Caltrain Seeks Input on its Short-Range Transit Plan by 20-Nov
Jym Dyer
Caltrain's draft Short-Range Transit Plan (FY2009 to FY2018)
describes the bike capacity increase made in 2009, but contains
no stated plan for bikes onboard going forward. This is a
serious omission, because there is insufficient bike capacity
right now! Further, Caltrain intends to buy new rolling stock
for electrified trains. It is critical to plan for bikes onboard
at the onset, rather than try to shoehorn them in later, or
(gasp) eliminate bikes altogether. Please email Caltrain and
let them know they need to plan for bikes onboard, now and for
electrified trains.
We recommend the following talking points:
1. Thank Caltrain for the expanded bike capacity in 2009.
2. Cyclists continue to get bumped today, so there is still
unmet demand for onboard bike space.
3. Caltrain is projecting general ridership to increase a total
of only 1% through FY2014, so trains will continue to have
empty seats. By replacing empty seats with bike racks,
Caltrain can increase ridership and farebox revenue to help
offset projected budget shortfalls.
4. For better service reliability, Caltrain should improve
consistency in bike capacity with 72 to 80 bikes per train in
2010 (three bike cars on Bombardier trains and two bike cars
on gallery trains).
5. Caltrain should plan for 20% onboard bike capacity on
electrified trains in 2015.
6. Caltrain must design and install bike space on electrified
new rolling stock before the equipment leaves the factory to
avoid high retrofit costs.
Send your email by November 20 to SR...@caltrain.com (and copy us
at bikeso...@sfbike.org).
= More Details =
Read Caltrain's draft Short-Range Transit Plan:
http://caltrain.com/srtp/pdf/2009-2018/DRAFT_Short_Range_Transit_Plan_2009-2018.pdf
Read our proposal to improve consistency in bike capacity:
http://www.sfbike.org/caltrain_bob_propose
Read our analysis of demand for bike capacity on electrified trains:
http://tinyurl.com/SFBC-Plan
spamtrap1888
>
> We recommend the following talking points:
>
> 1. Thank Caltrain for the expanded bike capacity in 2009.
>
> 2. Cyclists continue to get bumped today, so there is still
> unmet demand for onboard bike space.
>
> 3. Caltrain is projecting general ridership to increase a total
> of only 1% through FY2014, so trains will continue to have
> empty seats. By replacing empty seats with bike racks,
> Caltrain can increase ridership and farebox revenue to help
> offset projected budget shortfalls.
>
> 4. For better service reliability, Caltrain should improve
> consistency in bike capacity with 72 to 80 bikes per train in
> 2010 (three bike cars on Bombardier trains and two bike cars
> on gallery trains).
>
> 5. Caltrain should plan for 20% onboard bike capacity on
> electrified trains in 2015.
>
> 6. Caltrain must design and install bike space on electrified
> new rolling stock before the equipment leaves the factory to
> avoid high retrofit costs.
Why not just provide secure storage at stations, and have everyone buy
two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside the train by taking up room
for themselves and their bikes
Tom Kunich
news:200cfadf-9694-4e9e...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why not just provide secure storage at stations, and have everyone buy
> two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside the train by taking up room
> for themselves and their bikes
Do you suppose that the space for the secure bicycle containers comes more
cheaply than allowing them to ride? What happens as the dollar devalues more
and more people are riding bicycles?
Do you suppose that bicycles are cheap for a reliable bit of transportation?
Jym Dyer
> everyone buy two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside
> the train by taking up room for themselves and their bikes
=v= I guess you couldn't be bothered to follow the provided
links, which address both your question and your erroneous
assertion.
=v= Caltrain already provides quite a range of storage already,
at quite some cost. Demand exceeds its capacity, and adding
more capacity is more expensive than Caltrain seems to be able
to maintain with any consistence. Handling bike carriage has
a much higher return on investment.
=v= The "taking up room" argument is and always has been a total
canard. Since the program's inception, no passenger has been
denied boarding because of -- except for bicyclists themselves.
Even in those cases, there has never been a lack of room for
passengers (except during nonusual events such as Giants games,
which Caltrain plans extra capacity for).
=v= In fact, bike capacity has doubled on most peak-hour trains
by removing seats for more onboard bike storage, and still no
passengers have been denied boarding for lack of seating.
=v= In addition to being a canard, the argument overlooks the
vital fact that the bike carriage program has built Caltrain's
ridership to what it is. Without the door-to-door journey that
the bike+train solution provides, riders would otherwise just
drive cars.
<_Jym_>
TBerk
I'm going to 'mee-too' this one with real life experience;
- Bikes at both ends is, well, a stupid idea. I'm sorry to offend, but
it is.
- The new cars are hard to get bikes on and off off.
- The new cars make for it being more likely that even if you get a
bike space, some non-bike train patron will have occupied the 1at
available seats, causing folks who might actually sit near their bikes
and keep an eye on them to find seats in another part of the car/
train.
- More and better bike experience(s) will lead to greater ridership.
berk
Jym Dyer
> to offend, but it is.
=v= Both ends of the train, you mean? The problem is that if
all bikes are stored in one car, that probably will increase
dwell time.
=v= At some public meeting when Caltrain staff was trying to
figure out ways to discourage bike carriage, they floated a
suggestion that the conductors have handheld devices to keep
track of the number of bikes, which then would be shown on
the overhead displays at the next station. The idea was that
bicyclists could then somehow make arrangements to leave their
bikes at the station, but it seems to me that the same system
could be used to inform bicyclists which car to queue up for.
> - The new cars are hard to get bikes on and off off.
=v= I think the opposite, since they're lower to the ground.
> - The new cars make for it being more likely that even if
> you get a bike space, some non-bike train patron will have
> occupied the 1at available seats, causing folks who might
> actually sit near their bikes and keep an eye on them to
> find seats in another part of the car/ train.
=v= Agreed. BART has the same problem, of course.
=v= The basic problem with the new cars (the Bombardiers) is
that Caltrain put no thought into configuring them for bikes --
indeed they'd been built for Seattle's Sound Transit system --
so what we've got is a retrofit. The more recent phase of the
retrofit is quite clever, but it's still a retrofit.
=v= Caltrain hopes to move the entire system to new cars, so
it seems to me that Bombardier should actually design a car
to carry bikes (and with jumpseats located so that folks in
wheelchairs can look out the window).
<_Jym_>
David Nebenzahl
Sounds like you'd have a bright future working for the JPB down there in
San Carlos, either as a policy maker or as a flack.
[Note to =v=Jym=v=: See how easy correct attribution is? The news client
does it all for you. Just gotta set it up properly.]
--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?
- harvested from Usenet
Tom Kunich
news:Jym.14Nov20...@scorcher.org...
>> - Bikes at both ends is, well, a stupid idea. I'm sorry to
>> to offend, but it is.
>
> =v= Both ends of the train, you mean? The problem is that if
> all bikes are stored in one car, that probably will increase
> dwell time.
Jym, he means having one bike left at the beginning of the train ride in a
box and then having another bike in a box at the far end of your trip. And
yes it is a stupid idea. Even the BART boxes with people all around most of
the time are broken into and stolen.
David Nebenzahl
> Jym, he means having one bike left at the beginning of the train ride
> in a box and then having another bike in a box at the far end of your
> trip. And yes it is a stupid idea. Even the BART boxes with people
> all around most of the time are broken into and stolen.
Really? Not disputing you, just a little bit surprised.
Not much, actually; I had a bike stolen in the middle of the afternoon
on a weekday, locked up at Ashby on the crowded east side of the
station. Cops passing by probably every 10 minutes.
Tom Kunich
news:4aff259d$0$4074$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 11/14/2009 12:19 PM Tom Kunich spake thus:
>
>> Jym, he means having one bike left at the beginning of the train ride
>> in a box and then having another bike in a box at the far end of your
>> trip. And yes it is a stupid idea. Even the BART boxes with people
>> all around most of the time are broken into and stolen.
>
> Really? Not disputing you, just a little bit surprised.
>
> Not much, actually; I had a bike stolen in the middle of the afternoon on
> a weekday, locked up at Ashby on the crowded east side of the station.
> Cops passing by probably every 10 minutes.
While I was commuting to jobs in Berkeley via BART to the north Berkeley
station ALL of the boxes were broken into. And the bikes locked overnight to
the steel posts out in front of the station were stripped and often the
remains were bent to uselessness.
David Nebenzahl
> While I was commuting to jobs in Berkeley via BART to the north Berkeley
> station ALL of the boxes were broken into. And the bikes locked overnight to
> the steel posts out in front of the station were stripped and often the
> remains were bent to uselessness.
Heh; leaving a bike locked *anywhere* in Bezerkeley overnight is asking
for it.
Fucking barbarians.
Tom Kunich
> On 11/14/2009 2:41 PM Tom Kunich spake thus:
>
>> While I was commuting to jobs in Berkeley via BART to the north Berkeley
>> station ALL of the boxes were broken into. And the bikes locked overnight
>> to the steel posts out in front of the station were stripped and often
>> the remains were bent to uselessness.
>
> Heh; leaving a bike locked *anywhere* in Bezerkeley overnight is asking
> for it.
>
> Fucking barbarians.
I worked in Berkeley for over a score of years at one company or another
until the council passed laws that chased businesses out of town. During
that time I was awed by the stupidity of the Berkeley citizens and council.
Why would you attack businesses that were down on the edge of town, made
almost no pollution, gave jobs to many of the town residents and paid a lot
of taxes?
JC Dill
> Not much, actually; I had a bike stolen in the middle of the afternoon
> on a weekday, locked up at Ashby on the crowded east side of the
> station. Cops passing by probably every 10 minutes.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4yydGUB88c
You will never trust that someone won't cut a bike lock again.
I have 2 bikes. One is an older consumer-brand bike (~10-15 years old)
my Dad gave me - I use it for shopping trips where I leave it locked up
in front of the store. The bike is worth *maybe* $100 - if someone
wants it badly enough to cut the lock, they can have it.
The other bike was built out of top quality used parts from several bike
friends. One friend made a major donation of the frame, fork, gearset,
etc. - parts left over from when he upgraded to an even nicer bike. (He
also built the bike.) They are *nice* parts and it's a *nice* bike - I
could never afford to buy (or replace) a bike this nice. The bike is
worth a lot more and I only ride it in circumstances when I don't let it
out of my sight.
If I were commuting and leaving a bike locked at a BART or train
station, I'd use the first bike. Yeah, it's not as much fun to ride,
but I don't fret about my bike when I lock it up and leave it. You can
get a pretty good "get me to the station" bike for $100-$150 on
Craigslist these days.
jc
David Nebenzahl
> See:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4yydGUB88c
>
> You will never trust that someone won't cut a bike lock again.
