New Haven Independent March 27, 2008 12:22 PM
It's Your Town. Read All About It.
(ed. The New Haven Independent is an online publication; see link at bottom of article
Cyclists Fight For Spots On Trains
by Melinda Tuhus | March 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)
Melinda Tuhus Photo
.jpg)
New Haven cyclists hit a brick wall trying to convince Metro-North’s chief to allow more bikes on trains, but they’re pressing on.
A half-dozen New Haveners joined a group of cyclists on a train ride from New Haven to Grand Central Station Wednesday to promote their cause before the president of Metro North Railroad. He insisted it’s a zero-sum game — i.e., more bike access means fewer seats for passengers.
So the cyclists vowed to take their fight to the governor and the Connecticut General Assembly.
Richard Stowe (in yellow jersey in photo above) has been championing the issue for years. The New Canaan resident is a devoted cyclist and promoter of linking cyclists to mass transit. He’s been beating the drum, asking Metro North to create “safe, secure bicycle parking” on the new M8 cars the railroad has ordered. Right now bikes are allowed on off-peak trains only, and they must go in the entryway by the doors, with nothing to secure them.
Advocates had thought the battle was won last fall when several members of Elm City Cycling wrote to Gov. M. Jodi Rell on the issue. Eugene J. Colonese, the rail administrator for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, responded in an email, “The Department and MNR are aware that bicyclists are a growing portion of our customers. Current ridership levels and equipment cannot accommodate dedicated bicycle cars. The new M8 rail cars that will begin to appear on the New Haven Line in 2009 are being designed to accommodate bicycles.”
But then Stowe got word that wasn’t going to happen. He urged people to attend the annual Metro North President’s Forum Wednesday at MTA headquarters around the corner from Grand Central Terminal. Elm City Cycling members Jason Stockmann, Victorya McEvoy and Paul Hammer (left to right in photo) joined Stowe at the meeting.
In all, about a dozen cycling advocates made a number of creative suggestions for how to accommodate both passenger seating and bike access on the new trains.
Melinda Tuhus Photo
Steven Faust (pictured), a transportation planner and youth cycling leader from Brooklyn, suggested tie-downs to secure the bikes, and a minor redesign of the wheelchair space could “get several bikes secure and out of the way.”
He suggested officials look at what European railroads do to accommodate bikes.
“I fully sympathize with the problem of trying to maximize seats, but there are ways to have reasonable comfortable seats that can flip up [when not occupied by a wheelchair] and provide for bike carriage.”
When Stowe testified he suggested that since so many new cars are being added to the existing train stock, it should be easier to find space to accommodate bicycles.
Melinda Tuhus Photo
Stockmann (pictured) suggested a design that allowed seats to be folded up and bikes attached to the bottom of the seats, “during off peak-hours they could be folded up for bicycle access and if necessary, on-peak they could be unfolded as seats. You’re building into the system the possibility of accommodating more bikes in the future. This would be a transitional approach.” Click here to hear more.
Dedicated Bike Car?
Paul Hammer, former president of the Connecticut Bicycle Coalition, proposed having a dedicated bicycle car — an old car or a bar car — where a large number of bikes could be stored.
Then he suggested a summit involving “engineers and designers, managers, cycling advocates and people familiar with the physics, ergonomics, safety — whatever concerns you might have. I can envision vertical bicycle rack that would go in the vestibules, with tie-downs. But I think it’s time to revisit this before the final decisions are made on these new cars and see if we can come to an agreement.”
Melinda Tuhus Photo
Cannito (pictured) said the first 300 cars ordered are basically already designed and would only allow for minor changes, if any. He said, “I’d have no problem working with the community to come up with the true economics of what you’re asking. In my opinion it’s not a small change. You’re asking for a significant change. A car is $2.2 million and you’re going to need more than one car.”
Cannito said at the meeting that there’s no need for commuters to bring their bikes on trains headed into Grand Central, because they can take the subway to get around — although he supported allowing bikes on off-peak trains so riders could get out of the city.
But several cyclists noted that New York City itself is moving to better accommodate cyclists with more bike lanes and other improvements. And if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing proposal goes through — which would charge drivers $8 a day to enter parts of Manhattan — more commuters would presumably turn to mass transit, and the money generated would go toward improving it.
So why not improve bike access? It would allow greater inter-modal transport, save commuters money as gas prices continue to rise, and strike a blow against global warming all at the same time.
