cut off...
> One thing for sure is that buying and operating more rail cars isn't in
> the cards, so there is unlikely to be any increase in bicycle capacity.
> Even 16 bicycles per train is more than any other transit system in the
> country allows, and many of the CalTrain trains provide space for 32
> bicycles. The positive thing for bicyclists is that all their efforts
> are going to at least mean that CalTrain is unlikely to cut bicycle
> capacity below its current levels.
At least as long as non-biking passengers aren't turned away at the
platforms.
> Ultimately, the best option for CalTrain would be to convert to the
> Karlsruhe Model of operation, which would be especially good for the Bay
> Area as it could link the San Jose and San Francisco light rail lines
> without the need for a Caltrain extension into downtown San Francisco.
> See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model". When they electrify
> the system they should consider this at it would save a lot of money and
> make the system more usable.
What's the advantage here--it's not clear from the article. Lower
equipment costs? No need to transfer from light to heavy rail and back?
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> In the near future, fewer. CalTrain is trying to plan for the time,
> coming soon, that the peak trains are full to capacity and they are
> turning away passengers for lack of seats.
Look, even if that were true, that is even more of an argument to
remove and/or reconfigure seating, in order to increase room
for standees.
> They're trying to do cost-benefit
> analysis to accommodate increased passenger loads
I see no evidence of this. Very poor use of space
in trains, no effort on railcar procurement, insane
amounts spent on parking garages and grade
separations, very poor frequency and train
utilization. Whatever cost-benefit analysis is going
on, it certainly isn't measuring passenger carrying
capacity.
Steve Pope
> Even 16 bicycles per train is more than any other transit
> system in the country allows, [..]
WTF? BART can easily exceed this number. I'm pretty
sure Amtrak can also exceed this number (it is difficult
to count the bicycles on an Amtrak train since
you don't have good visibility from car to car,
but it can be pretty large).
Did you mean "16 bicycles per car" instead?
It's clear, it's obvious, that Caltrain excludes bicycles
from an abnormally high percentage of its rail vehicle space,
leading to squabbling over how to "fix" the issue without
changing this -- lockers, folding bikes, making people wait,
etc. none of which addresses the fundamental resource issue.
Steve
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even 16 bicycles per train is more than any other transit
>> system in the country allows, [..]
>
> WTF? BART can easily exceed this number.
Not on peak trains in the commute direction, where the number is 0.
SMS
> On Aug 26, 6:55 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> In the near future, fewer. CalTrain is trying to plan for the time,
>> coming soon, that the peak trains are full to capacity and they are
>> turning away passengers for lack of seats.
>
> Look, even if that were true, that is even more of an argument to
> remove and/or reconfigure seating, in order to increase room
> for standees.
My gut feeling is that CalTrain passengers, used to a level of comfort
not found on BART, would not be happy standing on these long commutes,
and would simply drive instead.
>> They're trying to do cost-benefit
>> analysis to accommodate increased passenger loads
>
> I see no evidence of this. Very poor use of space
> in trains, no effort on railcar procurement, insane
> amounts spent on parking garages and grade
> separations, very poor frequency and train
> utilization.
I see several other commuter rail lines buying similar Bombardier
rolling stock, so while you may not like CalTrain's selection of cars,
there are apparently reasons why the Bombardier cars are so popular.
The Colorado Railcar DMU looks interesting, but CalTrain doesn't want to
be buying these with the upcoming plans for electrification.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Sure, but this doesn't validate your statement above.
Steve
Steve Pope
>bay_bri...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Look, even if that were true, that is even more of an argument to
>> remove and/or reconfigure seating, in order to increase room
>> for standees.
>My gut feeling is that CalTrain passengers, used to a level of comfort
>not found on BART, would not be happy standing on these long commutes,
>and would simply drive instead.
I ride both systems and do not really find Caltrain more
comfortable. You are far less likely to find a seat
in which you can actually stretch out. Standing room
spaces are less comfortable. Caltrain is tight and
narrow, and the ride upstairs is jagged and claustrophobic.
