SFE\The Daily Outrage / Caltrain: Proposal would charge cyclists extra for bike space
Jym Dyer
The Daily Outrage
Caltrain: Proposal would charge cyclists extra for bike space
San Francisco Examiner | 11-Aug-2008 | Page 15
WHO: Caltrain
WHAT: The transit agency said its staff will explore the idea of
having bicyclists pay an extra fee to bring their bikes on board
its trains during peak commute times.
WHY THEY'RE DOING IT: Bicyclists must fit the bikes on one car
of each train, which has been causing some riders to complain
about being "bumped" from the trains during heavy commute times.
Caltrain is seeking a solution to that problem.
WHY IT'S A BAD IDEA: Caltrain ridership is at an all-time high
of nearly 40,000 riders per weekday, and the agency will also
discuss in October two fare-increase proposals. As more people
flock to Caltrain to avoid high gas prices, one fee increase
would be enough. An extra penalty for riding a bike is too much.
WHERE TO VENT: The Caltrain board of directors is scheduled to
meet next on Sept. 4. Comments for the board can be e-mailed to
bo...@caltrain.com, sent by fax to (650) 508-6281 or mailed to
1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070-1306.
SMS
> [Also Posted to caltrain-bikes]
>
> The Daily Outrage
> Caltrain: Proposal would charge cyclists extra for bike space
> San Francisco Examiner | 11-Aug-2008 | Page 15
<snip>
The article is online at
"http://www.examiner.com/a-1527249~Caltrain_covets_cyclists__cash.html"
So is CalTrain saying that charging the fee is going to solve the
problem of bicycle passengers being bumped? Is this because the fee will
pay for more bicycle space, or because it will reduce demand?
They already have the ability to solve this problem for a relatively
small expenditure, but they don't want to.
RKapp...@gmail.com
a morbidly obese one, it makes sense to charge them more. It would
make more sense to ban bikes on Caltrain altogether and provide more
bike parking at stations.
SMS
> Given that a cyclist takes twice the space of an ordinary person, even
> a morbidly obese one, it makes sense to charge them more. It would
> make more sense to ban bikes on Caltrain altogether and provide more
> bike parking at stations.
Yes, that's what I meant when I said "they already have the ability to
solve this problem for a relatively small expenditure, but they don't
want to."
A lot of cyclists would be fine with having a bicycle on each end if
CalTrain provided secure and sufficient bicycle parking.
The alternative is to add an exclusive bike car to each train and charge
the cyclists extra to offset the cost. Unfortunately this causes another
problem, in that CalTrain won't want to haul around the bicycle car
during off-peak times, so they'd still need some cab cars with bicycle
space.
The cyclists that don't want to have a bicycle on each end would be okay
with paying extra to take their bikes on board during peak times. They
could also just buy a folding bicycle and avoid the charge.
Steve Pope
>RKapp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Given that a cyclist takes twice the space of an ordinary person, even
>> a morbidly obese one, it makes sense to charge them more. It would
>> make more sense to ban bikes on Caltrain altogether and provide more
>> bike parking at stations.
>Yes, that's what I meant when I said "they already have the ability to
>solve this problem for a relatively small expenditure, but they don't
>want to."
>A lot of cyclists would be fine with having a bicycle on each end if
>CalTrain provided secure and sufficient bicycle parking.
>The alternative is to add an exclusive bike car to each train and charge
>the cyclists extra to offset the cost. Unfortunately this causes another
>problem, in that CalTrain won't want to haul around the bicycle car
>during off-peak times, so they'd still need some cab cars with bicycle
>space.
This is partly a problem of passengers (with or without a bicycle)
believing they have the right to board any train, as opposed
to sometimes having to wait for the next train due to crowding.
I suspect many such passengers have not used transit systems
elsewhere in the world.
BART will make bicyclists wait for the next train if there
isn't sufficient room for both bikes and other passengers.
Does Caltrain not have a similar policy?
Steve
SMS
> This is partly a problem of passengers (with or without a bicycle)
> believing they have the right to board any train, as opposed
> to sometimes having to wait for the next train due to crowding.
> I suspect many such passengers have not used transit systems
> elsewhere in the world.
Commuter rail is not really the same as mass transit where trains come
every five or ten minutes. Getting bumped on CalTrain can cause a delay
of an hour or more.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
One solution to this is to have reservations.
Another is to have more frequent trains.
Whining because the train is full (conveniently, bicyclists
can be blamed) is not a solution.
Steve
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> This is partly a problem of passengers (with or without a bicycle)
>>> believing they have the right to board any train, as opposed
>>> to sometimes having to wait for the next train due to crowding.
>>> I suspect many such passengers have not used transit systems
>>> elsewhere in the world.
>
>> Commuter rail is not really the same as mass transit where trains come
>> every five or ten minutes. Getting bumped on CalTrain can cause a delay
>> of an hour or more.
>
> One solution to this is to have reservations.
LOL.
> Another is to have more frequent trains.
Good plan, but I don't think that passengers would be willing to pay the
actual cost of more trains.
> Whining because the train is full (conveniently, bicyclists
> can be blamed) is not a solution.
It's uncommon for trains to be full for non-cyclists, though it has
happened. Not sure who you think is whining about full trains other than
cyclists that are bumped. I whined about that briefly when I used
CalTrain with a bicycle. By San Bruno, all the bicycle spaces were taken
(probably all taken in San Francisco). I finally gave up and used a
folding bicycle.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> One solution to this is to have reservations.
>LOL.
Why "LOL"? Many commuter trains around the world have reservations.
In the UK, you can pay a higher price for a reserved seat, and
thus ensure not missing your train.
>> Whining because the train is full (conveniently, bicyclists
>> can be blamed) is not a solution.
>It's uncommon for trains to be full for non-cyclists, though it has
>happened. Not sure who you think is whining about full trains other than
>cyclists that are bumped.
I interpreted an earlier post in the thread as saying that
passengers in general were complaining about being bumped due to
the space taken up by bicycles.
If there are no such complaints, then no problem.
Steve
David Nebenzahl
I love it; a conversation about how to, basically, get rid of those
pesky bikes on Caltrain between two people who, so far as I can tell, do
not bring bikes regularly onto Caltrain. Great. (Please correct me if
I'm wrong about that.)
Speaking as one who used to regularly commute with a bike (from San
Bruno to Belmont), I also think it's outrageous that Caltrain is once
again selecting bike-bringing passengers as the scapegoats for its own
shortcomings. To reiterate: no non-bicycle-bringing passenger has *ever*
been "bumped" from Caltrain because of bicyclists, so far as I know. *NONE*.
The transit agency basically made a promise to a fairly large class of
riders some years ago (under duress, but they agreed to it); now they're
trying to renege on it. Fuck 'em.
--
"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
SMS
> I love it; a conversation about how to, basically, get rid of those
> pesky bikes on Caltrain between two people who, so far as I can tell, do
> not bring bikes regularly onto Caltrain. Great. (Please correct me if
> I'm wrong about that.)
I did used to regularly bring a bicycle on CalTrain between San Bruno
and Lawrence, prior to moving from Daly City down to Silicon Valley. Or
at least I tried to. Typically what would happen is that the bicycle car
filled in San Francisco, and no one would get off as early as San Bruno,
so I was S.O.L. (on nice days). This was before capacity was expanded
from 16 to 32 on some trains.
I used a folding bicycle to get around the problem. I preferred the
folding bicycle for other reasons as well. I hated having to continually
monitor the bicycle and jump up and rearrange it in the rack so it was
in the proper order for exiting. I didn't like how scratched up it got.
I was concerned about theft, though this has been infrequent on
CalTrain. If I got a ride home from work, or got picked up at the
station on the way home then I could put the folder in the trunk of the
car, which wasn't possible with a cumbersome.
> Speaking as one who used to regularly commute with a bike (from San
> Bruno to Belmont), I also think it's outrageous that Caltrain is once
> again selecting bike-bringing passengers as the scapegoats for its own
> shortcomings. To reiterate: no non-bicycle-bringing passenger has *ever*
> been "bumped" from Caltrain because of bicyclists, so far as I know.
> *NONE*.
Not true. What you think you know is wrong.
> The transit agency basically made a promise to a fairly large class of
> riders some years ago (under duress, but they agreed to it); now they're
> trying to renege on it. Fuck 'em.
CalTrain is trying to see what can be done to use the limited bicycle
space to maximum efficiency. There is no money to buy and operate more
rail cars, even if the platforms could accommodate them. They can't
remove seats from other cars to add bicycle space because the peak
trains are at capacity. The money to add lockers, subsidize folding
bicycles, and/or implement a station bike program is a piddling amount
compared to adding more cars to trains.
At the time CalTrain agreed to the bicycle program the bicycle
passengers were pure upside revenue because the trains were so lightly used.
I doubt if CalTrain will try to make up all the lost revenue on peak
trains by instituting bicycle fees that represent the full revenue loss.
More likely it'll just be a small fee per trip.
Jym Dyer
> person, even a morbidly obese one, it makes sense to charge
> them more.
=v= That may seem to be the case at first glance, but overall
the situation is very different. Since very very very few
trips involve walking to one station and then walking from
another station, the general case is that there's some form
of transportation at one or both ends of the train journey.
When you look at the overall cost, cyclists are actually
making the *least* demands on transportation infrastructure.
> It would make more sense to ban bikes on Caltrain altogether
> and provide more bike parking at stations.
=v= Caltrain's own numbers suggest otherwise.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> end if CalTrain provided secure and sufficient bicycle parking.
=v= And a lot wouldn't. Therefore this discourages bicycling.
> The alternative is to add an exclusive bike car to each train
> and charge the cyclists extra to offset the cost.
=v= Why is that "the" alternative? BTW, do you have any idea
what the cost of "secure and sufficient bicycle parking" versus
more bike space on cars? Just wondering.
> The cyclists that don't want to have a bicycle on each end
> would be okay with paying extra to take their bikes on board
> during peak times. They could also just buy a folding bicycle
> and avoid the charge.
