In the first place, bicyclists provide CalTrain with revenue without displacing non-bicycling passengers.

Moreover, the comments thread on this page has mentioned the putative subsidization of automobile parking as one basis for comparing "subsidies". What I don't believe anyone has mentioned is the free shuttles that run from various CalTrain stations to adjoining office parks, universities, and the like.

Bicyclists don't require shuttle transportation. If CalTrain wants to start charging for the notional "lost revenue" caused by bicycles, does not it also need to start charging for the "free" shuttles used by non-riders?

That's because every other metro and commuter rail agency on planet Earth concluded that exclusive bike cars are not a good way to accommodate on-board bike access.

And, incredibly, Caltrain plans on continuing the archaic practice when they "modernize" to EMU trainsets.

Riddle me this. What is more useful to you - a train that takes no bikes, or a train that takes lots of bikes, but there is a 10% chance that you will be SOL to get on that train on any given day. FYI - this AM I saw someone arrive for the 8:14 AM train at 8:12. He was denied boarding on that train, AND the 8:19 train which was also already full. He was headed to Mountain View. Net delay - 40 minutes. If it's not fairly reliable, it's not "real" transportation. 95% of Caltrain riders will fade them a commute crunching mishap every other month - say a fatality on the tracks. But being late for work multiple times a week - there might as well not be a train (note that 10% applies to showing up at 4th/King. If you are boarding at Burlingame, good luck).

For someone with a lot of patience and even more flexibility the current setup works. If that was legitimately the best Caltrain can do, great. But it isn't. Want proof? 12 months ago Caltrain pretty much said it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to increase capacity for bikes, and repeated this refrain for months on end. Now, the capacity is increasing. So it wasn't *IMPOSSIBLE* - they just didn't want to do it.

Aside from proving that this a capacity increase was in fact possible, it also justifies the whole set of shenanigans. The cyclists got what they wanted (or at least part of what they wanted), if they had just sat on the sidelines, Caltrain would have offered nothing. This has been true since the beginning - Caltrain didn't wake up one day and decide to offer bike capacity, the customers demanded it. And the cyclists have gone to great lengths to prove that adding more space does NOT degrade the overall service, and in fact is a net financial gain for the train.

Why did we ask for what we wanted? Because we could. The only people who were affected negatively by the whole thing were the lazy n'eer do wells working at Caltrain. Period.

The issue is not whether or not there are unions present in a transit system, rather whether or not unions are successful at generalizing the commitment of the economy to provide the basics which gives each enterprise more flexibility.

A casual glance around the house of labor in the US indicates to all but the most romantic that unions here are hardly successful. In fact, given that we are at a unique juncture in economic history right now, where working Americans need to marshal our power now more than ever, we see labor attacking itself and capitulating on issues like single payer health care as if labor had been infiltrated by a COINTELPRO style disruption campaign like the Black Panthers were.

-marc

As far as I know, Caltrain's the only metro rail system that runs exclusive bike car service. Many metro rail systems don't allow bikes at all during peak commute hours. Not only does Caltrain allow them, it even allows bikes on express trains! Objectively speaking, Caltrain is the most pro-bike rail system in the country, maybe the world.

From Caltrain's perspective, a bike surcharge would be a good incentive for customers to leave their bikes at the station(s), which saves energy and leaves more space for other passengers. From the perspective of bike advocates, it's another insult, like the downsizing of the bike cars.

It seems like there's a major disconnect between Caltrain and its bike passengers. If you read Caltrain's bike plan, and comparing it to the SFBC and SVBC websites (or the comments here), it's like two different systems are being discussed.

Caltrain is primarily focused on the issues of bike storage and on getting bikes to the station.

The SFBC's website on Caltrain says virtually nothing about bike storage; it is entirely focused on the bike carriage debate. I understand that this has been a major topic recently, but the website gives the impression that the current focus is adversarial towards Caltrain rather than collaborative towards advocating for various cities and governmental bodies to pursue the (sensible) improvements they have proposed.

It would be great if someone who's currently more plugged in to Caltrain than I am would assure me that no opportunities are being missed because of the contention between Caltrain and bike activists, who are not always representative of either commuters or bicyclists, although I realize they're trying their best. Pointers to relevant position papers or board minutes or online discussions would be great.

Compared to USA, European has much stronger unions and worker protections. Nonetheless, their commuter/regional operations use half the labor as Caltrain. The JPB needs to decide whether it is running a jobs program or actual transportation service.