Thanks. Don't need to. I'm not an agnostic on this issue.
> If I were commuting and leaving a bike locked at a BART or train
> station, I'd use the first bike. Yeah, it's not as much fun to ride,
> but I don't fret about my bike when I lock it up and leave it. You can
> get a pretty good "get me to the station" bike for $100-$150 on
> Craigslist these days.
My current bike is a real piece of shit (my previous one was destroyed
when I was hit in a hit-and-run accident a couple months ago)--but it
works, and it cost me $0 (gift of a friend who buys bikes at the flea
market). You can do a lot better than $100 for a bike.
David Nebenzahl
I think you'll find a lot of sympathetic voices in WEBAIC, the West
Berkeley Artisans and Industrial Companies (http://webaic.org). They're
currently battling the city over their latest plan to purge Berkeley of
any vestiges of icky dirty old industry, in favor of virtual clean new!
improved! "green" industry.
TBerk
> > - Bikes at both ends is, well, a stupid idea. I'm sorry to
> > to offend, but it is.
>
> =v= Both ends of the train, you mean? The problem is that if
> all bikes are stored in one car, that probably will increase
> dwell time.
>
No, actually I was reffering to the previous poster's comment on 'why
don't people just have two bikes?'; One at Each End of the train
ride. I'm not yet commenting ton bike cars at each end of the train
itself.
> =v= At some public meeting when Caltrain staff was trying to
> figure out ways to discourage bike carriage, they floated a
> suggestion that the conductors have handheld devices to keep
> track of the number of bikes, which then would be shown on
> the overhead displays at the next station. The idea was that
> bicyclists could then somehow make arrangements to leave their
> bikes at the station, but it seems to me that the same system
> could be used to inform bicyclists which car to queue up for.
>
> > - The new cars are hard to get bikes on and off off.
>
> =v= I think the opposite, since they're lower to the ground.
Once you get in the car you are presented with fewer places to park
the bike, if there are spaces at the other set of doors the way to get
your bike there (aside from waiting to dash out the train and back on
the other end) is to walk it down the aisle. Between the people.
Usually it's done on it's back wheel so your pedals are right around
head hight. Even though I am in control of the bike the people seem
nervous, and rightly so.
>
> > - The new cars make for it being more likely that even if
> > you get a bike space, some non-bike train patron will have
> > occupied the 1at available seats, causing folks who might
> > actually sit near their bikes and keep an eye on them to
> > find seats in another part of the car/ train.
>
> =v= Agreed. BART has the same problem, of course.
>
> =v= The basic problem with the new cars (the Bombardiers) is
> that Caltrain put no thought into configuring them for bikes --
> indeed they'd been built for Seattle's Sound Transit system --
> so what we've got is a retrofit. The more recent phase of the
> retrofit is quite clever, but it's still a retrofit.
>
> =v= Caltrain hopes to move the entire system to new cars, so
> it seems to me that Bombardier should actually design a car
> to carry bikes (and with jumpseats located so that folks in
> wheelchairs can look out the window).
> <_Jym_>
I'm with that one. In fact I had tought of a fold down bench seat that
would allow for bikes or passengers depending on who got on board.
berk
Graham Harrison
I want to make it clear that my own preference is to take my bicycle on the
train. One of the best ways of doing that when commuting is (in my view)
to use a folding bike (and my preference is http://www.brompton.co.uk/ who
do sell in the US) but I would be even happier taking my full size bike on
the train.
That said, the "leave a bike at both ends of the train ride" method does
seem to work here in the UK, and without the need for bike boxes. We have
exactly the same problems with bike theft here that you do, indeed it is
well known (and you may ask why the police don't do something - just don't
go there) that many stolen bikes are sold on e-Bay and in certain markets.
That said, if you got to Paddington Station in London you will find a large
bicycle park which is simply a series of what we call Sheffield stands (a
heavy duty inverted U set in concrete) with bikes attached. At the outer
ends of the line you will find much the same situation at suburban stations.
The impression I get is that people using this method simply accept the
theft risk by the use of cheap, often secondhand, bikes. I also wonder
whether the thieves, presented with an embarrassment of riches, are too
stupid to decide which to steal and therefore leave them alone.
And, as an aside, I was amazed to see a multi storey bicycle park which must
have had space for at least 1000 bikes next to Kurashiki station in Japan.
Mike Jacoubowsky
the issues of damage (from bikes banging against each other) and the
hassles of arranging bikes in the order of the stations? Could be that
that's already been addressed and I'm way late to the party, but the
current "stacking" system is by far the largest deterrent to increased
use for my customers. For those who take the time to figure it out, it's
no big deal, and has almost become a right of passage. But for many
others it's a significant road block, especially after their first
experience with other cyclists not friendly to the newbies.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.12Nov2...@scorcher.org...
David Nebenzahl
> What about #7? Bike racks that hold the bikes vertically, eliminating
> the issues of damage (from bikes banging against each other) and the
> hassles of arranging bikes in the order of the stations? Could be
> that that's already been addressed and I'm way late to the party, but
> the current "stacking" system is by far the largest deterrent to
> increased use for my customers. For those who take the time to figure
> it out, it's no big deal, and has almost become a right of passage.
> But for many others it's a significant road block, especially after
> their first experience with other cyclists not friendly to the
> newbies.
I second that emotion.
I've actually been advocating this for some time: a more rational, more
compact and easier-to-sort-out storage system where the bikes are stored
vertically. It would incorporate some kind of easy-to-use hoist system,
either manual or power-assisted. The cyclist would wheel their bike into
the slot on its back wheel, the front wheel would get hooked and
hoisted, and the bike secured.
No more bellowing "Who's getting off at Redwood City?".
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
Don Freeman
> It would incorporate some kind of easy-to-use hoist system,
> either manual or power-assisted. The cyclist would wheel their bike into
> the slot on its back wheel, the front wheel would get hooked and
> hoisted, and the bike secured.
Which is how Amtrak does it on the Capitol Corridor.
> No more bellowing "Who's getting off at Redwood City?".
The Caltrain system would work a lot better if all bicyclists used the
recommended destination tags. I got to the point where if there was no
tag then I would just assume that it was getting off at the same station
as the bike that was behind it. If there were no other bikes then the
one without a tag then it was going to my station.
--
-Don
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> It would incorporate some kind of easy-to-use hoist system,
>> either manual or power-assisted. The cyclist would wheel their bike into
>> the slot on its back wheel, the front wheel would get hooked and
>> hoisted, and the bike secured.
>
> Which is how Amtrak does it on the Capitol Corridor.
As Johnny Carson used to say, I did not know that. Have to check that
out the next time I take the Capitol.
>> No more bellowing "Who's getting off at Redwood City?".
>
> The Caltrain system would work a lot better if all bicyclists used the
> recommended destination tags. I got to the point where if there was no
> tag then I would just assume that it was getting off at the same station
> as the bike that was behind it. If there were no other bikes then the
> one without a tag then it was going to my station.
That was my standard operating procedure back when I used to ride
Caltrain to and from work.
Don Freeman
> On 11/19/2009 11:21 AM Don Freeman spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> >
>>> It would incorporate some kind of easy-to-use hoist system,
>>> either manual or power-assisted. The cyclist would wheel their bike
>>> into the slot on its back wheel, the front wheel would get hooked and
>>> hoisted, and the bike secured.
>>
>> Which is how Amtrak does it on the Capitol Corridor.
>
> As Johnny Carson used to say, I did not know that. Have to check that
> out the next time I take the Capitol.
It's pretty neat, there is a lever that you push up to pull your bike
into position. I'm not so sure you can get as many bikes in the same
area as Caltrain's stacking method does though.
>
>>> No more bellowing "Who's getting off at Redwood City?".
>>
>> The Caltrain system would work a lot better if all bicyclists used the
>> recommended destination tags. I got to the point where if there was
>> no tag then I would just assume that it was getting off at the same
>> station as the bike that was behind it. If there were no other bikes
>> then the one without a tag then it was going to my station.
>
> That was my standard operating procedure back when I used to ride
> Caltrain to and from work.
>
>
It only takes one time of them missing their station due to trying to
extricate their bike to learn the way of the tag. Otherwise they keep
on doing it.
--
-Don
JC Dill
> The Caltrain system would work a lot better if all bicyclists used the
> recommended destination tags.
This assumes that the bicyclist is always getting on/off at the same
stations. If one regularly takes the train to different stations for
different destinations, (work, school, shopping, hobbies, home) then
using destination tags isn't so easy.
jc
David Nebenzahl
Well, if you can make one destination tag, you can make more than one.
(I made my own; dunno where other people get theirs.)
Don Freeman
Sure it is. I was in that situation, so I bought a $0.99 waterproof
fishing license holder which was permanently attached to the bike. I
kept a set of destinations written on card stock and just slid the
appropriate one in the holder when it was needed.
--
-Don
Jym Dyer
> issues of damage (from bikes banging against each other) and
> the hassles of arranging bikes in the order of the stations?
=v= Caltrain staff told us that they studied this and every
other configuration (including the Capitol Corridor and ACE),
and determined that their current racks are the most efficient
use of space. I don't find it much of a hassle to work this
out; the only real hassle is when others don't bother to.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
>> used the recommended destination tags.
=v= This was working smoothly when yellow tags were plentiful.
For a while, Caltrain stopped making the tags, which produced
a batch of riders with diminished expectations. That's why
the SFBC BIKES ONboard project started making and handing out
all those green tags (after which Caltrain started making the
yellow ones again).
> If one regularly takes the train to different stations for
> different destinations, (work, school, shopping, hobbies,
> home) then using destination tags isn't so easy.
=v= The SFBC approach is a clear luggage tag that can hold
cards for whichever destinations you need. You can download
preprinted cards from here:
http://www.sfbike.org/?caltrain
Or just make them as you need them. Worst case, you can always
grab a piece of paper from the literature rack, write down a
destination, and use the bike's cabling to hold it on the bike.
<_Jym_>
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> What about #7? Bike racks that hold the bikes vertically, eliminating
> the issues of damage (from bikes banging against each other) and the
> hassles of arranging bikes in the order of the stations?
Dedicated bike cars is an antiquated, obsolete, and
impractical concept. Long ago, BART (yes, BART!)
got rid of the last-car only rule, and allows bikes in
pretty much all cars (except the first, which is still
reserved for disabled, though staff has hinted they
wouldn't mind eliminating even that restriction).
For the foreseeable future, Caltrain will be running
a _lot_ of spare seats during off-peak hours. There
should be no reason to deny on-board bike access,
just because the "racks are full".
Jym Dyer
> impractical concept.
=v= You can throw as many pejorative adjectives around as you
want, but where's your substantive evidence?
