BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

[pat giorni]

The end of the Comment Period for the BART Bike Plan is fast upon us.  Below is the DRAFT comment letter BikeSMC plans to submit.  Please give feedback no later than bedtime Wednesday so that we can incorporate your ideas and get the letter submitted before deadline.

Bike San Mateo County welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft BART Bicycle Plan and appreciates that the Public Comment Period extension enabled time for a more detailed reading in order to produce cogent critique.

 

What is immediately evident is that the Plan authored by Eisen | Letunic is the same consultancy firm that produced the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan in 2008.  Comparison of both Plans, with the commonality of like strategies recommended to encourage bicycle-to-station wayfaring and enhanced bicycle parking accommodations to decrease automobile station access and its attendant parking costs, demonstrates the avoidance of substantive policy challenge to the additional increase of onboard bicycle carriage which is the real incentive to leave the car at home, and has been subsequently shown in Caltrain’s case to significantly garner higher weekday ridership.  Eliminating the peak hours onboard blackout period is the most effective tool BART has to meet the Plan goal to double the share of BART passengers system-wide who access stations by bicycle by 2022.

 

To its credit, Eisen | Letunic offers suggestions in Chapters 3 and 5, employing  qualificatory terminology that their employer, the BART Board of Directors,  might “revisit” policy decisions regarding elevator, escalator and stair channel platform access.  However the glaring oversight in these chapters is that they present no argument nor make recommendation to eliminate the blackout period.  Rather these chapters offer only limited suggestions to make the peak hour commute blackout more palatable and manageable.   

.   

Unlike the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan which had to be later recast as Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan because it truly did not address any bicycle related issues other than wayfaring and station bicycle parking, the BART Bicycle Plan Modeling Access to Transit, in 40 point font, boldly announces that “BART welcomes cyclists at every step of their journey” (pg. 45), so long as it does not include peak hour commute blackout elimination.

 

It is apparent that Eisen | Letunic has produced the best possible Bicycle Plan within the dictates and constraints placed upon it by a Board of Directors whose desire is to justify  expenditure for enhancement and amenities that masquerade its recalcitrance to increase onboard bicycle carriage during the time when commuters most need it.  And to this end, it appears that a lot of time and expense went into the development of the Bicycle Investment Tool “to help BART staff determine the optimal amount and type of parking at each station.”   The Bicycle Investment Tool blatantly ignores the most important and beneficial investment of all – to allow bicycles onboard trains at all times.

 

 

Bike San Mateo County recognizes that an adopted Bike Plan is de rigueur for agency application for State and Federal funding opportunities.  We applaud the BART Board of Directors for updating the 2002 Bart Bicycle Plan because we appreciate the forethought of capturing monies for bicycle infrastructure.  We are of the mind that the employment of the data provided by using the Investment Tool will give BART a “step up” in its funding application requests.  However, we are highly doubtful, despite the analysis in the appendices, that increased bike parking facilities will achieve the goal to double BART bicycle access, to 8% of all trips, by 2022.  The obvious way to achieve the goal of doubling bicycle access to stations is to allow bikes onboard BART at all times with no blackout period.  A Bike Plan that ignores the most important issue is woefully inadequate, and the final Plan must include the objective to eliminate the bike blackout periods to lend merit to the overall Plan.

 

Bike San Mateo County is also cognizant that within the next ten years BART expects significantly increased weekday ridership which will oversubscribe existent vehicle parking facilities.  There is precious little, if any, real estate remaining for parking lot or garage expansion.  Therefore it is prudent now to focus on effecting the behavior change needed to entice passengers to access the stations by bicycle. Every eight station-parked cyclists remove the need for one parking space. Again, we are highly doubtful that enhanced world class bicycle parking facilities are the panacea to remedy a future vehicle parking crisis.  In 2010 Caltrain’s bicycle lockers were filled to 45%, that being 2% of its daily bicycle ridership parking at the station while 5% took their bikes onboard.  After Caltrain increased its onboard bicycle carriage capacity in 2011 locker usage dropped to 43%, while bicycle-onboard passengers increased to 7%.  Today locker usage is at 46% with bicycle-onboard ridership above 8%.  Bicycle users account for over 10% of Caltrain’s daily ridership with just 2% of them leaving their bikes at the station.  Therefore it might be concluded that the increase of bicycle-onboard passengers during peak commute hours effects little or no change in station bike parking rates.  It also is evident that those who bring their bicycles onboard need them at both ends of the trip.  If cyclists were unable to bring their bikes onboard during peak commute hours they would return to driving their cars and forego public transit altogether.

 

In conclusion, Bike San Mateo County offers the following recommendations to be included in the Final BART Bicycle Plan:

·   Immediately initiate discussion with intent to eliminate all bicycle blackout periods;

·   In every station retrofit at least one conveniently located staircase leading to platforms with stair channels;

·   All newly constructed stations will have conveniently located staircases for platform access fitted with stair channels; 

·   Use the Investment Tool to determine whether retrofitting stair channels is more cost effective than liability litigation;

·   Revoke the “No Bicycles on Escalators” ban;

·   Use the Investment Tool to determine whether revoking the “No Bicycles on Escalators” ban is more cost effective than liability litigation;

·   When the above recommendations have been incorporated in the text change the title of the document to BART Bicycle Master Plan.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Steve Vanderlip

[Ellen Fletcher]

I greatly admire the excellent work the SMC bike group has been doing, including this excellent memo to the BART Bike Board.

Having served on several public agency boards in years past I’m quite aware that many board members will not read lengthy communications from the public. I therefore suggest that an executive summary be presented in addition to the full document. I know this isn’t an easy task, but maybe an attempt can be made.

