Caltrain's Parking (formerly "Master") Plan
Jym Dyer
and Parking (formerly "Master") Plan, which has for the first
time been made available to the public:
http://www.caltrain.com/bicycle_master_plan.html
There's a lot of inaccuracy in there (including statements
that parts of the plan have already undergone public review),
and lots of recommendations to waste lots of money.
=v= There's some down right alarming stuff in there, including
a recommendation to amend the California Cvil Code to take
away bike access rights statewide.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: There are better plans available:
SMS
Perhaps there are better plans, but the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
plan certainly isn't one of them. A tremendous number of incorrect
statements in that plan, as well as healthy dose of fallacies.
The real options are as follows:
1. Add more bicycle space by adding an additional car to peak trains,
and charging bicyclists to offset the cost of the additional car.
2. Encourage cyclists to have bicycles on each end by charging
bicyclists at peak times to reduce peak demand, and providing free or
very low cost lockers to monthly pass purchasers.
3. Encourage cyclists to buy folding bicycles with the use of subsidies
for folding bicycles combined with charging bicyclists for peak use of
cumbersomes.
Both plans have a lot of incorrect information about folding bicycles.
Some of that stuff may have been true 20 years ago, but isn't true now.
Steve Pope
>1. Add more bicycle space by adding an additional car to peak trains,
>and charging bicyclists to offset the cost of the additional car.
>
>2. Encourage cyclists to have bicycles on each end by charging
>bicyclists at peak times to reduce peak demand, and providing free or
>very low cost lockers to monthly pass purchasers.
>
>3. Encourage cyclists to buy folding bicycles with the use of subsidies
>for folding bicycles combined with charging bicyclists for peak use of
>cumbersomes.
What about (4) enforcing rules requiring bicyclists to make
space for other passengers?
Or is that a non-starter due to bicyclist militancy?
Steve
Tom Kunich
news:g7v79p$c03$2...@blue.rahul.net...
>
> What about (4) enforcing rules requiring bicyclists to make
> space for other passengers?
>
> Or is that a non-starter due to bicyclist militancy?
Steve, the problem is often that other passengers won't make room for
bicyclists at the door areas. So it isn't as if this is a one-sided problem.
They can't add extra cars because they don't have platforms long enough to
accommodate an extra car. What's more, someone can come on board with huge
amounts of baggage and they are treated as regular customers. Wheelchairs
are accommodated.
There really isn't any problem other than some people want more capacity
that is available. Caltrans seems to be handling the problems pretty well.
Of course they could build more two level cars.
Jack May
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:FomdnSKkedhhvz7V...@earthlink.com...>Wheelchairs are accommodated.
I don't think they have any choice under Federal law except to allow wheel
chairs .
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> What about (4) enforcing rules requiring bicyclists to make
>> space for other passengers?
>> Or is that a non-starter due to bicyclist militancy?
>Steve, the problem is often that other passengers won't make room for
>bicyclists at the door areas. So it isn't as if this is a one-sided problem.
>They can't add extra cars because they don't have platforms long enough to
>accommodate an extra car. What's more, someone can come on board with huge
>amounts of baggage and they are treated as regular customers. Wheelchairs
>are accommodated.
>There really isn't any problem other than some people want more capacity
>that is available. Caltrans seems to be handling the problems pretty well.
That's good to hear. If they are bumping passengers, then so long
as passengers with and without bicycles get bumped with
approximately equal probability, then that is reasonable.
Steve
David Nebenzahl
What are you talking about, "passengers with and without bicycles get
bumped with approx. equal probability"? Since when have *ANY* riders
without bicycles gotten "bumped" from Caltrain? Name *ONE* instance, please.
I don't think you know jack shit about bikes on Caltrain, and are
basically just parroting the company line, which has *always* been "get
a folding bike, or get two bikes, one at each end, to store in our
convenient and secure bicycle lockers".
What utter bullshit.
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."
- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Steve Pope
>On 8/13/2008 11:35 AM Steve Pope spake thus:
>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>There really isn't any problem other than some people want more capacity
>>>that is available. Caltrans seems to be handling the problems pretty well.
>> That's good to hear. If they are bumping passengers, then so long
>> as passengers with and without bicycles get bumped with
>> approximately equal probability, then that is reasonable.