=v= The bike car has built Caltrain's ridership into what it
is, and sustains that ridership in hard times (despite neglect
and sometimes outright hostility from the system's lower-level
decision-makers). Bikes are also the most effective solution
to the last mile problem, here and now.
=v= It could be that the dedicated bike car isn't the best
implementation, but it seems clear both from where Caltrain's
program succeeds and where it fails that the key is to have
dedicated space. I'd be interested in having bike carriage
on every car, commensurate with a projection that cyclists
would be 20% of the ridership if bike carriage was reliable.
> Long ago, BART (yes, BART!) got rid of the last-car only
> rule, and allows bikes in pretty much all cars (except
> the first, which is still reserved for disabled ...)
=v= As one of the activists working on this, yes, I remember
it well. BART's program falls well short of Caltrain's, first
and foremost because bikes are prohibited from BART completely
during commute hours!! Not exactly a commute solution.
=v= Secondly, BART limits bikes to a specific area but the area
is not reserved in any way. (A relatively recent addition is a
"Bike Space" graphic on some cars, but that neither designates
nor confers a reserved spot.) The bike area, as you probably
know, is what's closest to the door, and passengers without
bikes simply plop down there because they're the nearest seats.
=v= This is also the area reserved for the handicapped and
seniors, a priority that I support heartily*, but the signage
can be confusing and some people think bicyclists are taking
space reserved for others.
<_Jym_>
________________________________________________________________
* In fact my particular contribution to having bikes on all
the BART cars was insisting that the handicapped priority
be considered and honored.
Caltrain's configuration for folks in wheelchairs on the
newer Bombardier cars is also problematic. These folks
are strapped in next to a wall, rather than a window.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Jym: You have to go back in time, way back in time, to a point in which
maybe cycling wasn't the biggest thing in your life, and you were just
getting your toes wet. That's where most of our potential future cyclists
are right now. And at that point in one's life, "little" things like having
to learn the ropes for dealing with proper etiquette and procedures on
CalTrain can be intimidating enough to make someone decide it's not worth
the hassle.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> =v= It could be that the dedicated bike car isn't the best
> implementation, but it seems clear both from where Caltrain's
> program succeeds and where it fails that the key is to have
> dedicated space.
Caltrain is massively pissing off loyal customers.
Otherwise totally empty Caltrains are leaving bicyclists
on the platform, because the dedicated space is full.
The "key" to solving that problem is eliminating the
archaic dedicated space concept.
>
> > Long ago, BART (yes, BART!) got rid of the last-car only
> > rule, and allows bikes in pretty much all cars (except
> > the first, which is still reserved for disabled ...)
>
> =v= As one of the activists working on this, yes, I remember
> it well. BART's program falls well short of Caltrain's, first
> and foremost because bikes are prohibited from BART completely
> during commute hours!! Not exactly a commute solution.
>
First of all, you are laughably embellishing your role in
BART's rule modifications.
Secondly, the severe capacity issues with BART's
transbay tube, the underground platforms, and the 10-car
trains are well established. Those limitations do not
apply to caltrain. A dedicated bike car would not
solve any of those problems for BART. Even if BART
trains could deliver bikes to Montgomery street station,
the platform and constricted passenger circulation
would cause any number of problems. All the bike
activists agree on this.
Let's recall why Caltrain even has bike racks in
the first place. They were put in place not at the
request of cyclists, or even Caltrain staff, but idiot
lawyers and Federal railway "Safety" regulators
who worried that bikes could turn into projectiles
in the event of a collision. Never mind that anything
else on the train (bodies, beer cans, luggage,
strollers, etc) could also be projectiles too, but
nobody talks about strapping those things in.
Given the large number of passenger train operations
that now handle bikes (sans racks), we can safely
conclude that bikes pose no hazard to passengers,
even when trains do crash. Thus, Caltrain should
follow BART's lead: get a design waiver, allow bikes
to evenly distribute themselves throughout the train
(which GREATLY helps reduce dwell time),
and have more flexible seating and boarding policies
which will maximize the use of a valuable
public resource.
Don Freeman
> Given the large number of passenger train operations
> that now handle bikes (sans racks), we can safely
> conclude that bikes pose no hazard to passengers,
> even when trains do crash. Thus, Caltrain should
> follow BART's lead: get a design waiver, allow bikes
> to evenly distribute themselves throughout the train
> (which GREATLY helps reduce dwell time),
> and have more flexible seating and boarding policies
> which will maximize the use of a valuable
> public resource.
>
Obviously you have never taken a bike on Caltrain during a peak commute
period. Otherwise you would be aware of the bottle neck at the doors
and the conflicts that would arise if every car was set up as you propose.
--
-Don
Steve Fenwick
Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
I was going to ask: as a non-bike passenger in the middle of a car with,
say, two bikes in each end of the aisle, how do I get out at all, much
less in a timely manner?
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!"
David Nebenzahl
> In article <4b0c09d8$0$1632$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>
>> bay_bri...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Given the large number of passenger train operations that now
>>> handle bikes (sans racks), we can safely conclude that bikes pose
>>> no hazard to passengers, even when trains do crash. Thus,
>>> Caltrain should follow BART's lead: get a design waiver, allow
>>> bikes to evenly distribute themselves throughout the train (which
>>> GREATLY helps reduce dwell time), and have more flexible seating
>>> and boarding policies which will maximize the use of a valuable
>>> public resource.
>>
>> Obviously you have never taken a bike on Caltrain during a peak
>> commute period. Otherwise you would be aware of the bottle neck at
>> the doors and the conflicts that would arise if every car was set
>> up as you propose.
>
> I was going to ask: as a non-bike passenger in the middle of a car
> with, say, two bikes in each end of the aisle, how do I get out at
> all, much less in a timely manner?
Seems like the burden of proof here (or at least the burden of
explanaion) is on Mr. bay_bridge_tgv* to show that such an anarchic
scheme could be workable.
I'm agnostic on the subject. I'd like Mr. b_b_t to explain how his
scheme might work; perhaps it isn't as wildly disorganized as one might
imagine it to be.
And how is this done in Yurp and other places? How do they deal with
bike carriage on trains over there?
Certainly there must be something better than Caltrain's jury-rigged
racks that won't inconvenience non-bike-riding passengers.
More information, please.
* Does Mr. b_b_t *really* envision high-speed trains (which is what I
assume "tgv" means) on the Bay Bridge???
JC Dill
> And how is this done in Yurp and other places? How do they deal with
> bike carriage on trains over there?
http://www.seat61.com/bike-by-train.htm
quote:
Many European trains allow you to carry bikes a special bicycle
compartment, sometimes free, sometimes for a small fee. If a fee is
charged, it's typically about 5-15 euros per journey. But first let's
manage your expectations: Bikes are generally allowed on local &
regional trains in most countries, at least outside peak hours.
(depending on the train/country, the bike may need to be dismantled, put
in a box or carry bag, or stowed in a special bike luggage compartment)
Caltrain is actually doing a much better job as you can take a bike
without dismantling or paying an extra fee, and take it during commute
hours.
jc
Don Freeman
They are but they are playing a different role. I believe that the
European method you mention is not meant for commuter travel whereas
Caltrain is. I know that I wouldn't consider dismantling/assembling my
bike four times a day, every day.
--
-Don
JC Dill
> JC Dill wrote:
>> Bikes are generally allowed on local &
>> regional trains in most countries, at least outside peak hours.
> They are but they are playing a different role. I believe that the
> European method you mention is not meant for commuter travel whereas
> Caltrain is. I know that I wouldn't consider dismantling/assembling my
> bike four times a day, every day.
Please re-read the final sentence (above) I quoted from that page, which
I left unsnipped from my earlier post. As you can see, the page
discusses BOTH long-distance trains and local trains. Local mass
transit systems (buses, trains, subways, etc.) are used for commuting,
and many of the local trains in Europe don't allow bikes during peak
(commuter) hours.
jc
Steve Fenwick
wrote:
So the answer to the question is, according to the cited source, it's
worse in Europe to try to commute to work (during weekday peak commute
hours) by train and bike than to do so by Caltrain. Or maybe the
straight "no" in Europe is preferable to the teasing "maybe" from
Caltrain?
JC Dill
> So the answer to the question is, according to the cited source, it's
> worse in Europe to try to commute to work (during weekday peak commute
> hours) by train and bike than to do so by Caltrain. Or maybe the
> straight "no" in Europe is preferable to the teasing "maybe" from
> Caltrain?
Maybe it means that when you get to your destination station the transit
system gets you close enough to where you need to go that you don't need
to take a bike with you. I know the Underground in London is so
interconnected and with stations so close together that you rarely need
to walk more than 5 minutes to go anywhere in London. Neither CalTrain
nor BART come anywhere close, and MUNI is a joke compared with the Tube.
Since CalTrain (and the connecting transit systems) don't deliver
commuters to a stop near their workplaces nearly as well, a rider is
more likely to need a bike on both ends of the train ride.
jc
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> >> Obviously you have never taken a bike on Caltrain during a peak
> >> commute period. Otherwise you would be aware of the bottle neck at
> >> the doors and the conflicts that would arise if every car was set
> >> up as you propose.
On the contrary. Under the current scheme, Caltrain suffers severe
delays at stations while conductors wait for all the bicyclists to
file through into the bike car. Distributing that boarding/unloading
evenly throughout the train, taking advantage of all car doors, can
greatly minimize delay. In the case of BART, the tipping point which
led to relaxation of bike rules was realization by Operations that
allowing bikes on all cars was actually in their benefit
because it reduced dwell time.
>
> I'm agnostic on the subject. I'd like Mr. b_b_t to explain how his
> scheme might work; perhaps it isn't as wildly disorganized as one might
> imagine it to be.
Passengers are actually very good at self-organization, no need
to treat them like idiots. The idea is quite simple: provide
large open area around the vestibule area. That space can be
used for some combination of luggage, wheelchairs, strollers,
standees, bikes, or seated passenger (pulldown seat). Any typical
modern train car will have such a configuration, And for cars that
are
not so modern, it is simple enough to create such a space by
removing seats.
>
> And how is this done in Yurp and other places? How do they deal with
> bike carriage on trains over there?
Usually, something like this:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/644/interior/644i3.jpg
Tom Kunich
news:heijgg$h5d$1...@aioe.org...
>
> Since CalTrain (and the connecting transit systems) don't deliver
> commuters to a stop near their workplaces nearly as well, a rider is more
> likely to need a bike on both ends of the train ride.
Remember that European cities were built before there was mass
transportation and so they're much more compact.
Don Freeman
> On Nov 24, 11:56 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>>> Obviously you have never taken a bike on Caltrain during a peak
>>>> commute period. Otherwise you would be aware of the bottle
>>>> neck at the doors and the conflicts that would arise if every
>>>> car was set up as you propose.