Ellen Fletcher

When the above recommendations have been incorporated in the text change the title of the document to BART Bicycle Master Plan.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bikesmc" group.
To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bikesmc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bikesmc?hl=en.

[Ellen Fletcher]

I didn’t mean the BART “bike” board – sorry.
Ellen

From: Ellen Fletcher <e...@ellenfletcher.net>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:14:40 -0700
To: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>, bikesmc Google group <bik...@googlegroups.com>
Conversation: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter
Subject: Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

I greatly admire the excellent work the SMC bike group has been doing, including this excellent memo to the BART Bike Board.

Having served on several public agency boards in years past I’m quite aware that many board members will not read lengthy communications from the public. I therefore suggest that an executive summary be presented in addition to the full document. I know this isn’t an easy task, but maybe an attempt can be made.

Ellen Fletcher


From: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: bikesmc <bik...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

[Bob Mack]

This is great. Good job.

I think that using the conclusion as an intro, or executive summary, would be good a good idea as most BART board members will not have (or take) time to read the whole letter.

Bob

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bikesmc" group.
To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bikesmc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bikesmc?hl=en.

-- 
Bob Mack
Publisher, Cycle California! Magazine
1702-L Meridian Ave. #289
San Jose, CA 95125
ph: 408-924-0270
fax: 408-292-3005
toll free: 888-292-5323
www.CycleCalifornia.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/CycleCaliforniaMagazine

[pat giorni]

Thanks for the input. 

To the point:  the letter IS snarky, or negative in tone because the Plan does everything to state that cyclists are not welcome at any time with their bikes onboard BART cars.  It is specifically geared to welcome cyclists to park their bikes at the stations, then board BART sans bicycles.

If you read the Plan and the appendices

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_body.pdf

 

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_appendices.pdf

it is evident that the conversation needed to eliminate the blackout will never happen...they will only talk about modifying it. I do remember when the blackout lasted for almost 3 hours every weekday morning AND evening; so this is progress?

And they don't give a hoot how you get your bike to the platform other than using urine-reeking, too small elevators, often 2 per station(1 to access the station/street, and the 2nd to access the platform) inconveniently located in outer Mongolia.  The reason those elevators in stations built before the late 90's are so small is because they were never meant to fit more than 1 wheelchair and 2 on-foot companions, or someone with heavy over-sized luggage,or a family with a baby stroller.  Back then there were no bikes on trains.

And they will not rescind the escalator ban nor retrofit stair channels...so they figure we'll stop bringing our bike onboard when we get tired of lifting and carrying our bikes up and down those long staircases.

This Plan gives us nothing other than parking.  Any of those amenities that are off station property are suggestions to the local municipalities to provide.  This is not a Bike Plan...it is a BART Station Bike Parking Plan.

If you look at the acknowledgements on the opening pages of the plan you will see my name because I was a member at the table of the Consultant meetings while the Plan was being written.  Most of our time was spent with developing the Investment Tool....and what is that for?  Determining the value of attended and unattended Bike Stations and bike racks installation.  Period. 

As to an Executive Summary...I am happy to have someone take a shot at composing it.  However, it is unnecessary because it's doubtful that the letter will ever be read by the Board of Directors unless it is specifically brought to its attention.  It will end up in the correspondence packets, but that doesn't mean the Directors will read them, especially since they are not obligated to provide a written response.

What will happen with this letter is that the Consultants will read it and every other letter received on the Plan.  Then they will make a Summary of Responses check sheet of every point raised with a tick for each letter that raised it. This is what the Board will read.  My guess is that unless a lot of individuals send letters noting that the BO is "off-limits" the topic won't score very high, and that becomes another reason for the Board to ignore it.

The reason old history is brought into the letter is because this is the exact scenario that played out when Caltrain started writing its Bike Plan.  That's why the language in BART's Plan is sensitively evasive...E/L learned its lesson w/ Caltrain.  And the history is a reminder to the Directors of what could/will happen at their meetings and in the press if/when the cycling public brings organized pressure to end the BO.

It's time to play hardball, and Bikesmc should stand tall and proud on the mound and throw the 1st pitch.

---

From: Bob Mack <BM...@CycleCalifornia.com>
To: bik...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:44 AM

Subject: Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

[Bob Mack]

Good points, Pat.

Sounds like we need a petition drive or letter writing drive, like what we did at the Caltrain stations. I'm sure there is time for this with the short public comment period.

Maybe EBBC, SFBC, and Bikes OnBoard could do an e-mail blast with a sample letter ASAP to drive up the response rate to pubic comments.

Bob

On 5/22/12 1:29 PM, pat giorni wrote:

Thanks for the input.ďż˝

To the point:ďż˝ the letter IS snarky, or negative in tone because the Plan does everything to state that cyclists are not welcome at any time with their bikes onboard BART cars.ďż˝ It is specifically geared to welcome cyclists to park their bikes at the stations, then board BART sans bicycles.

If you read the Plan and the appendices

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_body.pdf

ďż˝

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_appendices.pdf

it is evident that the conversation needed to eliminate the blackout will never happen...they will only talk about modifying it. I do remember when the blackout lasted for almost 3 hours every weekday morning AND evening; so this is progress?

And they don't give a hoot how you get your bike to the platform other than using urine-reeking, too small elevators, often 2 per station(1 to access the station/street, and the 2nd to access the platform) inconveniently located in outer Mongolia.ďż˝ The reason those elevators in stations built before the late 90's are so small is because they were never meant to fit more than 1 wheelchair and 2 on-foot companions, or someone with heavy over-sized luggage,or a family with a baby stroller.ďż˝ Back then there were no bikes on trains.