Zack Beatty, a New Havener who commutes daily to a job in New York City, asked officials to expand their annual rider survey to include questions about how commuters get to the train and how far they live from the train. “If secure indoor parking were available, would you bicycle to the train?” Click here for details. He suggested following the “80-20 rule — try to do some solution; it doesn’t have to be the perfect solution. I think you could make every car have some solution, and during peak you could say bikes could only go in the last car.”
Beatty added, “There have been a lot of bicycle comments here tonight and, I’m sensing some body language that’s a little threatened and hostile.” Cannito denied that, but added, “Everybody said the same thing.”
After the meeting, several cyclists marveled at the fact that the president could hear so many unique suggestions as “the same thing.”
While Richard Stowe made preliminary arrangements for a follow-up meeting, on the street, Jason Stockmann reiterated what Cannito himself had said — that commuters heading into Grand Central in the morning and out of Grand Central in the evening now constitute just 49 percent of MNR’s ridership.
“Most of your ridership growth is outside New York City, at points along the line. What about expanding the market that the trains can serve, by letting people bring their bikes on the train at rush hour? So you can ride to your local station, take the train, get off and then ride to your workplace. That’s a huge market they’re not serving.” Click here for more.
Stowe said, “I think we need to press the governors in both New York and Connecticut to get right on this. And already two state reps in Connecticut want to put in language that requires that this bicycle parking be provided.”
Comments
Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | March 27, 2008 1:01 PM
Great article. Also see http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3784
Posted by: David Streever | March 27, 2008 1:22 PM
Such a huge dissapointment: Despite assurances from them, they have now reneged, with neither an explanation nor a rationale for why they previously indicated they would provide dedicated bike parking.
Now, they say it just wont' happen, and don't explain why they've changed their earlier stance?
I'm not sure I understand this.
Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 27, 2008 1:43 PM
They'll get bike cars when we get comfortable seats.
Another government sponsored entity doing its best, which unfortunately isn't good enough.
Posted by: Richard Stowe | March 27, 2008 2:16 PM
Great article, photos, Melinda. I really like the audio links. Especially for a reporter, who was crocheting (it that what you call it?) during the meeting.
The apparent hostility demonstrated by Mr. Cannito's responses was palpable. Especially his 'take the subway, dude' attitude.
Seriously, he's complaining that Metro-North trains are crowded, but at the same town he's advocating that cyclists abandon bicycles in favor of subways - which run packed with straphangers that are crowded by many magnitudes more passengers sitting, or standing on any Metro-North train.
His argumentation appears to be off-the-cuff and contradictory. Does anyone have any insight as to whether his communication deficits were a contributing factor in MTA's decision not renew his contract?
Richard Stowe
Rail*Trains*Ecology*Cycling
Posted by: DingDong | March 27, 2008 4:03 PM
I'm most disturbed by the public process of the whole thing. When the cars were being designed, they said 'don't worry, we're taking bikes into account.' So everyone was silent. Then they announce the design and say 'sorry, it's too late to add bikes; if only we had known sooner.' Are they being duplicitous or just incompetent?
Posted by: Patrick | March 27, 2008 7:20 PM
In the article, it states,"Cannito said at the meeting that there's no
need for commuters to bring their bikes on trains headed into Grand
Central, because they can take the subway to get around �" although he supported allowing bikes on off-peak trains so riders could get out of the city."
Does he simply dismiss all of us who would be using the Metro-North
between Connecticut stations? It's incredibly frustrating for me
because I travel between New Haven and Bridgeport and would like to
use my bike as transportation to and from both stations. I'm not in
the proper cycling shape to do a 50 mile commute every day, but I can
and love to handle the 16 miles+train ride.
Cannito also doesn't seem to be thinking about the future. The
benefits of bike commuting are clear: health and wellness,
environmentally- friendly commute, less road congestion, etc. These
are issues that will encourage people to think about bike
commuting...if they have the ability to do so in a safe manner: better
designed roads, allowances and space for bikes on peak-trains.
Sorry I couldn't make it to the meeting. Thanks to everyone who
attended!
Posted by: nfjanette | March 27, 2008 7:50 PM
When Stowe testified he suggested that since so many new cars are being added to the existing train stock, it should be easier to find space to accommodate bicycles.
This misunderstanding appears to be the groundwork upon which many complaints stand. Most, if not all, of the new train cars will replace decades-old existing units. The commuter runs will still be standing room only by the time they arrive at GCT. This order isn't a surplus: it doesn't even cover replacement of the "middle-aged" units, which now face costly refurbishment instead.
This order of new train equipment is over a decade late. It's not the end-all be-all solution: it's merely the start of what I hope will be a continuous investment by the states into the critical rail infrastructure. More than two years after a study proposed establishment of true north-south (New Haven - Hartford - Springfield) commuter service, nothing substantive has been done to implement the recommended plan. However, there has been a never ending pot of gold to fund major highway projects.
