SM-DAILY-NEWS\LETTER: Caltrain driving away bicyclists
Jym Dyer
Letters to the Editor
San Mateo Daily News | Saturday, 23-Aug-2008
Caltrain driving away bicyclists
Dear Editor: The Caltrain Joint Powers Board is slated in October to
accept a bicycle plan that will, in the end, cut current carry-on-
board bicycle-car capacity. The existing 7 percent capacity will drop
to 5 percent. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and San Mateo
County, through City/County Association of Governments, have mandated
that the daily number of automobile trips be reduced to cut emissions
in an effort to improve air quality. What this means is that drivers
who need a bike to get to the train station, as well as to reach their
final destination after deboarding, will be denied bicycle boarding
access. Those passengers will, and have already begun to, return to
using their cars because the train is proving unreliable.
In its Draft Bicycle Access and Parking Plan, Caltrain has considered
the addition of an extra tariff to carry bicycles aboard its trains.
(Pages 34-36: "... such a fee could reduce onboard bicycle demand and
encourage bicycle parking at stations. ... In addition, an amendment
to California Civil Code would be required").
If Caltrain is successful in its bid to change California Civil Code
sections 2180 and 2181, then surcharges could be added not only for
Caltrain bicycle carriage, but to all rail, bus and ferry systems
throughout the state. Surcharges that might become prohibitively
expensive would certainly discourage present and future users of this
option on all public transit. And a bicycle surcharge is economically
discriminatory because baby strollers, luggage and other large parcels
would continue to enjoy a "free ride."
Pat Giorni,
Burlingame
Jym Dyer
| If Caltrain is successful in its bid to change California
| Civil Code sections 2180 and 2181, then surcharges could
| be added not only for Caltrain bicycle carriage, but to
| all rail, bus and ferry systems throughout the state.
=v= This refers to the Common Carrier law. Caltrain's plan
actually proposes to take away rights statewide which bicyclists
and other Californians have had for years.
<_Jym_>
David Kaye
> Dear Editor: The Caltrain Joint Powers Board is slated in October to
> accept a bicycle plan that will, in the end, cut current carry-on-
> board bicycle-car capacity.
On the other hand, what can Caltrain be reasonably expected to do?
Bikes take up a lot of room that could be used for more passengers now
that Caltrain ridership is at a peak. Since a bicyclist plus non-
folding bike take up the space of 3 passengers it's reasonable to
either clear the bikes out of the way and make room for more
passengers OR charge triple for the cyclists and their bikes.
I have a bike. I ride it from time to time. I'm not anti-bike, but I
do indeed see a point that Caltrain wants to carry as many people as
possible.
Being a bicycle expert, what solution can you find that will save
enough space so that Caltrain doesn't need to reduce bike load-ins?
SMS
> Being a bicycle expert, what solution can you find that will save
> enough space so that Caltrain doesn't need to reduce bike load-ins?
Ai-yah, please don't call him a bicycle expert!
Whatever the solution is, it has to be practical financially. There is
no money to add more $3 million rail cars, nor there is money to even
implement the parking plan they have. CalTrain is struggling with
increasing fuel costs, and packed trains, but has no money for more
rolling stock or more frequent service.
Any plan should also be part of a broader plan that includes congestion
pricing. The huge fare increase that CalTrain is planning (25в per zone)
should be accompanied by a program to increase ridership off-peak with
lower fares.
Weekends are a time when they could greatly increase ridership with some
sort of "family" pass. I.e. we go to SF a lot, but I calculated the cost
of using transit for a four people, and it would cost about $80, versus
about $16 in gasoline (yeah, I know that there are more costs than just
fuel in operating a vehicle, but the incremental cost of 100 extra miles
is in reality quite negligible other than fuel.
The transit agencies should get together and market weekend TransLinkо
cards as a way of generating revenue on weekends and holidays when
ridership is extremely low on many systems, but where the systems are
still forced to run service.
What's unique about the bicycle situation is that the bicycle users were
nearly 100% upside revenue for CalTrain because the trains were so
lightly used when the program was started. Now they're about to become a
drag on the system since the bicycle parking area results in lower capacity.
Richard Mlynarik
> On Aug 23, 10:48 am, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Editor: The Caltrain Joint Powers Board is slated in October to
>> accept a bicycle plan that will, in the end, cut current carry-on-
>> board bicycle-car capacity.
>
> On the other hand, what can Caltrain be reasonably expected to do?
> Bikes take up a lot of room that could be used for more passengers now
> that Caltrain ridership is at a peak. Since a bicyclist plus non-
> folding bike take up the space of 3 passengers it's reasonable to
> either clear the bikes out of the way and make room for more
> passengers OR charge triple for the cyclists and their bikes.
The question -- which neither you nor Caltrain staff even raise
-- is whether it is more or less productive to carry several
additional bicycle-riding passengers per space per day or AT
MOST ONE vehicular-access customer.
Before blandly stating what is and what is not "reasonable",
try to gather facts, and then apply "reason" (rather than
"prejudice", or "received wisdom") to the data and see what
comes out. At least that's how I try to arrive at a judgement
about what is and is not reasonable.
PS The bottom line for any transportation system is nearly
always that adding marginal additional peak capacity is
always (by far) the most expensive way to expand.
Monomaniacal focus on just getting one more human per day
to ride north into the SF CBD in the morning and back in
the evening is surely the least economically- and least
environmentally-effective course that Caltrain could possibly
follow. But that sort of "reason" is what we've been used
to in ba.transportation for decades past, and will have to
deal with as the world falls apart for decades to come.
Steve Pope
>David Kaye wrote, On 2008-08-27 02:21:
>> On the other hand, what can Caltrain be reasonably expected to do?
>> Bikes take up a lot of room that could be used for more passengers now
>> that Caltrain ridership is at a peak. Since a bicyclist plus non-
>> folding bike take up the space of 3 passengers it's reasonable to
>> either clear the bikes out of the way and make room for more
>> passengers OR charge triple for the cyclists and their bikes.
>The question -- which neither you nor Caltrain staff even raise
>-- is whether it is more or less productive to carry several
>additional bicycle-riding passengers per space per day or AT
>MOST ONE vehicular-access customer.
Again, ignoring pedestrian and transit-using customers, who
are the customers that are really needed.
This is getting repetitive!
Steve
David Nebenzahl
Sure is. You apparently didn't read, or did but certainly didn't
understand, the post you responded to.
--
"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".
Steve Pope
>On 8/27/2008 9:57 AM Steve Pope spake thus:
>> Again, ignoring pedestrian and transit-using customers, who
>> are the customers that are really needed.
>> This is getting repetitive!
>Sure is. You apparently didn't read, or did but certainly didn't
>understand, the post you responded to.
Or maybe I just don't have terminal tunnel-vision.
Steve
SMS
> The question -- which neither you nor Caltrain staff even raise
> -- is whether it is more or less productive to carry several
> additional bicycle-riding passengers per space per day or AT
> MOST ONE vehicular-access customer.
It's not a relevant question unless there is a shortage of vehicular
parking at a station where most riders get there by car, and park.
Even at most of the stations without garages or parking lots there is
plenty of free off street parking within 1/8 mile (rarely more than 1/4
mile). The residents might not be thrilled by commuters parking in their
neighborhoods, but unless the city wants to enact parking time limits or
a permit system then there's nothing they can do about it. It already
happens at stations where commuters don't want to pay the parking fee. I
admit I'm not familiar with every station, only the ones I've used on a
regular basis (Lawrence, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, California Avenue in
Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Carlos, Millbrae, and San Bruno).
> Before blandly stating what is and what is not "reasonable",
> try to gather facts, and then apply "reason" (rather than
> "prejudice", or "received wisdom") to the data and see what
> comes out. At least that's how I try to arrive at a judgement
> about what is and is not reasonable.
You try to make yourself out as some expert that is the only one capable
of examining the facts. Yet you routinely simply make up facts to fit
your own agenda. I was amazed that after presenting a list of totally
incorrect statements that you actually did come to the correct
conclusion that taking out more seats to allow for more bicycles _would_
obviously result in fewer riders.
> PS The bottom line for any transportation system is nearly
> always that adding marginal additional peak capacity is
> always (by far) the most expensive way to expand.
LOL, now it's changed from "providing peak service is the very most
expensive for any transportation undertaking" to "adding marginal
additional peak capacity is always (by far) the most expensive way to
expand."
Both statements are false of course, the former more than the latter.
Peak service offers the highest farebox recovery, and of course there
_are_ more expensive ways to expand total system capacity than adding
more peak service, i.e. adding more off-peak service that won't attract
any more riders. Actually you make the perfect case, unfortunately, for
removing all bicycle capacity, since obviously you want to maximize the
passenger load on peak trains rather than use up valuable space for
non-revenue producing bicycles. Hopefully CalTrain isn't going to take
your proposals seriously, but I'm pretty sure that there's no danger of
that happening.