=v= Not everyone is awash in cash, so not everyone is "okay"
with buying a second bike. (To store where? In the lockers
that have a long waiting list, or the "secure and sufficient
bicycle parking" that Caltrain hasn't even begun to scare up
temporary funding for?)
=v= The folding bike angle is a diversion. I know, because
that's what I ride, and there's limited space for it.
<_Jym_>
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:Jym.14Aug20...@scorcher.org...
>> Given that a cyclist takes twice the space of an ordinary
>> person, even a morbidly obese one, it makes sense to charge
>> them more.
>
> =v= That may seem to be the case at first glance, but overall
> the situation is very different. Since very very very few
> trips involve walking to one station and then walking from
> another station, the general case is that there's some form
> of transportation at one or both ends of the train journey.
> When you look at the overall cost, cyclists are actually
> making the *least* demands on transportation infrastructure.
Which sounds good, and is factually correct! Unfortunately, it ignores the
reality of how transit decisions are made and more specifically how transit
agencies are funded. There is a regional agency that tries to tie things
together through cooperation (Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation
Commission) but until they control funding, each agency is going to be
looking out for its own narrowly-defined interests. CalTrain is one such
agency. They don't care that carrying bikes creates less need for all manner
of infrastructure elsewhere, because that's someone else's financial
problem.
And in the end, that's what ALL of this is about. Someone else's financial
problem. Because we have this myriad of separate agencies funded separately.
When talk is literally cheap, things happen. Otherwise...
>> It would make more sense to ban bikes on Caltrain altogether
>> and provide more bike parking at stations.
>
> =v= Caltrain's own numbers suggest otherwise.
> <_Jym_>
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Jym Dyer
> it ignores the reality of how transit decisions are made and
> more specifically how transit agencies are funded. There is
> a regional agency that tries to tie things together through
> cooperation (Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission)
> but until they control funding, each agency is going to be
> looking out for its own narrowly-defined interests.
=v= Trust me, I am not ignoring that aspect. The way Caltrain
is funded is mindblowingly bad. Yet its stated mission (as can
be seen on its website) is to provide an alternative to cars,
and the bike+train intermodal option has proven to be the best
way to do that. When it's reliable.
=v= It's messed up that Caltrain can find "project" funding for
such endeavors as parking lot shuttles, or can wrangle millions
to build an anti-transit-oriented parking garage in Sunnyvale
(right at the station, and so close to the tracks that when they
found a "suspicious package" there last week they had to close
all Caltrain service for the evening). But can't plan to keep
a successful and inexpensive program functioning.
=v= As for the MTC, they talk a good game, and every five years
they produce a Regional Transit Planning (RTP) document that
promises the greenest, lushest public transit infastructure
ever. Then they throw most of our money at highways and the
bulk of what remains at BART.
<_Jym_>
Steve Pope
>=v= Trust me, I am not ignoring that aspect. The way Caltrain
>is funded is mindblowingly bad. Yet its stated mission (as can
>be seen on its website) is to provide an alternative to cars,
>and the bike+train intermodal option has proven to be the best
>way to do that. When it's reliable.
I have nothing against bikes on Caltrain but by what evidence
is bike/train "proven" to be a better alternative to cars than
pedestrian/train or train/bus transit combinations??
I'd say these all have constituencies.
Steve
Tom Kunich
news:g849a8$422$1...@blue.rahul.net...
I wonder if you've tried to commute each way Steve. IF you have some way of
parking your bicycle where you work that's reliable, the train-bicycle
combination allows you to move TO the train station without having to find a
parking place and walk sometimes a quarter of a mile into the station. Then
you can board a train and ride to your destination station and then fairly
easily go as far as several miles from the station in ANY direction without
having to wait for buses or change buses etc. It is way more direct, faster
and cheaper.
And you get enough exercise that you arrive at work with your mind clear and
ready to work.
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> I have nothing against bikes on Caltrain but by what evidence
>> is bike/train "proven" to be a better alternative to cars than
>> pedestrian/train or train/bus transit combinations??
> I wonder if you've tried to commute each way Steve. IF you
> have some way of parking your bicycle where you work that's
> reliable, the train-bicycle combination allows you to move TO
> the train station without having to find a parking place and
> walk sometimes a quarter of a mile into the station. Then [snip]
Sorry, this is an offhand argument, not a "proof".
Sure you can argue bike/train transit is effective. No argument there.
But so is ped/train transit. Particularly if there is a sufficient
density of transit.
Steve
Tom Kunich
The problem is that then the pedestrians are more or less limited to approx.
one mile from the train station or having to use buses. And they also drive
to the train station at the home end so you have to have large parking areas
for them in extremely expensive real estate areas.
While I agree with you that pedestrian/train traffic is easier for the train
company, bicycle/train is better for transportation as a whole.
Don Freeman
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>
>>> I have nothing against bikes on Caltrain but by what evidence
>>> is bike/train "proven" to be a better alternative to cars than
>>> pedestrian/train or train/bus transit combinations??
>
pedestrian/train: This only works if the distance is short enough on the
pedestrian portion to be practical. Often times it is not.
train/bus: the problem with this is making connections. On a personal
level this is my least favorite combination as the bus is rarely there
when it should be and is not reliable enough to count on getting you to
the train on time, or to work on time.
Bill Z.
Bicycles are significantly faster than busses when you include the
wait for the bus and the walk from the final bus stop to your
destination. Very few people will have both ends of their trip
within walking distance of a train station, assuming they want to
complete their trip in a reasonable time.
BTW, the average bus speed in something like 15 or 16 mph when you
include all the stops (excluding stop and go traffic). Bicyclists, not
just racers, can go that fast or close (and I'm including stopping at
red lights and stop signs). Even slower ones will still come out
ahead of a bus when you include the transfer delays and walk to one's
destination.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Scott Lurndal
bike/train: Only useful for younger folks in good condition during good
weather conditions for distances larger than ped, but smaller than bus/car
feeders.
scott
Don Freeman
This 58 yr old, overweight, person thanks you for those kind words.
Though your point about "larger than ped, but smaller than bus/car
feeders" is a valid one but thankfully the train stops are usually
located in areas where bike travel to the majority of places of
employement (financial district, downtown areas, etc.) is not out of the
question.
Tom Kunich
news:W9lpk.18373$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> bike/train: Only useful for younger folks in good condition during good
> weather conditions for distances larger than ped, but smaller than bus/car
> feeders.
I'm 63 and can ride a bike virtually anywhere. There isn't a place in San
Francisco that isn't a short trip from the train or BART station. In fact,
San Francisco is a city made for bicycle traffic and NOT for car or bus
traffic. And while you can walk anywhere in San Francisco it takes a lot of
time to go anywhere by foot for most people.
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> I wonder if you've tried to commute each way Steve. IF you
>>> have some way of parking your bicycle where you work that's
>>> reliable, the train-bicycle combination allows you to move TO
>>> the train station without having to find a parking place and
>>> walk sometimes a quarter of a mile into the station. Then [snip]
>> Sorry, this is an offhand argument, not a "proof".
>> Sure you can argue bike/train transit is effective. No argument there.
>> But so is ped/train transit. Particularly if there is a sufficient
>> density of transit.
>The problem is that then the pedestrians are more or less limited to approx.
>one mile from the train station or having to use buses.
This is of course not a problem in many cities around the world with
good transit.
I'm waiting for Dyer to support his "proven" claim, which seems
squirrely.
Steve
Tak Nakamoto
"Bill Z." wrote >
> Bicycles are significantly faster than busses when you include the
> wait for the bus and the walk from the final bus stop to your
> destination. Very few people will have both ends of their trip
> within walking distance of a train station, assuming they want to
> complete their trip in a reasonable time.
>
> BTW, the average bus speed in something like 15 or 16 mph when you
> include all the stops (excluding stop and go traffic). Bicyclists, not
> just racers, can go that fast or close (and I'm including stopping at
> red lights and stop signs). Even slower ones will still come out
> ahead of a bus when you include the transfer delays and walk to one's
> destination.
You're very optimistic about the actual average speed of busses. Excluding
commuter express type service (AC Transit's transbay routes for instance)
the average speed of busses is considerably slower. SF Muni's actual
measured average speed is about 8.1 mph and decreasing annually according to
the ongoing Transit Effectiveness Project's reports. AC's local service I'm
guessing is in the range of 12 to 14 mph. Combine this with the lack of
frequency of service which lead to long average wait times, and the reason
why public transit is so frustrating to riders.
Tak Nakamoto
Bill Z.
If San Francisco were made for bike traffic, it wouldn't have all
these roads that go straight up steep hills - the roads would
switchback like is typical in many traditional European cities.
It seems that if San Francisco was "made" for any kind of traffic, it was
for horse-drawn vehicles. :-)
BTW, busses work just fine in San Francisco as far as the street layout
goes - the main problem is being stuck in the traffic congestion caused
by all those cars.
Tom Kunich
news:87abfd5...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>
> It seems that if San Francisco was "made" for any kind of traffic, it was
> for horse-drawn vehicles. :-)
Horses won't climb any street steeper than 4% or so. Donkey's 5% and oxen
6%.
> BTW, buses work just fine in San Francisco as far as the street layout
> goes - the main problem is being stuck in the traffic congestion caused
> by all those cars.
Well, that's the problem isn't it? All of those cars blocking real traffic
progress? Bicycles ridden by experienced people really get around fast since
the entire city/county of San Francisco is 100 square miles or approximately
10 miles by 10 miles. That means that the longest trip is only something
like 15 miles.
While walking around San Francisco you can see people riding bicycles up
those (admittedly) steep hills that look like this is their first ride on a
bicycle - yet they're making it.
David Nebenzahl
> "Bill Z." wrote >
>> Bicycles are significantly faster than busses when you include the
>> wait for the bus and the walk from the final bus stop to your
>> destination. Very few people will have both ends of their trip
>> within walking distance of a train station, assuming they want to
>> complete their trip in a reasonable time.