And they will not rescind the escalator ban nor retrofit stair channels...so they figure we'll stop bringing our bike onboard when we get tired of lifting and carrying our bikes up and down those long staircases.

This Plan gives us nothing other than parking.ďż˝ Any of those amenities that are off station property are suggestions to the local municipalities to provide.ďż˝ This is not a Bike Plan...it is a BART Station Bike Parking Plan.

If you look at the acknowledgements on the opening pages of the plan you will see my name because I was a member at the table of the Consultant meetings while the Plan was being written.ďż˝ Most of our time was spent with developing the Investment Tool....and what is that for?ďż˝ Determining the value of attended and unattended Bike Stations and bike racks installation.ďż˝ Period.ďż˝

As to an Executive Summary...I am happy to have someone take a shot at composing it.ďż˝ However, it is unnecessary because it's doubtful that the letter will ever be read by the Board of Directors unless it is specifically brought to its attention.ďż˝ It will end up in the correspondence packets, but that doesn't mean the Directors will read them, especially since they are not obligated to provide a written response.

What will happen with this letter is that the Consultants will read it and every other letter received on the Plan.ďż˝ Then they will make a Summary of Responses check sheet of every point raised with a tick for each letter that raised it. This is what the Board will read.ďż˝ My guess is that unless a lot of individuals send letters noting that the BO is "off-limits" the topic won't score very high, and that becomes another reason for the Board to ignore it.

The reason old history is brought into the letter is because this is the exact scenario that played out when Caltrain started writing its Bike Plan.ďż˝ That's why the language in BART's Plan is sensitively evasive...E/L learned its lesson w/ Caltrain.ďż˝ And the history is a reminder to the Directors of what could/will happen at their meetings and in the press if/when the cycling public brings organized pressure to end the BO.

It's time to play hardball, and Bikesmc should stand tall and proud on the mound and throw the 1st pitch.

---

From: Bob Mack <BM...@CycleCalifornia.com>
To: bik...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

This is great. Good job.

I think that using the conclusion as an intro, or executive summary, would be good a good idea as most BART board members will not have (or take) time to read the whole letter.

Bob

On 5/21/12 8:19 PM, pat giorni wrote:

The end of the Comment Period for the BART Bike Plan is fast upon us.ďż˝ Below is the DRAFT comment letter BikeSMC plans to submit.ďż˝ Please give feedback no later than bedtime Wednesday so that we can incorporate your ideas and get the letter submitted before deadline.

Bike San Mateo County welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft BART Bicycle Plan and appreciates that the Public Comment Period extension enabled time for a more detailed reading in order to produce cogent critique.

ďż˝

What is immediately evident is that the Plan authored by Eisen | Letunic is the same consultancy firm that produced the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan in 2008.� Comparison of both Plans, with the commonality of like strategies recommended to encourage bicycle-to-station wayfaring and enhanced bicycle parking accommodations to decrease automobile station access and its attendant parking costs, demonstrates the avoidance of substantive policy challenge to the additional increase of onboard bicycle carriage which is the real incentive to leave the car at home, and has been subsequently shown in Caltrain�s case to significantly garner higher weekday ridership.� Eliminating the peak hours onboard blackout period is the most effective tool BART has to meet the Plan goal to double the share of BART passengers system-wide who access stations by bicycle by 2022.

ďż˝

To its credit, Eisen | Letunic offers suggestions in Chapters 3 and 5, employing �qualificatory terminology that their employer, the BART Board of Directors, �might �revisit� policy decisions regarding elevator, escalator and stair channel platform access.� However the glaring oversight in these chapters is that they present no argument nor make recommendation to eliminate the blackout period.� Rather these chapters offer only limited suggestions to make the peak hour commute blackout more palatable and manageable. ��

. ��

Unlike the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan which had to be later recast as Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan because it truly did not address any bicycle related issues other than wayfaring and station bicycle parking, the BART Bicycle Plan Modeling Access to Transit, in 40 point font, boldly announces that �BART welcomes cyclists at every step of their journey� (pg. 45), so long as it does not include peak hour commute blackout elimination.

ďż˝

It is apparent that Eisen | Letunic has produced the best possible Bicycle Plan within the dictates and constraints placed upon it by a Board of Directors whose desire is to justify� expenditure for enhancement and amenities that masquerade its recalcitrance to increase onboard bicycle carriage during the time when commuters most need it.� And to this end, it appears that a lot of time and expense went into the development of the Bicycle Investment Tool �to help BART staff determine the optimal amount and type of parking at each station.�� �The Bicycle Investment Tool blatantly ignores the most important and beneficial investment of all � to allow bicycles onboard trains at all times.

ďż˝

ďż˝

Bike San Mateo County recognizes that an adopted Bike Plan is de rigueur for agency application for State and Federal funding opportunities.� We applaud the BART Board of Directors for updating the 2002 Bart Bicycle Plan because we appreciate the forethought of capturing monies for bicycle infrastructure.� We are of the mind that the employment of the data provided by using the Investment Tool will give BART a �step up� in its funding application requests.� However, we are highly doubtful, despite the analysis in the appendices, that increased bike parking facilities will achieve the goal to double BART bicycle access, to 8% of all trips, by 2022.� The obvious way to achieve the goal of doubling bicycle access to stations is to allow bikes onboard BART at all times with no blackout period.� A Bike Plan that ignores the most important issue is woefully inadequate, and the final Plan must include the objective to eliminate the bike blackout periods to lend merit to the overall Plan.