CalTrain has another consideration right now in that they don't want to
be purchasing additional rail cars that can't be used when the system is
electrified. Tri-Rail, which has no plans for electrification, is trying
some of the Colorado Railcar self-propelled DMU's for off-peak, a much
more sensible off-peak solution than wasting fuel hauling all those
empty cars around.
SMS
> Again, ignoring pedestrian and transit-using customers, who
> are the customers that are really needed.
>
> This is getting repetitive!
Even the vehicular access premise is false in most cases. At most
stations there is plenty of parking available, either in parking lots
and garages, or nearby (and free) street parking.
Maybe spending all that money on parking garages wasn't a great idea or
the best use of money, but it has resulted in parking not being a
limiting factor for CalTrain users, and it's one major factor in the
increase in ridership.
Steve Pope
>Even the vehicular access premise is false in most cases. At most
>stations there is plenty of parking available, either in parking lots
>and garages, or nearby (and free) street parking.
>Maybe spending all that money on parking garages wasn't a great idea or
>the best use of money, but it has resulted in parking not being a
>limiting factor for CalTrain users, and it's one major factor in the
>increase in ridership.
It seems a problem must be inadequate bicycle parking
at southbay stations for main commute direction users
to use. Clearly one does not need a bicycle once in
San Francisco.
Maybe a European approach where you can check your bicycle
in a check room, getting a claim check, would be a good
idea. Bike racks and lockers don't seem to be doing
the job.
Steve
SMS
> Maybe a European approach where you can check your bicycle
> in a check room, getting a claim check, would be a good
> idea. Bike racks and lockers don't seem to be doing
> the job.
That would be ideal, but I don't think CalTrain's ready to go back to
staffed stations. Yet if they actually had that $13 million that they
say they'll need for their bicycle program then maybe they could do some
deals with local cities to have check rooms.
Richard Mlynarik
Not "ignoring", but rather "analysing."
(BTW I assure you know more about being a customer of transit systems
-- or what passes for them around here -- than anybody who isn't
physically disabled.)
You are the one making the assumption that one particular
outcome is "needed", without either stating what your choice
metric might be ("two wheels bad, four wheels good", perhaps?)
nor by showing how the outcome which is "needed" is the one
that scores best by that metric.
I measure outcomes by passengers gained per total fiscal
investment, measured by real money with real opportunity
costs and real borrowing costs for both capital and maintenance
expenses.
By objective measurement, there are some new passengers who
are a cheaper investment to attract than others. At issue
is whether anybody wishes to even pretend to understand,
undertake or follow such measurement, or whether unexamined
and economically nonsensical prejudice will determine how
millions of dollars of public money are spent.
I know what I'd bet real private money on happening, based on
objective study of regional "planners"' track records.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote, On 2008-08-27 09:57:
>> Again, ignoring pedestrian and transit-using customers, who
>> are the customers that are really needed.
>Not "ignoring", but rather "analysing."
>(BTW I assure you know more about being a customer of transit systems
>-- or what passes for them around here -- than anybody who isn't
>physically disabled.)
>You are the one making the assumption that one particular
>outcome is "needed", without either stating what your choice
>metric might be ("two wheels bad, four wheels good", perhaps?)
>nor by showing how the outcome which is "needed" is the one
>that scores best by that metric.
>I measure outcomes by passengers gained per total fiscal
>investment
So, your sole metric is Caltrain ridership relative to investment.
Therefore, any investment with benefits other than Caltrain
ridership is not fully counted. When you "analyze" bus-transit-using
customers, you are not giving bus systems any credit for the total
service they provide. So to you, there are merely Caltrain feeders;
replaceable by any other form of loading Caltrains with passengers.
The fact that they serve a segment of the public not served
by your preferred approaches does not count. For you. It counts
for me though.
Steve
Richard Mlynarik
> Richard Mlynarik wrote:
>
>> The question -- which neither you nor Caltrain staff even raise
>> -- is whether it is more or less productive to carry several
>> additional bicycle-riding passengers per space per day or AT
>> MOST ONE vehicular-access customer.
>
> It's not a relevant question unless there is a shortage of vehicular
You're either not reading, or comprehending.
>> Before blandly stating what is and what is not "reasonable",
>> try to gather facts, and then apply "reason" (rather than
>> "prejudice", or "received wisdom") to the data and see what
>> comes out. At least that's how I try to arrive at a judgement
>> about what is and is not reasonable.
>
> You try to make yourself out as some expert that is the only one capable
> of examining the facts. [...]
I presented some facts based on real-world, non-parallel-universe
observations -- ones readily apparent to anybody who actually walks
the walk, and ones that are open to but have not been subject to
contradiction -- and drew conclusions from them.
The most basic observation is that adding one seat to a Caltrain
consist results in *at most* one extra human making a round-trip
per work day. Combine this with the observation that Caltrain
loading is asymmetric and that seat "shortage" is highly peaked
(confined to maybe 2 to 3 round trips per day out of 49). Then
engage basic human deductive processes.
One may (and should) make the additional argument that building
and maintaining parking lots is about the very worst possible
expenditure in terms of cost-effectiveness of public investment,
but even assuming available parking space (which Caltrain only
has where people CHOOSE not to use it anyway!), the issue here
is about space on trains, and, in effect, about how to maximize
revenue per year per square metre of space.
>> PS The bottom line for any transportation system is nearly
>> always that adding marginal additional peak capacity is
>> always (by far) the most expensive way to expand.
>
> LOL, now it's changed from "providing peak service is the very most
> expensive for any transportation undertaking" to "adding marginal
> additional peak capacity is always (by far) the most expensive way to
> expand."
>
> Both statements are false of course, the former more than the latter.
They're the same statement. They're both true.
I'm not going to try to argue with somebody who isn't willing
to understand the very simplest economic reasoning.
Adding an extra Canyonero to I-80 at 9am costs more than
adding one at 10am. Restaurants that do nearly all their
business at dinner open for lunch. It's hard to know where
not to begin.
> Peak service offers the highest farebox recovery [...]
Categorically irrelevant.
Individual peak trains may raise the most revenue compared
to a year-long average of per-train-hour operating costs
(well, duh: the more paying bodies per excess operating crew
member and the more paying bodies per gallon of axle lubricant
the better), but the issue is rather one of ****MARGINAL**** cost
-- what does it cost to carry an extra warm body at 0830 versus
at 1030, for example -- and secondly the matter of fully accounted,
depreciating capital cost is never even mentioned by the sorts
of scoundrels (look no further than BART extension promoters)
who go on and on and on about "farebox recovery".
> CalTrain has another consideration right now in that they don't want to
> be purchasing additional rail cars that can't be used when the system is
> electrified. Tri-Rail, which has no plans for electrification, is trying
> some of the Colorado Railcar self-propelled DMU's for off-peak, a much
> more sensible off-peak solution than wasting fuel hauling all those
> empty cars around.
Oh my. "Colorado Railcar" and "sensible" in the same sentence.
I think we have a winner!
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
>> I measure outcomes by passengers gained per total fiscal
>> investment
>
> So, your sole metric is Caltrain ridership relative to investment.
> Therefore, any investment with benefits other than Caltrain
> ridership is not fully counted. When you "analyze" bus-transit-using
> customers, you are not giving bus systems any credit for the total
> service they provide. So to you, there are merely Caltrain feeders;
> replaceable by any other form of loading Caltrains with passengers.
> The fact that they serve a segment of the public not served
> by your preferred approaches does not count. For you. It counts
> for me though.
As a caricature, yes, that's right.
I'd prefer there to be be some quantifiable measure of how
much good, or otherwise, is accomplished by vast quantities
of public cash are showered out.
Others prefer there to be no such accountability, and prefer
to waste tens of billions of real cash dollars on undertakings
which might otherwise be seen as fraudulent. (Third Street
Light Rail! BART to Millbrae! Caldecott Tunnel! TransLink(c)!)
"Four wheels good, two wheels bad" is about as sound -- and
as widely-followed -- a guide to public investment as "Caltrans
contractors good, pothole repair bad" or "BART contractors good,
Caltrain contractors bad" or "TWU-250A welfare good, Muni rider
welfare bad" or "Homeland security good, everything else bad"
or "Federal earmarks good, level playing field bad."
There's a finite amount of money.
Some people benefit more than others from every decision.
In engineering there are some problems that aren't worth solving.
In business there are some customers that aren't worth serving.
In life there are only so many hours in the day.
Sorry to have to break it to you this late in life.
Steve Pope
>The most basic observation is that adding one seat to a Caltrain
>consist results in *at most* one extra human making a round-trip
>per work day. Combine this with the observation that Caltrain
>loading is asymmetric and that seat "shortage" is highly peaked
>(confined to maybe 2 to 3 round trips per day out of 49). Then
>engage basic human deductive processes.
