| |
Main
Date: 30 Aug 2007 07:19:44
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
~
news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
commute.
But when bikers and nonbikers wind up on the same crowded train at rush
hour, tempers sometimes flare. TriMet officials are looking for ways to
reduce that friction, short of restricting the number of bikes on trains
during rush hour.
The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
TriMet.
Morning ridership on the westside light rail is up 6 percent, from an
average of 3,960 in spring 2002 to 4,200 this spring. Afternoon rush
hour ridership increased 11 percent during the same period, from an
average of 4,450 in 2002 to 4,950 this year. The agency doesn't have
figures on the number of bicyclists who use light rail.
Early this month, TriMet handed out 3,000 survey forms to MAX riders who
brought bikes aboard.
Questions focused on bike riders' starting points and destinations,
whether the trains have enough room for bikes and whether more covered
bike parking at MAX stations might affect their decision to bring bikes
on the train.
But a question about how they would be affected by restricting bikes
during rush hour touched off alarm among commuting cyclists.
"We've spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks assuring people
that there's no discussion about a ban right now," Hesse said. "People
expressed concern about that."
Planners are looking at a number of possible solutions. They want to
know, among other things, whether installing more bike lockers at MAX
stations would reduce the number of cycleson the train, Hesse said. The
agency might encourage the use of folding bicycles to save space.
Finding ways to install more bicycle hooks is also an option.
Each light-rail car (depending on the style) has two designated bike
spaces or four hooks where cyclists can hang their bikes out of the way.
But sometimes there are far more bikes than hooks.
The survey also will give TriMet its first close look at how MAX riders
use bicycles to supplement their light-rail trips. Hesse expects to have
the survey information analyzed within the next couple of weeks.
"We have seen a bit of an upswell in concerns being registered with us
from both sides of the equation," he said.
Noncyclists have been complaining about being squashed between bicycles
during rush hour. Cyclists say TriMet should arrange for more space for
bikes.
In June, one MAX rider complained that there were 15 bikes on board,
"blocking the aisles, stairwells, doorways and disabled seating areas."
Another expressed concern that bicycles blocking doors on the train
would pose a hazard if passengers had to get off the train quickly in an
emergency.
Bike riders have their own list of annoyances.
One reported in July that fare inspectors treated him "like a criminal,"
threatening him with a $94 ticket for blocking the aisle because the
designated bike spaces were taken. He told fare inspectors he couldn't
wait for another train because he would be late for an appointment.
Another bike rider complained that a MAX driver deliberately closed the
doors on his bicycle as he tried to board, then accelerated so quickly
"it made me bump into my bike."
Brian Manro, 32, rides his Schwinn Traveler road bike six miles from
Southeast Portland to Goose Hollow where he catches the MAX to
Beaverton. Then it's another several miles by bike to his office, he
says.
Manro, who doesn't own a car, said he doesn't know what he'd do if he
couldn't use both his bike and light rail.
"Obviously, people who don't have bikes shouldn't be crowded out. But
the whole reason MAX was put into place was to reduce congestion."
(end of news article)
------------------------------------------------
Poster's comment: If you can't bring an auto into a MAX train, why
should you be able to bring a bicycle?
A bicycle does takes up space which otherwise could be used by a fare
paying passenger. An extra fare should be charge to the cyclist for
their bicycle.
~
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:03:05
From: Jym Dyer
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
> Maybe the answer is to have the bicyclist pay double fare to account
> for the additional space required.
=v= Hell, no.
=v= For the goal of going door-to-door, cars are the worst
solution for society and the environment, and intermodal
bike+rail transportation is the optimal solution. It should
be encouraged, not charged double.
=v= At best, the notion of charging more for this optimal
solution should only be entertained *after* dropping the
massive heavy subsidy that props up car transportation and
making motorists pay the true costs that they inflict.
<_Jym_ >
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 02:44:24
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
In article <21345-46D6D200-367@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net >,
pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg) writes:
> Poster's comment: If you can't bring an auto into a MAX train, why
> should you be able to bring a bicycle?