>>
>> BTW, the average bus speed in something like 15 or 16 mph when you
>> include all the stops (excluding stop and go traffic). Bicyclists, not
>> just racers, can go that fast or close (and I'm including stopping at
>> red lights and stop signs). Even slower ones will still come out
>> ahead of a bus when you include the transfer delays and walk to one's
>> destination.
>
> You're very optimistic about the actual average speed of busses. Excluding
> commuter express type service (AC Transit's transbay routes for instance)
> the average speed of busses is considerably slower. SF Muni's actual
> measured average speed is about 8.1 mph and decreasing annually according to
> the ongoing Transit Effectiveness Project's reports. AC's local service I'm
> guessing is in the range of 12 to 14 mph.
Taking this side trip a bit further, I'm going to guess that bus service
may actually be faster in such places as the Deep South Bay, what with
all those desert stretches down main thoroughfares with lights a mile or
so apart (thinking of such places as Lawrence Expwy.). Is this so?
--
"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".
Tom Kunich
news:48a612b5$0$24569$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> --
> "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".
Too bad that no one seems to be alive that has the slightest idea what
happened in Viet Nam. Of course all it would take would be for the stupid
bastards to talk to a native Vietnamese of which there are plenty in the USA
but I suppose they don't want their wonderful Liberal world destroyed by
facts.
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87abfd5...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> >
> > It seems that if San Francisco was "made" for any kind of traffic, it was
> > for horse-drawn vehicles. :-)
>
> Horses won't climb any street steeper than 4% or so. Donkey's 5% and
> oxen 6%.
They wan't pull anything heavy up a steep street, but they can
certainly manage a steep street otherwise. The really steep ones
were handled with cable cars.
> > BTW, buses work just fine in San Francisco as far as the street layout
> > goes - the main problem is being stuck in the traffic congestion caused
> > by all those cars.
>
> Well, that's the problem isn't it?
The discussion was about what the infrastructure was good for.
> All of those cars blocking real traffic progress? Bicycles ridden by
> experienced people really get around fast since the entire
> city/county of San Francisco is 100 square miles or approximately 10
> miles by 10 miles. That means that the longest trip is only
> something like 15 miles.
>
> While walking around San Francisco you can see people riding bicycles
> up those (admittedly) steep hills that look like this is their first
> ride on a bicycle - yet they're making it.
... and are probably in somewhat decent shape from having to walk up and
down those hills before buying their bicycles. :-)
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." wrote >
> > Bicycles are significantly faster than busses when you include the
> > wait for the bus and the walk from the final bus stop to your
> > destination. Very few people will have both ends of their trip
> > within walking distance of a train station, assuming they want to
> > complete their trip in a reasonable time.
> >
> > BTW, the average bus speed in something like 15 or 16 mph when you
> > include all the stops (excluding stop and go traffic). Bicyclists, not
> > just racers, can go that fast or close (and I'm including stopping at
> > red lights and stop signs). Even slower ones will still come out
> > ahead of a bus when you include the transfer delays and walk to one's
> > destination.
>
> You're very optimistic about the actual average speed of busses. Excluding
> commuter express type service (AC Transit's transbay routes for instance)
> the average speed of busses is considerably slower. SF Muni's actual
> measured average speed is about 8.1 mph and decreasing annually according to
> the ongoing Transit Effectiveness Project's reports. AC's local service I'm
> guessing is in the range of 12 to 14 mph.
MUNI's average speed is seriously impacted by automobile traffic (note
that I said "excluding stop and go traffic", which your MUNI data
obviously doesn't do). 12 to 14 is consistent with "something like 15
or 16" with the caveat I added - the busses stuck in stop and go
traffic reduce the average, but the effect is not so great in surburban
areas where congestion isn't quite so bad.
Bill Z.
Sigh. Now "liberals" are being blamed for comedy.
<http://www.irwincorey.org/bio.html>:
IRWlN COREY is a product of the night clubs, bistros and
radio, where he has been practicing his special brand of
surrealistic comedy under the soubriquet "The World's Foremost
Authority."
...
In the words of internationally known theatre critic Kenneth
Tynan, Corey is "a cultural clown, a parody of literacy, a
travesty of all that our civilization holds dear and one of
the funniest grotesques in America. He is Chaplin's clown with
a college education."
David Nebenzahl
So I take it you believe we not only could have won but should have won
in Vietnam (because we were fighting with "one arm tied behind our
back")? That we should have napalmed, bombed, Agent Oranged, raped and
otherwise killed *more* gooks than the millions (MILLIONS--stack that up
against the precious 55,000)? That we had any business being there at all?
My friend, history is not on your side.
Steve Fenwick
Not for this black duck. Working in sunny downtown Cupertino, I'd have
to ride from where, Sunnyvale? Mountain View? I'll stick with buses.
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 Fenwick
Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
If everyone on Caltrain biked at each end and brought their bike
onboard, how big would the trains have to be, or how often would they
need to run, to maintain the same ridership?
Ed Mooring
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 8/15/2008 1:41 PM Tak Nakamoto spake thus:
> >
> > commuter express type service (AC Transit's transbay routes for instance)
> > the average speed of busses is considerably slower. SF Muni's actual
> > measured average speed is about 8.1 mph and decreasing annually according to
> > the ongoing Transit Effectiveness Project's reports. AC's local service I'm
> > guessing is in the range of 12 to 14 mph.
>
> Taking this side trip a bit further, I'm going to guess that bus service
> may actually be faster in such places as the Deep South Bay, what with
> all those desert stretches down main thoroughfares with lights a mile or
> so apart (thinking of such places as Lawrence Expwy.). Is this so?
According to http://www.vta.org/services/bus_system_stats.html
Scheduled Service Hours in Fiscal Year 2007: 1,364,903
Scheduled Service Miles in Fiscal Year 2007: 18,705,711
Which works out to the magnificent pace of 13.7 mph.
Tom Kunich
>
> So I take it you believe we not only could have won but should have won in
> Vietnam (because we were fighting with "one arm tied behind our back")?
> That we should have napalmed, bombed, Agent Oranged, raped and otherwise
> killed *more* gooks than the millions (MILLIONS--stack that up against the
> precious 55,000)? That we had any business being there at all?
>
> My friend, history is not on your side.
I suggest you don't have the slightest idea what happened.
Bill Z.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers>
David Nebenzahl
Oh, and you do? Tell us, then, what really happened. Give us your summary.
This oughta be good.
SMS
> On 8/15/2008 1:41 PM Tak Nakamoto spake thus:
>
>> "Bill Z." wrote >
>>> Bicycles are significantly faster than busses when you include the
>>> wait for the bus and the walk from the final bus stop to your
>>> destination. Very few people will have both ends of their trip
>>> within walking distance of a train station, assuming they want to
>>> complete their trip in a reasonable time.
>>>
>>> BTW, the average bus speed in something like 15 or 16 mph when you
>>> include all the stops (excluding stop and go traffic). Bicyclists, not
>>> just racers, can go that fast or close (and I'm including stopping at
>>> red lights and stop signs). Even slower ones will still come out
>>> ahead of a bus when you include the transfer delays and walk to one's
>>> destination.
>>
>> You're very optimistic about the actual average speed of busses.
>> Excluding commuter express type service (AC Transit's transbay routes
>> for instance) the average speed of busses is considerably slower. SF
>> Muni's actual measured average speed is about 8.1 mph and decreasing
>> annually according to the ongoing Transit Effectiveness Project's
>> reports. AC's local service I'm guessing is in the range of 12 to 14 mph.
>
> Taking this side trip a bit further, I'm going to guess that bus service
> may actually be faster in such places as the Deep South Bay, what with
> all those desert stretches down main thoroughfares with lights a mile or
> so apart (thinking of such places as Lawrence Expwy.). Is this so?
There is no VTA route on Lawrence Expressway.
I looked at a way for my daughter to get to Planet Granite off of Wolfe,
and there is one bus that takes a circuitous route, but gets there in
about 30 minutes, which is about the same time it would take to bicycle
there, not counting the waiting time.
SMS
> =v= Why is that "the" alternative? BTW, do you have any idea
> what the cost of "secure and sufficient bicycle parking" versus
> more bike space on cars? Just wondering.
The cost of each Bombardier car is about $3 million, and they don't keep
spares around.. I don't know how much extra it costs in terms of fuel
and labor to haul an extra car around.
CalTrain needs to find the political will to spend money on improving
bicycle parking, adding more bike stations, and on taking steps that
will encourage more commuters to have bicycles on each end, or use
folders. If the carrot doesn't work, they can move to the stick and
start charging extra for bicycles during peak times.
Don Freeman
If there is a drastic increase in folding bikes, Caltrain will still
have to come up with someway to accommodate them. They are still pretty
bulky and even though they do not take up as much space as a regular
bike they still take up enough where it would be problematic if such an
increase were to occur. The luggage area and the spare space in the
bike car will only go so far, and keeping the folder by your seat is
impractical.
I'm thinking one possibility would be to take one bike rack area, remove
existing rack and put in a shelf where two layers of folders could be
stored (wheels perpendicular to the walkway). This should take care of
at least eight folders in the space that was originally intended for 4
bikes. As the folding bike population increases (and the full sized
bikes decrease in number) more rack areas could be converted. There may
well be logistical problems with this idea (I am not an engineer) but
something would have to be done and I am just throwing this out there.
Don Freeman
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> If there is a drastic increase in folding bikes, Caltrain will still
> have to come up with someway to accommodate them. They are still
> pretty bulky and even though they do not take up as much space as a
> regular bike they still take up enough where it would be problematic
> if such an increase were to occur. The luggage area and the spare
> space in the bike car will only go so far, and keeping the folder by
> your seat is impractical.
>
I've put my Brompton in the overhead rack (between the upper seats) in the
gallery cars.
73, doug
SMS
> If there is a drastic increase in folding bikes, Caltrain will still
> have to come up with someway to accommodate them. They are still pretty
> bulky and even though they do not take up as much space as a regular
> bike they still take up enough where it would be problematic if such an
> increase were to occur. The luggage area and the spare space in the
> bike car will only go so far, and keeping the folder by your seat is
> impractical.