It's fair to state that railroaders tend to be conservative in their thinking. Such thinking saves lives on the rails. Perhaps if they were to receive a well-funded mandate to think outside of the box, there would be the chance to make true improvements rather than upkeep of old equipment.
Posted by: patrick | March 27, 2008 8:53 PM
In the article, it states,"Cannito said at the meeting that there's no
need for commuters to bring their bikes on trains headed into Grand
Central, because they can take the subway to get around �" although he supported allowing bikes on off-peak trains so riders could get out of the city."
Does he simply dismiss all of us who would be using the Metro-North
between Connecticut stations? It's incredibly frustrating for me
because I travel between New Haven and Bridgeport and would like to
use my bike as transportation to and from both stations. I'm not in
the proper cycling shape to do a 50 mile commute every day, but I can
and love to handle the 16 miles+train ride.
Cannito also doesn't seem to be thinking about the future. The
benefits of bike commuting are clear: health and wellness,
environmentally- friendly commute, less road congestion, etc. These
are issues that will encourage people to think about bike commuting...if they have the ability to do so in a safe manner: better
designed roads, allowances and space for bikes on peak-trains.
Sorry I couldn't make it to the meeting. Thanks to everyone who
attended!
Posted by: patrick | March 27, 2008 9:09 PM
NFJANNETE,
From the article above:
"a minor redesign of the wheelchair space could "get several bikes secure and out of the way."
He [Faust] suggested officials look at what European railroads do to accommodate bikes.
"I fully sympathize with the problem of trying to maximize seats, but there are ways to have reasonable comfortable seats that can flip up [when not occupied by a wheelchair] and provide for bike carriage.""
I think a number of people understand the space issue. It's not simply a money/space crunch issue, though. We don't need "a well-funded mandate to think outside of the box." We simply need the President and all the other executives at the Metro-North to pay attention to how other communities have handled this situation and to listen to the sound suggestions of the cycling community.
Posted by: nfjanette | March 27, 2008 9:53 PM
It's ironic that the cycle advocates declare Mr. Cannito to be arrogant and yet seem oblivious to how they come off when stating their positions - arrogant. It's not working - perhaps a different approach is in order. I'm a supporter of the idea to encourage and accommodate cyclers - but I seem to have a more realistic understanding of the challenges than the advocates for this cause.
The Bottom line: bikes take up more room, which means less room for passengers. There is no "extra" space for a fold-up chair on these units; they are maxed-out by with seats for passengers. Every space on a train car is a subsidized space; without tax payer support, neither Metro-North RR nor the state will be interested in funding those spaces for bikes. That's why I point out that if there were more new rolling stock on order, there would be a better chance of accomplishing your goal once enough seats for the existing (and future) load of passengers have been provided.
Everyone wins with a better funded rail system. That's what you should be telling your elected reps at the state and federal level.
Posted by: robn | March 27, 2008 10:32 PM
Cut the crap Mr Cannito. Hard costs as well as soft costs are amortized. (spread over time) That $2.2M for a cab isn't much over its lifetime for many users. Besides, cyclists have been subsidizing both car and rail for years and its time for a bit of payback.
Posted by: DingDong | March 27, 2008 11:01 PM
In Mr. Cannito's defense, I think he is generally well-respected for the job he has done in managing Metro North. Given how little this state has (traditionally, at least) funded it, he and the excellent MN employees have done a great job. Let's see if he can still work out a compromise on this issue or, at least, explain why bikes "were being taken into consideration" during the design process and then seemingly not at all in the final plan.
Posted by: charlie | March 28, 2008 6:32 AM
NFJ, the rest of the civilized world has bicycle storage on trains, and has had it for decades, and many of their trains are generally more crowded than MNRR. Ironically, I think that your comments display a gross arrogance - i.e., the fact that you do not have an understanding of the issue.
There is a pressing need to promote multimodal transportation & TOD along our nation's rail corridors, rather than relying exclusively on trains and automobiles.
The thousands of commuters currently traveling from New Haven to Stamford (or vice versa) each day can take the train, but often have to take 4 car trips per day to and from the stations. That's a recipe for gridlock, environmental degradation, urban decay, and overall social collapse.
Posted by: Bruce | March 28, 2008 11:06 AM
With the right accommodations, bringing a bicycle on the train should be no less cumbersome than bringing a large suitcase on board. People bring all sorts of large boxes and luggage onto those trains.