This ignores the fact that crowded, unavailable trains have
a leveraged effect on discouraging ridership. The same
goes for too-infrequent trains, and for lack of transit services
in outlying areas. All these combine in a nonlinear fashion to
make people decide to continue use non-professionally-driven
vehicles to get around.
The most successful urban rail systems have a large base of
passengers who travel either by foot or by a short bus ride
at the each end of the rail line. Models based instead on lots of
parking lots and bicyclists are never the world's most successful.
They may be stopgap plans for short-term ridership increases. They
are not future-proof plans.
Steve
Richard Mlynarik
> Richard Mlynarik <M...@POBox.COM> wrote:
>
>> The most basic observation is that adding one seat to a Caltrain
>> consist results in *at most* one extra human making a round-trip
>> per work day. Combine this with the observation that Caltrain
>> loading is asymmetric and that seat "shortage" is highly peaked
>> (confined to maybe 2 to 3 round trips per day out of 49). Then
>> engage basic human deductive processes.
>
> This ignores the fact that crowded, unavailable trains have
> a leveraged effect on discouraging ridership. The same
> goes for too-infrequent trains, and for lack of transit services
> in outlying areas. All these combine in a nonlinear fashion to
> make people decide to continue use non-professionally-driven
> vehicles to get around.
Non-linear!
So you're saying that we should encourage (by way of disproportionate
subsidy) peak riders at the expense of cheaper investments to increase
off-peak riders because, well, uh, because they might sometimes be
off-peak riders also, once in a while, every now and again?
An interesting theory.
As for "outlying areas" -- there are some customers that aren't
worth serving. Sorry. You bought the house in Mountain Home
or Los Gatos Hills or Campbell or Bolinas or Twin Peaks or
Dublin or Sebastapol, not me. That's the way the cookie
crumbles. Or is one outlying human worth so much more than
than an urban one that we should add empty bus service and
empty train runs to the infinite litany of subsidy (mortage
deductabilty, freeways, water, trash, per-pupil school expenditure,
etc) that we already lavish on the more profligate and more
afflient?
Why the constant desire to reward bad behaviour by further handouts?
(Oh yeah: that's what we demand of government.)
PS just how many times do you think a reasonable person would put
up with the bullshit, Caltrain-self-induced bicycle+train problems
before saying "screw you, and screw public transportation. I'm
going back to driving, where at least I'm not actively insulted"?
For most people the answer is "once". The dedicated (aka insane)
transit riders who have endured the current situation repeatedly
for years at great personal expense are the very tip of what *SHOULD*
be perceived as a mountain of potential ridership, but which isn't
due to the 1950s park-n-ride mindset which is pervasive even among
the best-intentioned (and there are such people!) at the agencies.
> The most successful urban rail systems have a large base of
> passengers who travel either by foot or by a short bus ride
> at the each end of the rail line. Models based instead on lots of
> parking lots and bicyclists are never the world's most successful.
> They may be stopgap plans for short-term ridership increases. They
> are not future-proof plans.
Great. I'll bear that in mind next year when Menlo Park,
Burlingame and Belmont rezone for an extra 20k jobs within
walking distance of the trains stations. And any time I see
somebody with a bicycle denied boarding for several trains in a
row at Mountain View or 22nd Street or Redwood City I'll be
sure to let him or her know about his manifest lack of
future-proof-osity.
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
> It seems a problem must be inadequate bicycle parking
> at southbay stations for main commute direction users
> to use. Clearly one does not need a bicycle once in
> San Francisco.
Correct. That's why everybody in San Francisco loves Muni,
and why nobody rides bicycles in San Francisco.
As an aside, one of the scandals of Caltrain budgeting is that
millions are frittered away running free-to-user office-park
shuttle buses in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties funded
(without much justification) by Air District handout grants
even when the shuttles followed VTA routes, yet the single
biggest concentration of Caltrain commuters is forced to use
the wretched, contemptible, unreliable, non-free "service"
that is Muni to get to _their_ offices. (I speak as somebody
who benefited from the BAAQMD handouts and wouldn't benefit
from a taxpayer-subsidised Market/Fourth-Townsend/Fourth
dedicated shuttle, but who recognises insane pork barrelling
when he sees it. And don't get me started on the weekend
Tamien shuttle. Or Tamien in general.)
Back to your message, I still find it is astonishing to
watch people who neither use nor even take the time to observe
Caltrain make counter-factual and authoritative assertions.
The more massive excess of demand for bikes+Caltrain is in
the opposite direction -- not southbay original for main
commute direction --, in which an 11 minute bike ride can
replace a must-allow-50 minutes-to-reliably-reach-the-station
(no exaggeration, actual real-world example) Muni Hell
experience, and where a 10 minute bike ride can replace
an 40 minute walk through the cubicle'n'parking wastelands.
Sure, bike lockers in Sunnyvale let some people ride to
Caltrain rather than drive to Sunnyvale or drive to the
SF CBD, but on the other hand Caltrain has provided NO
-- ZERO, NONE -- non-instant-theft bike parking at 22nd
Street in San Francisco despite TWELVE YEARS of lobbying
and despite hundreds of potential denied boardings per day.
There Have Their Priorities. As we see at the Manny Valerio
Memorial Sunnyvale parking garage. And the Quentin Kopp
Memorial Millbrae parking garage. And at Hayward Park.
And Hillsdale. It's a mindset. Several generations (I always
used to hope it was one, but I've been shown wrong, since
they reproduce asexually in some Bechtel-funded mad-science
laboratory) of transportation planning professional are going
to have to retire and die before the mindset changes in the
slightest.
PS Fun Fact To Know: Why do peak hour reverse peak direction
(ie southbound AM, northbound PM, (eg train 322, 332, 365, etc)
Caltrain expresses skip PALO ALTO (for God's sake!!!!!) or
Mountain View?
Answer: because Caltrain staff determined that the parking lots
are full, and believe that riders will "redistribute" to other
stations with more parking.
Incredible, but true.
SMS
> The most successful urban rail systems have a large base of
> passengers who travel either by foot or by a short bus ride
> at the each end of the rail line. Models based instead on lots of
> parking lots and bicyclists are never the world's most successful.
Outside the U.S., bicycling to train stations is extremely common (the
portion from someone's home to the station), at least based on what I've
seen in Germany, Japan, China, and Korea. Taking bicycles on the train
as part of the commute is not common, in fact I've never seen it outside
the U.S.. However the concept of sprawling industrial parks that aren't
served by any transit seems to be an American invention.
kkt
> David Kaye wrote:
>
> > Being a bicycle expert, what solution can you find that will save
> > enough space so that Caltrain doesn't need to reduce bike load-ins?
>
> Ai-yah, please don't call him a bicycle expert!
>
> Whatever the solution is, it has to be practical financially. There is
> no money to add more $3 million rail cars, nor there is money to even
> implement the parking plan they have. CalTrain is struggling with
> increasing fuel costs, and packed trains, but has no money for more
> rolling stock or more frequent service.
>
> Any plan should also be part of a broader plan that includes congestion
> pricing. The huge fare increase that CalTrain is planning (25¢ per zone)
> should be accompanied by a program to increase ridership off-peak with
> lower fares.
I see your reasoning, but I disagree based on experience in the
Seattle bus system where fares are higher at commute times. Fares
that are different at different times of day confuse occassional
riders. They keep people from buying ticket books ahead of time
because how much the tickets should be for varies. And it's most
important to be getting traffic off the roads at commute times rather
than off-peak.
The point of transit is to provide an alternative way to get to work
and relive congestion on the roads, not to distribute its costs
exactly fairly.
-- Patrick
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote, On 2008-08-27 11:12:
>> It seems a problem must be inadequate bicycle parking
>> at southbay stations for main commute direction users
>> to use. Clearly one does not need a bicycle once in
>> San Francisco.
>Correct. That's why everybody in San Francisco loves Muni,
>and why nobody rides bicycles in San Francisco.
Some people ride bicycles in San Francisco. But, it's
not a necessity due to the overall density of public
transit there.
>Back to your message, I still find it is astonishing to
>watch people who neither use nor even take the time to observe
>Caltrain
Um, I have plenty of experience riding Caltrain.
>make counter-factual and authoritative assertions.
You are totally lost here.
Steve
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote, On 2008-08-27 13:03:
>> crowded, unavailable trains have
>> a leveraged effect on discouraging ridership. The same
>> goes for too-infrequent trains, and for lack of transit services
>> in outlying areas. All these combine in a nonlinear fashion to
>> make people decide to continue use non-professionally-driven
>> vehicles to get around.
>Non-linear!
>So you're saying that we should encourage (by way of disproportionate
>subsidy) peak riders at the expense of cheaper investments to increase
>off-peak riders because, well, uh, because they might sometimes be
>off-peak riders also, once in a while, every now and again?