True, but remember that the folders can be distributed over the whole
train, so there's space for quite a lot of them, depending on the model.
Hopefully more of them will be Brompton/Dahon curve-size, and less of
the larger folders. CalTrain can influence this if they start providing
subsidies as other transit agencies are doing.
What CalTrain is doing is looking at the big picture. A combination of
space for regular bicycles, secure storage at the stations for those
that are willing to have a "station bicycle", and subsidized folding
bicycles for those that want guaranteed access to every train at no
extra cost. Their idea of charging for peak time use of the bicycle car
would only be necessary if a "stick" is needed to get more riders to
forgo taking their regular bicycle on-board or buy folders. The SFBC,
for all the good work it does, has a plan that is designed around the
premise that CalTrain can conjure up a potful of money out of thin air
and use it to provide unlimited bicycle access on all trains.
While it'd be great if CalTrain had enough money to purchase more $3
million dollar cars, as well as the money to staff and maintain them and
pay for the additional fuel, just to provide more bicycle capacity, we
all know that this isn't going to happen. We've been fortunate in the
past that CalTrain has had a sufficiently low load factor that the
removal of seats for bicycle space hasn't resulted in many bumped
non-bicycle passengers, but this is changing.
> I'm thinking one possibility would be to take one bike rack area, remove
> existing rack and put in a shelf where two layers of folders could be
> stored (wheels perpendicular to the walkway). This should take care of
> at least eight folders in the space that was originally intended for 4
> bikes. As the folding bike population increases (and the full sized
> bikes decrease in number) more rack areas could be converted. There may
> well be logistical problems with this idea (I am not an engineer) but
> something would have to be done and I am just throwing this out there.
You'd have the current bicycle users screaming about the lost space, and
saying that there is plenty of room for folders elsewhere on the train.
SMS
> I've put my Brompton in the overhead rack (between the upper seats) in the
> gallery cars.
>
> 73, doug
>
It's too bad that Brompton no longer licenses their design. I have three
Brompton's all purchased in Taiwan, for less than $250 each. They are
the ideal folder for CalTrain.
I'm not aware of any other folder that has as small a folded width as
the Brompton's approximate 10".
I wonder what the largest folder is that would fit in those racks.
Steve Pope
>Don Freeman wrote:
The "Big Picture" is that if you build out a suffficient level
of train/bus public transit in the first place, the fraction of
public transit users who are any sort of bicyclist declines (since
it becomes pratical for average pedestrians to use transit).
Bicyclists are over-represented among Bay Area transit users
_because transit is presently so sparse_. While they will always
be important users, it is silly to view all transit decisions
through the lens of bicycle usage, as though these users will
always be as over-represented as they are now. They won't be. They
will decline, percentage-wise... assuming well-planned transit projects move forward.
Further, among bicycle users in general (a declining fraction
of total users), folding bicycle users will be only a small fraction
of that. Few bicyclists prefer folding bicycles. Given that
folding bike users are a small fraction of a small fraction of
eventual total users, it seems ludicrous to expend more than a
tiny amount of planning resources -- if any -- towards them.
Steve
Don Freeman
> Don Freeman wrote:
>
>
>> I'm thinking one possibility would be to take one bike rack area,
>> remove existing rack and put in a shelf where two layers of folders
>> could be stored (wheels perpendicular to the walkway). This should
>> take care of at least eight folders in the space that was originally
>> intended for 4 bikes. As the folding bike population increases (and
>> the full sized bikes decrease in number) more rack areas could be
>> converted. There may well be logistical problems with this idea (I am
>> not an engineer) but something would have to be done and I am just
>> throwing this out there.
>
> You'd have the current bicycle users screaming about the lost space, and
> saying that there is plenty of room for folders elsewhere on the train.
And rightly so, but I was basing that on a decrease in the use of
regular bikes as well as an increase of folders. As in the current
users switching over to folders such as I have done.
Don Freeman
> Don Freeman wrote:
>
>> If there is a drastic increase in folding bikes, Caltrain will still
>> have to come up with someway to accommodate them. They are still
>> pretty bulky and even though they do not take up as much space as a
>> regular bike they still take up enough where it would be problematic
>> if such an increase were to occur. The luggage area and the spare
>> space in the bike car will only go so far, and keeping the folder by
>> your seat is impractical.
>
> True, but remember that the folders can be distributed over the whole
> train, so there's space for quite a lot of them, depending on the model.
> Hopefully more of them will be Brompton/Dahon curve-size, and less of
> the larger folders. CalTrain can influence this if they start providing
> subsidies as other transit agencies are doing.
>
Other then the bike car, luggage car, and the wheelchair location where
else is there space for them?
Don Freeman
Even if my 20" Dahon would fit, it would be too awkward for me to place
it up there.
Don Freeman
>
> The "Big Picture" is that if you build out a suffficient level
> of train/bus public transit in the first place, the fraction of
> public transit users who are any sort of bicyclist declines (since
> it becomes pratical for average pedestrians to use transit).
> Bicyclists are over-represented among Bay Area transit users
> _because transit is presently so sparse_. While they will always
> be important users, it is silly to view all transit decisions
> through the lens of bicycle usage, as though these users will
> always be as over-represented as they are now. They won't be. They
> will decline, percentage-wise... assuming well-planned transit projects move forward.
>
Maybe not but we should be included in the consideration of any
decisions made in that area as we are a part of the transit using
population. But your view that we are in declining numbers is way off
base. As anyone who has been riding the trains for the past few years
would know purely by observation. The ridership has increased
dramatically and has been doing so way before our current gas "crisis".
> Further, among bicycle users in general (a declining fraction
> of total users), folding bicycle users will be only a small fraction
> of that. Few bicyclists prefer folding bicycles.
Until they try them. I have seen many a train-riding bicyclist change
over to using the folding bikes. I'll give you that I never would have
considered one until I was forced to (by being bumped too many times).
Now that I have been using it though, I prefer it for my quick
transportation needs around towm now, and reserve my road bike for
weekend excursions.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> The "Big Picture" is that if you build out a suffficient level
>> of train/bus public transit in the first place, the fraction of
>> public transit users who are any sort of bicyclist declines (since
>> it becomes pratical for average pedestrians to use transit).
>
>> Bicyclists are over-represented among Bay Area transit users
>> _because transit is presently so sparse_. While they will always
>> be important users, it is silly to view all transit decisions
>> through the lens of bicycle usage, as though these users will
>> always be as over-represented as they are now. They won't be. They
>> will decline, percentage-wise... assuming well-planned transit
>projects move forward.
>Maybe not but we should be included in the consideration of any
>decisions made in that area as we are a part of the transit using
>population.
I would say there's absolutely no threat of bicyclists being
underrepresented in local transit decision making so you
have nothing to worry about.
>But your view that we are in declining numbers is way off
>base.
I did not say *declining numbers*. I said a declining percentage
of total numbers, as those numbers increase.
>As anyone who has been riding the trains for the past few years
>would know purely by observation.
Look at cities with actual good transit service (New York, London)
and you will see far fewer bicycles on transit vehicles,
percentage-wise. This is because these transit systems are
adequate rather than inadequate.
Bay Area mass transit is presently a very marginal system, and so it's
on the edge of being practical for bicycle users, but not practical
for a very large number of non-bicycle users.
Steve
SMS
As someone else pointed out, the overhead rack between the upper seats.
Tom Kunich
>
> Look at cities with actual good transit service (New York, London)
> and you will see far fewer bicycles on transit vehicles,
> percentage-wise. This is because these transit systems are
> adequate rather than inadequate.
>
> Bay Area mass transit is presently a very marginal system, and so it's
> on the edge of being practical for bicycle users, but not practical
> for a very large number of non-bicycle users.
I don't think you understand what you're talking about. New York and London
are FAR SMALLER business areas than the San Francisco bay area.
What's more, those cities believe in having companies INSIDE their city
limits so that housing and working places are close together. This is NOT
the case here. Entire companies have been lost because of the stupid idea
that it is BAD to have a company in a city near the housing of its workers.
And entire generation of electronics businesses were lost because Berkeley
essentially chased them out with over-regulation and taxation. At one
company I worked they were charged with having "hazardous chemicals onsite".
What were these hazardous chemicals? Two unopened cans of motor oil used to
lubricate the lathe and mill.
I can name a half dozen up and coming companies that were destroyed by
having to get out of Berkeley and away from the steady stream of PhD
candidates who could be hired cheaply to develop entirely new technologies.
This also sharply reduced the high tech business everywhere in the area
since such students couldn't get decent paying jobs to pay their way through
schools like UC Berkeley. Even Stanford has dramatically reduced their
output of high end engineers because of the loss of electronics businesses
from the bay area due to this idea that companies and housing shouldn't be
close together.
The end result of such things is that local towns don't need large scale
transportation networks even though AREAS do. Since there are 9 counties,
101 cities and 7,000 sq. miles in the bay area it is difficult to make a
single transportation network.
And adding the state would make it worse. The state controls the bridge
system and these days the bridges are being used as a system to collect more
taxation instead of a system of building an easy transportation system to
enhance business progress.
If anyone believes that a system that can only cover so much ground in an
immense metropolitan area such as this won't have a great deal of bicycle
transportation they are sadly mistaken. What's more, bicycles can greatly
reduce the loadings of the transportation systems save in a few places such
as the train system and BART which are long distance transport.
SMS
> Other then the bike car, luggage car, and the wheelchair location where
> else is there space for them?
As someone else pointed out, smaller folders like the Brompton fit into
the overhead luggage rack above the upper seats on the gallery cars. See
"http://blog.demodulated.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/sf-caltrain-interior0.jpg".
Don Freeman
And as stated earlier, the majority of folders are not that small. They
are also not all that easy to place up there.
SMS
> Further, among bicycle users in general (a declining fraction
> of total users), folding bicycle users will be only a small fraction
> of that. Few bicyclists prefer folding bicycles. Given that
> folding bike users are a small fraction of a small fraction of
> eventual total users, it seems ludicrous to expend more than a
> tiny amount of planning resources -- if any -- towards them.