>
> On the contrary. Under the current scheme, Caltrain suffers severe
> delays at stations while conductors wait for all the bicyclists to
> file through into the bike car.
In over ten years of daily Caltrain commuting with my bike the only
"severe" delays "due" to bikes getting on board were when the train was
already late leaving the terminus station and the conductors would make
a big deal of bikes getting on board. As if it were our fault they were
late.
> The idea is quite simple: provide large open
> area around the vestibule area. That space can be used for some
> combination of luggage, wheelchairs, strollers, standees, bikes, or
> seated passenger (pulldown seat). Any typical modern train car will
> have such a configuration, And for cars that are not so modern, it is
> simple enough to create such a space by removing seats.
Simple? You do realize that there is a stairway right there don't you?
The stairway to the upper galley.
--
-Don
Steve Fenwick
<3ee59d1d-99a6-409f...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
"bay_bri...@yahoo.com" <bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That looks like one passenger and his bike taking the space of eight
seats. If the trains are crowded, is this really a good idea?
SMS
> Why not just provide secure storage at stations, and have everyone buy
> two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside the train by taking up room
> for themselves and their bikes
The storage solution doesn't work because secure storage isn't really
secure.
The most cost effective solution would for CalTrain to subsidize the
purchase of folding bikes that could fit under seats then to charge fees
for bringing a full size bicycle that takes up extra space. Adding $1
for each trip to bring a bike should solve the problem nicely.
Offer vouchers (i.e. $25) that can be used to offset the cost of monthly
passes over a period of two years, with proof of purchase of a folding
bicycle small enough to fit under a seat or in the luggage bin. This
would also have the benefit of increasing ridership from those that
avoid CalTrain because of the bicycle hassle. It would also encourage
bicycle use in other situations from those that bought the folders.
You can buy a decent folding bicycle for $350-400, and a crappy one
that's still good enough for a mile or two for $150.
See
"http://www.calstart.org/Projects/First-Mile/First-Mile-Projects/Folding-Bicycle-Subsidy-Program.aspx".
JC Dill
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
>> Why not just provide secure storage at stations, and have everyone buy
>> two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside the train by taking up room
>> for themselves and their bikes
>
> The storage solution doesn't work because secure storage isn't really
> secure.
> You can buy a decent folding bicycle for $350-400, and a crappy one
> that's still good enough for a mile or two for $150.
If you are willing to ride a crappy bike, you can buy a crappy bike for
$50-100 off of Craigslist and just leave one at each end. Even if the
"secure storage" isn't all that secure, who cares if it's just a $50
bike which is much less likely to be stolen, and not all that much of a
loss if it is stolen. The *real* problem is that the most regular
riders who bring bikes on the train don't want to ride crappy bikes,
either crappy folding bikes or crappy beater bikes to be left at both
ends of their train commute. Most riders I know want to ride nice
enough bikes that they can't easily afford to have one at each end, and
can't easily afford the loss if there's a theft, and folding bikes just
don't make the cut.
jc
Peter Lawrence
I think there are two straight forward solutions to the problem of too many
bikes on Caltrain.
The first one is simply to add more bike cars on trains that frequently are
at capacity, bike-passenger wise. Also Caltrain could modify some of the
bike Gallery-type cars so the entire bottom compartment is for bike storage,
leaving only the top level for seating. And put this increased-capacity
bike cars on the trains with the most bike passengers.
Second, Caltrain could implement a bike-pass reservation system using their
electronic ticket machines at each station. How this would work is that
bike passengers would be required to purchase for a small fee (up to 24
hours in advance) a bike pass that would reserve a space (if available) on a
train they would like to board. The fee could be just a nominal fee of 25
cents. The ticket machines (hooked up to a central database) could list
which trains still have space for a bike from the station the rider wants to
board to the station the rider wants to disembark. And the bike rider would
have an option of purchasing a bike pass (if available) for the return trip
at the same time. Those who are purchasing individual one-way or Caltrain
day-pass tickets would purchase the bike pass when they purchase the regular
train ticket. Those bike riders who have Caltrain monthly passes would need
to purchase their bike pass each day when they arrive at the station.
This way, a Caltrain bike rider would know exactly what train they would be
able to board and plan their day accordingly.
And note, these two options are complimentary. Caltrain could (and should)
implement both to make taking bikes on board Caltrain even more convenient.
- Peter
TBerk
> SMS wrote:
> > spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> >> Why not just provide secure storage at stations, and have everyone buy
> >> two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside the train by taking up room
> >> for themselves and their bikes
>
> > The storage solution doesn't work because secure storage isn't really
> > secure.
> > You can buy a decent folding bicycle for $350-400, and a crappy one
> > that's still good enough for a mile or two for $150.
>
> If you are willing to ride a crappy bike, you can buy a crappy bike for
> $50-100 off of Craigslist and just leave one at each end.
This doesn't work out the way you seem to think.
If there is going to be a well used, well secure way of planting a
bike "at the other end' then it's also going to have to be both well
funded and well stuck with over the time it'll take to gain general
acceptance.
Why is making sure there is room on the Train for Bikes such a
problem?
> Even if the
> "secure storage" isn't all that secure, who cares if it's just a $50
> bike which is much less likely to be stolen, and not all that much of a
> loss if it is stolen. The *real* problem is that the most regular
> riders who bring bikes on the train don't want to ride crappy bikes,
> either crappy folding bikes or crappy beater bikes to be left at both
> ends of their train commute. Most riders I know want to ride nice
> enough bikes that they can't easily afford to have one at each end, and
> can't easily afford the loss if there's a theft, and folding bikes just
> don't make the cut.
>
> jc
OK, you seem to have been talking rhetorically at first. We should
keep in mind the 'voucher for commuters to purchase a folding bike
proposal' might have it's place, while it won't be seen as a cure all
solution. Rather one that helps the overall situation.
berk
TBerk
> I think there are two straight forward solutions to the problem of too many
> bikes on Caltrain.
>
> The first one is simply to add more bike cars on trains that frequently are
> at capacity, bike-passenger wise. Also Caltrain could modify some of the
> bike Gallery-type cars so the entire bottom compartment is for bike storage,
> leaving only the top level for seating. And put this increased-capacity
> bike cars on the trains with the most bike passengers.
>
> Second, Caltrain could implement a bike-pass reservation system using their
> electronic ticket machines at each station.
<snip>
I'm thinking having the Bike Riders and the bikes physically separated
by such a distance isn't such a great idea.
Human Nature being what it is finds a mixture of followers-of-the-
Rules mixed with those-who-don't-know & those-who-don't-care so some
jockeying of bikes en route is inevitable. Also there is the worrisome
opportunistic, if not preplanned and predatory theft issue to deal
with.
As it is now, with the 'new' cars, if the general public takes up the
1st come, 1st serve seats on the lower (bike) level then bike riders
have to sit elsewhere, (if they care to sit).
berk
my pragmatism is sounding pessimistic, even to me...
JC Dill
> Why is making sure there is room on the Train for Bikes such a
> problem?
Let's turn this question upside down - why do you think it isn't such a
problem? How would you solve it, without spending more money?
>> Even if the
>> "secure storage" isn't all that secure, who cares if it's just a $50
>> bike which is much less likely to be stolen, and not all that much of a
>> loss if it is stolen. The *real* problem is that the most regular
>> riders who bring bikes on the train don't want to ride crappy bikes,
>> either crappy folding bikes or crappy beater bikes to be left at both
>> ends of their train commute. Most riders I know want to ride nice
>> enough bikes that they can't easily afford to have one at each end, and
>> can't easily afford the loss if there's a theft, and folding bikes just
>> don't make the cut.
> OK, you seem to have been talking rhetorically at first. We should
> keep in mind the 'voucher for commuters to purchase a folding bike
> proposal' might have it's place, while it won't be seen as a cure all
> solution. Rather one that helps the overall situation.
The solution will not be found by subsidizing riders who would like to
own a folding bike but can't afford one - a pretty small group of bike
riders. The problem is bigger than this, and the solutions need to
cover a much bigger group of riders.
jc
Peter Lawrence
> On Nov 27, 1:32 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think there are two straight forward solutions to the problem of too many
>> bikes on Caltrain.
>>
>> The first one is simply to add more bike cars on trains that frequently are
>> at capacity, bike-passenger wise. Also Caltrain could modify some of the
>> bike Gallery-type cars so the entire bottom compartment is for bike storage,
>> leaving only the top level for seating. And put this increased-capacity
>> bike cars on the trains with the most bike passengers.
>
> by such a distance isn't such a great idea.
>
> Human Nature being what it is finds a mixture of followers-of-the-
> Rules mixed with those-who-don't-know & those-who-don't-care so some
> jockeying of bikes en route is inevitable. Also there is the worrisome
> opportunistic, if not preplanned and predatory theft issue to deal
> with.
>
> As it is now, with the 'new' cars, if the general public takes up the
> 1st come, 1st serve seats on the lower (bike) level then bike riders
> have to sit elsewhere, (if they care to sit).
But bike riders concerned about the safety of their bikes can always stand
near their bikes, or lock up (or even remove) one of their wheels to
discourage the opportunistic thief. Also, one can view the bike racks and
bikes on the opposite side of of the car from the upper level seating area
so owners concerned about theft could keep an eye on their bike at all
times, if necessary.
- Peter
David Nebenzahl
> TBerk wrote:
>
>> OK, you seem to have been talking rhetorically at first. We should
>> keep in mind the 'voucher for commuters to purchase a folding bike
>> proposal' might have it's place, while it won't be seen as a cure all
>> solution. Rather one that helps the overall situation.
>
> The solution will not be found by subsidizing riders who would like to
> own a folding bike but can't afford one - a pretty small group of bike
> riders. The problem is bigger than this, and the solutions need to
> cover a much bigger group of riders.
And why is it that Caltrain apologists like you take it as a given that
the folding bicycle is the /sine qua non/ of commuter vehicles, and that
those who refuse to buy and ride them should be denied carriage?
I hate those things and would never want to buy or ride one.
JC Dill
> On 11/27/2009 10:09 AM JC Dill spake thus:
>
>> TBerk wrote:
>>
>>> OK, you seem to have been talking rhetorically at first. We should
>>> keep in mind the 'voucher for commuters to purchase a folding bike
>>> proposal' might have it's place, while it won't be seen as a cure all
>>> solution. Rather one that helps the overall situation.
>>
>> The solution will not be found by subsidizing riders who would like to
>> own a folding bike but can't afford one - a pretty small group of bike
>> riders. The problem is bigger than this, and the solutions need to
>> cover a much bigger group of riders.