>
>An interesting theory.
Seems like straightforward transportation planning to me.
People will not use your network unless it is comprehensive
enough that they are not inconvenienced. Applies to roads,
airlines, mass transit.
>As for "outlying areas" -- there are some customers that aren't
>worth serving.
That's one theory.
Steve
SMS
> I see your reasoning, but I disagree based on experience in the
> Seattle bus system where fares are higher at commute times. Fares
> that are different at different times of day confuse occassional
> riders. They keep people from buying ticket books ahead of time
> because how much the tickets should be for varies. And it's most
> important to be getting traffic off the roads at commute times rather
> than off-peak.
All true. But the transit agencies are forced to have service throughout
the day and on weekends, when there is much less traffic, and hence far
fewer passengers. It would help them financially if they could fill the
trains during off-peak times, especially on weekends.
> The point of transit is to provide an alternative way to get to work
> and relive congestion on the roads, not to distribute its costs
> exactly fairly.
Again, the goal isn't to distribute the costs, it's to increase revenue
during off-peak times, on non-express trains. Peak hours express buses
charge more, and peak hours express trains could also charge more.
Andy Chow
The question is why in America bicycle parking is so unsafe? In these
countries, people feel safe enough about leaving their bikes are the
station.
Could there be a strategy to provide stronger enforcement against bike
theft?
Steve Pope
>SMS wrote:
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> The most successful urban rail systems have a large base of
>>> passengers who travel either by foot or by a short bus ride
>>> at the each end of the rail line. Models based instead on lots of
>>> parking lots and bicyclists are never the world's most successful.
>> Outside the U.S., bicycling to train stations is extremely common (the
>> portion from someone's home to the station), at least based on what I've
>> seen in Germany, Japan, China, and Korea. Taking bicycles on the train
>> as part of the commute is not common, in fact I've never seen it outside
>> the U.S..
I saw a dude once bring his bicycle onto the urban rail
in Hackney.
I remark upon this because you don't see it often in London.
>> However the concept of sprawling industrial parks that aren't
>> served by any transit seems to be an American invention.
That, and suburbs.
>The question is why in America bicycle parking is so unsafe?
Wealth disparity, and really expensive bicycles.
>In these
>countries, people feel safe enough about leaving their bikes are the
>station.
>
>Could there be a strategy to provide stronger enforcement against bike
>theft?
I reiterate my suggestion of bike checkrooms. The disused
train station buildings are already sitting there; use them.
Steve
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
> Any plan should also be part of a broader plan that includes congestion
> pricing. The huge fare increase that CalTrain is planning (25¢ per zone)
> should be accompanied by a program to increase ridership off-peak with
> lower fares.
A nice mantra -- one that the federal DOT sings fervently -- but one
without a huge amount of real-world applicability.
Caltrain used -- USED -- to have off-peak fares. They served exactly
no purpose other than leading to fare disputes with ticket inspectors
(well, all-powerful all-mighty Official Railroad Conductors) and were
justifiably axed by Caltrain a few years ago.
Exactly how much demand do you think you're going to shift from 8am
to 10am by offering a $1 discount? A $2 discount? Free rides?
(How about the Golden Gate Bridge, where the prospect of a $2
-- TWO DOLLARS!!!! -- peak/off-peak differential lead to political
screams of bloody murder, despite the fact that even this small
price differential ($1/round-trip/day = trivial) would have been
insufficient to effect any measurable demand shift.)
For demand to shift there needs to be both travel flexibility,
which there largely isn't for peak hour travel, and there needs
to be an attractive off-peak service offering, which Caltrain
absolutely does not have.
About the only widely-implemented off-peak transit fare in the
first (non-US) world of experienced and successful transit operators
is something like a ride-all-you-want-starting-any-time-after-0930
deal, which can make transit more attractive for discretionary trips
which might otherwise generate car trips, but which again rely on
a good non-peak service offer (see above) and on transit generally
being a nearly-acceptable alternative to driving (which it is not
in the Bay Area outside of peak hour travel to a narrow number
of destinations.)
An argument could be made that BART -- which offers far more
than acceptable off-peak service and which does serve some
actual urban destinations supporting all-day all-week traffic,
and whose fares for shorter-distance urban trips (eg Oakland-SF)
are outrageously and unattractively overpriced compared to
both long-distance exurban BART fares and to non-solo driving
costs -- could more revenue from riders attracted to *NEW*
trips off-peak by an off-peak discount than it would lose
from discounting existing riders, but BART staff and the
exurban-peak-commuting-biased BART Board majority have never
shown the slightest interest.
The last thing to bear in mind is that Caltrain has spent the last
several years demonstrating repeatedly that its ridership
is almost completely price-insensitive. Giving away revenue in
the form of off-peak discounts of no _demonstrable_ utility
goes against the recent history -- and, by transportation agency
measures, recent success -- of Caltrain in increasing revenues
faster than ridership.
"Congestion pricing" at the completely superficial levels advocated
by flavour-of-the-month US policy advocates, is a solution in search
of a problem, and in practice would amount to nothing except a
squandering of potential revenue (discounted fares) with no
corresponding
(Along the same line, there is NO POSSIBLE JUSTFICATION for BATA's
(aka MTC's) and GGBTD's literally *INSANE* $1 discount for
FasTrak(tm) toll payment. It's just throwing away revenue -- tens
of millions of dollars worth!!!! -- to no end at all, other than
one of increasing market penetration of a staff-sponsored and
highest-bidder-operated technology-based solution in search of a
problem, one with no defined or definable benefits to anybody other
than the contractors involved. What a huge scam!)
> Weekends are a time when they could greatly increase ridership with some
> sort of "family" pass. I.e. we go to SF a lot, but I calculated the cost
> of using transit for a four people, and it would cost about $80, versus
> about $16 in gasoline (yeah, I know that there are more costs than just
> fuel in operating a vehicle, but the incremental cost of 100 extra miles
> is in reality quite negligible other than fuel.
I agree with this completely.
> The transit agencies should get together and market weekend TransLink®
> cards as a way of generating revenue on weekends and holidays when
> ridership is extremely low on many systems, but where the systems are
> still forced to run service.
I have no idea what the hell this has to do with the MTC-staff-promoted
incompetent-contractor-rewarding decades-late millions-overbudget
no-definable-benefit TransLink(sm) program of systematic taxpayer
defraudment.
Caltrain could easily have its ticket machines print out a piece of
paper that says "CALTRAIN FAMILY FARE valid for 2 adults and up to
4 accompanied children until <date-time>" and Muni could agree to
accept such a piece of paper as proof of payment.
At least that's how things are done in advanced first world industrial
democracies.
This has nothing to do with making Motorolo/ERG rich, and everything
to do with doing transportation coordination and planning. Since MTC's
actions uniformly ensure the former and never the latter, I see no
prospect of a first-world-style multi-agency family ticket --
paper-based or even as a multi-hundred-thousand dollar
TransLink(c)(sm)(tm)(r) Engineering Change Order bonanza --
any decade soon.
> What's unique about the bicycle situation is that the bicycle users were
> nearly 100% upside revenue for CalTrain because the trains were so
> lightly used when the program was started. Now they're about to become a
> drag on the system since the bicycle parking area results in lower
> capacity.
Says you.
Sorry, but this just isn't true.
It's not 100% upside, but it's still positive.
Provided one actually does the arithmetic, rather than getting carried
away with prejudice. (No, a resident of Santa Clara who works in the
SF CBD is no inherently a more worthy target of public largesse than
two residents of San Francisco who works in Santa Clara, at least not
by my non-prejudiced accounting.)
SMS
LOL, the bicycles I saw being used in these countries were not
high-value bicycles, but the older bikes with fenders, chain guards,
racks. Still not Wal-Mart or Target bikes, but not $1000 or even $200 bikes.
Steve Fenwick
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Sure; that's just the American auto-based post-WWII culture. The US rail
systems that have cars at one end (suburban residential) and mass
transit or foot traffic at the other (urban core) may not be the most
successful, but they are successful--MBTA, Metra, LIRR, Metro-North,
MARC)--at getting drivers off the road in a manner that is acceptable to
the users. Again, the scale is balanced against the cost of additional
lanes of traffic in the commute direction, not maximizing economic
return for the transit system itself.
As for off-peak use, back in the Dark Ages of the valley, major
employers (Lockheed, National) were required to stagger the arrival and
departure of their employees to lighten the load on the roads. Maybe the
major transit providers could try to renew that?
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Steve Pope
>The question is why in America bicycle parking is so unsafe?
SMS is right -- the bicycles are too expensive. This is
a confluence of too much wealth diversity in America
and the gearhead thing bicyclists have going on here.
Bicycle check rooms would (probably) solve the problem.
Steve
David Nebenzahl
> Andy Chow <andy...@1234.com> wrote:
>
>>The question is why in America bicycle parking is so unsafe?