For sure, it's the hard core public transit commuters that are buying
folding bicycles for the ride between the station and home, and the
station and work. You see them a lot on BART since BART doesn't allow
regular bicycles during peak times.
Subsidized folders would go a long way toward solving the bicycle space
issue on CalTrain. Most riders don't need $1000 folders for the
distances they're riding from the train station.
A $300 subsidy, in the form of reduced monthly pass costs for a given
number of months, would go a long way toward a usable folder. I.e., give
a $25 monthly pass discount for 12 months upon purchase of a folding
bicycle.
SMS
> And as stated earlier, the majority of folders are not that small. They
> are also not all that easy to place up there.
Enough do. If CalTrain decides to institute a subsidy program then they
need to tailor it to provide extra encouragement for the purchase of the
smaller, lighter folders, i.e. the Pacific CarryMe line.
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
If there was enough of a market, then bikes that would fit would
become more available, I think. And, in fact, if CalTrain were to
order new cars with a larger space there, "thicker" bikes would fit
and it'd be even easier to put all bikes up there.
And as far as geting it up there, I'm over 60 years old, and live a
mostly sedentary life, but it's not that difficult, and would be
easier if the bike is bagged. It's probably harder getting it up the
stairs at the end.
I rode a Pacific Carryme in London in May, and it was fine for an
urban "glue" style ride, or a relaxed recreational ride on pavement.
73, doug
SMS
> I rode a Pacific Carryme in London in May, and it was fine for an
> urban "glue" style ride, or a relaxed recreational ride on pavement.
It's a combination of methods that will solve the current problem. The
CarryMe type of folder might be sufficient for enough present bike car
users to use one that the problem is solved. Better bike parking will
also help.
If I was still a bicycle car user and was offered $300 off a CarryMe on
the condition that I no longer use the bicycle car during peak hours I
would jump at the chance if I had a relatively level commute of five
miles or less.
A subsidy is eminently fair. The people that drive, or take public
transit, or a company bus, to and from the train station are already
getting a subsidy on their non-train part of the commute, as are bicycle
car users.
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> Look at cities with actual good transit service (New York, London)
>> and you will see far fewer bicycles on transit vehicles,
>> percentage-wise. This is because these transit systems are
>> adequate rather than inadequate.
>> Bay Area mass transit is presently a very marginal system, and so it's
>> on the edge of being practical for bicycle users, but not practical
>> for a very large number of non-bicycle users.
>I don't think you understand what you're talking about.
You are wrong.
>New York and London
>are FAR SMALLER business areas than the San Francisco bay area.
I did not say they weren't.
>What's more, those cities believe in having companies INSIDE their city
>limits so that housing and working places are close together. This is NOT
>the case here. Entire companies have been lost because of the stupid idea
>that it is BAD to have a company in a city near the housing of its workers.
You are deviating into a discussion of urban planning, as opposed
to transit. Yes, what you are saying it true. No, it does
not refute or contradict anything I've written here.
Steve
CJ
> "Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
> news:g8cq8k$ibi$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> >
> > Look at cities with actual good transit service (New York, London)
> > and you will see far fewer bicycles on transit vehicles,
> > percentage-wise. This is because these transit systems are
> > adequate rather than inadequate.
> >
> > Bay Area mass transit is presently a very marginal system, and so
> > it's on the edge of being practical for bicycle users, but not
> > practical for a very large number of non-bicycle users.
>
> I don't think you understand what you're talking about. New York and
> London are FAR SMALLER business areas than the San Francisco bay area.
Would you please define 'business area' as it applies to New York. With
~15 mil people in the NY metro area and ~5 mil in the SF Bay area, I'm
puzzled.
--
Cliff
Steve Pope
>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> > Look at cities with actual good transit service (New York, London)
>> > and you will see far fewer bicycles on transit vehicles,
>> > percentage-wise. This is because these transit systems are
>> > adequate rather than inadequate.
>> > Bay Area mass transit is presently a very marginal system, and so
>> > it's on the edge of being practical for bicycle users, but not
>> > practical for a very large number of non-bicycle users.
>> I don't think you understand what you're talking about. New York and
>> London are FAR SMALLER business areas than the San Francisco bay area.
>Would you please define 'business area' as it applies to New York. With
>~15 mil people in the NY metro area and ~5 mil in the SF Bay area, I'm
>puzzled.
I interpret Tom's statements as referring to NYC and London having
generally higher population and job density than
the Bay Area. In a backwards sort of way, this means the Bay
Area has a "larger business area" in that if you take the most
central say 2 million jobs in the Bay Area, they are spread over
a much larger area than the most central 2 million jobs in New York.
I look at it the other way: in New York and London, the areas
of very high population/job density extend further outward than
is the case in the Bay Area.
Steve
Tom Kunich
Are you somehow missing my point? In case I'm just not plain enough let me
state this again - BECAUSE California's business plans are for businesses to
be FAR away from homes and because the San Francisco bay area is SO LARGE
and because 101 cities and 9 counties are involved and all of the
governmental BS involved in that sort of thing, you cannot even BEGIN to
compare European or Japanese or any other country's bicycle plans with what
we see here.
If you increase the use of the trains you will probably see an equal
increase in the use of bicycles for transportation to either end.
Please think about this Steve. This isn't a simple matter of getting more
people to ride the trains or something like that. Transportation from the
train and BART ends will always be inadequate until we live in the Caves of
Steel.
Tom Kunich
> CJ <cj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>> "Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>
>>> > Look at cities with actual good transit service (New York, London)
>>> > and you will see far fewer bicycles on transit vehicles,
>>> > percentage-wise. This is because these transit systems are
>>> > adequate rather than inadequate.
>
>>> > Bay Area mass transit is presently a very marginal system, and so
>>> > it's on the edge of being practical for bicycle users, but not
>>> > practical for a very large number of non-bicycle users.
>
>>> I don't think you understand what you're talking about. New York and
>>> London are FAR SMALLER business areas than the San Francisco bay area.
>
>>Would you please define 'business area' as it applies to New York. With
>>~15 mil people in the NY metro area and ~5 mil in the SF Bay area, I'm
>>puzzled.
>
> I interpret Tom's statements as referring to NYC and London having
> generally higher population and job density than
> the Bay Area. In a backwards sort of way, this means the Bay
> Area has a "larger business area" in that if you take the most
> central say 2 million jobs in the Bay Area, they are spread over
> a much larger area than the most central 2 million jobs in New York.
Thanks you Steve. Yes, or more accurately we could say "the majority" of
companies/jobs are more centrally located aside from the fact that the
entire multistate New York Metropolitcan area is actually smaller than the
San Francisco bay area.
> I look at it the other way: in New York and London, the areas
> of very high population/job density extend further outward than
> is the case in the Bay Area.
I have been commuting to work here for 45 years. In that entire time I've
worked within 15 miles of home for perhaps 5 of those years. This is the
NORMAL position for people here.
I had an electronics firm 1/4 mile from my house that employed an engineer
doing what I do who lived in SACRAMENTO. My job was in Santa Clara - 30
miles away. I never got employed by a local company and as far as I know
none of them ever had an employee living within a couple of miles of their
business. I spent years trying to find a local job and finally gave up. Now
I consider myself lucky to work closer than 20 miles from home.
David Nebenzahl
> I have been commuting to work here for 45 years. In that entire time
> I've worked within 15 miles of home for perhaps 5 of those years.
> This is the NORMAL position for people here.
>
> I had an electronics firm 1/4 mile from my house that employed an
> engineer doing what I do who lived in SACRAMENTO. My job was in Santa
> Clara - 30 miles away. I never got employed by a local company and as
> far as I know none of them ever had an employee living within a
> couple of miles of their business. I spent years trying to find a
> local job and finally gave up. Now I consider myself lucky to work
> closer than 20 miles from home.
Hey, people like Jack May think this is not only normal, but somehow
desirable: after all, we have these things called cars. What're you
complaining about?
--
"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".
kkt
This is a good point. And part of the reason for that is building
expensive rail lines to low-density suburbs rather than serving the
suburbs with adequate bus service. BART to Pittsburgh and Livermore,
for instance. It's great if you happen to live near the line, but
sucks up all the money that should be used for widespread, frequent
bus service.
-- Patrick
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> I interpret Tom's statements as referring to NYC and London having
>> generally higher population and job density than
>> the Bay Area. In a backwards sort of way, this means the Bay
>> Area has a "larger business area" in that if you take the most
>> central say 2 million jobs in the Bay Area, they are spread over
>> a much larger area than the most central 2 million jobs in New York.
>Thanks you Steve. Yes, or more accurately we could say "the majority" of
>companies/jobs are more centrally located aside from the fact that the
>entire multistate New York Metropolitcan area is actually smaller than the
>San Francisco bay area.
>> I look at it the other way: in New York and London, the areas
>> of very high population/job density extend further outward than
>> is the case in the Bay Area.
I'll concede that the NYC metro area is smaller than the
Bay Area; specifically BART covers far more distance than
the NYC subway system. (Add in the metro trains around
New York, include a few New Jersey and CT cities, and the
distinction is not as great, but is still there.)
Regarding London, it more resembles southern California than it
does the Bay Area: around London you have 22.9 million people
living in 15,364 square miles. This combines together London
with Hertfordshire, Essex, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk,
Suffolk, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire,
Hampshire, and all of Sussex. It's very close to the same
numbers if you looked at L.A., Orange, San Diego, and the urban
areas of Riverside/San Bernadino counties. So I would say the Bay Area
is nowhere near as large as this, matter how you add it up.
Steve
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
>> What's more, those cities believe in having companies INSIDE their city
>> limits so that housing and working places are close together. This is NOT
>> the case here. Entire companies have been lost because of the stupid idea
>> that it is BAD to have a company in a city near the housing of its workers.
>
> You are deviating into a discussion of urban planning, as opposed
> to transit. [...]
Give that man a job at MTC!
The only problem with San Jose or Bishop Ranch or Livermore or
Sebastapol or Fremont is clearly that we're not wasting ENOUGH
money on such basket cases.