>What are you talking about, "passengers with and without bicycles get
>bumped with approx. equal probability"? Since when have *ANY* riders
>without bicycles gotten "bumped" from Caltrain? Name *ONE* instance, please.
Please read the above. Especially the word "if". I'm not
asserting that they are bumping people equally, just saying
that *if* they are doing so, then that is good.
If not, then not so good.
>I don't think you know jack shit about bikes on Caltrain, and are
>basically just parroting the company line, which has *always* been "get
>a folding bike
I have not said anything about folding bikes. Nothing at all.
You are inventing things.
Steve
SMS
I've never seen that rule. It makes no sense. The bicycle area on trains
is not used by other passengers, and the seats in that area are open to
anyone (though why anyone without a bicycle would want to sit there is
beyond me).
> Or is that a non-starter due to bicyclist militancy?
The militant attitude is part of the problem to be sure.
David Nebenzahl
That's what *they* have been saying for years, and by basically
reiterating the company line here, you're saying that by implication.
I see you didn't refute my assertion that you know nothing about bikes
on Caltrain.
SMS
> That's good to hear. If they are bumping passengers, then so long
> as passengers with and without bicycles get bumped with
> approximately equal probability, then that is reasonable.
Bicycles get bumped a lot more than regular passengers, but for
different reasons.
There are times after events at Pac Bell Park where there are enough
non-bicycle passengers to fill a whole train, including the bicycle car
seats, but I bet that they allow the bicycle passengers on before
bumping non-bicycle passengers. This is so rare that it's probably not
worth worrying about, though it's going to be more of a problem in the
future, which is why CalTrain is working on this issue now.
dave a
Tom,
I realize you are the expert, but every CalTrain trip I ever took from
Sunnyvale to SF was on a two level car. Never saw anything other.
Also, I think the extra car option is a cost concern, not station size.
More cars, more gas.
/dave a
Steve Pope
>On 8/13/2008 12:15 PM Steve Pope spake thus:
>> I have not said anything about folding bikes. Nothing at all.
>> You are inventing things.
>That's what *they* have been saying for years, and by basically
>reiterating the company line here, you're saying that by implication.
What fantastic nonsense. I have not heard of, nor am I aware of any
"company line", so I cannot be re-iterating it, even unconciously.
To repeat, I haven't said jill about folding bikes.
Steve
Ben Pfaff
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> What about (4) enforcing rules requiring bicyclists to make
>> space for other passengers?
>
> I've never seen that rule. It makes no sense. The bicycle area on
> trains is not used by other passengers, and the seats in that area are
> open to anyone (though why anyone without a bicycle would want to sit
> there is beyond me).
No, they are not open to anyone. They are reserved for use by
bicyclists, as the rules printed on the side of the bicycle car
clearly state. However, this rule is not enforced, in my
experience.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
David Nebenzahl
No, it;s not, as it (enforcing the rule) would be a complete waste of
time for the on-board staff.
Tom Kunich
news:iYCdnXxxRoamtT7V...@comcast.com...
Mind you, I'm not complaining - I'm pointing out that they're making a big
deal out of cyclists but not of wheelchairs which are also a pain in the
butt to "normal" patrons.
Tom Kunich
>
> What fantastic nonsense. I have not heard of, nor am I aware of any
> "company line", so I cannot be re-iterating it, even unconciously.
>
> To repeat, I haven't said jill about folding bikes.
Steve, don't respond to someone whose only interest here is to vent spleen.
Jym Dyer
> Perhaps there are better plans, but the San Francisco
> Bicycle Coalition plan certainly isn't one of them. A
> tremendous number of incorrect statements in that plan,
> as well as healthy dose of fallacies.
=v= Could you be more specific? If there are errors, we
will fix them.
=v= It's not up to me to decide your priorities for you,
but if it's a document filled with errors and fallacies
you're looking for, you might at some point wish to focus
your Mighty Powers Of Newsfroup Opprobrium onto Caltrain's
Plan:
http://www.caltrain.com/bicycle_master_plan.html
After all, plenty of your tax dollars went into the crafting
of that document.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> room for bicyclists at the door areas. So it isn't as if this
> is a one-sided problem.
=v= Really, it's a policy problem. It takes slightly longer
to board the train with a bike (as with any luggage), so given
a goal to board quickly, it makes sense to get these folks
on first. Instead, the policy is that bikers board *last*.
Unfortunately this means that empty-handed passengers wander
onto the bike car, mill about, etc., slowing everything down.