Maybe because you can bring in an autoclave, or a microwave oven,
or a bunch of full shopping bags, or one of those oxygen-tank-
on-a-dolly thingies that emphysemic people pack around, or a
Briggs & Stratton lawnmower engine, or a picnic basket, or
a li'l 30-amp tube BelTone guitar amp, or a bundle of
Wall Street Journals?
Wuhddan idjit you are.
I expect you wouldn't be allowed to bring an hippopotamus into
one of your MAX trains either. It might tend to step on the
other passengers' feet. And pets generally aren't allowed on
public transit.
> A bicycle does takes up space which otherwise could be used by a fare
> paying passenger. An extra fare should be charge to the cyclist for
> their bicycle.
Fuck off. And shove your antisocial antipathy up your ass.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 15:44:18
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 31, 12:53 am, The poster last in PDX in 2003
<thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 1:48 am, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 8:27 pm, The poster last in PDX in 2003
>
> > <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 30, 6:59 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Dan S. Milagros wrote:
>
> > > > >> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
> > > > >> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
> > > > >> runs.
>
> > > > > It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results
> > > > > in more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers
> > > > > they reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is
> > > > > converted to passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding
> > > > > bicycles) during peak times on certain segments of the system.
> > > > > CalTrain had contentious issue with bicycles until they increased
> > > > > capacity to 32 bicycles per train on most trains (some are limited to
> > > > > 16). Still cyclists are turned away at peak hours. If you need
> > > > > guaranteed access to a specific train then you get a folding bicycle
> > > > > and work around the limits.
>
> > > > > Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
> > > > > transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
> > > > > ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
> > > > > gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
>
> > > > Which would NOT happen in Oregon.
>
> > > > How about taxing the purchase of bicycles or Twinkies?
>
> > > > > Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
> > > > > system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political
> > > > > pressure forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through
> > > > > downtown San Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result
> > > > > is not used by commuters. They could have routed the trains down the
> > > > > freeway medians (and they did in some cases) but then they divert them
> > > > > through the middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
>
> > > > Just Like Portland! What a Concept!
>
> > > > MAX is three bus lines.
>
> > > I don't hear much good about SJ's rail setup even from cranky BART
> > > riders, so there you have it.
>
> > BART and TMTC aren't comparable, if only because BART is crippled by
> > the stupidity of Californians.
>
> We'll catch up to their stupid, we don't play second fiddle...
Only if they keep moving here. Though TMTC's foundation has been laid
in such a way now that I'm not sure that it could be Californicated
into uselessness without closing it permanently.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:53:42
From: The poster last in PDX in 2003
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 31, 1:48 am, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 8:27 pm, The poster last in PDX in 2003
>
>
>
>
>
> <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 6:59 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dan S. Milagros wrote:
>
> > > >> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
> > > >> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
> > > >> runs.
>
> > > > It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results
> > > > in more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers
> > > > they reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is
> > > > converted to passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding
> > > > bicycles) during peak times on certain segments of the system.
> > > > CalTrain had contentious issue with bicycles until they increased
> > > > capacity to 32 bicycles per train on most trains (some are limited to
> > > > 16). Still cyclists are turned away at peak hours. If you need
> > > > guaranteed access to a specific train then you get a folding bicycle
> > > > and work around the limits.
>
> > > > Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
> > > > transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
> > > > ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
> > > > gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
>
> > > Which would NOT happen in Oregon.
>
> > > How about taxing the purchase of bicycles or Twinkies?
>
> > > > Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
> > > > system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political
> > > > pressure forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through
> > > > downtown San Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result
> > > > is not used by commuters. They could have routed the trains down the
> > > > freeway medians (and they did in some cases) but then they divert them
> > > > through the middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
>
> > > Just Like Portland! What a Concept!
>
> > > MAX is three bus lines.