If they are concerned only with peak hours and they refuse to redesign the cars (which they had originally promised to do), then maybe they can stipulate that bikes have to go overhead during peak hours. Put some straps on the luggage racks. If I put my belongings on an overhead rack, why should anyone care if those belongings consist of two duffel bags or a bicycle? They shouldn't specifically single out bicycles for exclusion.
Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | March 28, 2008 11:54 AM
With the incredible parking spot crunch currently affecting every single station on the New Haven line, it is incredibly puzzling as to why bicycle parking on trains isn't a higher priority for ConnDOT.
I don't think anyone is being arrogant - everyone here seems quite civil about proposing solutions for this.
Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 28, 2008 12:33 PM
Metro North's primary mission is MASS transit - that's moving large numbers of people as efficiently as possible. With too few seats during peak hours as it is, why should any of those seats be taken up with a bicycle? Unless you have a bicycle that folds in thirds or half - how could you get one in the overhead bins with or without a strap and not drop dirt, or smudge grease on somebody's business suit? Why not just take your bike on a non-peak hour?
I find it interesting that bike advocates think cities should be re-designed and 99% of commuters on a train should take a back seat to something they love but something the masses are not doing. In fact, some of you want to levy extra taxes, spend tax dollars for bike lanes and even more tax dollars so you can ride the train with your bike. Why is that our responsibility?
As a side note and because there is so much moaning about evil drivers, I almost ran over two bikers this morning - I went to turn right on a green arrow and the biker decided to go against the red and cross the street on the side of me. Another one decided he was a car and rolling down the middle of Church Street. Not sure that's a way to gin up support for massive public spending for a private enjoyment.
Posted by: david streever | March 28, 2008 1:47 PM
I think the feeling that we are arrogant (the cyclists) is partially springing from our outrage at being misled.
It certainly seems deliberate now: to tell us publically, in e-mails & at meetings & over the phone one thing, & then after it's "too late" to change what you are going to do.
Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | March 28, 2008 3:42 PM
Gary, I think you're missing the broader points of pro-cycling advocates. One of them is that cycling has to do with much more than cycling. It is a way to address many other problems at the same time. If you add a bike lane for a few thousand dollars, you may end up reducing pollution and reclaiming valuable downtown real estate from parking by a much larger degree (i.e., in equivalent dollars needed to remedy the effects of said pollution and replace the tax revenue lost from real estate that has been turned into parking).
Another way to look at it is, you can't look at MNRR and just analyze the trains themselves in some sort of bizarre vaccum. You have to look at the tens of thousands of parking spaces taking up valuable land around the train station (land that could probably be rented for $50-$100/SF, and produce incredible tax revenue for the communities nearby, but instead is used to subsidize parking for drivers), the traffic created by said stations, etc., among many other factors.
Posted by: patrick | March 28, 2008 10:18 PM
Hi Gary,
I don't quite understand your point when you say, "Metro North's primary mission is MASS transit - that's moving large numbers of people as efficiently as possible. With too few seats during peak hours as it is, why should any of those seats be taken up with a bicycle?"
The reason I don't understand your point is that what you're saying seems to imply that we cycling advocates are trying to thwart the whole concept of mass-transit. Quite the contrary...my guess is that most of the cycling advocates are all for mass-transit and are working towards a more meaningful mass-transit system. Most of the suggestions offered take into account the understanding that there is a space issue on the Metro-North. We know this and, at the bare minimum, are trying to advocate seats that can be altered to accommodate bikes when there is room...especially during peak hours.
One of the major problems that I see with the current discussion about bikes and commuters on the Metro-North is the underlying assumption that everyone is heading all the way in to Grand Central. This might be the case for a number of commuters, but it's not true for all. Think about the traffic on the Merritt and on I-95 for a moment. Many of those cars move between Connecticut cities, most of which are along the coast and, therefore, somewhat close to the railroad. It is practically impossible to travel by bike between these cities for the vast majority of the population because the few roads that cross rivers are major roads with loads of traffic. Very few people are going to ride on these roads. Additionally, these commuters are often driving significantly further than they would be willing to bike. If the transportation department were a bit smarter about this whole situation, they could find ways to accommodate bikes on the trains, encourage bike-train commuting, and maybe, just maybe, we could create a culture here in Connecticut that is willing to bike a couple of miles to the station in say New Haven, catch a train to Milford, Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stamford, etc. and then bike the mile or so from the station to work. These North-South roads (between the rail stations and the communities that surround them) are less busy and more bikable. Such a system could:
1) Reduce the congestion on the highways
2) Lower our carbon footprint
3) Reduce the amount of space needed for parking near stations
4) Provide an opportunity to incorporate physical activity into one's daily commute
5) Promote a healthier lifestyle
6) Reduce stress
7) etc.