ďż˝

Bike San Mateo County is also cognizant that within the next ten years BART expects significantly increased weekday ridership which will oversubscribe existent vehicle parking facilities.� There is precious little, if any, real estate remaining for parking lot or garage expansion.� Therefore it is prudent now to focus on effecting the behavior change needed to entice passengers to access the stations by bicycle. Every eight station-parked cyclists remove the need for one parking space. Again, we are highly doubtful that enhanced world class bicycle parking facilities are the panacea to remedy a future vehicle parking crisis.� In 2010 Caltrain�s bicycle lockers were filled to 45%, that being 2% of its daily bicycle ridership parking at the station while 5% took their bikes onboard.� After Caltrain increased its onboard bicycle carriage capacity in 2011 locker usage dropped to 43%, while bicycle-onboard passengers increased to 7%.� Today locker usage is at 46% with bicycle-onboard ridership above 8%.� Bicycle users account for over 10% of Caltrain�s daily ridership with just 2% of them leaving their bikes at the station.� Therefore it might be concluded that the increase of bicycle-onboard passengers during peak commute hours effects little or no change in station bike parking rates.� It also is evident that those who bring their bicycles onboard need them at both ends of the trip.� If cyclists were unable to bring their bikes onboard during peak commute hours they would return to driving their cars and forego public transit altogether.

ďż˝

In conclusion, Bike San Mateo County offers the following recommendations to be included in the Final BART Bicycle Plan:

��� Immediately initiate discussion with intent to eliminate all bicycle blackout periods;

��� In every station retrofit at least one conveniently located staircase leading to platforms with stair channels;

��� All newly constructed stations will have conveniently located staircases for platform access fitted with stair channels;�

��� Use the Investment Tool to determine whether retrofitting stair channels is more cost effective than liability litigation;

��� Revoke the �No Bicycles on Escalators� ban;

��� Use the Investment Tool to determine whether revoking the �No Bicycles on Escalators� ban is more cost effective than liability litigation;

��� When the above recommendations have been incorporated in the text change the title of the document to BART Bicycle Master Plan.

ďż˝

Thank you for your consideration.

ďż˝

Sincerely,

ďż˝

ďż˝

Steve Vanderlip

[Pa...@enet.com]

The former ED of EBBC, Robert Rayburn is now a BART director.

Is there an angle to pursue here of dealing with Robert?

I would think he would be highly sensitive to this issue...

Paul Wendt



Bob Mack
<BMack@CycleCalif
ornia.com> To
Sent by: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
bikesmc@googlegro cc
ups.com "bik...@googlegroups.com"
<bik...@googlegroups.com>, mself
<mat...@mself.com>, Ellen Fletcher
05/22/2012 01:39 <ellen....@gmail.com>
PM Subject

Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT
Comment Letter

Please respond to
BMack@CycleCalifo
rnia.com

Good points, Pat.

Sounds like we need a petition drive or letter writing drive, like what we
did at the Caltrain stations. I'm sure there is time for this with the
short public comment period.

Maybe EBBC, SFBC, and Bikes OnBoard could do an e-mail blast with a sample
letter ASAP to drive up the response rate to pubic comments.

Bob

On 5/22/12 1:29 PM, pat giorni wrote:
Thanks for the input.

To the point:  the letter IS snarky, or negative in tone because the Plan

does everything to state that cyclists are not welcome at any time with

their bikes onboard BART cars.  It is specifically geared to welcome

cyclists to park their bikes at the stations, then board BART sans
bicycles.

If you read the Plan and the appendices
http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_body.pdf

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_appendices.pdf


it is evident that the conversation needed to eliminate the blackout will
never happen...they will only talk about modifying it. I do remember when
the blackout lasted for almost 3 hours every weekday morning AND evening;
so this is progress?

And they don't give a hoot how you get your bike to the platform other
than using urine-reeking, too small elevators, often 2 per station(1 to
access the station/street, and the 2nd to access the platform)

inconveniently located in outer Mongolia.  The reason those elevators in

stations built before the late 90's are so small is because they were never
meant to fit more than 1 wheelchair and 2 on-foot companions, or someone

with heavy over-sized luggage,or a family with a baby stroller.  Back then

there were no bikes on trains.

And they will not rescind the escalator ban nor retrofit stair
channels...so they figure we'll stop bringing our bike onboard when we get
tired of lifting and carrying our bikes up and down those long staircases.

This Plan gives us nothing other than parking.  Any of those amenities that

are off station property are suggestions to the local municipalities to

provide.  This is not a Bike Plan...it is a BART Station Bike Parking Plan.

If you look at the acknowledgements on the opening pages of the plan you
will see my name because I was a member at the table of the Consultant

meetings while the Plan was being written.  Most of our time was spent with
developing the Investment Tool....and what is that for?  Determining the

value of attended and unattended Bike Stations and bike racks

installation.  Period.

As to an Executive Summary...I am happy to have someone take a shot at

composing it.  However, it is unnecessary because it's doubtful that the

letter will ever be read by the Board of Directors unless it is

specifically brought to its attention.  It will end up in the

correspondence packets, but that doesn't mean the Directors will read them,
especially since they are not obligated to provide a written response.

What will happen with this letter is that the Consultants will read it and

every other letter received on the Plan.  Then they will make a Summary of

Responses check sheet of every point raised with a tick for each letter

that raised it. This is what the Board will read.  My guess is that unless

a lot of individuals send letters noting that the BO is "off-limits" the
topic won't score very high, and that becomes another reason for the Board
to ignore it.