I think Caltrain is pretty much fully unionized, so that is going to be complicated, though not out of the question. Concessions need to be made, and any sensible business cuts internally before it starts cutting product offerings.

Re-read your message. In an effort to further this conversation between concerned parties, I suggest we all stop talking about the bike situation because it's been talked to death and instead discuss the other proposed "solutions."

I like Murph's idea of having every other train be a limited on the weekend. Less rolling stock necessary, less personnel, less stops, less cost. It also seems like Atherton and Broadway could be closed.

Does anyone else have any ideas we could propose to Caltrain in June?

Take a quick poll of the next bike storage facility you see. See how many of those bikes move over a week. Then get back to me about how well used those bike storage facilities are.

Next, ask the cyclists waiting by the bike car whether they'd like to have a bike on either end of their commute. As for myself, I've used Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Redwood City and San Francisco stations this week.

Your arguments don't hold water because you're speaking as an authority on subject material you have no personal experience with.

No, kit, you're not getting it. How often do you go to gallery openings? Five nights a week? Right.

Look, those are all great reasons to bring a bike on board. I'm not telling you that bikes on Caltrain should be abolished.
I'm telling you to bring one on days when you need one, not every day when you don't!

Maybe you're misunderstanding me because of the topic of the post, but I thought it was fairly relevant to my point.

What I'm trying to say is that I DO NOT understand why the debate is focused on bike capacity and bike surcharges when there's clearly unmet demand for bike storage. Better bike storage would relieve the constraints on the Caltrain bike car and would bring back riders who have stopped because they get bumped, improving overall sustainability.

Everyone seems to be fighting this zero-sum battle with Caltrain over the bike car, which I do not understand. The bike car is a bizarre hybrid system which makes sense for some people, like the Amtrak Auto Train.

Bike storage makes more sense for more people, and it works well in every other developed country. It is a win/win situation because Caltrain gets rid of bike congestion while riders get more commuting options.

Do you have a link to the study with this data?

Go do one, I'll wait. It's in the nature of commuting patterns. People go from A to B to get to work, and they don't stop off in Burlingame on the way home.

The number of current bike storage users (by definition A-B) isn't exactly small, about 1000. Many of the current bike storage facilities are full, so there's unmet demand from more A-B commuters -- say a few hundred. Add them to a couple hundred "car storage" users who might be converted to bikes and are also A-B.

So out of the 2,300 who currently take bikes on board, only 500 would have to be A-B commuters to prove my claim.

Also, I rarely saw any bike passengers with a deck of destination signs. Usually just two.

You're clearly just not getting it. Do you, 7 days a week, only travel from point A to point B? What if you've a friend in another city having a dinner party? Or what if there's a gallery opening in San Jose? Or a concert at Shoreline?

For longer distances that would be time-prohibitive by bike, one can take the train the majority of the distance. Having a bike with you once you step off the train makes the possibilities almost limitless in the cities that Caltrain services.

As long as public transportation is considerably more time consuming and inconvenient, it will not be accepted en masse. Caltrain has bridged that gap with "Bike on Board." The elimination of that service would be a huge step backward for Bay Area sustainability.

Do you have a link to the study with this data?

Oh... I see, you just made that up...

Option 3: scale back midday service to hourly - save $2.5 million, riders would take 100,000 to 200,000 fewer trips.

Sounds like option 3 is clearly superior to option 2.

2180. A common carrier of persons, unless his vehicle is fitted for the reception of persons exclusively, must receive and carry a reasonable amount of baggage for each passenger without charge, except for an excess of weight over one hundred pounds to a passenger; if such carrier is a proprietor of a stage line, he need not receive and carry for each passenger by such stage line, withoutcharge, more than sixty pounds of baggage. 2181. Luggage may consist of whatever the passenger takes with him for his personal use and convenience, according to the habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs, either with reference to the important necessities or to the ultimate purposes of his journey. Luggage within the meaning of this section shall include the samples, case, wares, appliances and catalogs of commercial travelers or their employers, used by them for the purposeof transacting their business and carried with them solely for that purpose, when securely packed and locked in substantial trunks or sample cases of convenient shape and weight for handling. No crate cover or other protection shall be required for any bicycle carried as luggage, but no passenger shall be entitled to carry as luggage more than one bicycle.