>
> SMS is right -- the bicycles are too expensive. This is
> a confluence of too much wealth diversity in America
> and the gearhead thing bicyclists have going on here.
Then why was my piece-of-shit bicycle stolen from the bike rack at Ashby
BART--*in broad daylight*, mind you? (Recently.)
Spin your socioeconomic analysis all you want; doesn't change the fact
that leaving any bicycle locked in public is an invitation to theft.
> Bicycle check rooms would (probably) solve the problem.
Maybe. Better to keep the bike with you on the train (or other vehicle).
Tak Nakamoto
"SMS" wrote
> LOL, the bicycles I saw being used in these countries were not high-value
> bicycles, but the older bikes with fenders, chain guards, racks. Still not
> Wal-Mart or Target bikes, but not $1000 or even $200 bikes.
The reality of bike theft at least here in the Eastbay is that even $50
junkers are regularly stolen or vandalized beyond repair when left parked.
The value of bicycles has almost nothing to do with the level of crime.
Thieves are now even cutting through the frames of bicycles to steal them.
The thieves are presumably stealing them for sale as parts or perhaps even
worse, selling them as scrap metal at metal recyclers. This has happened at
the North Berkeley BART station that I know of. It has likely happened
elsewhere.
The level of vandalism is almost heart breaking. A few months ago as I was
walking past Cafe Trieste at San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way on my way to
downtown Berkeley, I noticed a very pristine Raleigh 3 speed locked and
parked at the corner. When I walked by a couple of hours later on the way
back home, I noticed that someone had bent the top frame member into a U.
The bicycle hadn't been hit by a car as there was no other visible damage.
Someone had come by and had deliberately rendered the bicycle unsalvageable.
Tak Nakamoto
Andy Chow
people simply won't bike. Bike on train is just a symptom of a larger issue.
It is a problem that there's a demand for stolen bikes and metals.
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
There are no funding sources available to pay
for guarded parking, other than grant funding from
BAAQMD -- which has to be applied for each
funding cycle.
To just give one example: the Berkeley bikestation
is at risk unless $60k annual operating funds
can be found someplace.
All other forms of transit (bus, BART, Caltrain,
etc) have available yearly operating budgets
to pay for ongoing expenses. No such funding
exists to pay salaries for things like
Bikestations.
Moreover, the transit operators are generally not
interested in paying for this out of their pocket
(although recently things have gotten a bit
better with BART's bike budget).
So, will Caltrain agree to foot the bill to pay
for guarded parking? Perhaps even bike rentals?
At the same level of funding that it pays to
subsidize the parking garages? Undoubtedly the
answer is No, which actually isn't that
unreasonable -- allowing on-board access to
still very under-utilized trains is more cost-effective.
SMS
>>> However the concept of sprawling industrial parks that aren't
>>> served by any transit seems to be an American invention.
>
> That, and suburbs.
In some cases they are similar to suburbs in that there are mostly
individual houses. I.e., I visited some friends in Deisenhofen, Germany,
which is near Munich. It's an S-Bahn stop for the Munich S-Bahn. Some of
the S-Bahn lines are a close parallel to CalTrain--a rail line
connecting smaller outlying towns with the main city area. Where
CalTrain is unique is that such a large reverse commute has developed.
> Wealth disparity, and really expensive bicycles.
True, but even the cheap bicycles get stolen or vandalized.
> I reiterate my suggestion of bike checkrooms. The disused
> train station buildings are already sitting there; use them.
This would be something that the individual cities could manage and
fund, and would make a good volunteer project for the cities as well. A
lot of stops have no buildings though.
Steve Pope
>On Aug 27, 8:14 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Andy Chow <andyc...@1234.com> wrote:
>> >The question is why in America bicycle parking is so unsafe?
>> SMS is right -- the bicycles are too expensive. This is
>> a confluence of too much wealth diversity in America
>> and the gearhead thing bicyclists have going on here.
>> Bicycle check rooms would (probably) solve the problem.
>There are no funding sources available to pay
>for guarded parking, other than grant funding from
>BAAQMD -- which has to be applied for each
>funding cycle.
Why not have bicyclists pay for secore bicycle parking? Along
with motorists paying for motor vehicle parking.
>To just give one example: the Berkeley bikestation
>is at risk unless $60k annual operating funds
>can be found someplace.
>All other forms of transit (bus, BART, Caltrain,
>etc) have available yearly operating budgets
>to pay for ongoing expenses. No such funding
>exists to pay salaries for things like
>Bikestations.
>Moreover, the transit operators are generally not
>interested in paying for this out of their pocket
>(although recently things have gotten a bit
>better with BART's bike budget).
>So, will Caltrain agree to foot the bill to pay
>for guarded parking? Perhaps even bike rentals?
>At the same level of funding that it pays to
>subsidize the parking garages?
Your proposal is backwards. They both should have
to pay their own parking costs.
>Undoubtedly the
>answer is No, which actually isn't that
>unreasonable -- allowing on-board access to
>still very under-utilized trains is more cost-effective.
I agree with loading as many polite bicycles on the Caltrains as
will fit. Along with running more trains, and along
with steep congestion charging for motor vehicles in Caltrain's
service area, which might help pay for and encourage
more frequent train/bus service.
Steve
Don Freeman
> Andy Chow <andy...@1234.com> wrote:
>
>> The question is why in America bicycle parking is so unsafe?
>
> SMS is right -- the bicycles are too expensive. This is
> a confluence of too much wealth diversity in America
> and the gearhead thing bicyclists have going on here.
>
If they are being stolen for the value of the metal then it is the
cheaper bikes that are more desirable to the thieves. I don't see much
of a market for recycled carbon fiber.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> SMS is right -- the bicycles are too expensive. This is
>> a confluence of too much wealth diversity in America
>> and the gearhead thing bicyclists have going on here.
>If they are being stolen for the value of the metal then it is the
>cheaper bikes that are more desirable to the thieves. I don't see much
>of a market for recycled carbon fiber.
Theft of metal for salvage value is yet another symptom
of wealth diversity (commodity prices are high relative to
personal financial resources).
Steve
SMS
> Why not have bicyclists pay for secore bicycle parking? Along
> with motorists paying for motor vehicle parking.
There's a strong sense of entitlement among many of the cyclists that
use CalTrain. Some of it is justified (IMVAIO) based on the money that
has been spent on parking garages, which the parking fees will never
come close to paying the cost of. Some of it is an attitude that cars
are bad, bicycles are good, so CalTrain should get money from somewhere
to run more trains and longer trains so more bicycles can be taken on
board. Some people have the view that everything CalTrain does, from
which rolling stock they buy, to which stations they serve with which
train, is done without any investigation or weighing of the impact.
However CalTrain might have some self-interest in secure parking,
because unlike in the past, there are now a lot of trains that are no
longer under-utilized. When significant numbers of non-bicycle
passengers start be bumped, they are going to have to do something about
all the non-revenue freight that they're hauling.
It's going to have to be a systems solution, not piecemeal.
1. Secure bicycle parking
2. Fees for bicycles-on-board during peak times
3. Discounts for off-peak trains
4. Surcharges for express trains
5. Subsidized folding bicycles
David Nebenzahl
> I agree with loading as many polite bicycles on the Caltrains as
> will fit. Along with running more trains, and along
> with steep congestion charging for motor vehicles in Caltrain's
> service area, which might help pay for and encourage
> more frequent train/bus service.
So to you it's a moral issue, eh? The problem being those surly,
snarling bringers-of-bicycles-on-board with their overweening sense of
entitlement?
Of course, it has nothing to do with the physical and operational forms
of the bicycle accommodations, the fact that more than a decade after
bringing Caltrain kicking and screaming into letting bikes on board,
what we still have is a total kluge, a jury-rigged retrofit of those
stupid racks and hooks in the former seat spaces on what is still
essentially run as if it were a service to take stockbrokers to downtown
SF from Atherton in the am and back in the afternoon ...
And of course the laws of physics limit bike accommodations to this
layout, and nothing can be done about it without spending $millions on
new cars or trainsets that Caltrain doesn't have ...
Steve Pope
>On 8/28/2008 8:50 AM Steve Pope spake thus:
>> I agree with loading as many polite bicycles on the Caltrains as
>> will fit. Along with running more trains, and along
>> with steep congestion charging for motor vehicles in Caltrain's
>> service area, which might help pay for and encourage
>> more frequent train/bus service.
>So to you it's a moral issue, eh? The problem being those surly,
>snarling bringers-of-bicycles-on-board with their overweening sense of
>entitlement?
I didn't say that, you did.
