<p>We are trying to meet the needs of cyclists as they ride the train. Bikes on board is one solution, but not the only solution. We would like to encourage <strong>every</strong> passenger to ride a bike to/from the station. We want something that works. Following is the draft of SVBC's position on the Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan. Please feel free to leave comments sharing your thoughts on this position. These comments will be reviewed by the Board of Directors, who may edit our position before submitting the final copy to Caltrain officials.</p>
Discussion and feedback
Please check the Advocacy forum for the latest developments on this position. Comments left on this page and in that forum will be read by the SVBC Board.
Reference documents and links
The Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan website (http://www.caltrain.com/bicycle_master_plan.html) contains a brief description of the plan as well as contact information to leave a comment with Caltrain directly.
<ul>
<li><a href="http://svbcbikes.org/files/documents/caltrain/bike_master_plan_key_findings_public_presentation_6-08_v2.pdf">Bicycle Master Plan Key Findings Public Presentation 6-08 v2</a></li>
<h4>Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan Technical Advisory Group Meeting Agendas</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://svbcbikes.org/files/documents/caltrain/july112007-agendadocs.pdf">July 11th, 2007</a></li>
<li><a href="http://svbcbikes.org/files/documents/caltrain/nov82007-agenda.pdf">November 8th, 2007</a></li>
<li><a href="http://svbcbikes.org/files/documents/caltrain/feb52008-agendadocs.pdf">February 5th, 2008</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Position on Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan [DRAFT 3]</h3>
<p>On their website and in a series of public meetings, Caltrain has presented the draft key findings of their Bicycle Master Plan. SVBC has a number of comments on this plan.</p>
<p>SVBC recognizes and appreciates that, in the field of public transportation, Caltrain has been a leader in accommodating bicycles. Bicycling and the train are natural transportation partners, as the bicycle provides an efficient and environmentally beneficial way of getting to and from stations. Caltrain’s bikes on board program has been hugely successful, and has greatly enhanced the utility of Caltrain for bicyclists in the region. We understand that the very success of the program has now strained Caltrain’s ability to scale up this program to meet the demand, and appreciate that Caltrain is looking at various ways to accommodate bicycles in its system.</p>
<p>With this in mind, we offer the following comments:</p>
<ol>
<li>Although the document is billed as a Bicycle Master Plan, it does not adequately address the bikes on board program. A bicycle master plan needs to address all aspects of how bicycles and Caltrain operate together.
<ol>
<li>The Master Plan should clearly support continuing the bikes on board program</li>
<li>The document mentions that demand for onboard bike capacity is exceeding supply, and that physical onboard capacity is maxed out, but does not present any information about why more capacity could not be added</li>
<li>The document does not even attempt to make a case for why onboard bike capacity should not be increased.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>The onboard bike program is extremely useful,
<ol>
<li>This is especially true in the following situations:
<ol>
<li>You need your bike at both ends of your train ride</li>
<li>You are making several stops along the way (trip-linking) and need your bike at several locations</li>
<li>You are a casual, or irregular traveler, and do not conform to a regular commuting pattern</li>
</ol></li>
<li>To encourage availability for those who need it most, demand management, including charging for bikes on board, especially during impacted periods could be considered.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>For these reasons, the onboard bike program should be continued, in at least its current form with at least the current ratio of bikes to seats preserved.
<ol>
<li>The current ratio of bicycle slots to seats on a train is targeted at 5% — this target should be maintained, at a minimum</li>
<li>A larger number of bicycle slots would be highly desirable for bicyclists</li>
<li>The purchase of new rollingstock and other equipment should consider the needs of bicyclist passengers.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>We favor the following improvements to the onboard bicycle program
<ol>
<li>Bicycle slot reservation
<ol>
<li>You should be able to reserve a bicycle slot on a particular train for a trip. There could be a cost for this reservation. On certain heavily impacted trains, reservations could be made mandatory.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>Notification of number and location of bike cars on each train</li>
<li>Notification of number of empty bike slots on each train</li>
<li>Consider moving the bike car to the south end of the train as a possible solution to dwell-time and traffic-flow issues.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>We support Caltrain in seeking to improve wayside accommodation for bicycling passengers
<ol>
<li>Improve bicycle access to Caltrain stations
<ol>
<li>Provide better signage to bicycle paths and other facilities</li>
<li>Install stair channels so that bicyclists can more easily use the stairways</li>
</ol></li>
<li>Improve bicycle parking at Caltrain stations. Some bicyclists bring their bikes on board because they feel current bike parking at stations is not sufficiently secure. Having secure parking available at stations will provide expanded options for current bicycling passengers and will encourage more passengers to bicycle to and from stations.