>
> And why is it that Caltrain apologists like you
Who are you talking to?
> take it as a given that
> the folding bicycle is the /sine qua non/ of commuter vehicles, and that
> those who refuse to buy and ride them should be denied carriage?
I didn't see anyone say this, and certainly I didn't say this.
> I hate those things and would never want to buy or ride one.
I suspect you are with the majority, which is why I said that TBerk's
solution would only affect a small group of riders.
jc
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2009 10:09 AM JC Dill spake thus:
>>
>>> TBerk wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, you seem to have been talking rhetorically at first. We should
>>>> keep in mind the 'voucher for commuters to purchase a folding bike
>>>> proposal' might have it's place, while it won't be seen as a cure all
>>>> solution. Rather one that helps the overall situation.
>>>
>>> The solution will not be found by subsidizing riders who would like to
>>> own a folding bike but can't afford one - a pretty small group of bike
>>> riders. The problem is bigger than this, and the solutions need to
>>> cover a much bigger group of riders.
>>
>> And why is it that Caltrain apologists like you
>
> Who are you talking to?
>
>> take it as a given that
>> the folding bicycle is the /sine qua non/ of commuter vehicles, and that
>> those who refuse to buy and ride them should be denied carriage?
>
> I didn't see anyone say this, and certainly I didn't say this.
It seems I misread your comments, so please disregard the preceding
reply. Note to self: read twice, reply once.
SMS
<snip>
> And note, these two options are complimentary. Caltrain could (and
> should) implement both to make taking bikes on board Caltrain even more
> convenient.
Neither of those are straight-forward or practical.
CalTrain doesn't have the money to add more cars in order to increase
bicycle capacity. Every additional car represents a huge ongoing loss
for the system.
The reservation system won't work either. While the present system is
unfair, anything other than first-come first-served is impractical and
unenforceable without hiring more personnel on each train whose sole
duty would be to manage the bicycles. There's no money for that either.
SMS
> On Nov 26, 1:09 pm, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> spamtrap1888 wrote:
>>>> Why not just provide secure storage at stations, and have everyone buy
>>>> two bikes? Bicyclists waste space inside the train by taking up room
>>>> for themselves and their bikes
>>> The storage solution doesn't work because secure storage isn't really
>>> secure.
>>> You can buy a decent folding bicycle for $350-400, and a crappy one
>>> that's still good enough for a mile or two for $150.
>> If you are willing to ride a crappy bike, you can buy a crappy bike for
>> $50-100 off of Craigslist and just leave one at each end.
>
> This doesn't work out the way you seem to think.
>
> If there is going to be a well used, well secure way of planting a
> bike "at the other end' then it's also going to have to be both well
> funded and well stuck with over the time it'll take to gain general
> acceptance.
>
> Why is making sure there is room on the Train for Bikes such a
> problem?
Because it costs a lot of money to add and operate additional cars.
Ultimately, cyclists will be asked to pay extra for the extra space
their bikes take away from paying customers.
> OK, you seem to have been talking rhetorically at first. We should
> keep in mind the 'voucher for commuters to purchase a folding bike
> proposal' might have it's place, while it won't be seen as a cure all
> solution. Rather one that helps the overall situation.
This is true. The proposed program in L.A. is one part of the solution.
On CalTrain what they need to do is charge extra for bicycles that take
up extra space that could otherwise be used for revenue seating.
Peter Lawrence
> Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And note, these two options are complimentary. Caltrain could (and
>> should) implement both to make taking bikes on board Caltrain even
>> more convenient.
>
> Neither of those are straight-forward or practical.
Wrong, both are straight-forward solutions. Are they practical, though, is
a valid question.
> CalTrain doesn't have the money to add more cars in order to increase
> bicycle capacity. Every additional car represents a huge ongoing loss
> for the system.
No, it would not be a huge ongoing loss. If it were, Caltrain wouldn't be
rolling trains with five passenger cars during the nights and weekends.
During nights and weekends, Caltrain could easily go with four car trains,
if not three car trains if having unnecessary passenger cars attached to
trains were huge ongoing losses.
> The reservation system won't work either.
Why not? While it would cost some money to implement, it be shouldn't cost
prohibitive to do so.
> While the present system is
> unfair, anything other than first-come first-served is impractical and
> unenforceable without hiring more personnel on each train whose sole
> duty would be to manage the bicycles.
Sorry, but Caltrain wouldn't need to hire more personnel whose sole duty
would be to manage the bicycles. All it would take with a bike permit
system is for the conductors to check for bike permits while the bike riders
board the train. Caltrain could even make it an requirement that the bike
permit needs to be displayed in a permit holder (like fishing permits are)
so not to slow down the boarding process of the bike riders and other
passengers.
There's no money for that either.
Right now there isn't, but there could be some down the line.
- Peter
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> > Usually, something like this:
> >http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/644/interior/644i3.jpg
>
> That looks like one passenger and his bike taking the space of eight
> seats. If the trains are crowded, is this really a good idea?
Type 644 is one of the most popular passenger trains
in the world. A lot of operators seem to think this
arrangement is good idea.
Quite a large number of bikes (and other bulky items)
can fit there. Sorry, but I don't have time to dig up a
photo for you -- you'll just have to use your imagination.
JC Dill
> Sorry, but Caltrain wouldn't need to hire more personnel whose sole duty
> would be to manage the bicycles. All it would take with a bike permit
> system is for the conductors to check for bike permits while the bike
> riders board the train.
Conductors don't check fares when people board. They check while
en-route. A change of this type would keep conductors stuck at/near the
bike cars on most trains (when they stop at stations every few minutes)
and make it very hard for them to do their jobs (check for fares, make
sure passengers are following the rules and baggage is safely stowed,
etc.) in the other cars on the train.
jc
Steve Fenwick
<a3f9fa61-f191-471a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
"bay_bri...@yahoo.com" <bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not disputing it's handy for bikes or luggage or any number of large
items. But simply pulling out seats for bikes/luggage/etc. seems
shortsighted unless there is always a surplus of seats or the facility
to reconfigure at turnarounds. Caltrain seems to have the problem of
full trains (for passengers) in one direction (in to/out of San
Francisco during rush hours) and the inability to change consists in
between runs. So they opt to maximize the number of total passengers
carried in the most crowded direction to best alleviate road traffic
(their mission). They need to be able to change consists or increase
train lengths, both involving capital costs and operational costs.
SMS
> I suspect you are with the majority, which is why I said that TBerk's
> solution would only affect a small group of riders.
The ultimate solution will be multi-faceted. Station bikes, folding
bikes, and charging extra for regular bikes in order to discourage their
use on a regular basis.
What people have to realize is that CalTrain doesn't have the money to
add additional rail cars solely to accommodate passengers that take up a
significant amount of extra space that they don't pay extra for. The
costs are significant, both the initial fixed cost, and the ongoing
costs of the extra fuel, staff, and maintenance.
Most ferries, trains, and planes, limit the number of bicycles, charge a
fee, or both. When Cal Train had a huge amount of unused capacity it
made sense to add revenue by enticing new riders with fee-free bike
carriage.
Ironically, CalTrain could buy a high-end $1000 folding bike, that no
one would complain about riding, for every regular rider that now brings
their full size bike, and still come out way ahead versus buying a
single new rail car (and that's not even including the cost of operating
the car).
SMS
\
> Conductors don't check fares when people board. They check while
> en-route. A change of this type would keep conductors stuck at/near the
> bike cars on most trains (when they stop at stations every few minutes)
> and make it very hard for them to do their jobs (check for fares, make
> sure passengers are following the rules and baggage is safely stowed,
> etc.) in the other cars on the train.
The question is whether to implement a solution that ultimately allows
anyone to bring a bicycle on-board, at no ongoing cost to the passenger,
and at both lower initial and ongoing costs to CalTrain. Ultimately
CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system and reduce the
number of conductors leaving even less personnel available for
complicated schemes like the reservation system. Creating systems that
require additional personnel is simply not going to happen.
Adding $2+ million dollar rail cars (and the additional cost to haul
them, maintain them, and staff them) to multiple trains, just to add
space to accommodate passengers that carry extra baggage, that isn't
charged for, is unlikely to happen given the continuing budget woes of
mass transit. We'd all like a system where perfect mass transit is
subsidized by higher vehicle license fees or higher gas taxes or higher
sales taxes, but there's no political will for this to happen.
At least in LA, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority recognizes what the most practical and cost effective solution
is to the whole bikes on trains issue and is working on implementing the
subsidy program.
"http://www.calstart.org/Projects/First-Mile/First-Mile-Projects/Folding-Bicycle-Subsidy-Program.aspx".
Eventually we might have some similar organizations in the Bay Area that
are more interested in solving the actual problem of riders getting to
and from the train stations than just complaining about why the train
system operators don't spend tens of millions of dollars that they don't
have to accommodate riders that cost them even more money than regular
riders.
SMS
> What about #7? Bike racks that hold the bikes vertically, eliminating
> the issues of damage (from bikes banging against each other) and the
> hassles of arranging bikes in the order of the stations? Could be that
> that's already been addressed and I'm way late to the party,
For some reason the train system operators don't like these. I wanted to
load my bike on the Sacramento light rail with the hanger and the train
operator didn't want me to use the system that was in place, and just
wanted me to lean the bike against the wall of the train car.
JC Dill
> Ultimately
> CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system
How do you see this happening? Where (physically) would you place the
location where the passenger has to prove their payment before boarding?
How would you prevent passengers from bypassing this system? What
other train systems successfully use the same or similar system?
Think about the problems CalTrain now has with keeping people off the
tracks (taking a shortcut across the tracks thru holes in the fences,
people walking the rail easement for exercise, homeless who camp in
shrubbery along the track easements, suicides) when you design this
system. It won't work to just put a fence along the street side of the
platform with a toll gate for entrance to the platform like BART stations.
jc
Keith Keller
On 2009-11-28, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Ultimately
>> CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system
>
> How do you see this happening? Where (physically) would you place the
> location where the passenger has to prove their payment before boarding?
> How would you prevent passengers from bypassing this system? What
> other train systems successfully use the same or similar system?
The whole point of POP is that there are no physical barriers for riders
to show proof of payment. Enforcement is (theoretically) done by random
checks by fare inspectors.
The Muni Metro lines are all POP. I don't know if you'd qualify it a
success or not. It also has barriers at the underground stations, so
it's not a pure POP system; the only CalTrain station I could see this
being feasible is Fourth and King, otherwise it would be POP systemwide.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
David Nebenzahl
> On 2009-11-28, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system
>>
>> How do you see this happening? Where (physically) would you place
>> the location where the passenger has to prove their payment before
>> boarding? How would you prevent passengers from bypassing this
>> system? What other train systems successfully use the same or
>> similar system?