The reason old history is brought into the letter is because this is the
exact scenario that played out when Caltrain started writing its Bike

Plan.  That's why the language in BART's Plan is sensitively evasive...E/L
learned its lesson w/ Caltrain.  And the history is a reminder to the

Directors of what could/will happen at their meetings and in the press
if/when the cycling public brings organized pressure to end the BO.

It's time to play hardball, and Bikesmc should stand tall and proud on the
mound and throw the 1st pitch.

From: Bob Mack <BM...@CycleCalifornia.com>
To: bik...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter


This is great. Good job.

I think that using the conclusion as an intro, or executive summary, would
be good a good idea as most BART board members will not have (or take) time
to read the whole letter.

Bob

On 5/21/12 8:19 PM, pat giorni wrote:
The end of the Comment Period for the BART Bike Plan is fast upon us.

Below is the DRAFT comment letter BikeSMC plans to submit.  Please give

feedback no later than bedtime Wednesday so that we can incorporate your
ideas and get the letter submitted before deadline.

Bike San Mateo County welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the
Draft BART Bicycle Plan and appreciates that the Public Comment Period
extension enabled time for a more detailed reading in order to produce
cogent critique.

What is immediately evident is that the Plan authored by Eisen | Letunic is
the same consultancy firm that produced the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan in

2008.  Comparison of both Plans, with the commonality of like strategies

recommended to encourage bicycle-to-station wayfaring and enhanced bicycle
parking accommodations to decrease automobile station access and its
attendant parking costs, demonstrates the avoidance of substantive policy
challenge to the additional increase of onboard bicycle carriage which is
the real incentive to leave the car at home, and has been subsequently

shown in Caltrain’s case to significantly garner higher weekday ridership.

Eliminating the peak hours onboard blackout period is the most effective
tool BART has to meet the Plan goal to double the share of BART passengers
system-wide who access stations by bicycle by 2022.

To its credit, Eisen | Letunic offers suggestions in Chapters 3 and 5,

employing  qualificatory terminology that their employer, the BART Board of
Directors,  might “revisit” policy decisions regarding elevator, escalator
and stair channel platform access.  However the glaring oversight in these

chapters is that they present no argument nor make recommendation to

eliminate the blackout period.  Rather these chapters offer only limited

suggestions to make the peak hour commute blackout more palatable and
manageable.

.
Unlike the Caltrain Bicycle Master Planwhich had to be later recast as

Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan because it truly did not address
any bicycle related issues other than wayfaring and station bicycle
parking, the BART Bicycle Plan Modeling Access to Transit, in 40 point

font, boldly announces that “BART welcomes cyclists at every step of their
journey” (pg. 45), so long as it does not include peak hour commute
blackout elimination.

It is apparent that Eisen | Letunic has produced the best possible Bicycle
Plan within the dictates and constraints placed upon it by a Board of

Directors whose desire is to justify  expenditure for enhancement and

amenities that masquerade its recalcitrance to increase onboard bicycle

carriage during the time when commuters most need it.  And to this end, it

appears that a lot of time and expense went into the development of the

Bicycle Investment Tool “to help BART staff determine the optimal amount
and type of parking at each station.”   The Bicycle Investment Tool
blatantly ignores the most important and beneficial investment of all – to

allow bicycles onboard trains at all times.

Bike San Mateo County recognizes that an adopted Bike Plan is de rigueur

for agency application for State and Federal funding opportunities.  We

applaud the BART Board of Directors for updating the 2002 Bart Bicycle Plan
because we appreciate the forethought of capturing monies for bicycle

infrastructure.  We are of the mind that the employment of the data
provided by using the Investment Tool will give BART a “step up” in its

funding application requests.  However, we are highly doubtful, despite the

analysis in the appendices, that increased bike parking facilities will
achieve the goal to double BART bicycle access, to 8% of all trips, by

2022.  The obvious way to achieve the goal of doubling bicycle access to

stations is to allow bikes onboard BART at all times with no blackout

period.  A Bike Plan that ignores the most important issue is woefully

inadequate, and the final Plan must include the objective to eliminate the
bike blackout periods to lend merit to the overall Plan.

Bike San Mateo County is also cognizant that within the next ten years BART
expects significantly increased weekday ridership which will oversubscribe

existent vehicle parking facilities.  There is precious little, if any,
real estate remaining for parking lot or garage expansion.  Therefore it is

prudent now to focus on effecting the behavior change needed to entice
passengers to access the stations by bicycle. Every eight station-parked
cyclists remove the need for one parking space. Again, we are highly
doubtful that enhanced world class bicycle parking facilities are the

panacea to remedy a future vehicle parking crisis.  In 2010 Caltrain’s

bicycle lockers were filled to 45%, that being 2% of its daily bicycle

ridership parking at the station while 5% took their bikes onboard.  After

Caltrain increased its onboard bicycle carriage capacity in 2011 locker
usage dropped to 43%, while bicycle-onboard passengers increased to 7%.

Today locker usage is at 46% with bicycle-onboard ridership above 8%.

Bicycle users account for over 10% of Caltrain’s daily ridership with just
2% of them leaving their bikes at the station.  Therefore it might be

concluded that the increase of bicycle-onboard passengers during peak
commute hours effects little or no change in station bike parking rates.

It also is evident that those who bring their bicycles onboard need them at

both ends of the trip.  If cyclists were unable to bring their bikes

onboard during peak commute hours they would return to driving their cars
and forego public transit altogether.