<ol>
<li>We especially favor the installation of bike stations, and note that these have been very successful in locations world-wide.</li>
<li> Bicycle parking should be at least as convenient, and should be cheaper than automobile parking at the station.</li>
<li>Abandoned bikes at stations should be removed to free rack space.</li>
<li>CCTV, lighting and other theft-prevention methods should be employed at station bicycle racks. Racks will not be used unless they are safe and secure.</li>
<li>Electronic lockers, or other methods of accommodating the occasional traveler should be considered.</li>
<li>Controls should be established on existing lockers in high demand areas, to make sure that they are used. To measure usage, simple mechanisms could be used like putting a chit with the locker number in a box every time the locker is accessed.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>We support incentive programs for regular commuters to enable them to use wayside facilities or purchase folding bicycles
<ol>
<li>Work with local law enforcement agencies to provide confiscated bikes to commuters at minimal cost. This will make it economical to have a bicycle at both ends of a regular trip.</li>
<li>Provide a rebate to allow passengers to purchase a folding bike. To insure this is used by regular passengers only, this could be tied to the purchase of a commuter pass.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>Additional shuttle service could eliminate the need to have a bicycle at both ends of a journey</li>
<li>Consider a bike rental, or bike sharing program at heavily used stations</li>
<li>It is possible that by reducing the demand of regular commuters for onboard space, there will be sufficient onboard space for those who need it the most.</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>In addition, SVBC supports the Bicycle-related Specifications for Rolling Stock Procurement recommended by the TAG Bikes-On-Cars Subcommittee (October 2007). The following is a brief summary of the recommendations:</p>
<ol>
<li>Racks
<ul>
<li>Racks with bungee cords (preferred)</li>
<li>Cribs with bungee cords (acceptable)</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Dedicated/Specific Bike Cars</li>
<li>Level or low-floor boarding</li>
<li>Two doors cars</li>
<li>Bike Car Identification</li>
<li>Number of bike spaces per train set
<ul>
<li>It is preferable that the capacity for bikes brought on-board be maximized as much as practicable. At a minimum, it should remain at the same ratio as is currently available on a ‘standard’ gallery train set of 32 bike spaces to 650 seats (the rule of thumb average), roughly 5%.</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Ratio of seats to bike spaces within bike car:
<ul>
<li>1 bike space :1 seat</li>
</ul></li>
<li>“Seats reserved for cyclists” designation</li>
<li>Closed circuit TV monitors</li>
<li>Clearance between seats and floor: 14 – 16 inches.</li>
<li>Display train number on train exterior by the doors</li>
<li>Post maps of station order near bike racks</li>
</ol>
<p>The Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition looks forward to working with Caltrain to meet the needs of bicycling passengers, and to promote the use of bicycles as part of our regional transportation network.</p>
Comments
adrian.brandt
July 1, 2008 - 3:12pm
Permalink
Feedback on draft SVBC Bike Master Plan comments
I skimmed the above and have a few comments:
Remember, one of the reasons for putting bikes in the cab-cars was that there was guaranteed to be one on every train and its position at the north end was predictable. If you put them at the south end, then you're introducing another element to get wrong when making up trains. You now have to ensure that one of the special bike-storage-equipped trailer cars (vs. cab cars) is adjacent to the locomotive. Keeping cab-car = bike-car makes it a no-brainer, and no amount of sloppiness will take the cab car off the north end since it has got to be there (there can be others mid-train, but it has got to be there for current push-operated NB trains to run).
The better solution is to discourage peds from needlessly boarding at the cab-car. All the peds who insist on boarding via the cab-car on morning northbound trains just add to the dwell time problem that bicyclists get blamed for since they are asked to board last. Either have peds on busy AM NB trains board last or ask them to board via the other doors. This way the bike boarding will go quicker and there will be less overall dwell time. Having the bicyclists get off last in SF is fine.
Bottom line is that while we though 5% was kind of bare minimum OK ... that was well before $4.50 gas and the apparently here-to-stay surge in bicycle and transit use overall. As a bicycle advocacy organization, 5% status quo seems like a pretty lame ask. In light of where oil prices and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are heading, etc.,it's time for an aggressive push for a major increase in bicycle carrying capacity. There is latent demand. How many more are not riding anymore (or would start) if it was not for all the word of mouth and experiences and bad press about the nightmares of being bumped, etc.?
If Celia Chung is on the SVBC board, she has a conflict of interest as Caltrain staff has hired her to basically do their bidding on the Bike Master Plan effort. As a participant in numerous meetings and emails with her during the Bike Plan process, I would have never guessed she was a board member of a bicycle advocacy group. It was my impression that she was constantly influenced by Caltrain staff's desire to downplay or minimize what we, the bicycles-on-board riders, were going to ask for, etc. Remember, this was (and remains, IMO) a process in which the main over-arching goal was how do we reduce demand for bicycles on trains? The fact that bikes-on-trains came up at all was only the result of vigorous outside agitation and protests pointing out that this aspect cannot be ignored, and, that it is, in fact, the one we're all most interested in.
An important key will be to figure out how to get Caltrain staff to "get religion" on this issue and actually start approaching it from the perspective of "okay, how can we make this work?" instead of constantly figuring out "how can we minimize this or make this go away?"
Adrian
edit: took out line breaks for readability
Paul
July 2, 2008 - 1:22pm
Permalink
Celia Chung is on the SVBC board
Celia Chung is indeed on the SVBC board, and, yes, she does have a conflict of interest. Celia has recused herself from participating in this issue at all SVBC meetings, and has not discussed the issue privately with other board members. As a fellow board member, I am extremely happy that we have a dedicated cyclist working for Caltrain on this project: she can bring her perspective as a cyclist to the table in all internal discussions and this has to add value to their deliberations.
Celia has played no role in developing the board's draft position on this issue.
hjjost
July 9, 2008 - 10:40pm
Permalink
pay/reservation system and other thoughts
I am using the train a lot with my bike. Adrian makes a lot of good points, but I think the pay/reserve arguments do not hold. At least, it is being done elsewhere:
Swiss Railway Bike Pricing/Reservtions
I prefer free of course..... but cost may be a way to get people to think about leaving their bike at the stations/get a second bike.
I am also missing the Caltrain discussion of capacity increase.
As for the bike car on the south bound end: I don't think there should be a guarantee that you can get on the train in SF if you go through the gate in time. You should be in the car on time, or the train will close the door and leave (like in all the other stations too). I think Caltrain use of the gates is wrong.
Mark
July 3, 2008 - 1:36pm
Permalink
Bicycles on Trains
In the June 2008 master plan, it states that demand for bike space on board the trains is exceeding the supply; however, there is no mention of any steps that will be taken to increase that supply. Considering that CalTrain states that 7% of the current ridership is bringing a bicycle on board, but only 2% is parking their bicycles at the stations, that seems like an incredibly serious omission.
By focusing on how to increase the parking capacity at the stations, CalTrain is assuming incorrectly that passengers are bringing their bikes on board only because there is no room at the stations. Are conductors reporting that passengers are disgruntled because they are forced to bring their bikes on board due to a lack of parking spaces? My experience has been that passengers are disgruntled only when they are not allowed to bring their bikes on board due to lack of space.
Ellen
July 8, 2008 - 9:22pm
Permalink
Caltrain Master Plan
From the draft SVBC Board position:
For these reasons, the onboard bike program should be continued, in at least its current form with at least the current ratio of bikes to seats preserved.
[End quote]
The suggested 5% of bicycle slots is far too low, even lower than 7% currently on board, which doesn't account for those who have been denied access and those who would use Caltrain if they could be assured of a space. That doesn't even account for the additional new and potential riders who will choose the Caltrain/bike commute option due to high gasoline prices. Caltrain should plan to gradually increase bike spaces to a ratio of 10 or 15%.
Ellen Fletcher
[I'm surprised that the ID I used when registering for this list turned out to be "Your name" as you can see above.]
Paul
July 12, 2008 - 12:08pm
Permalink
Do Other Rail Systems Carry Bikes on Board?
In my research, and in my fairly extensive bike travel in Europe, I have not encountered any rail system that is as accommodating to bikes on the train as is Caltrain. I have seen immensely successful bike stations, and bike rental programs, but nothing like Caltrain's bikes on board program. Many intercity trains in Europe will have a separate place for bikes in the baggage car, but clearly that would not work for commuter rail, where stops are more frequent, and there is not time for a passenger to go to the baggage car to retrieve a bike.
If anyone has an example, with specific information, of a program comparable to, or better than, Caltrain's, please send me that information.
In any case, I do agree that the current draft is weak in asking for increased capacity for bikes on board, and I am quite sure that the final comments to Caltrain will take a stronger position on this issue.
Paul Goldstein
Bob Mack
August 21, 2008 - 2:55pm
Permalink
SVBC Position on Caltrain Bicycle Master Plan [DRAFT 3]
This position does not advocate for any improvement for on-board bicycle service. It only mirrors the Caltrain staff position.
Many of the suggestions are not possible to implement successfully. For example:
CCTV will only work if there is a law enforcement officer close by to stop a thief. Once a bike is stolen, it is gone forever. Cameras do not stop theft.
Space reservations will be impossible to manage with people getting on and off trains at every stop. While a real-time information system can tell how many spaces are available from stop to stop, it does not allow for advanced space reservations, unless you are prepared to have trains run with empty bike spaces to ensure that the space will be there two, three or four stops later. If a person reserves a space from Sunnyvale to San Francisco, that space cannot be used from San Jose to Sunnyvale. That is the only way to be sure it will be empty in Sunnyvale.
Improved parking is good. But a growing number of people take "open jaw" trips. That is, they get on at one station, travel to a second station, but the return trip is to a third station. A bike left at the first station cannot be used at the end of the trip.
The only solution is to increase on-board bike capacity to meet current demand and make sure new rolling stock purchases increase on-board capacity to meet future demand. It is less expensive to make room on trains for bikes, than to build parking places for cars or pay for shuttles.
At this time Caltrain is unable to manage and maintain the bike lockers at stations. There is no evidence that they will be able to do better with more lockers, racks, etc., to operate.
Advocacy is: Defending or maintaining a cause or proposal or supporting or promoting the interests of another. This is from Websters Dictionary. The SVBC position is supporting the proposal and position of the Caltrain staff, not that of the needs of bicycle commuters.