You know, "once we complete the network" VTA light rail will
make "San Jose like Paris". (Well, Diridon used to say that
about his pet light rail scam. Now he's saying that about
his limitlessly fraudulent BART scam.) Just a few tens of
billions more now ... but in the meantime, keep subdividing!
SMS
> This is a good point. And part of the reason for that is building
> expensive rail lines to low-density suburbs rather than serving the
> suburbs with adequate bus service. BART to Pittsburgh and Livermore,
> for instance. It's great if you happen to live near the line, but
> sucks up all the money that should be used for widespread, frequent
> bus service.
Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
eventually.
The problem with buses is that the bus systems continually cut out bus
lines, so you can't plan your housing or commute around buses. The VTA
in Santa Clara County is especially bad about cutting bus lines.
Richard Mlynarik
> kkt wrote:
>
>> This is a good point. And part of the reason for that is building
>> expensive rail lines to low-density suburbs rather than serving the
>> suburbs with adequate bus service. BART to Pittsburgh and Livermore,
>> for instance. It's great if you happen to live near the line, but
>> sucks up all the money that should be used for widespread, frequent
>> bus service.
>
> Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
If you'd taken the BILLIONS of dollars completely WASTED on scams
like BART to Pittsburg, BART to Dublin, VTA light rail, BART to Millbrae
and just put them in a savings account you'd be able to do a lot more
good with just the 3% interest than the "eventual high density" (where!)
that scammers, economic illiterates and hopeless foamers fervently
"believe" will show up one day.
Rail absolutely has its place, but not the sorts of places and not
at the quite literally criminal costs that our local "transportation"
(really: construction) mafias come up with.
Half a billion for eBART to Discovery Nowhere! Ten billion for BART
to Santa Nowhere! A billion for Muni to Brisbane!
Forty billion for high speed rail to San Nowhere!
kkt
> kkt wrote:
>
> > This is a good point. And part of the reason for that is building
> > expensive rail lines to low-density suburbs rather than serving the
> > suburbs with adequate bus service. BART to Pittsburgh and Livermore,
> > for instance. It's great if you happen to live near the line, but
> > sucks up all the money that should be used for widespread, frequent
> > bus service.
>
> Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
> eventually.
Maybe, maybe not. Is it zoned for high density? Will the stations be
surrounded by half a mile of "free" BART parking lots making it
impossible to build condos/apartments/town houses next to the station?
> The problem with buses is that the bus systems continually cut out bus
> lines, so you can't plan your housing or commute around buses. The VTA
> in Santa Clara County is especially bad about cutting bus lines.
Because VTA Light Rail is sucking up all the money! There's no reason
to build light rail at all if the planned frequency is less than every
10 minutes, that could be served just as well by busses.
There's no certainty that transit agencies will continue reasonable
levels of service even if there's rail built. Look at BART from
Millbrae to SFO for a classic example. BART bled SamTrans 'til they
bled white, and now there's much less bus service throughout San Mateo
County, and in particularly people bound from Millbrae to SFO have a
much, much longer route involving a BART transfer and a longer walk,
in exchange for bus service that was direct and free. In spite of the
$ nine figures per mile BART line from Millbrae to SFO.
-- Patrick
Steve Pope
>> Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
>> eventually.
>Maybe, maybe not. Is it zoned for high density? Will the stations be
>surrounded by half a mile of "free" BART parking lots making it
>impossible to build condos/apartments/town houses next to the station?
Bingo... that's one of the main deficiencies of the BART system --
inappropriately located stations often surrounded by parking lots.
Instead of encouraging high-density housing near stations, BART
bulldozed it.
Steve
Tom Kunich
news:mlDqk.19711$89....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
> eventually.
This is absolutely NOT happening around the BART lines. And as far as I can
see neither is it happening around the rail lines. The bay area simply is
too spread out or more accurately - the central places such as the largest
cities have discouraged real businesses. These places place all sorts of
taxation and/or regulations on businesses in their areas and so they simply
move elsewhere. You know it has to be pretty bad when a cookie factory has
to move to avoid scandelously high tax rates.
> The problem with buses is that the bus systems continually cut out bus
> lines, so you can't plan your housing or commute around buses. The VTA in
> Santa Clara County is especially bad about cutting bus lines.
They have limited funding and so can only run lines that are most active.
What is significant is that the housing and work areas are so spread out
that bus lines will NEVER be able to afford comprehensive routes. And I
don't want to be paying taxes so that Santa Clara has bus lines running in
areas where they have two and three passengers for most of the run.
Tom Kunich
>
> Because VTA Light Rail is sucking up all the money! There's no reason
> to build light rail at all if the planned frequency is less than every
> 10 minutes, that could be served just as well by busses.
I was shocked when I rode VTA the couple of times I've used it. When I was a
small kid we had Key System rail lines all over Oakland and the Berkeley
area and they ran across the Bay Bridge to San Franciso. Those trains were
FASTER than VTA and about as comfortable.
Steve Pope
>"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
>> eventually.
>This is absolutely NOT happening around the BART lines. And as far as I can
>see neither is it happening around the rail lines. The bay area simply is
>too spread out or more accurately - the central places such as the largest
>cities have discouraged real businesses.
You're right, in almost all cases. Certainly the outlying stations
are permanent wasteleands. But some areas of better than
average commercial/residential development are near more inner
BART stations, and I am guessing there is a cause-and-effect.
The Temescal district of Oakland is going strong, as is North Berkeley.
MacArthur BART, while it has a large parking lot, fortunately
has the station entrance near the north edge of the lot, so
that enables development in the Temescal district to the north.
South of the station is still a wasteland until you get to
Adams Point and downtown -- because the parking lot, and
MacArthur Blvd, are in the way.
North Berkeley station is disastrously entirely encircled by a
parking lot, but people in the area tell me it's still a positive
in terms of locating there. With energy prices where they
are, if you're within 3/4 mile of one of the closer-in BART
stations, you are golden.
They should completely fill in these loser parking lots with
high-density mixed-use.
Steve
kkt
My parents told me a little about them. In some places they had their
own right of way so they wouldn't be competing with car traffic. My
parents said after WW II they were pretty run-down and not that
comfortable -- but of course between the depression and the war they
hadn't gotten more than minimal maintenance for 20 years.
-- Patrick
SMS
> Because VTA Light Rail is sucking up all the money! There's no reason
> to build light rail at all if the planned frequency is less than every
> 10 minutes, that could be served just as well by busses.
If you build light rail correctly, its advantage is that it doesn't get
caught in traffic. Of course with VTA light rail it's slow because of
political considerations.
> There's no certainty that transit agencies will continue reasonable
> levels of service even if there's rail built. Look at BART from
> Millbrae to SFO for a classic example. BART bled SamTrans 'til they
> bled white, and now there's much less bus service throughout San Mateo
> County, and in particularly people bound from Millbrae to SFO have a
> much, much longer route involving a BART transfer and a longer walk,
> in exchange for bus service that was direct and free. In spite of the
> $ nine figures per mile BART line from Millbrae to SFO.
Yes, that's a sore point with me, since I've tried using CalTrain to
SFO. It's just too much of a hassle with the two or three transfers and
the much longer walk.
I wish voters would stop falling for the rhetoric of organizations like
the horribly misnamed "Silicon Valley Leadership Group" and stop
approving sales tax increases that are allegedly to fund BART. BART
isn't needed at all in San Jose. Use the money to fund the
electrification of CalTrain and ACE, and increased frequency.
SMS
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Once you build a rail line, you get more high density around the line
>>> eventually.
>
>> This is absolutely NOT happening around the BART lines. And as far as I can
>> see neither is it happening around the rail lines. The bay area simply is
>> too spread out or more accurately - the central places such as the largest
>> cities have discouraged real businesses.
>
> You're right, in almost all cases.
Not true.
Look at the Millbrae Eighty Eight condo development
("http://www.88southbroadway.com/map.htm") near the Millbrae BART
station. Look at the huge development across the street from Tanforan
mall and the San Bruno BART station. Neither of these would have been
likely without BART stations within walking distance. Another
development was recently approved adjacent to the Colma BART station.
Similarly, a great deal of high-density housing has been going in next
to CalTrain stations.
Rail lines are relatively permanent, and developers and residents see
the advantages in high density housing close to stations. OTOH, building
high density housing in areas with no transit just creates more traffic
and pollution.
Tom Kunich
I rode them as a small child in the late 40's and early 50's before they
were "sold" off to AC Transit. The streetcars were being replaced by buses
at that time. The streetcars around Oakland and Berkeley were effective
though the population of the area at that point was a great deal smaller
than now.
There were also several trains that went across the lower floor of the Bay
Bridge and those were dying rapidly because cars were replacing all the
other transportation at a tremendous rate. Soon they pulled the rails off of
the bridge and made the roadway one directional high and lower floors.
The buses also had less restricted routes since they didn't have to run on
rails beneath electric lines.
Many of the heavy businesses in those days were quite dirty. lots of
iron-work and such that made massive amounts of black dust etc. The
hoity-toities began thinking that they didn't want that sort of stuff in
"their" towns and most of the big businesses that employed people started
being pressured to move way out into the country. Well that worked about
mediocre since the population grew so fast because of all the work that the
towns expanded into the open spaces and the businesses were in the middle of
people yet again. They were again pressured with taxes and inspections and
requirements to get out of dodge and that's what's been happening.
Now the great idealism of the government has opened the borders so that the
main business of the bay area - electronics - has been moved to India, China
and Taiwan. The pressure has been placed again upon the biotech businesses
and they are deserting the bay area as well. Soon there'll be no large
businesses left in the bay area and unless something is done, in the state
of California.
Unless the dopey Dems are replaced to a man and anti-business laws pulled,
this state will start to resemble Alabama before the business boom.
Tom Kunich
>
> Look at the Millbrae Eighty Eight condo development
> ("http://www.88southbroadway.com/map.htm") near the Millbrae BART station.
> Look at the huge development across the street from Tanforan mall and the
> San Bruno BART station. Neither of these would have been likely without
> BART stations within walking distance.