=v= (Did I say empty-handed? Actually, the ones using their
cellphones are the worst.)
=v= One of the many doozies in the Caltrain Parking Plan is
a calculation of the cost of dwell time (time spent in the
station) and blaming 1/4th of it on bikers. This is entirely
due to the policy making us board last, but of course this
policy is not mentioned.
> There really isn't any problem other than some people want
> more capacity that is available. Caltrans seems to be handling
> the problems pretty well.
=v= Aside from the combination of increased demand from high
gas prices and 14 cars put out of service this summer, I mostly
agree. But they're *not* planning well for future capacity,
as this document illustrates.
> Of course they could build more two level cars.
=v= An underlying part of the story is that they want to move
away from those cars and towards the newer Bombardiers, which
are configured to hold only half as many bicycles. This is
all part of their goal to electrify the line and run faster
trains. I support that goal overall, except that they've
left bikes behind.
=v= They could do both, but they haven't even tried to plan
for it! That's why this project, originally billed (and funded
by grateful taxpayers) as a Bike Master Plan, has degraded to a
Parking Plan.
<_Jym_>
Steve Pope
>=v= Really, it's a policy problem. It takes slightly longer
>to board the train with a bike (as with any luggage), so given
>a goal to board quickly, it makes sense to get these folks
>on first. Instead, the policy is that bikers board *last*.
>Unfortunately this means that empty-handed passengers wander
>onto the bike car, mill about, etc., slowing everything down.
>=v= (Did I say empty-handed? Actually, the ones using their
>cellphones are the worst.)
This seems imaginary. I have never seen this on a Caltrain.
Steve
Don Freeman
Not so imaginary, you must not ride Caltrain very often.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> This seems imaginary. I have never seen this on a Caltrain.
>Not so imaginary, you must not ride Caltrain very often.
About 20 times per year. I have not noticed bicycle loading
being slowed down by persons milling in the bike car.
Steve
Don Freeman
I ride every work day and even though it isn't a daily occurrence I have
had to ask people to move along so that I could get my bike into the
car. They seem to like to stop in right in the stairwell area.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> I have not noticed bicycle loading
>> being slowed down by persons milling in the bike car.
>I ride every work day and even though it isn't a daily occurrence I have
>had to ask people to move along so that I could get my bike into the
>car. They seem to like to stop in right in the stairwell area.
Right, thanks.
I don't think this has anything to do with bicycles. Bay Area
transit passengers, often, in general do not move very quickly
thus slowing things down. Were they in New York or Tokyo they
would be physically shoved out the way.
The worst is AC Transic bus-boarders, in my experience. Of
course, the tenuous footing on the Van Hoolses doesn't help.
Even factoring out mobility problems and other legit excuses,
a lot of passengers are dog-slow.
This will improve on its own once transit becomes more of a
high-volume, universal experience.
Steve
Tom Kunich
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with bicycles.
While you're correct it still means that bicycles APPEAR to be holding
everything up because they're standing there half in and half out trying to
get the foot passengers to move out of the way.
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> I don't think this has anything to do with bicycles.
>While you're correct it still means that bicycles APPEAR to be holding
>everything up because they're standing there half in and half out trying to
>get the foot passengers to move out of the way.
Hmm I guess so, but you can only fine-tune appearances so much.
Steve
Don Freeman
I've even been yelled at by conductors to hurry up even though it was
not me (nor the other bicyclists) that were responsible for the holdup.
Tom Kunich
news:48a5da84$0$17162$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Can you imagine them yelling at a person standing half in and half out
because another foot passenger wouldn't move in and let you in?
But the fact is that all in all the friction between cyclists and other
traffic on the trains, buses and BART is relatively slight and to say much
about it is blowing it out of proportion.
Don Freeman
I don't disagree with that, but that is a problem in the perception
though. One person has to be held up just one time and that is what
they remember, not all the times they got on with no problem at all.
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> The real options are as follows:
>
> 1. Add more bicycle space by adding an additional car to peak trains,
> and charging bicyclists to offset the cost of the additional car.
>
> 2. Encourage cyclists to have bicycles on each end by charging
> bicyclists at peak times to reduce peak demand, and providing free or
> very low cost lockers to monthly pass purchasers.