>
> > I don't hear much good about SJ's rail setup even from cranky BART
> > riders, so there you have it.
>
> BART and TMTC aren't comparable, if only because BART is crippled by
> the stupidity of Californians.
We'll catch up to their stupid, we don't play second fiddle...
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:50:57
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 5:51 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
>
> > The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
> > positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
> > TriMet.
>
> Why do people Need to take bicycles on the train? Shouldn't they be able to
> do the whole commute using MAX and TriMet?
Given that the vast majority of the mileage of Portland's streets are
in residential neighborhoods and many aren't paved, I'm not sure that
will ever be feasable, especially west of West 20th.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:48:50
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 8:27 pm, The poster last in PDX in 2003
<thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 6:59 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > Dan S. Milagros wrote:
>
> > >> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
> > >> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
> > >> runs.
>
> > > It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results
> > > in more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers
> > > they reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is
> > > converted to passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding
> > > bicycles) during peak times on certain segments of the system.
> > > CalTrain had contentious issue with bicycles until they increased
> > > capacity to 32 bicycles per train on most trains (some are limited to
> > > 16). Still cyclists are turned away at peak hours. If you need
> > > guaranteed access to a specific train then you get a folding bicycle
> > > and work around the limits.
>
> > > Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
> > > transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
> > > ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
> > > gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
>
> > Which would NOT happen in Oregon.
>
> > How about taxing the purchase of bicycles or Twinkies?
>
> > > Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
> > > system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political
> > > pressure forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through
> > > downtown San Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result
> > > is not used by commuters. They could have routed the trains down the
> > > freeway medians (and they did in some cases) but then they divert them
> > > through the middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
>
> > Just Like Portland! What a Concept!
>
> > MAX is three bus lines.
>
> I don't hear much good about SJ's rail setup even from cranky BART
> riders, so there you have it.
BART and TMTC aren't comparable, if only because BART is crippled by
the stupidity of Californians.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:42:41
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 8:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu > wrote:
> The solution may be a simple as adding a
> few cars to the trains or increasing their frequency slightly.
Someone didn't bother to research or they would have discovered the
maximum possible length thanks to city blocks are two cars (each just
under half a block long), and frequency of service in downtown
Portland at rush hour is once every 90 seconds.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:40:59
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 8:51 pm, gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> This really doesn't seem to be an issue to me.
>
> The worst problem seems to be between downtown Portland and Beaverton.
>
> So, during rush hours, have the Interstate MAX trains go all the way to
> Beaverton. The siding there is long enough to take an extra train during
> the layover period.
If you block Lombard Street, yes, it is. Otherwise, it's not. I've
seen them park trains on the center platform leader, there's no way to
park without parking in the grade crossing or obstructing the Red Line
platform.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:39:14
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 10:05 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> >Maybe the answer is to have the bicyclist pay double fare to account
> >for the additional space required.
>
> No reason to do that, any more than there would be for a stroller for
> a kid.
Strollers are prohibited on MAX per TMTC 28.15(5). Penalty for
violation includes fines up to $300, permanent exclusion from the
entire TriMet system, as with every other violation outlined in TMTC
28.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:34:19
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 10:02 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> Sorry but you lost me when you value abicycle over a human.
How did he lose you?
> Maybe the answer is to have the bicyclist pay double fare to account
> for the additional space required.
Most people value bicycles less than people, yet you're the one trying
to equate the two.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 07:32:29
From: Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 7:19 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
> Poster's comment: If you can't bring an auto into a MAX train, why
> should you be able to bring a bicycle?
A bicycle takes up less space than a stroller and has designated
spaces. Get TriMet to enforce the ban on strollers on LRT.
> A bicycle does takes up space which otherwise could be used by a fare
> paying passenger. An extra fare should be charge to the cyclist for
> their bicycle.
I'd prefer an extra fare be charged to anyone who has more than a 38
inch waiste, because at that point, you're taking up as much room as
two people of non-obese stature and/or overhanging into the next
seat(s).