>
> The whole point of POP is that there are no physical barriers for
> riders to show proof of payment. Enforcement is (theoretically) done
> by random checks by fare inspectors.
>
> The Muni Metro lines are all POP. I don't know if you'd qualify it a
> success or not. It also has barriers at the underground stations, so
> it's not a pure POP system; the only CalTrain station I could see
> this being feasible is Fourth and King, otherwise it would be POP
> systemwide.
In that sense Caltrain has always been POP. I remember back in the bad
old days, when you still bought tickets on board, hoping the conductor
wouldn't see me before my stop: I must have gotten at least half a dozen
free rides that way.
Keith Keller
>
> In that sense Caltrain has always been POP. I remember back in the bad
> old days, when you still bought tickets on board, hoping the conductor
> wouldn't see me before my stop: I must have gotten at least half a dozen
> free rides that way.
Well, if you call hoping for lack of fare collection POP, all of Muni
has been POP for at least 15 years. ;-/
SMS
> The Muni Metro lines are all POP. I don't know if you'd qualify it a
> success or not. It also has barriers at the underground stations, so
> it's not a pure POP system; the only CalTrain station I could see this
> being feasible is Fourth and King, otherwise it would be POP systemwide.
Probably the union representing conductors is fighting POP very hard.
JC Dill
> ["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.]
ba.bicycles added back in, since this topic is related to the idea of
collecting an additional fee for bikes.
> On 2009-11-28, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Ultimately
>>> CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system
>> How do you see this happening? Where (physically) would you place the
>> location where the passenger has to prove their payment before boarding?
>> How would you prevent passengers from bypassing this system? What
>> other train systems successfully use the same or similar system?
>
> The whole point of POP is that there are no physical barriers for riders
> to show proof of payment. Enforcement is (theoretically) done by random
> checks by fare inspectors.
>
> The Muni Metro lines are all POP. I don't know if you'd qualify it a
> success or not. It also has barriers at the underground stations, so
> it's not a pure POP system; the only CalTrain station I could see this
> being feasible is Fourth and King, otherwise it would be POP systemwide.
OK, I'm baffled here. What is POP and how is this different from SMS's
"proof of payment system" that CalTrain doesn't have now, but SMS thinks
CalTrain will someday move to?
I'm pretty sure everyone in this newsgroup knows CalTrain already has
enforcement by conductors going thru the coach and asking to see your
ticket or pass. It's not *random*, depending on how busy the conductors
are with other matters (and how crowded the train is) they might not get
to every rider before you get to your station and disbark.
jc
SMS
> OK, I'm baffled here. What is POP and how is this different from SMS's
> "proof of payment system" that CalTrain doesn't have now, but SMS thinks
> CalTrain will someday move to?
There is no difference. Why do you believe there to be a difference, and
what is baffling about a POP system? It's used on many commuter rail
systems.
Keith Keller
> Keith Keller wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.]
>
> ba.bicycles added back in, since this topic is related to the idea of
> collecting an additional fee for bikes.
Ah, hadn't caught that, sorry for trimming ba.bicycles.
> OK, I'm baffled here. What is POP and how is this different from SMS's
> "proof of payment system" that CalTrain doesn't have now, but SMS thinks
> CalTrain will someday move to?
POP is basically random, irregular verification of fares. Here's Muni's
page on it:
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mfares/pop.htm
> I'm pretty sure everyone in this newsgroup knows CalTrain already has
> enforcement by conductors going thru the coach and asking to see your
> ticket or pass. It's not *random*, depending on how busy the conductors
> are with other matters (and how crowded the train is) they might not get
> to every rider before you get to your station and disbark.
Right, but the ''expectation'' is that there is a conductor on every
train and will check your ticket. So, basically, CalTrain already has
POP, except that ticket verification would become less frequent if they
moved to an official POP policy. As another poster mentioned, the
conductor's union is likely to fight any move to reduce the number of
conductors, so we might see a gradual move to POP by simply not
filling vacant conductor positions. This in fact may be why CalTrain
keeps talking about ''considering'' moving to POP in the future; they
may already be doing it, and trying to set our unconscious expectations
so that we're not surprised if our tickets are not checked as frequently
as before.
JC Dill
> So, basically, CalTrain already has
> POP, except that ticket verification would become less frequent if they
> moved to an official POP policy.
This still doesn't cover my question which is *how* they would implement
a POP policy.
As another poster mentioned, the
> conductor's union is likely to fight any move to reduce the number of
> conductors, so we might see a gradual move to POP by simply not
> filling vacant conductor positions.
This still doesn't answer how they implement POP. I don't see any way
to "gradually" implement it as you have vacant conductor positions
without having huge holes in verifying payment.
I also think there's a legal requirement to have a certain number of
conductors on the trains for safety reasons, just as a certain number of
flight attendants are required for safety reasons.
> This in fact may be why CalTrain
> keeps talking about ''considering'' moving to POP in the future;
They are? Can you point me to any articles or press releases or meeting
notes?
> they
> may already be doing it, and trying to set our unconscious expectations
> so that we're not surprised if our tickets are not checked as frequently
> as before.
Why do you think people might be surprised if their tickets are not
checked as frequently as before?
jc
SMS
> Right, but the ''expectation'' is that there is a conductor on every
> train and will check your ticket. So, basically, CalTrain already has
> POP,
No, POP is very random and tickets are rarely checked. On CalTrain,
tickets are rarely not checked.
SMS
Actually, I stand corrected...
"Caltrain is a Proof-of-Payment system and tickets are not sold onboard
trains. Passengers must have a valid ticket prior to boarding. Caltrain
conductors and fare inspectors perform random fare checks onboard
trains. Passengers without valid tickets are subject to a fine of up to
$250 plus court fees."
TBerk
> TBerk wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 1:32 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think there are two straight forward solutions to the problem of too many
> >> bikes on Caltrain.
>
> >> The first one is simply to add more bike cars on trains that frequently are
> >> at capacity, bike-passenger wise. Also Caltrain could modify some of the
> >> bike Gallery-type cars so the entire bottom compartment is for bike storage,
> >> leaving only the top level for seating. And put this increased-capacity
> >> bike cars on the trains with the most bike passengers.
>
> > I'm thinking having the Bike Riders and the bikes physically separated
> > by such a distance isn't such a great idea.
>
> > Human Nature being what it is finds a mixture of followers-of-the-
> > Rules mixed with those-who-don't-know & those-who-don't-care so some
> > jockeying of bikes en route is inevitable. Also there is the worrisome
> > opportunistic, if not preplanned and predatory theft issue to deal
> > with.
>
> > As it is now, with the 'new' cars, if the general public takes up the
> > 1st come, 1st serve seats on the lower (bike) level then bike riders
> > have to sit elsewhere, (if they care to sit).
>
> But bike riders concerned about the safety of their bikes can always stand
> near their bikes, or lock up (or even remove) one of their wheels to
> discourage the opportunistic thief.
(Already commented on as Impractical)
> Also, one can view the bike racks and
> bikes on the opposite side of of the car from the upper level seating area
> so owners concerned about theft could keep an eye on their bike at all
> times, if necessary.
> - Peter
Well, this works with the 'old' cars but my current rant was
describing trouble with the 'new' cars that are (very, very) poorly
setup for Bikes.
berk
JC Dill
> Keith Keller wrote:
>> On 2009-11-28, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Keith Keller wrote:
>>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.]
>>> ba.bicycles added back in, since this topic is related to the idea of
>>> collecting an additional fee for bikes.
>>
>> Ah, hadn't caught that, sorry for trimming ba.bicycles.
>>
>>> OK, I'm baffled here. What is POP and how is this different from
>>> SMS's "proof of payment system" that CalTrain doesn't have now, but
>>> SMS thinks CalTrain will someday move to?
I'm still not hearing anything about a new "proof of payment" system
they might supposedly move to. What is the new system you had in mind,
and how is it different from what they have now?
jc
TBerk
> ... Ultimately
> CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system and reduce the
> number of conductors leaving even less personnel available for
> complicated schemes like the reservation system. Creating systems that
> require additional personnel is simply not going to happen.
Could you explain this better, as in- you seem to have described the
_current_ system.
berk
TBerk
> TBerk wrote:
> > Why is making sure there is room on the Train for Bikes such a
> > problem?
>
> problem? How would you solve it, without spending more money?
>
My question would have been better said as: "Why do YOU have such a
problem?..." and as to the later I'm thinking things improve, without
'spending more money' by planning the inclusion of the Bike Riding
Population from the beginning vs shoehorning or scheming to eliminate
them going forward.
(I'm using rhetorically extreme povs for effect here.)
berk
TBerk
> Note to self: read twice, reply once.
>
> --
Yeah, me too.
btw- the idea to subsidize riders who buy folding bikes wasn't my
idea, but I used it as an example of a piece of the puzzle seemingly
better than having a 'bike at both ends of the trip'.
berk
Keith Keller
>
> I'm still not hearing anything about a new "proof of payment" system
> they might supposedly move to. What is the new system you had in mind,
> and how is it different from what they have now?
JC Dill
> On 2009-11-29, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm still not hearing anything about a new "proof of payment" system
>> they might supposedly move to. What is the new system you had in mind,
>> and how is it different from what they have now?
>
> http://caltrain.org/pop.html
That's the system they have NOW. This subthread started when SMS wrote:
> Ultimately CalTrain will move to a proof of payment fare system
I want to know about this system SMS thinks Caltrain will supposedly
"move to".
jc
JC Dill
> On Nov 27, 10:09 am, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> TBerk wrote:
>>> Why is making sure there is room on the Train for Bikes such a
>>> problem?
>> Let's turn this question upside down - why do you think it isn't such a
>> problem? How would you solve it, without spending more money?
>>
>
> My question would have been better said as: "Why do YOU have such a
> problem?..."
Who are you talking to?
> and as to the later I'm thinking things improve, without
> 'spending more money' by planning the inclusion of the Bike Riding
> Population from the beginning vs shoehorning or scheming to eliminate
> them going forward.
We can't go back in time and make different decisions in the past. The
question I asked you was:
"How would you solve it (going forward) without spending more money?"
You haven't answered it. Please either answer it or admit you don't
have an answer.
jc
TBerk
(attributions all wrecked to hell)
> We can't go back in time and make different decisions in the past. The
> question I asked you was:
>
> "How would you solve it (going forward) without spending more money?"
>
> You haven't answered it. Please either answer it or admit you don't
> have an answer.
>
> jc
I'm not at all sure I'm not going to propose anything that won't spend
money.
- Encourage more bikes, not less.
- Educate and reach out to the bike and more importantly the
_potential_ bike riding population; not just brochures once you are
already on the train.