In conclusion, Bike San Mateo County offers the following recommendations
to be included in the Final BART Bicycle Plan:

·   Immediately initiate discussion with intent to eliminate all bicycle
blackout periods;
·   In every station retrofit at least one conveniently located staircase

leading to platforms with stair channels;

·   All newly constructed stations will have conveniently located

staircases for platform access fitted with stair channels;

·   Use the Investment Tool to determine whether retrofitting stair

channels is more cost effective than liability litigation;

·   Revoke the “No Bicycles on Escalators” ban;

·   Use the Investment Tool to determine whether revoking the “No Bicycles
on Escalators” ban is more cost effective than liability litigation;
·   When the above recommendations have been incorporated in the text

change the title of the document to BART Bicycle Master Plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Steve Vanderlip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"bikesmc" group.
To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bikesmc

+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bikesmc?hl=en.

--
Bob Mack
Publisher, Cycle California! Magazine
1702-L Meridian Ave. #289
San Jose, CA 95125
ph: 408-924-0270
fax: 408-292-3005
toll free: 888-292-5323www.CycleCalifornia.comFacebook:
www.facebook.com/CycleCaliforniaMagazine

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"bikesmc" group.
To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bikesmc

+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Adina Levin]

Folk working on the campaign to end the blackout period are
communicating closely with Robert Rayburn.

There is a petition here - so far we have 286 online signatures and
about 150 paper signatures. Please sign if you haven't yet!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bikes-on-bart/

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bikesmc+u...@googlegroups.com.

[pat giorni]

Greetings!

Thank you for signing the online petition to allow bikes onboard BART at
all times with no blackout periods.

BART wants your comments on its draft Bike Plan by May 27. If you have
already sent comments to BART, thank you! If not, this is an opportunity
to provide direct input to BART about ending the bike blackout, a critical
issue that the draft Bike Plan does not address. Please see our web page
http://www.sfbike.org/bobart for talking points to send to BART.

The more voices the better, so thank you for your support!

More bikes, no blackout,
Shirley Johnson
BART BIKES ONboard project
Endorsed by San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, East Bay Bicycle Coalition,
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Bike San Mateo County
http://www.sfbike.org/bobart

Please forward to other cyclists and anyone who cares about bicycle
commuting.

---

From: Bob Mack <BM...@CycleCalifornia.com>

To: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "bik...@googlegroups.com" <bik...@googlegroups.com>; mself <mat...@mself.com>; Ellen Fletcher <ellen....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:39 PM

Subject: Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

Good points, Pat.

Sounds like we need a petition drive or letter writing drive, like what we did at the Caltrain stations. I'm sure there is time for this with the short public comment period.

Maybe EBBC, SFBC, and Bikes OnBoard could do an e-mail blast with a sample letter ASAP to drive up the response rate to pubic comments.

Bob

On 5/22/12 1:29 PM, pat giorni wrote:

Thanks for the input. 

To the point:  the letter IS snarky, or negative in tone because the Plan does everything to state that cyclists are not welcome at any time with their bikes onboard BART cars.  It is specifically geared to welcome cyclists to park their bikes at the stations, then board BART sans bicycles.

If you read the Plan and the appendices

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_body.pdf

 

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART%20bike%20plan_DRAFT_05-05-12_appendices.pdf

it is evident that the conversation needed to eliminate the blackout will never happen...they will only talk about modifying it. I do remember when the blackout lasted for almost 3 hours every weekday morning AND evening; so this is progress?

And they don't give a hoot how you get your bike to the platform other than using urine-reeking, too small elevators, often 2 per station(1 to access the station/street, and the 2nd to access the platform) inconveniently located in outer Mongolia.  The reason those elevators in stations built before the late 90's are so small is because they were never meant to fit more than 1 wheelchair and 2 on-foot companions, or someone with heavy over-sized luggage,or a family with a baby stroller.  Back then there were no bikes on trains.

And they will not rescind the escalator ban nor retrofit stair channels...so they figure we'll stop bringing our bike onboard when we get tired of lifting and carrying our bikes up and down those long staircases.

This Plan gives us nothing other than parking.  Any of those amenities that are off station property are suggestions to the local municipalities to provide.  This is not a Bike Plan...it is a BART Station Bike Parking Plan.

If you look at the acknowledgements on the opening pages of the plan you will see my name because I was a member at the table of the Consultant meetings while the Plan was being written.  Most of our time was spent with developing the Investment Tool....and what is that for?  Determining the value of attended and unattended Bike Stations and bike racks installation.  Period. 

As to an Executive Summary...I am happy to have someone take a shot at composing it.  However, it is unnecessary because it's doubtful that the letter will ever be read by the Board of Directors unless it is specifically brought to its attention.  It will end up in the correspondence packets, but that doesn't mean the Directors will read them, especially since they are not obligated to provide a written response.

What will happen with this letter is that the Consultants will read it and every other letter received on the Plan.  Then they will make a Summary of Responses check sheet of every point raised with a tick for each letter that raised it. This is what the Board will read.  My guess is that unless a lot of individuals send letters noting that the BO is "off-limits" the topic won't score very high, and that becomes another reason for the Board to ignore it.

The reason old history is brought into the letter is because this is the exact scenario that played out when Caltrain started writing its Bike Plan.  That's why the language in BART's Plan is sensitively evasive...E/L learned its lesson w/ Caltrain.  And the history is a reminder to the Directors of what could/will happen at their meetings and in the press if/when the cycling public brings organized pressure to end the BO.

It's time to play hardball, and Bikesmc should stand tall and proud on the mound and throw the 1st pitch.