I have historically favored policies that oppose private motor
vehicles and favor public transit. Bicycles have always been
an edge case; while they do not consume fossil fuels (until they
board transit vehicles), they present many of the same problems
as are exhibited by any non-professionally-driven vehicle --
poor operator behavior, a tendency to go off-road to travel on
trails and sidewalks, generally impeding bus and pedestrian
traffic, etc. Broadly speaking I favor a long-term trend to
professionally-driven vehicles only. Not that there are not
also some bad professional drivers, but at least you have a
management structure in place to control them and ultimately
they are accountable.
Therefore, I favor BRT here in Berkeley, and I see privately
operated vehicles as something that should be twilighted.
It won't happen overnight of course.
Steve
SMS
> Therefore, I favor BRT here in Berkeley, and I see privately
> operated vehicles as something that should be twilighted.
> It won't happen overnight of course.
Who knows, in the PRB you might actually be able to get BRT, while in
the PRC they've made huge investments in MRTs to try to get people out
of their POVs.
Steve Pope
Tak Nakamoto
"David Nebenzahl" wrote >
> Then why was my piece-of-shit bicycle stolen from the bike rack at Ashby
> BART--*in broad daylight*, mind you? (Recently.)
>
> Spin your socioeconomic analysis all you want; doesn't change the fact
> that leaving any bicycle locked in public is an invitation to theft.
>
one (BART Police or Berkeley PD)? Did they take a written report?
I'm asking because I feel that bicycle theft is a very underreported crime
around here. In order to get the police departments to place more emphasis
on dealing with it, we need have data to prove the scope of the problem.
I feel that theft and vandalism are limiting the number of people who use
bicycles as a means of transportation.
Tak Nakamoto
David Nebenzahl
No, I didn't report it, as the chances of the bike being recovered are
slim to none, Slim having left town.
But you're right, I probably should have reported it to at least get it
in the stats.
By the way, my take on why bikes get stolen is that it has very little
to do with the state of the economy, as bad as it is: I simply blame the
god-damned knuckleheaded gangbangers in my 'hood. The same ones who not
only stole my van from in front of my place, but most recently--get
this--*sawed off* my catalytic converter. No need for the usual liberal
hand-wringing to explain it.
Steve Fenwick
"Tak Nakamoto" <jfa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Weather and sharing the road with cars are likely to be more severely
limiting factors.
Tak Nakamoto
"Steve Fenwick" wrote >
> Weather and sharing the road with cars are likely to be more severely
> limiting factors.
>
very big factor. Weather isn't much of an issue here and there are
reasonably safe routes relatively free of cars on the way to most all
destinations including BART. I don't feel unsafe riding around in Berkeley
as long as I don't do stupid things like try to ride down Ashby Avenue when
there are reasonable alternative routes.
On the other hand, a bicyclist without a bicycle is, at least temporarily, a
pedestrian and most likely at the most inconvenient time possible. And I
know this happens all too often. That's why in every survey of
transportation issues here in Berkeley, bicyclists always rate security from
theft as their top issue.
Tak
Don Freeman
If I couldn't keep my bike in my cubicle I wouldn't ride it, already had
one bike stolen from our underground "secure" garage. SF weather nor
traffic has been able to stop me though.
Steve Pope
> On the other hand, a bicyclist without a bicycle is, at
> least temporarily, a pedestrian and most likely at the most
> inconvenient time possible. And I know this happens all too
> often. That's why in every survey of transportation issues
> here in Berkeley, bicyclists always rate security from theft
> as their top issue.
There is nothing stopping bicylists from renting one of the
empty storefronts on Shattuck near Berkeley BART (say, the
former Ross or Cody's locations) and running a bicycle-checkroom
operation, thus solving their security problem for at least
that location.
The only problem is, they don't want to up and do it. They'd
rather someone else do it.
Steve
SMS
> There is nothing stopping bicylists from renting one of the
> empty storefronts on Shattuck near Berkeley BART (say, the
> former Ross or Cody's locations) and running a bicycle-checkroom
> operation, thus solving their security problem for at least
> that location.
>
> The only problem is, they don't want to up and do it. They'd
> rather someone else do it.
Yeah, and there was nothing stopping drivers from constructing their own
parking garages at CalTrain stations, but they didn't have to do it
themselves.
Yes, you're correct that bicyclists would rather have the responsible
transit agencies manage parking.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
Well why should vehicle owners get all the perks? I would like
BART to pay for boarding my cats when I take BART to the airport
to go on vacation.
No, seriously, I am frugal and do not own a vehicle, yet I am
being asked to subsidize infinite parking for those who do. Forget
that. Motorists/bicyclists can at least pay their own way
to the station. I'm subsidizing their ride from that point
onward, and I'm fine with that.
Steve
SMS
> No, seriously, I am frugal and do not own a vehicle, yet I am
> being asked to subsidize infinite parking for those who do.
And those that never use the bus subsidize the bus systems for you. And
those that never use BART subsidize BART for you.
Forget
> that. Motorists/bicyclists can at least pay their own way
> to the station.
As long as you're not taking a bus to or from the BART station, that's
reasonable.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> No, seriously, I am frugal and do not own a vehicle, yet I am
>> being asked to subsidize infinite parking for those who do.
>And those that never use the bus subsidize the bus systems for you. And
>those that never use BART subsidize BART for you.
I suppose you could argue it that way.
Steve
cph
> By the way, my take on why bikes get stolen is that it has very little
> to do with the state of the economy, as bad as it is: I simply blame the
> god-damned knuckleheaded gangbangers in my 'hood. The same ones who not
> only stole my van from in front of my place, but most recently--get
> this--*sawed off* my catalytic converter. No need for the usual liberal
> hand-wringing to explain it.
Sounds like tweakers. We have a huge problem statewide with meth heads
stealing metal (like, say, the copper wires in streetlights, traffic
lights, etc.)
and selling it to buy meth with the proceeds....
SMS
And some not too bright people being electrocuted trying to steal copper
wire from high-voltage lines.
SMS
The problem with the whole "we're tired of subsidizing cars" argument is
that as a society we're all subsidizing services that many of us rarely
use. In my county we pay extra sales tax for a transit system, that is
horribly mismanaged by VTA, and that only a tiny percentage of residents
have ever used. Yet there is a benefit to everyone, even those that
never use it, in having the transit system available, it's just one more
form of welfare. There is a benefit to all of us from the parking
garages at rail stations, just as there is a benefit to all of us from
the rail systems that are heavily subsidized by all of us through taxes.
Many of those drivers on the freeway are upset about having to subsidize
the buses, trains, and ferries that they never use.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>>> No, seriously, I am frugal and do not own a vehicle, yet I am
>>>> being asked to subsidize infinite parking for those who do.
>>> And those that never use the bus subsidize the bus systems for you. And
>>> those that never use BART subsidize BART for you.
>> I suppose you could argue it that way.
> The problem with the whole "we're tired of subsidizing cars"
> argument is that as a society we're all subsidizing services
> that many of us rarely use. In my county we pay extra sales
> tax for a transit system, that is horribly mismanaged by VTA,
> and that only a tiny percentage of residents have ever used. Yet
> there is a benefit to everyone, even those that never use it,
> in having the transit system available, it's just one more form
> of welfare. There is a benefit to all of us from the parking
> garages at rail stations, just as there is a benefit to all of
> us from the rail systems that are heavily subsidized by all of
> us through taxes.
My feeling, and it would be pretty difficult to substantiate
this in an iron-clad fashion, is that parking lots at rail stations
are only beneficial because, for the moment, we have built
out a transit infrastructure that is temporarily out of balance.
Caltrain and BART are "road replacement" systems, for 101
and the Bay Bridge respectively. I'd like to see them develop
into something more than that. This is, of course, a subjective
desire at bottom, but I'd still like it. For that development
to occur, I think that heavily subsidized parking cannot continue
to be the sacred cow it now is. Again, a subjective assessment,
not an ironclad fact.
Steve
Caltrai...@gmail.com
> SMS wrote, On 2008-08-27 08:10:
>
> [...]
>
> > Any plan should also be part of a broader plan that includes congestion
> > pricing. The huge fare increase that CalTrain is planning (25¢ per zone)
> > should be accompanied by a program to increase ridership off-peak with
> > lower fares.
>
> A nice mantra -- one that the federal DOT sings fervently -- but one
> without a huge amount of real-world applicability.
>
> Caltrain used -- USED -- to have off-peak fares. They served exactly
> no purpose other than leading to fare disputes with ticket inspectors
> (well, all-powerful all-mighty Official Railroad Conductors) and were
> justifiably axed by Caltrain a few years ago.
I remember offpeak fares and they did sometimes lead to disputes but
is was nice to have lower fares for part of the day.
>
> Exactly how much demand do you think you're going to shift from 8am
> to 10am by offering a $1 discount? A $2 discount? Free rides?
It can make a difference. If someone wants to save some money and they
are able to adjust thier schedule, what is wrong with that?