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 20:29:41
From: The poster last in PDX in 2003
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 7:04 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Paul Berg wrote:
>
> >> Planners are looking at a number of possible solutions. They want to
> >> know, among other things, whether installing more bike lockers at MAX
> >> stations would reduce the number of cycleson the train, Hesse said.
> >> The agency might encourage the use of folding bicycles to save space.
> >> Finding ways to install more bicycle hooks is also an option.
>
> > A creative transit agency could encourage folding bicycle use by
> > offering rebates on monthly passes over a period of a couple of years
> > to defray the cost of a folding bicycle (20" wheels or smaller). I.e.,
> > with proof of purchase of a new folding bicycle, or verification of
> > existing folding bicycle use, a $10/month discount on monthly passes
> > for a period of two years.
>
> > You can buy a decent folding bicycle for about $350 (i.e. Dahon
> > Boardwalk D7).
>
> > Of course you might have people running out to buy a $100 folding
> > bicycle in order to get $240 worth of discounts, but I don't think
> > this would be a big problem. You could put sufficient restrictions in
> > place to avoid abuse.
>
> Such as?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oooh, I don't think they'd like Tempest, my Rollfast !-)
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 20:27:30
From: The poster last in PDX in 2003
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 6:59 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Dan S. Milagros wrote:
>
> >> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
> >> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
> >> runs.
>
> > It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results
> > in more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers
> > they reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is
> > converted to passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding
> > bicycles) during peak times on certain segments of the system.
> > CalTrain had contentious issue with bicycles until they increased
> > capacity to 32 bicycles per train on most trains (some are limited to
> > 16). Still cyclists are turned away at peak hours. If you need
> > guaranteed access to a specific train then you get a folding bicycle
> > and work around the limits.
>
> > Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
> > transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
> > ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
> > gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
>
> Which would NOT happen in Oregon.
>
> How about taxing the purchase of bicycles or Twinkies?
>
>
>
> > Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
> > system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political
> > pressure forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through
> > downtown San Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result
> > is not used by commuters. They could have routed the trains down the
> > freeway medians (and they did in some cases) but then they divert them
> > through the middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
>
> Just Like Portland! What a Concept!
>
> MAX is three bus lines.
I don't hear much good about SJ's rail setup even from cranky BART
riders, so there you have it.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 01:03:12
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
> Morning ridership on the westside light rail is up 6 percent, from an
> average of 3,960 in spring 2002 to 4,200 this spring. Afternoon rush
> hour ridership increased 11 percent during the same period, from an
> average of 4,450 in 2002 to 4,950 this year. The agency doesn't have
> figures on the number of bicyclists who use light rail.
What was the Population increase in the Portland SMSA during this period?
How much of the increase can be attributed to New Lines?
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:51:45
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
>
> The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
> positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
> TriMet.
>
Why do people Need to take bicycles on the train? Shouldn't they be able to
do the whole commute using MAX and TriMet?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 21:30:59
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:51:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:
>Why do people Need to take bicycles on the train? Shouldn't they be able to
>do the whole commute using MAX and TriMet?
And this differs how, exactly?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 06:25:41
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:51:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Why do people Need to take bicycles on the train? Shouldn't they be
>>able to do the whole commute using MAX and TriMet?
>
> And this differs how, exactly?
>
For an answer to That, I suggest you read the entire article. If you have
already done so, I suggest you re-read it for comprehension.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 12:16:57
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
Paul Borg wrote:
> "Paul Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:21345-46D6D200-367@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...
> > ~
>
> Should crossposting webtv troll fucktards be banned from usenet?
~
I guess "Paul Borg" doesn't like crossposting. But, it is a part of
usenet he'll just have to learn to live with.
~
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:02:12
From: lein
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 9:09 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:05:08 -0700, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 30, 7:50 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:19:44 -0700, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
>
> >> >Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
> >> >getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
> >> >bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
> >> >commute.