---

From: Bob Mack <BM...@CycleCalifornia.com>
To: bik...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: [BikeSMC] BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

This is great. Good job.

I think that using the conclusion as an intro, or executive summary, would be good a good idea as most BART board members will not have (or take) time to read the whole letter.

Bob

On 5/21/12 8:19 PM, pat giorni wrote:

The end of the Comment Period for the BART Bike Plan is fast upon us.  Below is the DRAFT comment letter BikeSMC plans to submit.  Please give feedback no later than bedtime Wednesday so that we can incorporate your ideas and get the letter submitted before deadline.

Bike San Mateo County welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft BART Bicycle Plan and appreciates that the Public Comment Period extension enabled time for a more detailed reading in order to produce cogent critique.

 

What is immediately evident is that the Plan authored by Eisen | Letunic is the same consultancy firm that produced the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan in 2008.  Comparison of both Plans, with the commonality of like strategies recommended to encourage bicycle-to-station wayfaring and enhanced bicycle parking accommodations to decrease automobile station access and its attendant parking costs, demonstrates the avoidance of substantive policy challenge to the additional increase of onboard bicycle carriage which is the real incentive to leave the car at home, and has been subsequently shown in Caltrain’s case to significantly garner higher weekday ridership.  Eliminating the peak hours onboard blackout period is the most effective tool BART has to meet the Plan goal to double the share of BART passengers system-wide who access stations by bicycle by 2022.

 

To its credit, Eisen | Letunic offers suggestions in Chapters 3 and 5, employing  qualificatory terminology that their employer, the BART Board of Directors,  might “revisit” policy decisions regarding elevator, escalator and stair channel platform access.  However the glaring oversight in these chapters is that they present no argument nor make recommendation to eliminate the blackout period.  Rather these chapters offer only limited suggestions to make the peak hour commute blackout more palatable and manageable.   

.   

Unlike the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan which had to be later recast as Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan because it truly did not address any bicycle related issues other than wayfaring and station bicycle parking, the BART Bicycle Plan Modeling Access to Transit, in 40 point font, boldly announces that “BART welcomes cyclists at every step of their journey” (pg. 45), so long as it does not include peak hour commute blackout elimination.

 

It is apparent that Eisen | Letunic has produced the best possible Bicycle Plan within the dictates and constraints placed upon it by a Board of Directors whose desire is to justify  expenditure for enhancement and amenities that masquerade its recalcitrance to increase onboard bicycle carriage during the time when commuters most need it.  And to this end, it appears that a lot of time and expense went into the development of the Bicycle Investment Tool “to help BART staff determine the optimal amount and type of parking at each station.”   The Bicycle Investment Tool blatantly ignores the most important and beneficial investment of all – to allow bicycles onboard trains at all times.

 

 

Bike San Mateo County recognizes that an adopted Bike Plan is de rigueur for agency application for State and Federal funding opportunities.  We applaud the BART Board of Directors for updating the 2002 Bart Bicycle Plan because we appreciate the forethought of capturing monies for bicycle infrastructure.  We are of the mind that the employment of the data provided by using the Investment Tool will give BART a “step up” in its funding application requests.  However, we are highly doubtful, despite the analysis in the appendices, that increased bike parking facilities will achieve the goal to double BART bicycle access, to 8% of all trips, by 2022.  The obvious way to achieve the goal of doubling bicycle access to stations is to allow bikes onboard BART at all times with no blackout period.  A Bike Plan that ignores the most important issue is woefully inadequate, and the final Plan must include the objective to eliminate the bike blackout periods to lend merit to the overall Plan.

 

Bike San Mateo County is also cognizant that within the next ten years BART expects significantly increased weekday ridership which will oversubscribe existent vehicle parking facilities.  There is precious little, if any, real estate remaining for parking lot or garage expansion.  Therefore it is prudent now to focus on effecting the behavior change needed to entice passengers to access the stations by bicycle. Every eight station-parked cyclists remove the need for one parking space. Again, we are highly doubtful that enhanced world class bicycle parking facilities are the panacea to remedy a future vehicle parking crisis.  In 2010 Caltrain’s bicycle lockers were filled to 45%, that being 2% of its daily bicycle ridership parking at the station while 5% took their bikes onboard.  After Caltrain increased its onboard bicycle carriage capacity in 2011 locker usage dropped to 43%, while bicycle-onboard passengers increased to 7%.  Today locker usage is at 46% with bicycle-onboard ridership above 8%.  Bicycle users account for over 10% of Caltrain’s daily ridership with just 2% of them leaving their bikes at the station.  Therefore it might be concluded that the increase of bicycle-onboard passengers during peak commute hours effects little or no change in station bike parking rates.  It also is evident that those who bring their bicycles onboard need them at both ends of the trip.  If cyclists were unable to bring their bikes onboard during peak commute hours they would return to driving their cars and forego public transit altogether.