>
> 3. Encourage cyclists to buy folding bicycles with the use of subsidies
> for folding bicycles combined with charging bicyclists for peak use of
> cumbersomes.
4. Stop subsidizing automobile parking garages ($30k/space),
and use those funds instead to pay for more cost-effective and
environmentally-friendly cycling options.
5. Stop spending millions on historical "replica"
train stations, and use that money for more important
things (like more bike cars).
6. Don't buy 1950's-era trainsets that come with
huge fuel costs.
7. Don't blow 1 decade worth of capital improvements
dollars on a few grade separations
8. When rebuilding stations, put in level-platform
boarding, so that bikes don't cause dwell time
issues.
9. Distribute bikes along the train, instead of
having a single bike car. Reconfigure seating
and take advantage of huge empty space
in vestibule areas to store bikes.
Well, I could go on. The point is let's not
scapegoat bicyclists when the real problem is that
Caltrain has made a lot of idiotic decisions,
greatly limiting its overall throughput for
all passengers.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> and use those funds instead to pay for more cost-effective and
> environmentally-friendly cycling options.
While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into parking
lots?
Parking lots are rarely seen for the costly creatures they are. We've become
semi-officially blind to their costs, typically looking only at what they
cost to build and not what that land might have been used for instead and
how it's often no longer a source of property tax. Not to mention the
arterial improvements required to feed them.
That's one of the biggest problems with "mass transit" in this country. The
goal is rarely to get someone out of their car; rather, it's to use their
car to get to the train or whatever. Little emphasis on feeder systems, and
little recognition of the role bicycle can play in getting people to the
mass transit systems. The more successful the transit system, the greater
strains placed on the feeder roads and parking lots.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6d808ba-aee2-4b15...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
SMS
>> 4. Stop subsidizing automobile parking garages ($30k/space),
>> and use those funds instead to pay for more cost-effective and
>> environmentally-friendly cycling options.
>
> While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
> eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
> they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into parking
> lots?
Yeah, let the school boards sell that land to developers who will build
some mixed-use projects with condos on the parking lots.
> Parking lots are rarely seen for the costly creatures they are. We've become
> semi-officially blind to their costs, typically looking only at what they
> cost to build and not what that land might have been used for instead and
> how it's often no longer a source of property tax. Not to mention the
> arterial improvements required to feed them.
Perhaps, but in the case of high schools and community colleges around
here, the parking lots are the first things to go when more space is
needed for buildings (for elementary and middle schools they just put
portables onto the playing fields and playground areas since there are
no large parking lots). When they built the schools they just filled all
the unused space for buildings with parking lots for the time being.
I wouldn't want to sell that land to developers (in this area anyway)
because school growth is now accomplished by adding buildings (portable
or permanent) to existing schools. In the Cupertino school district,
there's a panic right now because suddenly a large number of new
high-density housing developments were recently completed and sold, and
the schools didn't anticipate the huge increase in elementary school
students (the developers told the school boards that very few families
with children would buy condos, that it would be almost all singles or
childless couples, and the school board actually believed them! Now the
district is insisting that it must be a sudden case of increased
registration fraud,
"http://cupertino.ca.campusgrid.net/home/Residency+Press+Release+7.1.08.pdf").
We need to take a system view of things.
If you want to pass a useful law, forbid parents from driving their kids
to closer than 1/2 mile to school. Since 90% of them probably live
within 1/2 mile, this would encourage them to let the kids walk or
bicycle to school. School started in my area. I'm both astounded by the
number of parents that simply must drop their middle-schoolers directly
at the school entrance, and encouraged by the large number of kids
bicycling to school.
Steve Fenwick
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> 4. Stop subsidizing automobile parking garages ($30k/space),
> >> and use those funds instead to pay for more cost-effective and
> >> environmentally-friendly cycling options.
> >
> > While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
> > eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
> > they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into parking
> > lots?
>
> Yeah, let the school boards sell that land to developers who will build
> some mixed-use projects with condos on the parking lots.
Students will park in the residential streets around the schools if
parking lots are eliminated. Then the local residents will be ticked
off, then you get permits, and towing. Messy.
> If you want to pass a useful law, forbid parents from driving their kids
> to closer than 1/2 mile to school.
And how do you enforce that?
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!"
Steve Pope
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> > While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
>> > eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
>> > they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into parking
>> > lots?
Excellent idea.
>> If you want to pass a useful law, forbid parents from driving their kids
>> to closer than 1/2 mile to school.