- Have the 'Powers That Be' actually get out on the road on a bike,
during commute hours, and experience it for themselves.
- Plan the future replacement, 'better than we have now', train cars
have suitable bike cars built into the planning way out in front; not
just tacked on like the current 'new' cars seem to be.
That enough for now, I can brainstorm just fine on my own and so on
but it works best with constructive engagement.
berk
SMS
> I want to know about this system SMS thinks Caltrain will supposedly
> "move to".
CalTrain calls their system POP, but in reality, if you've ever ridden
CalTrain, you'd see that the conductors check every ticket except in
rare cases. A true POP system is basically the honor system, with random
checking of tickets and fines.
CalTrain calls their system POP because they stopped selling tickets on
trains so a passenger can't simply buy a ticket when the conductor comes
by like they used to be able to do.
What I think CalTrain will move to is a system similar to the Muni Metro
and VTA light rail, where there is enough of a chance of getting caught
without a ticket that passengers don't risk cheating, but without
needing the number of conductors now used to check every ticket.
SMS
> You haven't answered it. Please either answer it or admit you don't
> have an answer.
The issue isn't spending no money, it's spending a minimal amount of
money both in capital expenditures and operating costs.
The real question is "how would you solve the bicycle capacity issue,
for non-folding bicycles, during peak times, without adding more
multi-million dollar rail cars, without adding more CalTrain employees,
without charging extra for bicycles, and without increasing dwell time?"
I don't think that there's an answer to the question. Someone has to pay
for all this and no one wants to pay. Everyone wants unlimited capacity
at no extra cost. If they could also have the train stop only at their
origin and destination, provide free WiFi, and have Singapore Airlines'
flight attendants serve free Peet's coffee and warm cinnamon rolls, that
would be even better.
Similarly, few people want to even make the most minor of changes to
their routine to solve the problem. It reminds me of many of the ballot
propositions in California where voters vote for both more services and
lower taxes and then are surprised when the state has no money.
Personally, I would do like most rail systems in the world now do with
regards to bicycles. It increases revenue without large upfront costs.
See "http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html".
JC Dill
> JC Dill wrote:
> CalTrain calls their system POP, but in reality, if you've ever
> ridden CalTrain, you'd see that the conductors check every ticket
> except in rare cases.
I'm not a daily CalTrain rider - I've ridden CalTrain a few dozen times,
sometimes during the week, sometimes on the weekend. My ticket was
checked about 50% of the time. In my experience, tickets are checked
often enough that the odds of getting away with not buying a ~$5 ticket
and ending up with a ~$250 fine makes it very risky to fail to buy a ticket.
> What I think CalTrain will move to is a system similar to the Muni
> Metro and VTA light rail, where there is enough of a chance of
> getting caught without a ticket that passengers don't risk cheating,
> but without needing the number of conductors now used to check every
> ticket.
I suspect they are at (or very near) the minimum number of conductors
and assistant conductors already, because they don't check every ticket
now. At least one conductor is required as the conductor is the one who
oversees train operations and gives operations instructions to the
engineer.
jc
Steve Fenwick
wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > JC Dill wrote:
>
> > CalTrain calls their system POP, but in reality, if you've ever
> > ridden CalTrain, you'd see that the conductors check every ticket
> > except in rare cases.
>
> I'm not a daily CalTrain rider - I've ridden CalTrain a few dozen times,
> sometimes during the week, sometimes on the weekend. My ticket was
> checked about 50% of the time. In my experience, tickets are checked
> often enough that the odds of getting away with not buying a ~$5 ticket
> and ending up with a ~$250 fine makes it very risky to fail to buy a ticket.
On the weekends, between Mountain View and 4th & King, we regularly see
another passenger kicked off for not having a valid ticket. I don't
think I've ever seen anyone cited. Usually at night, in the southbound
direction.
On the other hand, between Mountain View and Palo Alto (University
Avenue), that could be a free ride almost any time; rarely is my ticket
checked. Try it at your own risk, though.
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!"
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
> Caltrain seems to have the problem of
> full trains (for passengers) in one direction (in to/out of San
> Francisco during rush hours)
Is this really the case? Admitedly, I stopped
riding regularly (out of frustration) several years ago,
but considerable personal experience tells me that
lots of cyclists are getting bumped from trains that
are anything but full, even during peak hours. If you
read the SFBC report, it shows that ridership did not
decline even during periods of equipment shortages,
when 4-car trains had to be used.
> So they opt to maximize the number of total passengers
> carried in the most crowded direction to best alleviate road traffic
> (their mission).
That is a poor allocation of resources. Real transit
agencies do not try to provide seats for everyone
during times of peak load. It isn't cost-effective.
> They need to be able to change consists or increase
> train lengths, both involving capital costs and operational costs.
Well, the whole point of flip-down seats is that it gives
this flexibility, without having to add or remove train
cars. Depending on time of day, that space can be
used for standees (really crowded peak-loads),
passenger rear-ends (moderate crowds), or bikes
(low passenger loads), or some combination.
And in any case, it is short-sighed to argue over
trivial increase in capital/operating cost for 1 or 2 bike
cars, when compared against some really stupid
and expensive Caltrain projects in recent years
which had zero passenger benefit.
David Nebenzahl
> And in any case, it is short-sighed to argue over
> trivial increase in capital/operating cost for 1 or 2 bike
> cars, when compared against some really stupid
> and expensive Caltrain projects in recent years
> which had zero passenger benefit.
Like rebuilding the goddamn 4th & Townsend (oh, excuse me: 4th and King)
depot. Zero passenger benefit in spades.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> JC Dill wrote:
>
>> CalTrain calls their system POP, but in reality, if you've ever
>> ridden CalTrain, you'd see that the conductors check every ticket
>> except in rare cases.
>
> I'm not a daily CalTrain rider - I've ridden CalTrain a few dozen times,
> sometimes during the week, sometimes on the weekend. My ticket was
> checked about 50% of the time. In my experience, tickets are checked
> often enough that the odds of getting away with not buying a ~$5 ticket
> and ending up with a ~$250 fine makes it very risky to fail to buy a
> ticket.
I've had my ticket not checked on rare occasions, typically only when
the train is very crowded due to an event at AT&T park, or other San
Francisco event. In those cases the conductors can't check fast enough
to make it through the entire train to check every ticket.
They could get by with one conductor if they did things right, but there
may be government and union issues with doing this.
There are a lot of necessary capital expenditures for CalTrain besides
more rail cars, such as the need to modernize the San Jose and San
Francisco stations, the downtown extension, and electrification. These
are key elements of improving CalTrain.
cph
> JC Dill wrote:
> > You haven't answered it. Please either answer it or admit you don't
> > have an answer.
>
> The issue isn't spending no money, it's spending a minimal amount of
> money both in capital expenditures and operating costs.
>
> The real question is "how would you solve the bicycle capacity issue,
> for non-folding bicycles, during peak times, without adding more
> multi-million dollar rail cars, without adding more CalTrain employees,
> without charging extra for bicycles, and without increasing dwell time?"
>
> I don't think that there's an answer to the question. Someone has to pay
> for all this and no one wants to pay. Everyone wants unlimited capacity
> at no extra cost. If they could also have the train stop only at their
> origin and destination, provide free WiFi, and have Singapore Airlines'
> flight attendants serve free Peet's coffee and warm cinnamon rolls, that
> would be even better.
>
What people don't seem to want to realize is that there is an upper
bound
on peak-hour bike capacity on Caltrain (or any similar commuter
railroad).
There are only so many bikes that can fit in a train car, only so many
cars that can
fit on a train, and only so many trains that can run during a given
time period.
Beyond that, we can talk about expanding platforms, or additional
tracks, or
other capacity enhancements. Bring lots of $$$$. Besides, doing so
will attract
more and more bikes, until we have the same issue all over again.
Sort of like adding a lane on the freeway--it'll run fine for awhile,
but later just fill up
with more traffic as it attracts more drivers. The difference is,
while service on the
freeway degrades (gets slower and slower) until it offers no speed
advantage over
surface street travel, with bikes on the train, if there is no space
on a given train, you get bumped.
> Similarly, few people want to even make the most minor of changes to
> their routine to solve the problem. It reminds me of many of the ballot
> propositions in California where voters vote for both more services and
> lower taxes and then are surprised when the state has no money.
>
People want to go to heaven, but don't want to die. Nothing new to see
here, move along.
> Personally, I would do like most rail systems in the world now do with
> regards to bicycles. It increases revenue without large upfront costs.
> See "http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html".
Huh? This page has the rules for all the different British train
companies, and each one
seems to be doing something different.
SMS
>> Personally, I would do like most rail systems in the world now do with
>> regards to bicycles. It increases revenue without large upfront costs.
>> See "http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html".
>
> Huh? This page has the rules for all the different British train
> companies, and each one
> seems to be doing something different.
Read between the lines....
"Folding bikes travel free and without restriction on all services
unless stated. See Folding Bikes"
"Conventional bikes are restricted as below. For advice, see Bike-Rail 2"
In every case there are capacity restrictions, and usually extra fees,
for regular bicycles.
The problem with CalTrain is that they've been so generous for so long
that now instituting policies which are common on nearly every commuter
rail system in the world would be vehemently opposed.
IMVAIO, the solution to the bicycle capacity problem is to encourage,
through subsidies (in the form of discounts on monthly passes over an
extended period of time) the purchase of folding bicycles while at the
same time discouraging, through surcharges, the use of regular bicycles,
at least during peak commute times. This would cost very little,
increase ridership, make better use of equipment, and decrease dwell
time. They're developing a subsidy program like this in L.A..
There's a misconception that all folders are like the 1980's Dahon or
the old Raleigh 20, but in reality there are folding bikes now that are
as good or better than the bikes most people use for commuting. They
aren't cheap, but they aren't extraordinarily expensive either. You can
get something decent for about $350.
JC Dill
> but in reality there are folding bikes now that are
> as good or better than the bikes most people use for commuting.
In reality, you lose the argument when you start making unfounded claims.
It is obvious that they aren't "as good or better" than most bikes
people use for commuting, because if they WERE, more people would be
using them! The actual cost difference between a regular bike and a
folding bike is relatively small, if the folding bike were *really*
better then most people would buy and use one.
Let's start with the biggest physical difference, folding bikes have
much smaller wheels. This makes for a rougher ride.
> They
> aren't cheap, but they aren't extraordinarily expensive either. You can
> get something decent for about $350.
There is absolutely NO WAY you can buy a folding bike for $350 that is
"as good or better" than 50% of the bikes found on CalTrain during
commuter rush hour trips.
jc
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> but in reality there are folding bikes now that are as good or better
>> than the bikes most people use for commuting.
>
> In reality, you lose the argument when you start making unfounded claims.