>
> (How about the Golden Gate Bridge, where the prospect of a $2
> -- TWO DOLLARS!!!! -- peak/off-peak differential lead to political
> screams of bloody murder, despite the fact that even this small
> price differential ($1/round-trip/day = trivial) would have been
> insufficient to effect any measurable demand shift.)
It may seem trivial to you, perhaps you are rich or something but it
does add up over time.
>
> For demand to shift there needs to be both travel flexibility,
> which there largely isn't for peak hour travel, and there needs
> to be an attractive off-peak service offering, which Caltrain
> absolutely does not have.
Thats for dam sure.
>
> About the only widely-implemented off-peak transit fare in the
> first (non-US) world of experienced and successful transit operators
> is something like a ride-all-you-want-starting-any-time-after-0930
> deal, which can make transit more attractive for discretionary trips
> which might otherwise generate car trips, but which again rely on
> a good non-peak service offer (see above) and on transit generally
> being a nearly-acceptable alternative to driving (which it is not
> in the Bay Area outside of peak hour travel to a narrow number
> of destinations.)
>
> An argument could be made that BART -- which offers far more
> than acceptable off-peak service and which does serve some
> actual urban destinations supporting all-day all-week traffic,
> and whose fares for shorter-distance urban trips (eg Oakland-SF)
> are outrageously and unattractively overpriced compared to
> both long-distance exurban BART fares and to non-solo driving
> costs -- could more revenue from riders attracted to *NEW*
> trips off-peak by an off-peak discount than it would lose
> from discounting existing riders, but BART staff and the
> exurban-peak-commuting-biased BART Board majority have never
> shown the slightest interest.
Generally the farthur you travel, the cheaper it will be. It's common
practice, look at the phone company.
What BART should do is offer a monthly pass like every other transit
agency in the world but the show no interest in this either, nor do
they show interest in co-ordinated fares with Caltrain and schedules
for that matter.
>
> The last thing to bear in mind is that Caltrain has spent the last
> several years demonstrating repeatedly that its ridership
> is almost completely price-insensitive. Giving away revenue in
> the form of off-peak discounts of no _demonstrable_ utility
> goes against the recent history -- and, by transportation agency
> measures, recent success -- of Caltrain in increasing revenues
> faster than ridership.
Price insensitive? What is this supposed to mean?
Have not you seen gas prices the last 4 years?
Caltrain ridership and revenues have followed the trend. Plus Caltrain
has increased fares a few times and in the process of anther fare
increase.
BART ridership has seen a simmilar trend.
>
> "Congestion pricing" at the completely superficial levels advocated
> by flavour-of-the-month US policy advocates, is a solution in search
> of a problem, and in practice would amount to nothing except a
> squandering of potential revenue (discounted fares) with no
> corresponding
>
> (Along the same line, there is NO POSSIBLE JUSTFICATION for BATA's
> (aka MTC's) and GGBTD's literally *INSANE* $1 discount for
> FasTrak(tm) toll payment. It's just throwing away revenue -- tens
> of millions of dollars worth!!!! -- to no end at all, other than
> one of increasing market penetration of a staff-sponsored and
> highest-bidder-operated technology-based solution in search of a
> problem, one with no defined or definable benefits to anybody other
> than the contractors involved. What a huge scam!)
What is wrong with giving a discount to Fastrack users?
If it encouares people to use a quicker toll payment system, then
everyone benefits.
>
> > Weekends are a time when they could greatly increase ridership with some
> > sort of "family" pass. I.e. we go to SF a lot, but I calculated the cost
> > of using transit for a four people, and it would cost about $80, versus
> > about $16 in gasoline (yeah, I know that there are more costs than just
> > fuel in operating a vehicle, but the incremental cost of 100 extra miles
> > is in reality quite negligible other than fuel.
>
> I agree with this completely.
Yes this is an idea that the riding public should push.
>
> > The transit agencies should get together and market weekend TransLink®
> > cards as a way of generating revenue on weekends and holidays when
> > ridership is extremely low on many systems, but where the systems are
> > still forced to run service.
>
> I have no idea what the hell this has to do with the MTC-staff-promoted
> incompetent-contractor-rewarding decades-late millions-overbudget
> no-definable-benefit TransLink(sm) program of systematic taxpayer
> defraudment.
I agree the Translink is ridiculous, nothing more than a costly
electronic version of our disjointed transit fares here in the bay
area.
>
> Caltrain could easily have its ticket machines print out a piece of
> paper that says "CALTRAIN FAMILY FARE valid for 2 adults and up to
> 4 accompanied children until <date-time>" and Muni could agree to
> accept such a piece of paper as proof of payment.
It is way too easy for them to do ;-)
>
> At least that's how things are done in advanced first world industrial
> democracies.
>
> This has nothing to do with making Motorolo/ERG rich, and everything
> to do with doing transportation coordination and planning. Since MTC's
> actions uniformly ensure the former and never the latter, I see no
> prospect of a first-world-style multi-agency family ticket --
> paper-based or even as a multi-hundred-thousand dollar
> TransLink(c)(sm)(tm)(r) Engineering Change Order bonanza --
> any decade soon.
I love this analysis, beautiful!!!
>
> > What's unique about the bicycle situation is that the bicycle users were
> > nearly 100% upside revenue for CalTrain because the trains were so
> > lightly used when the program was started. Now they're about to become a
> > drag on the system since the bicycle parking area results in lower
> > capacity.
>
> Says you.
>
> Sorry, but this just isn't true.
>
> It's not 100% upside, but it's still positive.
>
> Provided one actually does the arithmetic, rather than getting carried
> away with prejudice. (No, a resident of Santa Clara who works in the
> SF CBD is no inherently a more worthy target of public largesse than
> two residents of San Francisco who works in Santa Clara, at least not
> by my non-prejudiced accounting.)
What?
SMS
> It can make a difference. If someone wants to save some money and they
> are able to adjust thier schedule, what is wrong with that?
The goal is to shift demand for enough riders (both with and without
bicycles) so there is more space for both bicycles and passengers on the
peak trains. Reduce peak ridership and maybe CalTrain would look at
accommodating more bicycles.
It's not just shifting demand either. On the weekends, CalTrain could
attract a lot more riders going to San Francisco if they had off-peak
fares, family fares, etc. It'd be pure upside revenue.
Once electronic ticketing is in place, as is the case on BART, there
won't be a need for any arguments as to when off-peak is in effect or
not. Translink will solve a lot of problems, especially for riders using
multiple systems.
Steve Pope
>The goal is to shift demand for enough riders (both with and without
>bicycles) so there is more space for both bicycles and passengers on the
>peak trains. Reduce peak ridership and maybe CalTrain would look at
>accommodating more bicycles.
>It's not just shifting demand either. On the weekends, CalTrain could
>attract a lot more riders going to San Francisco if they had off-peak
>fares, family fares, etc. It'd be pure upside revenue.
I agree. Tourists, for example, rarely ride transit before
9:30 a.m., which is when cheap day passes kick in for many
transit systems.
>Once electronic ticketing is in place, as is the case on BART, there
>won't be a need for any arguments as to when off-peak is in effect or
>not. Translink will solve a lot of problems, especially for riders using
>multiple systems.
Aren't Caltrain tickets already issued by electronic machines?
(I guess there's an issue with validating tickets, in that
you can't transform between peak and off-peak tickets just
by validating them.)
Steve
Jeff Carter
In Message-ID: <b6adf006-a053-452e-
b476-65c...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
Dated: Aug 27, 2008
> On Aug 23, 10:48 am, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Editor: The Caltrain Joint Powers Board is slated in October to
> > accept a bicycle plan that will, in the end, cut current carry-on-
> > board bicycle-car capacity.
>
> On the other hand, what can Caltrain be reasonably expected to do?
> Bikes take up a lot of room that could be used for more passengers now
> that Caltrain ridership is at a peak. Since a bicyclist plus non-
> folding bike take up the space of 3 passengers it's reasonable to
> either clear the bikes out of the way and make room for more
> passengers OR charge triple for the cyclists and their bikes.
3 passengers? Wrong! Where do you get that information?
4 seats removed = a bike rack for 4 bikes. You could make an
argument that the bike and the rider take up 2 seats, but if the bike
rider stands, then he only is taking up 1 seat for the bike on the
rack.
Bicycle passengers are routinely bumped every day, sometimes even on
subsequent trains. Do you have any statistics/instances were a non-
bike passenger was denied boarding *because* of excessive bicycle
capacity? And *not* due to the failure of Caltrain to provide
adequate capacity in general? (I. e. baseball, Bay to Breakers, Gay
Pride Parade, KFOG Kaboom, etc.) The gallery cars are designed to
accommodate a crush load of 100 standing passengers. It may not be
comfortable but it can be done. The Bay to Breakers fiasco, (May
2008) Caltrain ran two 5-car trains. I was waiting for the train at
Millbrae, with my bicycle, the scheduled train time passes, then the
second scheduled time passes, no trains, no announcements, meanwhile
BART trains seem to be pulling in or out every few minutes, and
hundreds of people are getting on BART. I heard from another
passenger waiting for Caltrain, who heard via cell phone, that the
train was completely full at Palo Alto, and was not picking up any
more passengers. That train passed through Millbrae on the
southbound track, it was jam-packed. The second train arrived about 10
minutes later, and was able to pick us up at Millbrae, including my
bike, and picked up more in San Bruno, arriving in SF a few minutes
prior to the 8:00am start of the B to B race. I heard from the Amtrak
employees that were counting people, that there were over 1,700 people
that got off the first train, the second train had over 800 people.