Man are you a dreamer. Psst - they are adjacent to a FREEWAY and have a
parallel freeway not very far away.
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
How dense would the housing be? A parking space is about 200 to 250
square feet (parking stall plus adjacent aisle space). If you build even
dense housing, you will still need some parking--this isn't Manhattan,
yet, so groceries and other services are not well-served by transit. So
for a 1000 square foot apartment (not counting service areas, corridors,
etc.), you've displaced about five spaces, and you still need one, so
you need at least six stories to break even. Not high, but relatively
high for most non-urban construction. And that assumes that the
occupants will use the adjacent transit.
There are models for this, like parking garages stacked under
residential, but it takes developers with lots of incentive to build
adjacent to transit--too close it not desirable for noise, too far and
the walk-to factor is gone. And don't forget earthquakes--no one wants
to be in a high-rise in one.
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
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> kkt <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> >Maybe, maybe not. Is it zoned for high density? Will the stations be
>> >surrounded by half a mile of "free" BART parking lots making it
>> >impossible to build condos/apartments/town houses next to the station?
>> Bingo... that's one of the main deficiencies of the BART system --
>> inappropriately located stations often surrounded by parking lots.
>> Instead of encouraging high-density housing near stations, BART
>> bulldozed it.
>How dense would the housing be? A parking space is about 200 to 250
>square feet (parking stall plus adjacent aisle space). If you build even
>dense housing, you will still need some parking--this isn't Manhattan,
>yet, so groceries and other services are not well-served by transit. So
>for a 1000 square foot apartment (not counting service areas, corridors,
>etc.), you've displaced about five spaces, and you still need one, so
>you need at least six stories to break even. Not high, but relatively
>high for most non-urban construction. And that assumes that the
>occupants will use the adjacent transit.
>
>There are models for this, like parking garages stacked under
>residential, but it takes developers with lots of incentive to build
>adjacent to transit--too close it not desirable for noise, too far and
>the walk-to factor is gone. And don't forget earthquakes--no one wants
>to be in a high-rise in one.
So are you saying it was not a mistake for BART to bulldoze
housing to build those parking lots? Are you saying the
parking lots are actually good, and the resultant BART stations
are not in the middle of a wasteland?
Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
University. El Cerrito station should have been placed
at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
And is the cost of a multi-story parking structure significant
when we're talking an expenditure on the level of BART?
How much did they have to pay to condemn the housing they
bulldozed??
Steve
Tom Kunich
>
> So are you saying it was not a mistake for BART to bulldoze
> housing to build those parking lots? Are you saying the
> parking lots are actually good, and the resultant BART stations
> are not in the middle of a wasteland?
Your definitions certainly don't make a lot of sense. The parking lots for
the BART station is completely filled most days. The surrounding housing is
clear of the station noise and it is only ONE BLOCK. What the heck are you
talking about?
> Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
> placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
> University.
Wrong - originally North Berkeley station was ideally placed to service the
business district less than one mile to the west and the school less than
one mile to the east. It was Berkeley that worked assiduously to destroy all
of the businesses that the BART station was designed to service.
> El Cerrito station should have been placed
> at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
> these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
> with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
> obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
Because it only takes 3 minutes to walk that far? Is there something wrong
with your locomotion?
> And is the cost of a multi-story parking structure significant
> when we're talking an expenditure on the level of BART?
> How much did they have to pay to condemn the housing they
> bulldozed??
Multistoried parking structures would have turned those north Berkeley
neighborhoods into huge ugly eyesores.
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> So are you saying it was not a mistake for BART to bulldoze
>> housing to build those parking lots? Are you saying the
>> parking lots are actually good, and the resultant BART stations
>> are not in the middle of a wasteland?
>Your definitions certainly don't make a lot of sense. The parking lots for
>the BART station is completely filled most days. The surrounding housing is
>clear of the station noise and it is only ONE BLOCK. What the heck are you
>talking about?
>> Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
>> placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
>> University.
>Wrong - originally North Berkeley station was ideally placed to service the
>business district less than one mile to the west and the school less than
>one mile to the east.
It seems to me that under the Key Route system, serving the
same part of Berkeley, they did not have to demolish any housing
yet the trains were popular and successful. This to me points to
the idea that demolishing housing was not necessary to rail system
success.
>It was Berkeley that worked assiduously to destroy all
>of the businesses that the BART station was designed to service.
I'm sure BART, Berkeley, and other political entities share
the blame.
>> El Cerrito station should have been placed
>> at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
>> these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
>> with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
>> obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
>Because it only takes 3 minutes to walk that far? Is there something wrong
>with your locomotion?
No, but why place a station 3 minutes walk away from human
activity when you can place it 3 minutes closer?
BART couldn't escape the problem of stations being spaced at
intervals that are too distant for many users, but they could
have at least placed the stations they did build closer
to users.
>Multistoried parking structures would have turned those north Berkeley
>neighborhoods into huge ugly eyesores.
Possibly. To me they are no uglier than similar-sized
condo buildings, or the stations themselves.
Steve
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>
> >> So are you saying it was not a mistake for BART to bulldoze
> >> housing to build those parking lots? Are you saying the
> >> parking lots are actually good, and the resultant BART stations
> >> are not in the middle of a wasteland?
>
> >Your definitions certainly don't make a lot of sense. The parking lots for
> >the BART station is completely filled most days. The surrounding housing is
> >clear of the station noise and it is only ONE BLOCK. What the heck are you
> >talking about?
>
> >> Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
> >> placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
> >> University.
>
> >Wrong - originally North Berkeley station was ideally placed to service the
> >business district less than one mile to the west and the school less than
> >one mile to the east.
>
> It seems to me that under the Key Route system, serving the
> same part of Berkeley, they did not have to demolish any housing
> yet the trains were popular and successful. This to me points to
> the idea that demolishing housing was not necessary to rail system
> success.
Key was an above-ground system, designed to be at-grade with other
traffic. BART can't do that. That doesn't make it the "right" thing to
do, but possibly necessary to put in BART.
> >> El Cerrito station should have been placed
> >> at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
> >> these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
> >> with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
> >> obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
>
> >Because it only takes 3 minutes to walk that far? Is there something wrong
> >with your locomotion?
>
> No, but why place a station 3 minutes walk away from human
> activity when you can place it 3 minutes closer?
Safety, construction costs, construction noise/activity?
> >Multistoried parking structures would have turned those north Berkeley
> >neighborhoods into huge ugly eyesores.
>
> Possibly. To me they are no uglier than similar-sized
> condo buildings, or the stations themselves.
In Mountain View, the city has gone to some lengths to place parking off
the main streets. This is not the case in many cities.
Re: housing demolished to make way for BART: It may or may not have made
sense. The existing occupants may not have used that mass transit mode,
since it was not a factor when they chose those homes. A better
trade-off might have been leaving some housing, further from the
station, and higher-density parking close to the station. All of this
could change if personal transportation costs remain high, and ridership
from affected stations can be increased to justify more parking or local
high-density housing.
Steve Pope
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> >"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> >> Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
>> >> placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
>> >> University.
>> >> El Cerrito station should have been placed
>> >> at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
>> >> these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
>> >> with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
>> >> obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
>> >Because it only takes 3 minutes to walk that far? Is there something wrong
>> >with your locomotion?
>> No, but why place a station 3 minutes walk away from human
>> activity when you can place it 3 minutes closer?
>Safety, construction costs, construction noise/activity?
Expand upon "safety"; I'm not seeing it.
Construction costs -- not sure. Construction noise -- not
an issue.
A real problem with not locating transit stations directly
on major streets is that then the connecting bus service
is poor. AC Transit 72 has to divert off of San Pablo
to get to El Cerrito station, then it has to do it again
at Del Norte Station. It's wildly inefficient. AC Transit
51 does not even go to North Berkeley station, which is
served only by a few minor bus lines again with circuitous
routes.
In other major cities, you exit the subway and are immediately at
a bus stop along a busy street. The bus does not have to
divert. To be fair the same is true of some BART stations --
downtown SF, downtown Oakland, downtown Berkeley. Those and
a handful of others are reasonably located.
>In Mountain View, the city has gone to some lengths to place parking off
>the main streets. This is not the case in many cities.
>
>Re: housing demolished to make way for BART: It may or may not have made
>sense. The existing occupants may not have used that mass transit mode,
>since it was not a factor when they chose those homes.
Some of them probably lived in their houses back when there
was Key Route and other public transit in the area. All told
there were train lines along Shattuck, Sacramento, in the
Santa Fe corridor (between Sacramento and San Pablo),
on San Pablo, and the SP line west of San Pablo.
> A better trade-off might have been leaving some housing,
> further from the station, and higher-density parking close to
> the station.
That would have been an improvement, yes.
>All of this could change if personal transportation
>costs remain high, and ridership from affected stations can be
>increased to justify more parking or local high-density housing.
It's hard to get any housing past the local nimboids. They fought
tooth/nail against the Kennedy Building, a 5 minute walk from
North Berkeley station, built on an abandoned lot and obviously
a big neighborhood improvement. They are frothing and fuming at
Bus Rapid Transit. I am happy to have the chance to vote
against the nimbies in the next election, but their anti-transit
platform will probably win.
Steve
Steve Fenwick
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> >"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>
> >> >> Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
> >> >> placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
> >> >> University.
>
> >> >> El Cerrito station should have been placed
> >> >> at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
> >> >> these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
> >> >> with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
> >> >> obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
>
> >> >Because it only takes 3 minutes to walk that far? Is there something
> >> >wrong
> >> >with your locomotion?
>
> >> No, but why place a station 3 minutes walk away from human
> >> activity when you can place it 3 minutes closer?
>
> >Safety, construction costs, construction noise/activity?
>
> Expand upon "safety"; I'm not seeing it.
BART fundamentally cannot go at-grade in the middle of a street with
other traffic--the power feed is just wrong for it (same as D.C. Metro).
So you have to be underground, or above-roadway (like the El), or
above-ground but away from everything else (Metro out in the boonies).
> Construction costs -- not sure. Construction noise -- not
> an issue.