>
> >> >But when bikers and nonbikers wind up on the same crowded train at rush
> >> >hour, tempers sometimes flare. TriMet officials are looking for ways to
> >> >reduce that friction, short of restricting the number of bikes on trains
> >> >during rush hour.
>
> >> >The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
> >> >positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
> >> >TriMet.
>
> >> So, the appropriate answer to the question posed in the subject line
> >> is decidedly No.
>
> >So you would be in favor of reducing passenger space on MAX.
>
> I am in favor of leaving passenger space where it is.
>
> >If they charged users the full cost of their fare, this wouldn't be an
> >issue.
>
> There's no real Issue here to discuss. Momentary inconvenience
> doesn't rise to that level. Too many folks are far too overprone to
> bitch and whine whenever they find themselves inconvenienced -- as
> though modern living didn't involve that sort of thing.
>
> Imagine how they'd be whining if they were in their cars at the time.
>
> The conjoining of bicycles and mass transit is, it seems to me, a
> happy one. There are doubtless ways of working this sort of thing
> out. I saw it done in, for example, Amsterdam a few years back.
>
> It does, however, put the discussion of how few riders there are on
> mass transit in a better perspective, does it not?
Sorry but you lost me when you value abicycle over a human.
Maybe the answer is to have the bicyclist pay double fare to account
for the additional space required.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:05:53
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:02:12 -0700, lein <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com >
wrote:
>On Aug 30, 9:09 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> There's no real Issue here to discuss. Momentary inconvenience
>> doesn't rise to that level. Too many folks are far too overprone to
>> bitch and whine whenever they find themselves inconvenienced -- as
>> though modern living didn't involve that sort of thing.
>>
>> Imagine how they'd be whining if they were in their cars at the time.
>>
>> The conjoining of bicycles and mass transit is, it seems to me, a
>> happy one. There are doubtless ways of working this sort of thing
>> out. I saw it done in, for example, Amsterdam a few years back.
>>
>> It does, however, put the discussion of how few riders there are on
>> mass transit in a better perspective, does it not?
>
>Sorry but you lost me when you value abicycle over a human.
When did that get said?
>Maybe the answer is to have the bicyclist pay double fare to account
>for the additional space required.
No reason to do that, any more than there would be for a stroller for
a kid.
These sorts of things can be worked out, and they doubtless Will be
worked out.
Learn patience, lein. Such as this is a mere inconvenience -- not a
major issue.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:28:32
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
Paul Berg wrote:
> Planners are looking at a number of possible solutions. They want to
> know, among other things, whether installing more bike lockers at MAX
> stations would reduce the number of cycleson the train, Hesse said. The
> agency might encourage the use of folding bicycles to save space.
> Finding ways to install more bicycle hooks is also an option.
A creative transit agency could encourage folding bicycle use by
offering rebates on monthly passes over a period of a couple of years to
defray the cost of a folding bicycle (20" wheels or smaller). I.e., with
proof of purchase of a new folding bicycle, or verification of existing
folding bicycle use, a $10/month discount on monthly passes for a period
of two years.
You can buy a decent folding bicycle for about $350 (i.e. Dahon
Boardwalk D7).
Of course you might have people running out to buy a $100 folding
bicycle in order to get $240 worth of discounts, but I don't think this
would be a big problem. You could put sufficient restrictions in place
to avoid abuse.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 01:04:33
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Paul Berg wrote:
>
>> Planners are looking at a number of possible solutions. They want to
>> know, among other things, whether installing more bike lockers at MAX
>> stations would reduce the number of cycleson the train, Hesse said.
>> The agency might encourage the use of folding bicycles to save space.
>> Finding ways to install more bicycle hooks is also an option.
>
> A creative transit agency could encourage folding bicycle use by
> offering rebates on monthly passes over a period of a couple of years
> to defray the cost of a folding bicycle (20" wheels or smaller). I.e.,
> with proof of purchase of a new folding bicycle, or verification of
> existing folding bicycle use, a $10/month discount on monthly passes
> for a period of two years.