 

In conclusion, Bike San Mateo County offers the following recommendations to be included in the Final BART Bicycle Plan:

·   Immediately initiate discussion with intent to eliminate all bicycle blackout periods;

·   In every station retrofit at least one conveniently located staircase leading to platforms with stair channels;

·   All newly constructed stations will have conveniently located staircases for platform access fitted with stair channels; 

·   Use the Investment Tool to determine whether retrofitting stair channels is more cost effective than liability litigation;

·   Revoke the “No Bicycles on Escalators” ban;

·   Use the Investment Tool to determine whether revoking the “No Bicycles on Escalators” ban is more cost effective than liability litigation;

·   When the above recommendations have been incorporated in the text change the title of the document to BART Bicycle Master Plan.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Steve Vanderlip

[pat giorni]

Thanks to all for your initial and speedy comments.  Since no other suggestions or comments have been received for consideration the original letter will be sent with only the final tweaking that appears underlined and Bold below

Bike San Mateo County is also cognizant that within the next ten years BART expects significantly increased weekday ridership which will oversubscribe existent vehicle parking facilities.  There is precious little, if any, real estate remaining for parking lot or garage expansion.  Therefore it is prudent now to focus on effecting the behavior change needed to entice passengers to access the stations by bicycle rather than by automobile. Every eight station-parked cyclists use only the square footage needed to park a single car. Again, we are highly doubtful that enhanced world class bicycle parking facilities are the panacea to remedy a future vehicle parking crisis.  In 2010 Caltrain’s bicycle lockers were filled to 45%, that being 2% of its daily bicycle ridership parking at the station while 7% took their bikes onboard.  After Caltrain increased its onboard bicycle carriage capacity in 2011 locker usage dropped to 43%, while bicycle-onboard passengers increased to 10%.  Today locker usage remains unchanged with bicycle-onboard ridership above 10%.  Bicycle users account for over 12% of Caltrain’s daily ridership with just 2% of them leaving their bikes at the station.  Therefore it might be concluded that the increase of bicycle-onboard passengers during peak commute hours effects little or no change in station bike parking rates.  It also is evident that those who bring their bicycles onboard need them at both ends of the trip.  If cyclists were unable to bring their bikes onboard during peak commute hours they would return to driving their cars and forego public transit altogether.

---

From: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
To: bikesmc <bik...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:19 PM
Subject: BART Bike Plan--DRAFT Comment Letter

[Bob Mack]

Love it!

Bob

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bikesmc" group.
To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bikesmc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bikesmc?hl=en.

[smbike]

Our BART Bicycle Plan comment letter was submitted on May 24 and can
be viewed at http://bikesmc.org/BikeSMCBARTBPComment52412.pdf

The main points made were:
1. Open discussions on eliminating the blackout periods when bicycles
are not allowed on BART;
2. Review installing stair channels at existing stations;
3. Ensure all future stations include stair channels;
4. Revoke the no bicycles on escalator policy.


The multi-Bicycle Coalitions supported BIKESONboard team is actively
working toward eliminating the blackout periods. Follow their
progress at www.sfbike.org/bobart



We will be working toward a more complete BART section on our website.
If interested in helping, please email bik...@hotmail.com

On May 24, 1:39 pm, pat giorni <hogo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks to all for your initial and speedy comments.  Since no other suggestions or comments have been received for consideration the original letter will be sent with only the final tweaking that appears underlined and Bold below
>
> Bike San Mateo County is also cognizant that within the next
> ten years BART expects significantly increased weekday ridership which will
> oversubscribe existent vehicle parking facilities.  There is precious little, if any, real estate
> remaining for parking lot or garage expansion.  Therefore it is prudent now to focus on effecting the behavior change
> needed to entice passengers to access the stations by bicycle rather than by
> automobile. Every eight station-parked cyclists use only the square footage needed
> to park a single car. Again, we are highly doubtful that enhanced world
> class bicycle parking facilities are the panacea to remedy a future vehicle
> parking crisis.  In 2010 Caltrain’s
> bicycle lockers were filled to 45%, that being 2% of its daily bicycle ridership

> parking at the station while7% took their bikes onboard.  After Caltrain increased its onboard bicycle

> carriage capacity in 2011 locker usage dropped to 43%, while bicycle-onboard
> passengers increased to 10%.  Today locker usage remains unchanged with bicycle-onboard ridership
> above 10%.  Bicycle users account
> for over 12% of Caltrain’s daily ridership with just 2% of them leaving
> their bikes at the station.  Therefore it
> might be concluded that the increase of bicycle-onboard passengers during peak
> commute hours effects little or no change in station bike parking rates.  It also is evident that those who bring their
> bicycles onboard need them at both ends of the trip.  If cyclists were unable to bring their bikes
> onboard during peak commute hours they would return to driving their cars and
> forego public transit altogether.
>
> >________________________________

> > From: pat giorni <hogo...@yahoo.com>

> parking, theBART Bicycle Plan Modeling

> Access to Transit, in 40 point font, boldly announces that “BART welcomes cyclists at
> every step of their journey” (pg. 45), so long as it does not include peak hour
> commute blackout elimination.>
> >It is apparent that Eisen |
>
> Letunic has produced the best possible Bicycle Plan within the dictates and
> constraints placed upon it by a Board of Directors whose desire is to
> justify  expenditure for enhancement and
> amenities that masquerade its recalcitrance to increase onboard bicycle
> carriage during the time when commuters most need it.  And to this end, it appears that a lot of
> time and expense went into the development of the Bicycle Investment Tool “to
> help BART staff determine the optimal amount and type of parking at each
> station.”   The Bicycle Investment Tool blatantly
> ignores the most important and beneficial investment of all – to allow bicycles
> onboard trains at all times.>
> >
> >Bike San Mateo County recognizes
>
> that an adopted Bike Plan is de rigueur for agency application for State and
> Federal funding opportunities.  We
> applaud the BART Board of Directors for updating the 2002 Bart Bicycle Plan
> because we appreciate the forethought of capturing monies for bicycle
> infrastructure.  We are of the mind that
> the employment of the data provided by using the Investment Tool will give BART
> a “step up” in its funding application requests.  However, we are highly doubtful, despite the
> analysis in the appendices, that increased bike parking facilities will achieve

> the goalto double BART bicycle

> >Steve Vanderlip- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -