Caltrain's bike cars

A follow-up to Monday's post about bikes on trains and buses, in which I suggested that trains add "bike cars": attentive reader Roger Rudick, a producer at KPCC, e-mailed to point out that the Bay Area's Caltrain service has bike cars!

Caltrain is the commuter rail service that runs between San Jose and San Francisco -- it's similar to Metrolink. Over the years, Caltrain has earned a bike-friendly reputation after the agency removed seating for bike racks. Most trains can handle 16 or 32 bikes, depending on which type of rail car is used. The photo at right, from Caltrain, isn't a particularly good one -- here's a link to a better one at Flickr.

But now Caltrain is struggling. The agency had record ridership in May with an average of 41,890 passengers on weekdays, and there's no more room for bikes. Some cyclists are being turned away from trains, and the agency doesn't want to add more space.

"We have a very liberal policy, and we have done a lot to accommodate cyclists," said Christine Dunn, a Caltrain spokeswoman. "But I think we've been victims of our own success."

Dunn said that for several reasons Caltrain doesn't want more bike cars -- bikes take up space that can be used for passengers and cyclists only pay the regular fare. She said that Caltrain is working on a bicycle master plan that for all intents and purposes is a bicycle parking plan that encourages people to leave their bikes at the station by having more convenient bike racks and lockers.

"Like every other transit agency, we're all about trying to break even and we're not doing that," Dunn said. "We're essentially losing money every time a bike rider gets on board with the bike."

She said the agency has looked into a surcharge for cyclists, but that isn't an attractive option as the trains get more crowded and Caltrain needs to accommodate more people. Rather, she said, cyclists -- like other commuters -- will have to be more creative.

I mentioned that many cyclists want to use trains and buses to bridge gaps in their commutes and that the great thing about a bike is that it's a quick way to get to and from stations. Dunn said perhaps one solution is for cyclists to have two bikes -- one they can ride to the train and another they leave at their destination station.

I'm going to try to post later about whether the "bike car" option is even available to local rail agencies. I'm guessing that this is a contentious subject and bottleneckers are encouraged to vent away by leaving comments.

-- Steve Hymon

Photo: Caltrain

Comments

[Matt in SF]

Caltrain should work harder to come up with solutions that bring them more riders. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game where bicyclists lose out to other riders. Adding capacity (both more trains and more train cars) seems like a no-brainer - so why are they instead trying to find ways to discourage bicyclists from riding?

Do you think Apple Inc. is trying to find ways to discourage consumers from buying iPhones today? I'm sure they are having capacity problems as well, but it's a welcome problem and one that means profits and improved business standing for Apple.

Public transit agencies on the other hand talk about how they want riders, but treat ridership growth like it's a negative, and pick on bicyclists like they are somehow the problem when it is the folks who drive single-occupancy vehicles to and from train stations taking up valuable parking spaces who are costing the Caltrain system hundred of millions of dollars in car parking construction - money that could have doubled the Caltrain fleet if it had been invested in more rolling stock, more operators and better transit agency planners.

The fact that Caltrain is instead looking at ways to discourage bicyclists from riding (such as removing the existing bike cars or reducing their capacity from 32 bikes to 16 bikes) shows that they would prefer to blame their customers rather than acknowledge that they do not have adequate supplies of equipment, adequate capacity or operating plans, and that they don't recognize that the number of bicycle commuters will likely go up significantly in the future. Amazing, but all too familiar. I wouldn't be surpised if they decide to eliminate bicycles altogether when they change over to electric rolling stock in the future.

[Michael Ballard]

The Coaster trains in San Diego use the same rolling stock as Metrolink. Some of the cars have been modified to allow up to six bicycles instead of the usual two. Few seats were lost in this. Metrolink could easily modify some of their cars to accomodate this.

As to the Los Angeles Metro Rail, modifying cars may not be an option. However, there are cars being used by the Santa Clara VTA that have vertical bicycle hooks.

[Oscar]

Wow Tom...what an extensive answer!

RE: shared bikes, I think the idea of shared bikes or even rented bikes or segways might have the right idea for congested urban centers like downtown.

I know a lot of people thought of segways as a joke, but they were designed with this purpose, to use for a distance somewhere in between walking and cycling. A fleet of rental Segways at Union Station would be a great idea for a lot of people trying to get to their jobs in the city center that are a bit to far to walk.

[Tom Rubin]

Speaking as someone who has been in the transit industry for over three years, there is a very natural connection between bikes and transit -- and bikes are often a tremendous pain in the tail for transit agencies.

The problem is, bikes are wonderful for getting people to and from transit stops, but what the devil do you do with the darn things when someone wants to bring them on the bus or train?

We have got to look at ways -- with emphisis on the plural -- to make this work better.

Well, you have to get inventive -- and people have to be reasonable.

I think that even the most ardent cyclist can see the problem that transit agencies have when they must make a choice between allowing bikes on the transit vehicle or carrying more passenges, particularly at peak times. Yes, it is certainly true that there are other "bulky" riders, ranging from people who bring on baby carriages (although most will fold them, and the number of peak hour baby carriages is generally not a huge concern, while home-to-work cyclists DO tend to be peak period transit riders), to large package carriers (again, not generally a large number of people at peak periods), etc., but it is the number of cyclists that pose the big problem for transit agencies -- and this is likely to continue to get bigger.

For buses, the usual approach is the bike racks, generally capable of handling two bikes on the front of the bus. Regular users can get their bikes on and off very quickly, often in 15 seconds or less. This is fine as far as it goes, but what do you do when there are three cyclists who want to get on the same bus -- during rush hour?

Santa Barbara was one of the first transit agencies to get serious about cyclists -- I can personnally recall things going on in the 1970's. This was a natural connection due, mostly, to the university. A lot of the student housing was not real close to the campus, it was not an easy bike ride to get to the campus for many people, but bikes were great for getting around the campus and to nearby destinations. So, SB actually had special trailers built that, as I recall, could handle a dozen or more bikes -- and often filled them up.

Bike cars on rail have similar capacity issues. Urban rail trains (light rail and heavy rail) have train length issues. Light rail trains are generally no more than two cars, some three-car trains being common, but, beyond that, it just can't be done; the station platforms and/or the city blocks are too short for longer consists, and it costs a lot of money to operate an extra car. Heavy rail is also limited in the number of cars per train by the station platform lengths -- and, in many cases, the trains are full of seated -- and standing -- passengers when the trains are at maximum length already. In these cases, there can be an almost direct tradeoff for transit operators; more bikes on the train means fewer passengers.

It is easiER -- not easy, but easier -- to add cars to a commuter rail train, but you still have the cost of operating the extra car, it is best (although not required) to have special cars for bikes.

The folding bike option is a good one for a lot of people -- but not all.

More bike lockers -- and I strongly believe that the fee for bike lockers should be the same as for parking cars, if there is no charge for parking a car, there shouldn't be a charge for parking a bike (you can generally get about six of the bulkiest bike lockers into one auto parking space) -- AND that the bike lockers, or whatever, should be as close as possible to the station entrance.

I favor reserved bike lockers, on a monthly basis, where feasible, but I also like some non-reserved "daily" ones, as well.

You can get a lot more bikes stored with racks than with lockers for the same space, but there is the security tradeof and other concerns (more subject to weather). This should be a local decision, made jointly by the cyclists and the transit agency -- and, in some cases, by others, like if the bike storage is on a city sidewalk or a commerical lot.

"Valet" bike parking can be a good option for certain transit centers with very heavy cyclist usage; the tradeoff is far less space required vs. having to pay attenent staff. If cyclists are willing to pay something towards the cost -- and I don't necessarily mean the full cost -- then this becomes more viable.

I also like lockers in the "downtown" so that the "hard core" can use their "main" bike for their ten-mile trip to their suburban transit stop, then have an older and less expensive bike available for that last mile to the job in the CBD -- AND a place to clean up and store gear at the job site.

Then we have the problem, if you store your bike at the station and there is a loss or damage, who is responsible, who pays? Cyclists, naturally, feel that they should not have to pay the full cost when they give their property to others to store, but transit agencies have a lot of experience with false claims. (Good bikes are not cheap, of course, but I haven't seen a whole lot of $5,000 custom specials chained to "no parking" signs near bus stops lately.)

Shared bikes are a good idea that I hope will grow (particularly for that "downtown station to job" bike trip), although there are some obviouis problems that are difficult to work out. These ARE working in many places and can work in more.

There are also some ideas that seemed to be pretty bad when they were proposed and then were PROVEN to be pretty bad -- including the vans that carried cyclists and the bikes over the Bay Bridge. The usage was minicule and the cost outrageous. OK, one thing we know not to bother with anymore; what other ideas are out there?

Also, please, PLEASE, NEVER, NEVER hold on to a transit vehicle in motion; the results, to say the least, are often not very pretty.

[Colin Bogart]

Caltrain, and by extension Metrolink, would do well to utilize space on their trains more efficiently. If they copied Portland's MAX train or Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner by using hooks that store bicycles vertically, you'd fit more bikes and have a lot less wasted space. Part of the problem is Caltrain seems to be using a design intended for seats instead of using a design that's actually intended for bikes! Design with bikes in mind and it would all work better. A lot of people are discovering that bikes are a great transportation option, but they're also discovering that very little is actually designed with bikes clearly in mind. That's a big-picture problem that must be addressed.

[Steve Williams]

I commute daily on Caltrain. For the most part, the local trains have plenty of room for bikes. It's the express trains that must turn away cyclists. My solution? WiFi: http://www.sbw.org/caltrain/

[Ryan]

I take Caltrain everyday as a part of my commute. I am not a biker, but I do feel for the bikers who are often left at stations due to bike capacity limitations. However, I think bikes should be the least of Caltrain's concerns. Station parking lots are filling up much earlier as ridership increases, forcing many people to turn away at the lot driveway. Suicides on the tracks seems to be a monthly if not bi-monthly event. And free-ridership on spare the air days has become a delay causing joke.

[SKD]

Even if, in an ideal world, you extend the subway to Santa Monica, build an Orange line train to Woodland Hills, extend the Gold Line to Ontario airport and extend the Green Line out to Riverside, there will still be 5-10 miles gaps in the system. Gaps that can be filled in with the bicycle. Accommodating this non-polluting means of short distance transportation is essential to a comprehensive mass transit system for the greater Los Angeles region.