>
> You can buy a decent folding bicycle for about $350 (i.e. Dahon
> Boardwalk D7).
>
> Of course you might have people running out to buy a $100 folding
> bicycle in order to get $240 worth of discounts, but I don't think
> this would be a big problem. You could put sufficient restrictions in
> place to avoid abuse.
>
Such as?
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:05:08
From: lein
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 7:50 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:19:44 -0700, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >~
> >news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
>
> >Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
> >getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
> >bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
> >commute.
>
> >But when bikers and nonbikers wind up on the same crowded train at rush
> >hour, tempers sometimes flare. TriMet officials are looking for ways to
> >reduce that friction, short of restricting the number of bikes on trains
> >during rush hour.
>
> >The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
> >positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
> >TriMet.
>
> So, the appropriate answer to the question posed in the subject line
> is decidedly No.
So you would be in favor of reducing passenger space on MAX.
If they charged users the full cost of their fare, this wouldn't be an
issue.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:09:18
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:05:08 -0700, lein <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com >
wrote:
>On Aug 30, 7:50 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:19:44 -0700, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
>>
>> >Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
>> >getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
>> >bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
>> >commute.
>>
>> >But when bikers and nonbikers wind up on the same crowded train at rush
>> >hour, tempers sometimes flare. TriMet officials are looking for ways to
>> >reduce that friction, short of restricting the number of bikes on trains
>> >during rush hour.
>>
>> >The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
>> >positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
>> >TriMet.
>>
>> So, the appropriate answer to the question posed in the subject line
>> is decidedly No.
>
>So you would be in favor of reducing passenger space on MAX.
I am in favor of leaving passenger space where it is.
>If they charged users the full cost of their fare, this wouldn't be an
>issue.
There's no real Issue here to discuss. Momentary inconvenience
doesn't rise to that level. Too many folks are far too overprone to
bitch and whine whenever they find themselves inconvenienced -- as
though modern living didn't involve that sort of thing.
Imagine how they'd be whining if they were in their cars at the time.
The conjoining of bicycles and mass transit is, it seems to me, a
happy one. There are doubtless ways of working this sort of thing
out. I saw it done in, for example, Amsterdam a few years back.
It does, however, put the discussion of how few riders there are on
mass transit in a better perspective, does it not?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:48:02
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> It does, however, put the discussion of how few riders there are on
> mass transit in a better perspective, does it not?
Yeah. 4200 commuters. Whoopee!
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:03:46
From: lein
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Aug 30, 7:19 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
> ~
> news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
>
> Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
> getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
> bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
> commute.
Maybe it's rising, but there is still a lot of unused capacity left on
those MAX trains...
http://www.jeffiscool.com/pictures/IndiaTrain.jpg
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 08:40:26
From:
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:19:44 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
wrote:
>~
>news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
>
>Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
>getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
>bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
>commute.
>
>But when bikers and nonbikers wind up on the same crowded train at rush
>hour, tempers sometimes flare. TriMet officials are looking for ways to
>reduce that friction, short of restricting the number of bikes on trains
>during rush hour.
>
>The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
>positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
>TriMet.
>
>Morning ridership on the westside light rail is up 6 percent, from an
>average of 3,960 in spring 2002 to 4,200 this spring. Afternoon rush
>hour ridership increased 11 percent during the same period, from an
>average of 4,450 in 2002 to 4,950 this year. The agency doesn't have
>figures on the number of bicyclists who use light rail.
>
>Early this month, TriMet handed out 3,000 survey forms to MAX riders who
>brought bikes aboard.
>
>Questions focused on bike riders' starting points and destinations,
>whether the trains have enough room for bikes and whether more covered
>bike parking at MAX stations might affect their decision to bring bikes
>on the train.
>
>But a question about how they would be affected by restricting bikes
>during rush hour touched off alarm among commuting cyclists.