Construction costs--it might have been prohibitively expensive to bury
the line where you suggest--deeper dig to miss existing utilities,
sewers, whatever. Different soil?
"Construction noise" is code for NIMBY; the locals right there might not
have wanted it there, or to put up with the construction noise/mess for
year after year, or wanted it to be further away (e.g., Metro kept out
of Georgetown in D.C. mostly due to local political pressure).
> >All of this could change if personal transportation
> >costs remain high, and ridership from affected stations can be
> >increased to justify more parking or local high-density housing.
>
> It's hard to get any housing past the local nimboids. They fought
> tooth/nail against the Kennedy Building, a 5 minute walk from
> North Berkeley station, built on an abandoned lot and obviously
> a big neighborhood improvement. They are frothing and fuming at
> Bus Rapid Transit. I am happy to have the chance to vote
> against the nimbies in the next election, but their anti-transit
> platform will probably win.
Good luck with that.
kkt
> kkt wrote:
>
> > Because VTA Light Rail is sucking up all the money! There's no reason
> > to build light rail at all if the planned frequency is less than every
> > 10 minutes, that could be served just as well by busses.
>
> If you build light rail correctly, its advantage is that it doesn't get
> caught in traffic. Of course with VTA light rail it's slow because of
> political considerations.
To make it fast, they would have had to either lose a lane for cars,
or bury it, or elevate it. Losing a lane to cars would have been
unacceptable to drivers, and the other alternatives way too expensive.
So instead we have a very expensive system that's no better, and in
some ways worse, than busses.
In places where it's acceptable to lose a lane to cars, one could
build exclusive bus rapid transit lanes. Then busses could run along
them for part of their routes and split off to share the road with
cars along the lower-density areas.
> > There's no certainty that transit agencies will continue reasonable
> > levels of service even if there's rail built. Look at BART from
> > Millbrae to SFO for a classic example. BART bled SamTrans 'til they
> > bled white, and now there's much less bus service throughout San Mateo
> > County, and in particularly people bound from Millbrae to SFO have a
> > much, much longer route involving a BART transfer and a longer walk,
> > in exchange for bus service that was direct and free. In spite of the
> > $ nine figures per mile BART line from Millbrae to SFO.
>
> Yes, that's a sore point with me, since I've tried using CalTrain to
> SFO. It's just too much of a hassle with the two or three transfers and
> the much longer walk.
>
> I wish voters would stop falling for the rhetoric of organizations like
> the horribly misnamed "Silicon Valley Leadership Group" and stop
> approving sales tax increases that are allegedly to fund BART. BART
> isn't needed at all in San Jose. Use the money to fund the
> electrification of CalTrain and ACE, and increased frequency.
Yes, that would be good.
-- Patrick
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> Your definitions certainly don't make a lot of sense. The parking lots for
> the BART station is completely filled most days. The surrounding housing is
> clear of the station noise and it is only ONE BLOCK. What the heck are you
> talking about?
Station noise? What the heck are _you_ talking about?
>
> > Let's take North Berkeley Station. It should have been
> > placed directly under the intersection of San Pablo and
> > University.
>
> Wrong - originally North Berkeley station was ideally placed to service the
> business district less than one mile to the west and the school less than
> one mile to the east. It was Berkeley that worked assiduously to destroy all
> of the businesses that the BART station was designed to service.
Actually, the North Berkeley station was originally intended to
be centrally located on Solano Ave.
>
> > El Cerrito station should have been placed
> > at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount. Instead,
> > these stations are 1/4 or more mile away from major streets
> > with their businesses, and what housing had been nearby, has been
> > obliterated. How can this possibly be a good thing?
>
> Because it only takes 3 minutes to walk that far? Is there something wrong
> with your locomotion?
The Nimby merchants on Telegraph are screaming bloody
murder because a few parking spots will get relocated all
of 1 block away from their stores with the BRT. Imagine if they
were told the distance would be 1/4 mile.
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> Not true.
>
> Look at the Millbrae Eighty Eight condo development
> ("http://www.88southbroadway.com/map.htm") near the Millbrae BART
> station.
You mean the station that OBLITERATED an entire
low-income apartment block to build a parking garage?
> Similarly, a great deal of high-density housing has been going in next
> to CalTrain stations.
Which is utterly indistinguishable from the type of housing going
up all over the valley.
>
> Rail lines are relatively permanent, and developers and residents see
> the advantages in high density housing close to stations.
Developers could care less. They would like to maximize the
value of their land, and would be perfectly happy and willing
to build high-density whether or not a railway station happened
to be located nearby.
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> kkt wrote:
>>
>>> Because VTA Light Rail is sucking up all the money! There's no reason
>>> to build light rail at all if the planned frequency is less than every
>>> 10 minutes, that could be served just as well by busses.
>> If you build light rail correctly, its advantage is that it doesn't get
>> caught in traffic. Of course with VTA light rail it's slow because of
>> political considerations.
>
> To make it fast, they would have had to either lose a lane for cars,
> or bury it, or elevate it. Losing a lane to cars would have been
> unacceptable to drivers, and the other alternatives way too expensive.
> So instead we have a very expensive system that's no better, and in
> some ways worse, than busses.
Obviously you're not familiar with the VTA light rail system. Nearly all
of it is not shared with cars. The big bottleneck is the section through
downtown San Jose.
> In places where it's acceptable to lose a lane to cars, one could
> build exclusive bus rapid transit lanes.
Way too expensive.
SMS
> Which is utterly indistinguishable from the type of housing going
> up all over the valley.
The trandominiums are quite distinguishable.
> Developers could care less. They would like to maximize the
> value of their land, and would be perfectly happy and willing
> to build high-density whether or not a railway station happened
> to be located nearby.
That's true, but at least in some areas they can't get land rezoned to
high density when there's no mass transit available.
Steve Pope
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> >> >> El Cerrito station should have been placed
>> >> >> at the intersection of San Pablo and Fairmount.
>> >Safety, construction costs, construction noise/activity?
>> Expand upon "safety"; I'm not seeing it.
>BART fundamentally cannot go at-grade in the middle of a street with
>other traffic--the power feed is just wrong for it (same as D.C. Metro).
>So you have to be underground, or above-roadway (like the El), or
>above-ground but away from everything else (Metro out in the boonies).
Thanks for clarifying. I did not suggest the line be placed at
grade. I was assuming overhead tracks as is presently the case in
El Cerrito.
>> Construction costs -- not sure. Construction noise -- not
>> an issue.
>Construction costs--it might have been prohibitively expensive to bury
>the line where you suggest--deeper dig to miss existing utilities,
>sewers, whatever. Different soil?
Berkeley taxpayers voted to pay extra for undergrounding BART.
(Around $900 million, not a small sum at the time.) Unless
El Cerrito wanted to do the same, they got an overhead system.
I suppose an overhead line over San Pablo Ave might have been
seen as un-aesthetic.
>> [snip] I am happy to have the chance to vote
>> against the nimbies in the next election, but their anti-transit
>> platform will probably win.
>
>Good luck with that.
Thanks..
S.
Richard Mlynarik
>> Which is utterly indistinguishable from the type of housing going
>> up all over the valley.
>
> The trandominiums are quite distinguishable. [...]
Is must be the thin veneer of greenwash.
SMS
Hey, greenwashing became an art under W.
Seriously though, those that claim that rail transit doesn't spur
high-density development are simply incorrect. There are numerous
studies that show that it does.
Jym Dyer
> is bike/train "proven" to be a better alternative to cars
> than pedestrian/train or train/bus transit combinations??
=v= Of all these options, the bike+train combination is the only
thing that competes with cars as a true door-to-door solution*.
=v= The proof is in the popularity of Caltrain's bikes-on-board
program, which grew steadily right up until they bought the
Bombardiers that can only carry half as many bikes. It's also
in Caltrain's own rider surveys, which show that the program
could attract at least twice as many riders if it was reliable.
<_Jym_>
________________________________________________________________
* Modulo the very rare journeys that begin and end precisely
next to transit stops.
Jym Dyer
> enough on the pedestrian portion to be practical.
=v= On both ends of the journey. The number of people with
that type of commute is mighty small, and is not going to get
any bigger until area developers stop misusing the concept of
transit-oriented development to mean building parking garages.
> train/bus: the problem with this is making connections.
=v= I've tried this out when I was injured earlier this year.
Muni -> Caltrain -> Samtrans is pretty hopeless. There is no
concept of timed transfer in San Francisco, even for those rare
occasions when Muni actually arrived at the Caltrain station
on time. Samtrans runs infrequently where I need it, and that
connection is very tight even when Caltrain is on time.
<_Jym_>
Steve Pope
> Steve Pope wrote,
>> I have nothing against bikes on Caltrain but by what evidence
>> is bike/train "proven" to be a better alternative to cars
>> than pedestrian/train or train/bus transit combinations??
>=v= Of all these options, the bike+train combination is the only
>thing that competes with cars as a true door-to-door solution*.
Okay.
>=v= The proof is in the popularity of Caltrain's bikes-on-board
>program, which grew steadily right up until they bought the
>Bombardiers that can only carry half as many bikes. It's also
>in Caltrain's own rider surveys, which show that the program
>could attract at least twice as many riders if it was reliable.
Thanks.
I agree that when public transit is sparse, bikes-on-transit
works better than other modalities. But I disagree this is generally
true, since when transit systems are built out more thoroughly,
such that the amount of walking a pedestrian user must undertake
becomes small, the advantages of bikes-on-transit decline, and after
a certain point the disadvantages (more space/weight required per
passenger) outweigh the advantages.
So, in my view Caltrain does not prove anything in the general case.
Steve
Jym Dyer
> CalTrain needs to find the political will to spend money on
> improving bicycle parking, adding more bike stations, and
> on taking steps that will encourage more commuters to have
> bicycles on each end, or use folders.
=v= All you're doing is repeating your assertions. I asked
about your assumptions, particularly the costs, that underlies
you making these assertions. You say Caltrain "needs" to do
all these things, but you haven't made a case for it.
<_Jym_>