Caltrain/Amtrak was even able to run a third train to pick up the
slack, but how were any stranded passengers to know another train was
out there?
Bottom line is Caltrain left people behind because they did not
provide adequate service to meet the demand. NOT due to too much
bicycle space on the trains.
Why couldn’t Caltrain run 10-car trains on Bay to Breakers Sunday?
I remember the Golden Gate Bridge 50th anniversary fiasco about 25
years ago. Caltrain ran a special early morning 10-car train for a
bridge walk. I was at Broadway waiting with about 150 other people,
the train was very, very late, The Burlingame PD showed up and made
an announcement that the train was completely full by Mountain View
and would not be stopping here. It was estimated that the 10-car
train carried about 3,000 people. Thousands more were left behind
and that’s when Caltrain did not carry bicycles, even if they did
carry bicycles at that time it would not have mattered, people would
have been stranded either way.
You say that Cyclists should pay triple for the privilege to bring
their bikes on board. Well then, passengers that drive to the
station and park their car should pay the full costs of building and
maintenance of that parking space. How much is that? 20 dollars a
day, 50 dollars a day, 100 dollars a day? What’s fair is fair.
> I have a bike. I ride it from time to time. I'm not anti-bike, but I
> do indeed see a point that Caltrain wants to carry as many people as
> possible.
Then Caltrain needs to run more service and capacity. Removing on-
board bike space will not solve the problem.
> Being a bicycle expert, what solution can you find that will save
> enough space so that Caltrain doesn't need to reduce bike load-ins?
Steve Fenwick
<cef0b4fe-0428-4c1c...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff Carter <JCAR...@aol.com> wrote:
> You say that Cyclists should pay triple for the privilege to bring
> their bikes on board. Well then, passengers that drive to the
> station and park their car should pay the full costs of building and
> maintenance of that parking space. How much is that? 20 dollars a
> day, 50 dollars a day, 100 dollars a day? What零 fair is fair.
Again, it's not about fair. It's about getting solo drivers off 101 and
280 so additional lanes don't need to be built. At this time, bike
riders are not forcing non-biking passengers off the trains. If that
ever happened, I suspect Caltrain would take out bike racks and put
seats in.
David Kaye
> Before blandly stating what is and what is not "reasonable",
> try to gather facts, and then apply "reason" (rather than
> "prejudice", or "received wisdom") to the data and see what
> comes out.
You're not making any friends with that condescending attitude. I
have never commented on your posts in a condescending way. You at
least owe me a little respect.
What is this thing about "prejudice"? I said that I ride a bike
myself. While I'm not a bike commuter (I need to drive to call on far-
flung customers), I have been a bike commuter in the past, so I'm not
exactly ignorant of the situation.
Again, where is all this money going to come from to buy more rail
cars if non-folding bikes are banned or relegated to off-peak? You
tell me. You're the expert, no? Where is the money for this capital
expenditure going to come from. Certainly not the state. Do you
think JPB could levy a property tax increase to secure funding for
more rolling stock? YOU TELL ME where they money is going to come
from.
Jym Dyer
>> Being a bicycle expert, what solution can you find that
>> will save enough space so that Caltrain doesn't need to
>> reduce bike load-ins?
=v= The thing is, Caltrain has experimented with something
rare (though not unique), and it has succeeded beyond all
expectations. So there's not a lot of expertise about it.
We can either forge new ground or run away from success.
(Sadly, Caltrain seems inclined to the latter. That's why
it's up to us to promote the former.)
=v= The larger picture is that Caltrain wants to replace
its old fleet with one they can electrify. That could be
a good thing for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, their
first move in this direction was to buy Bombardiers without
any thought to the success of bikes on board, then at the
last minute thought of bike carriage, and ended up cutting
that in half.
=v= So for me the obvious route to go is to keep the existing
success in mind while building for future success. Set that
as a goal, and then let the experts do their jobs: perhaps
Bombardier or another vendor could work out a new internal
configuration with more clever use of space.
> = SMS
> Ai-yah, please don't call him a bicycle expert!
=v= Oh my no, don't call me an expert. Despite decades
of advocacy and activism, seats on the boards of NGOs, and
various written works, this isn't my day job, and I don't
think of myself as an expert. Not by Steven M. Scharf
standards, at any rate.
=v= What counts is the ability to make an argument and provide
support for it -- on an ongoing basis, not resting on any
"expertise" laurels. I believe I have done so. Compare with
Steven M. Scharf, "expert" in his own mind, who feels no need
to do anything but simply repeat his unsupported assertions
over and over again.
<_Jym_>
--
Green Bay Steelers for Truth
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
> What is this thing about "prejudice"? I said that I ride a bike
> myself. While I'm not a bike commuter (I need to drive to call on far-
> flung customers), I have been a bike commuter in the past, so I'm not
> exactly ignorant of the situation.
The prejudice is that of assuming that assuming, without justification
and in the face of contrary evidence and argument, that Caltrain can
gain most passengers and most revenue by marginally expanding
peak-of-peak-hour, peak-direction train seat capacity.
> Again, where is all this money going to come from to buy more rail
> cars if non-folding bikes are banned or relegated to off-peak? You
> tell me. You're the expert, no? Where is the money for this capital
> expenditure going to come from. Certainly not the state. Do you
> think JPB could levy a property tax increase to secure funding for
> more rolling stock? YOU TELL ME where they money is going to come
> from.
I have no idea what you're on about, sorry.
The issue is whether Caltrain is making the best choice
in allocation of limited resources (limited today, limited in
the future), in particular the resource measured by hours
of revenue service multiplied by square metres of passenger
car capacity.
David Kaye
>
> I have no idea what you're on about, sorry.
What I was attempting to say is that Caltrain is at capacity and
bikers using non-folding bikes are taking up a lot of space. The
trend on Caltrain ridership is up, and I see no reason not to believe
that it will go further up. Do you disagree so far?
You also haven't apologized for treating me rudely.
Richard Mlynarik
> What I was attempting to say is that Caltrain is at capacity and
> bikers using non-folding bikes are taking up a lot of space. The
> trend on Caltrain ridership is up, and I see no reason not to believe
> that it will go further up. Do you disagree so far?
Yes, I do.
Perhaps 3 round-trips per day are "at capacity".
Bikes only take up a "lot of space" on perhaps 3 round-trips
(= perhaps 90 extra non-bike-bringing-along passengers per day)
MAXIMUM.
On the other hand, EMPTY, UNUSED seats take up a lot of space
on approximately 95 round-trips per day.
You can continue to believe in the face of evidence and argument
to the contrary, that it's most important (by some never-explained)
metric to fill 3 peak-direction peak-hour trains at the expense of
turning away more real-life fare-paying passengers on other trains
if you like; I think it's pretty obvious nothing's about to change
in that department.
> You also haven't apologized for treating me rudely.
I disagree about the need to do so, sorry.
Steve Fenwick
Richard Mlynarik <M...@POBox.COM> wrote:
> David Kaye wrote, On 2008-09-08 12:21:
>
> > What I was attempting to say is that Caltrain is at capacity and
> > bikers using non-folding bikes are taking up a lot of space. The
> > trend on Caltrain ridership is up, and I see no reason not to believe
> > that it will go further up. Do you disagree so far?
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> Perhaps 3 round-trips per day are "at capacity".
>
> Bikes only take up a "lot of space" on perhaps 3 round-trips
> (= perhaps 90 extra non-bike-bringing-along passengers per day)
> MAXIMUM.
>
> On the other hand, EMPTY, UNUSED seats take up a lot of space
> on approximately 95 round-trips per day.
>
> You can continue to believe in the face of evidence and argument
> to the contrary, that it's most important (by some never-explained)
> metric to fill 3 peak-direction peak-hour trains
Because that's apparently when the bulk of the passengers want to
travel, bikers or not.
"Importance" depends on the goals. Your goals seem to be to maximize
resources used per passenger. Others' goals are to get more bikes on
trains when they (the bikers) want to travel; this may be during rush
hours. Others want to get cars off the highway; for them, displacing 90
bikes on board may be a fine trade.
If you have concrete suggestions on how to get more passengers on to the
off-peak trains, great. Meanwhile, others will try to get more
passengers on to the trains the prospective passengers apparently want
to take.