>
>"We've spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks assuring people
>that there's no discussion about a ban right now," Hesse said. "People
>expressed concern about that."
>
>Planners are looking at a number of possible solutions. They want to
>know, among other things, whether installing more bike lockers at MAX
>stations would reduce the number of cycleson the train, Hesse said. The
>agency might encourage the use of folding bicycles to save space.
>Finding ways to install more bicycle hooks is also an option.
>
>Each light-rail car (depending on the style) has two designated bike
>spaces or four hooks where cyclists can hang their bikes out of the way.
>But sometimes there are far more bikes than hooks.
>
>The survey also will give TriMet its first close look at how MAX riders
>use bicycles to supplement their light-rail trips. Hesse expects to have
>the survey information analyzed within the next couple of weeks.
>
>"We have seen a bit of an upswell in concerns being registered with us
>from both sides of the equation," he said.
>
>Noncyclists have been complaining about being squashed between bicycles
>during rush hour. Cyclists say TriMet should arrange for more space for
>bikes.
>
>In June, one MAX rider complained that there were 15 bikes on board,
>"blocking the aisles, stairwells, doorways and disabled seating areas."
>
>Another expressed concern that bicycles blocking doors on the train
>would pose a hazard if passengers had to get off the train quickly in an
>emergency.
>
>Bike riders have their own list of annoyances.
>
>One reported in July that fare inspectors treated him "like a criminal,"
>threatening him with a $94 ticket for blocking the aisle because the
>designated bike spaces were taken. He told fare inspectors he couldn't
>wait for another train because he would be late for an appointment.
>
>Another bike rider complained that a MAX driver deliberately closed the
>doors on his bicycle as he tried to board, then accelerated so quickly
>"it made me bump into my bike."
>
>Brian Manro, 32, rides his Schwinn Traveler road bike six miles from
>Southeast Portland to Goose Hollow where he catches the MAX to
>Beaverton. Then it's another several miles by bike to his office, he
>says.
>
>Manro, who doesn't own a car, said he doesn't know what he'd do if he
>couldn't use both his bike and light rail.
>
>"Obviously, people who don't have bikes shouldn't be crowded out. But
>the whole reason MAX was put into place was to reduce congestion."
>
>(end of news article)
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Poster's comment: If you can't bring an auto into a MAX train, why
>should you be able to bring a bicycle?
>
>A bicycle does takes up space which otherwise could be used by a fare
>paying passenger. An extra fare should be charge to the cyclist for
>their bicycle.
>
Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
runs.
However, this adding more is often not the answer,,,at least that is
what we are told by the experts whenever someone suggests adding more
lanes to reduce traffic congestion....the roads will just be crowded
again!!! Right?? Isn't that what they (the experts and other so called
"progressive thinkers assert?) haha
Well won't the LRT cars be crowded again and causing aggravation in
the riders even if we do add more cars or runs? Same kind of logic
with cars eh?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:39:26
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
Dan S. Milagros wrote:
> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
> runs.
It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results in
more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers they
reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is converted to
passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding bicycles) during
peak times on certain segments of the system. CalTrain had contentious
issue with bicycles until they increased capacity to 32 bicycles per
train on most trains (some are limited to 16). Still cyclists are turned
away at peak hours. If you need guaranteed access to a specific train
then you get a folding bicycle and work around the limits.
Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political pressure
forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through downtown San
Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result is not used by
commuters. They could have routed the trains down the freeway medians
(and they did in some cases) but then they divert them through the
middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:59:24
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Dan S. Milagros wrote:
>
>> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
>> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
>> runs.
>
> It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results
> in more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers
> they reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is
> converted to passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding
> bicycles) during peak times on certain segments of the system.
> CalTrain had contentious issue with bicycles until they increased
> capacity to 32 bicycles per train on most trains (some are limited to
> 16). Still cyclists are turned away at peak hours. If you need
> guaranteed access to a specific train then you get a folding bicycle
> and work around the limits.