BART is a better design, I think.
Stevde
SMS
Okay. Here you go:
Even 16 bicycles per train, during peak commute times, is more than any
other transit system in the country allows at peak commute times, as far
as I know.
The word "even" was meant to convey that 16 is the minimum number of
bicycles per train.
Steve Pope
>Okay. Here you go:
>Even 16 bicycles per train, during peak commute times, is more than any
>other transit system in the country allows at peak commute times, as far
>as I know.
Denver light rail:
"Bikes are allowed on light rail any time, on a space-available basis."
http://www.rtd-denver.com/SpecialRides/B_n_Ride/index.html
The difference? More polite Colorado bicyclists is one factor.
At least presently. The system has only been operating a
couple years, so bike/passenger animosity has not been given
time to develop and harden yet.
Steve
SMS
No the difference is that the number of bicycles is limited to far less
than what CalTrain allows. VTA light rail has the same six bicycle limit
as Denver.
As to politeness, back in the early days of CalTrain bicycle access, way
back when permits were still required, the politeness level even on
CalTrain was much higher than it is now.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Denver light rail:
>No the difference is that the number of bicycles is limited to far less
>than what CalTrain allows. VTA light rail has the same six bicycle limit
>as Denver.
Where are you getting this info? To me it looks like 8 bikes
per car (two per entrance), or at least 16 per train, if it
is a two-car train.
Steve
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> Denver light rail:
>
>> No the difference is that the number of bicycles is limited to far less
>> than what CalTrain allows. VTA light rail has the same six bicycle limit
>> as Denver.
>
> Where are you getting this info?
http://www.rtd-denver.com/SpecialRides/B_n_Ride/images/LRT-2-car-Illustration-sm.jpg
I see only six bicycle spaces, unless I'm missing something here.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> Steve Pope wrote,
>> Where are you getting this info?
>http://www.rtd-denver.com/SpecialRides/B_n_Ride/images/LRT-2-car-Illustration-sm.jpg
>
>I see only six bicycle spaces, unless I'm missing something here.
There are eight doors on each car. This diagram only shows
one side of a car. There are two doors on each side, and all
doors open at a station.
So, depending upon whether one or two doors are exculded
due to proximity to the driver, that means 12 or 14 bicycles
on a 2-car train. You're correct that this is less than 16.
I do not know if there are 3-car or longer trains.
Steve
Steve Pope
>SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>There are eight doors on each car. This diagram only shows
>one side of a car. There are two doors on each side, and all
>doors open at a station.
Whoops. I meant, four doors per car, eight doors per
two-car train.
Steve
SMS
> So, depending upon whether one or two doors are exculded
> due to proximity to the driver, that means 12 or 14 bicycles
> on a 2-car train. You're correct that this is less than 16.
No, you're mistaken, but I grant you that the language isn't clear
because they don't explicitly state the number of bicycles.
Go take the online test for the bike permit:
(http://www.rtd-denver.com/LightRail/BikePermit/question.htm)
How many bikes are allowed inside the light rail vehicles?
Two bikes at either end of each car except at the front of the
train where the operator cab is occupied.
Also a bit disturbing is that they can make you get off the train if the
train becomes crowded.
At last I passed the test and got my permit.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> So, depending upon whether one or two doors are exculded
>> due to proximity to the driver, that means 12 or 14 bicycles
>> on a 2-car train. You're correct that this is less than 16.
>No, you're mistaken, but I grant you that the language isn't clear
>because they don't explicitly state the number of bicycles.
>Go take the online test for the bike permit:
>(http://www.rtd-denver.com/LightRail/BikePermit/question.htm)
> How many bikes are allowed inside the light rail vehicles?
>
> Two bikes at either end of each car except at the front of the
> train where the operator cab is occupied.
Okay, thanks. It had looked like eight to me.
There is easily enough space for eight bicycles in a car, should
they choose to loosen up the rules.
Steve