>And how do you enforce that?
I support a law that excludes any person under 18 from being
in a non-professionally-driven motor vehicle, except in medical
emergencies or child disability necessity.
It is bad for child health to be driven around all the time.
It is bad for all sorts of reasons. It is bad enough that
people are adding to environment problems by reproducing as
much as they are, but if they insist on doing so, their activity
needs to be regulated to be lower impact.
When I was a child, I was almost never in anybody's private
automobile until about age 12 (no car in the family until
then), and only from time to time after that. I never needed
to be in one to get to school, because that was not the
paradigm back then. My upbringing did not suffer because
of this. I would say the opposite.
Steve
SMS
> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>>> While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
>>>> eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
>>>> they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into parking
>>>> lots?
>
> Excellent idea.
>
>>> If you want to pass a useful law, forbid parents from driving their kids
>>> to closer than 1/2 mile to school.
>
>> And how do you enforce that?
Sorry, Steve Fenwick happens to have an e-mail address that's the same a
a notorious spammer (nos...@nospam.invalid) that's in my kill file so I
didn't see his post.
While I was being somewhat facetious, the schools are doing too much to
encourage parents driving the kids right up to the door of the school,
to the detriment of students that walk or bike. At least for middle
schools, the schools need to eliminate the huge drop off circles that
make it so easy for parents to drive, and that clog neighborhoods and
make it more dangerous for students getting to school under their own
power. The roads adjacent to the schools could have "No Stopping 7:30
a.m. tp 8:30 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., or some such thing.
As the assistant principal encourage parents, 'drop them two blocks away
and let them walk; even if it's raining they won't melt.'
My main concern is that the traffic jams and poor drivers around schools
are discouraging parents from allowing their kids to walk or bicycle to
school, and that it's a problem that feeds on itself.
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >> > While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
> >> > eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
> >> > they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into
> >> > parking
> >> > lots?
>
> Excellent idea.
>
> >> If you want to pass a useful law, forbid parents from driving their kids
> >> to closer than 1/2 mile to school.
>
> >And how do you enforce that?
>
> I support a law that excludes any person under 18 from being
> in a non-professionally-driven motor vehicle, except in medical
> emergencies or child disability necessity.
This is totally impractical in a generally suburban society. Must walk
or bike in inclement weather? Public transit is not universally
available; in rural areas, it's essentially non-existent.
Steve Fenwick
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
> > Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >
> >>>> While we're at it, there ought to be a law requiring high schools to
> >>>> eliminate subsidized parking for students. Our schools need money, and
> >>>> they're blowing how much of it on expensive real estate turned into
> >>>> parking
> >>>> lots?
> >
> > Excellent idea.
> >
> >>> If you want to pass a useful law, forbid parents from driving their kids
> >>> to closer than 1/2 mile to school.
> >
> >> And how do you enforce that?
>
>
> Sorry, Steve Fenwick happens to have an e-mail address that's the same a
> a notorious spammer (nos...@nospam.invalid) that's in my kill file so I
> didn't see his post.
Sorry; somewhere, I read that .invalid is the correct TLD to use to
avoid spam, as opposed to making up something in .com or elsewhere.
> While I was being somewhat facetious, the schools are doing too much to
> encourage parents driving the kids right up to the door of the school,
> to the detriment of students that walk or bike. At least for middle
> schools, the schools need to eliminate the huge drop off circles that
> make it so easy for parents to drive, and that clog neighborhoods and
> make it more dangerous for students getting to school under their own
> power. The roads adjacent to the schools could have "No Stopping 7:30
> a.m. tp 8:30 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., or some such thing.
>
> As the assistant principal encourage parents, 'drop them two blocks away
> and let them walk; even if it's raining they won't melt.'
>
> My main concern is that the traffic jams and poor drivers around schools
> are discouraging parents from allowing their kids to walk or bicycle to
> school, and that it's a problem that feeds on itself.
It depends on distance and location. I grew up in a suburban area, about
two miles from school (2nd through 6th). This was in the Midwest, so we
had bad weather from late October through early April. Carpooling was
standard. There was no bike route or sidewalk along any useable route
(two-lane road, fast traffic). Even in California, there can be bad
weather and unsafe routes. It's hard to separate out the parents who
drive their kids to school out of reasonable need, and those who drive
their cars a block.