>
> Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
> transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
> ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
> gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
Which would NOT happen in Oregon.
How about taxing the purchase of bicycles or Twinkies?
>
> Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
> system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political
> pressure forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through
> downtown San Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result
> is not used by commuters. They could have routed the trains down the
> freeway medians (and they did in some cases) but then they divert them
> through the middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
>
Just Like Portland! What a Concept!
MAX is three bus lines.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 00:30:35
From:
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:59:24 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan S. Milagros wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like passenger congestion in the LRT cars?
>>> Now I know that it would be common sense to add more LRT cars or LRT
>>> runs.
>>
>> It all comes down to money. Every additional LRT car they add results
>> in more losses. If they can fill the train with non-bicycle passengers
>> they reduce the losses more because the space for bicycles is
>> converted to passenger space. BART bans bicycles (other than folding
>> bicycles) during peak times on certain segments of the system.
>> CalTrain had contentious issue with bicycles until they increased
>> capacity to 32 bicycles per train on most trains (some are limited to
>> 16). Still cyclists are turned away at peak hours. If you need
>> guaranteed access to a specific train then you get a folding bicycle
>> and work around the limits.
>>
>> Maybe a creative solution like a gasoline tax that is tied to mass
>> transit ridership. I.e. a gas tax that increases as mass transit
>> ridership increases. The reduced road congestion would result in less
>> gasoline usage which would offset the extra tax.
>
>Which would NOT happen in Oregon.
>
>How about taxing the purchase of bicycles or Twinkies?
Oh God,,,more taxes.
Maybe the real deal is just for people to chill out...heck!..we all
live in the city....it is crowded and their are lines...get used to
it.
>
>>
>> Still, it's a testament to Portland that they designed a light rail
>> system that people actually want to use. In San Jose, political
>> pressure forced all trains to be routed at a snails pace through
>> downtown San Jose. The system is excruciatingly slow, and as a result
>> is not used by commuters. They could have routed the trains down the
>> freeway medians (and they did in some cases) but then they divert them
>> through the middle of downtown on non-separated rails.
>>
>
>Just Like Portland! What a Concept!
>
>MAX is three bus lines.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 11:10:09
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
Paul Berg wrote:
> ~
> news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
> [lots of bikes on popular mass transit are an issue]
>
> Poster's comment: If you can't bring an auto into a MAX train, why
> should you be able to bring a bicycle?
>
> A bicycle does takes up space which otherwise could be used by a fare
> paying passenger. An extra fare should be charge to the cyclist for
> their bicycle.
>
I'm not sure that it would solve the problem. Here in Atlanta,
congestion costs the city outrageous sums of money every year. It's
probably in Portland's best interest to not encourage people to drive.
My gut feeling is that MAX is, in reality, running at slightly over
capacity during peak hours. The solution may be a simple as adding a
few cars to the trains or increasing their frequency slightly.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 07:50:14
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:19:44 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
wrote:
>~
>news article from The (Portland) Oregonian
>
>Ridership on the light-rail system is rising as gas prices remain high,
>getting more cars off the road. A growing number of those passengers are
>bicyclists who use the trains, reducing congestion at both ends of their
>commute.
>
>But when bikers and nonbikers wind up on the same crowded train at rush
>hour, tempers sometimes flare. TriMet officials are looking for ways to
>reduce that friction, short of restricting the number of bikes on trains
>during rush hour.
>
>The growth in MAX ridership and bicycle commuting reflects "two really
>positive trends," said Eric Hesse, a strategic planning analyst for
>TriMet.
So, the appropriate answer to the question posed in the subject line
is decidedly No.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 20:51:46
From: gl4316@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Should bicycles be ban from TriMet's LRT?
|
This really doesn't seem to be an issue to me.
The worst problem seems to be between downtown Portland and Beaverton.
So, during rush hours, have the Interstate MAX trains go all the way to
Beaverton. The siding there is long enough to take an extra train during
the layover period.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
|
|