>
> It is obvious that they aren't "as good or better" than most bikes
> people use for commuting, because if they WERE, more people would be
> using them! The actual cost difference between a regular bike and a
> folding bike is relatively small, if the folding bike were *really*
> better then most people would buy and use one.
Not true.
First, smaller-wheeled folding bikes are not suitable for off-road use.
Second, the selection of folding bikes is smaller.
Third, the cost difference, while not huge, is still non-trivial.
Fourth, they look funny.
Fifth, there's a misconception that larger wheels are more efficient (in
fact the opposite is true).
Sixth, as you point out, smaller wheels give a rougher ride which can be
a big deal for off-road riding, but is not much of a problem on smooth
pavement.
> Let's start with the biggest physical difference, folding bikes have
> much smaller wheels. This makes for a rougher ride.
Which is why the more expensive ones have some sort of suspension to
compensate, at a minimum a suspension seat post. This can be added to
the ones that don't have it as standard.
>> They aren't cheap, but they aren't extraordinarily expensive either.
>> You can get something decent for about $350.
>
> There is absolutely NO WAY you can buy a folding bike for $350 that is
> "as good or better" than 50% of the bikes found on CalTrain during
> commuter rush hour trips.
Here's one,
"http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_142643_-1_201511_10000_201512"
With the present 20% off sale it brings it down to about $320.
What I've seen on CalTrain is that cyclists aren't bringing their high
end road bikes, they're bringing bikes that they don't mind getting
banged around in the racks. I used to hate seeing my bike getting
scraped up on CalTrain.
I'd say that it's closer to 20% of the bikes on CalTrain are better than
a $350 folder, but this sort of debate misses the whole point. The key
issue is that a folder doesn't have to be your primary bicycle, it can
be the bicycle that you use for a multi-mode commute, as had been done
on BART for ages because of their peak-hour, peak-direction, ban on
bicycles.
CalTrain started the whole bikes on trains program back when there was
so much extra capacity that it made sense to utilize it any way
possible. Now they're faced with an impossible situation since they
can't keep taking out revenue-producing seats to accommodate more
bicycles for passengers that use up more space but that don't pay for
that space.
The most practical solution to managing capacity issues for bicycles is
to a) stop giving away that capacity for free, and b) incentivize riders
to get around that fee by using bicycles that don't take up that extra
space.
Peter Lawrence
> Peter Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but Caltrain wouldn't need to hire more personnel whose sole
>> duty would be to manage the bicycles. All it would take with a bike
>> permit system is for the conductors to check for bike permits while
>> the bike riders board the train.
>
> Conductors don't check fares when people board. They check while
> en-route. A change of this type would keep conductors stuck at/near the
> bike cars on most trains (when they stop at stations every few minutes)
> and make it very hard for them to do their jobs (check for fares, make
> sure passengers are following the rules and baggage is safely stowed,
> etc.) in the other cars on the train.
Wrong, they are able to do their jobs today, and today there's always a
conductor at the bike car's door when a Caltrain stops at a station.
Always. So instead of now where the conductor is only counting the number
of bikes that are disembarking and boarding (to ensure that there's no
overflow) they would just have to look to see if a bike rider that is
boarding has a valid bike permit for the train trip. A permit that the bike
rider could be required to have visible (like a fishing permit) to enter the
train.
- Peter
Peter Lawrence
> On Nov 27, 11:34 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> TBerk wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 1:32 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think there are two straight forward solutions to the problem of too many
>>>> bikes on Caltrain.
>>>>
>>>> The first one is simply to add more bike cars on trains that frequently are
>>>> at capacity, bike-passenger wise. Also Caltrain could modify some of the
>>>> bike Gallery-type cars so the entire bottom compartment is for bike storage,
>>>> leaving only the top level for seating. And put this increased-capacity
>>>> bike cars on the trains with the most bike passengers.
>>
>>
>> bikes on the opposite side of of the car from the upper level seating area
>> so owners concerned about theft could keep an eye on their bike at all
>> times, if necessary.
>
> describing trouble with the 'new' cars that are (very, very) poorly
> setup for Bikes.
As I had mentioned above, I was referring to the 'old' cars (aka the
Gallery-type cars). I agree that the new Bombardier cars aren't conducive
to practical bicycle storage.
- Peter
SMS
> Wrong, they are able to do their jobs today, and today there's always a
> conductor at the bike car's door when a Caltrain stops at a station.
> Always. So instead of now where the conductor is only counting the
> number of bikes that are disembarking and boarding (to ensure that
> there's no overflow) they would just have to look to see if a bike rider
> that is boarding has a valid bike permit for the train trip. A permit
> that the bike rider could be required to have visible (like a fishing
> permit) to enter the train.
The problem with the permit system is that it doesn't solve the capacity
problem, it just lets the riders that are the quickest to get the permit
to get their bike on the train while leaving others being bumped.
CalTrain used to have a bike permit program, which did have the benefit
of at least some planning ahead (which eliminated some of the bicycles)
and may have forced more of the cyclists to at least give a cursory
glance at the rules before they signed the permit application.
CalTrain is unlikely to remove any more seats for more bike racks. They
won't give up the revenue that those lost seats would provide, they
don't want to delay the trains any more than they are already delayed
when lots of bicycles enter or exit, they aren't going to buy $2
million+ rail cars to add capacity that would not be needed if there
weren't so many bikes, they aren't going to add staff positions on
trains in order to enforce bike permits, and they know how unhappy the
whole bicycle issue is making their non-bicycle passengers. Scott Wildly
shouldn't have been arrested, but the arrest delayed the train and few
regular passengers care that it was a power-hungry conductor that
actually caused the problem.
Whatever the solution is, assuming there is one, to more bike capacity
has to have very low initial and continuing costs.
Jym Dyer
> First of all, you are laughably embellishing your role
> in BART's rule modifications.
=v= What a bizarrely hostile thing to write, and completely
inaccurate, as well. "As one of the activists working on this"
is the sum and total of what I wrote, and it embellishes what,
exactly? If anything, my words understate the work I did, and
your words do nothing but betray your ignorance of that work.
> Secondly, the severe capacity issues with BART's transbay
> tube, the underground platforms, [yada yada yada]. A
> dedicated bike car would not solve any of these problems
> for BART.
=v= Um, this thread is about Caltrain (see "Subject:" line up
there). I'm not advocating putting a bike car on BART. What
I'm advocating is building on what works for Caltrain.
> Caltrain should follow BART's lead: get a design waiver,
> allow bikes to evenly distribute themselves throughout the
> train (which GREATLY helps reduce dwell time), and have more
> flexible seating and boarding policies which will maximize
> the use of a valuable public resource.
=v= The dwell time argument is a canard. Caltrain staff did
at one point assert that bikes increased dwell time and even
concocted a dollar figure associated with it, but when we
challenged them to substantiate it they could quickly not,
and they dropped the issue. That was two years ago; do try
to keep up.
=v= Personally, I advocate carriage of bikes on every car on
the system, commensurate with projections that folks with bikes
could easily comprise 20% of the ridership *IF* bike carriage
is reliable. Reliable means having dedicated space for bikes.
"Flexible" approaches such as jump seats decrease reliability.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> Under the current scheme, Caltrain suffers severe delays
> at stations while conductors wait for all the bicyclists
> to file through into the bike car. Distributing that
> boarding/unloading evenly throughout the train, taking
> advantage of all car doors, can greatly minimize delay.
=v= To repeat myself: this claim of increased dwell time
is unsubstantiated. I'm fine with distributing bikes to
more trains, and in fact it was the SFBC's BIKES ONboard
program that successfully pushed to have two bike cars.
=v= This has in fact proven to be of great benefit to Caltrain
because it's built and sustained ridership during an economic
downturn. (Just as it did back during the economic downturn
when the program was first implemented!)
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> The most cost effective solution would for CalTrain to
> subsidize the purchase of folding bikes that could fit
> under seats ...
=v= You have made this claim before. I asked you to
substantiate it (particularly the cost-effective part).
Two years later, you have not.
=v= At the time (the summer of 2008), gas prices had peaked
and Caltrain's ridership had jumped accordingly, as did the
use of folding bikes. It was pointed out to you that space
for folding bikes was limited and indeed that some of us
were bumped from Caltrain even with folding books.
=v= Your response to this reality has been to ignore it,
and just spin the same unsubstantiated scenario regardless.
> ...then to charge fees for bringing a full size bicycle
> that takes up extra space. Adding $1 for each trip to
> bring a bike should solve the problem nicely.
=v= You've spun this scenario before as well. Adding a fee
solves no problems and in fact creates problems because it
would it discourages bike ridership. We do not want to
discourage bike ridership because it's the cheapest solution
to the "last mile problem."
=v= Again, this has already been explained to you, with
reference to the financial analysis on the SFBC's BIKES ONboard
website. This analysis may not sway certain Usenet flamers,
but Caltrain's Joint Powers Board saw its wisdom and even as
we sit here typing, Caltrain is reaping the benefits of it.
=v= You have chosen to ignore these facts for the last 2 years
and just keep repeating the same unsupported claims and making
up bogus scenarios based on those claims. Why?
<_Jym_>
SMS
> On Nov 24, 11:56 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>>> Obviously you have never taken a bike on Caltrain during a peak
>>>> commute period. Otherwise you would be aware of the bottle neck at
>>>> the doors and the conflicts that would arise if every car was set
>>>> up as you propose.
>
> On the contrary. Under the current scheme, Caltrain suffers severe
> delays at stations while conductors wait for all the bicyclists to
> file through into the bike car. Distributing that boarding/unloading
> evenly throughout the train, taking advantage of all car doors, can
> led to relaxation of bike rules was realization by Operations that
> allowing bikes on all cars was actually in their benefit
> because it reduced dwell time.
There are down sides to the distribution of bikes as well, though as you
point out it would cut down on the dwell time which is a problem at a
few bicycle-popular stations.
I recall riding the Sacramento light rail from Folsom when there were a
lot of bikes. You don't know how many bike spaces are open in each car
so the cyclists end up running up and down the platform looking for a
car with open bike spaces.
The other issue is that regular, bike-less CalTrain passengers don't
really want to be anywhere near the bicycles as the bikes are loaded,
unloaded, or shifted around. They're already annoyed by all the bicycle
issues. If you've ever been in a CalTrain bike car it can get rather
chaotic as passengers jump up and down throughout the trip to move
bicycles around as new bikes with destinations after their own bike are
added. I found using a folding bike not only better in terms of never
getting bumped, but it also made the whole trip much more pleasant not
having to constantly be re-arranging bikes and not worrying about
someone exiting the train with my bike (though like most CalTrain
bicyclists I did not take my finest equipment onto the train).