I guess what I'm trying to say here can be addressed to NFJ, too...none of us would argue with the idea that "everyone wins with a better funded rail system." We are only trying to push the envelope here...trying to find ways to accommodate bike-commuters and regular commuters. When more people are able to be serviced by the rail system, there will be more demand for more rail cars...the more demand for rail cars and the more public support, the more money will be funneled into the rail system...
Posted by: patrick | March 28, 2008 11:01 PM
"Another one decided he was a car and rolling down the middle of Church Street."
As a side note, Gary...cyclists are required by law to ride on the street and not the sidewalk. Moreover, they are encouraged, especially in busy or narrow areas, to "take the lane" for safety reasons.
Posted by: Dan | March 29, 2008 3:23 AM
I often take the train during off-peak periods, and still have to stand because of the lack of seats. Every time a bicycle (or large suitcase) is in the vestibule, it is simply a pain to find a place to stand safely when other people are standing there too. Right now it simply sucks.
But aren't the best solutions often the simplest? How about increasing the size of the overhead rack a few feet, and angling it up toward the ceiling of the train in order to accomodate some head space for those entering the seats. Even if the bike hangs over the rack a bit, it is clearly visible and anyone smacking their head into it is simply at fault for not looking. They can even do this in certain areas of the cars. Look at the locations of the bathrooms in the current cars. Making the overhead rack flush with the wall of the bathroom could offer space for four bikes (as long as no one minds that one gets placed on top of the other) in the space between the bathroom and the vestibule. The new Harlem Line cars are somewhat different, but even in those cars there are still areas where a larger overhead rack can be created to accomodate bicylists without affecting other riders.
In order to win support for more funding, it has to be shown that Metro-North can take hundreds of people off the roads. Hoards of cyclists riding the trains are visible, and can help gain public support for even more funding of the railroad. Hell, with the lack of journalistic integrity and ingenuity in our current local media, I'm sure the Register will have a front page photo of cyclists on the train and Channel 8 will devote a (badly done) interest story to it.
Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 30, 2008 4:25 AM
If you want to be a multi-modal commuter, (to reduce your carbon footprint, or whatever other politically correct malarkey you wish to spout), take some initiative YOURSELF, and have a secondary beater bike waiting for you at your daily destination.
Posted by: DingDong | March 30, 2008 11:27 AM
Bill,
Some people do leave a bike at the station they travel to. But the point is this: not only do I want to reduce my carbon footprint and take cars off the highway, you want me to do that to. And I want others to. So does the State of Connecticut. So that's why people were hoping that Metro North would, as promised, at least include some room for one or two bikes per car. This makes it infinitely easier to commute by bicycle and train. This is not ground-breaking: plenty of other commuter railways around the world and country do it.
Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 31, 2008 9:25 AM
Ding Dong,
When there are hundreds of bicycles parked at each station along Metro-North's corridor, maybe then they will take notice, but at that point, do they really need to make a major infrastructure investment besides more bike parking racks?
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, don't own a car (I haven't had one in nine years). Lead by example -- it always comes across as dogmatic whenever you tell people how they need to behave. Remember, not everyone is in a socio-economic position (families with children, people working multiple jobs) to jump on the biking bandwagon. Be happy that you have a lifestyle that permits it.
Posted by: Ned | March 31, 2008 11:16 AM
The state of Connecticut has wants??? Jodi will have a smoother commute without all those peons clogging up the roads. Maybe she can hire Jon Corzine's driver?
Imagine the ten lane 3+ billion dollar Q Bridge with only five cars (Zil limousines, carrying politicicans no doubt) and a Fung Wah bus on it at rush hour...
Posted by: david streever | March 31, 2008 12:57 PM
Good advice to have 2 bikes, I know people who do that successfully.
However, ultimately, it's not very flexible for that to be the ONLY choice: especially with how incredibly easy it is to steal a well-locked bike.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J7zb8YXrmIA
Do you think your bike is safe in New York? This dude hacksaws, clips, buzz grinds, and finally uses a hammer & spike to steal his own bike over & over. The police finally get involved: to tell his friend to get out of the street.
I don't know, I don't feel comfortable leaving a bike parked overnight unless I am comfortable showing up & having it gone, which isn't a good situation to be in when you have to get to work.
I think the reality is that MTA made a promise.
A promise they had no intention of keeping, in order to shut us up.
Now they want to pretend it never happened, and that's not right.
A "coat closet" car or even the raised ceilings that others described are not unreasonable & would work perfectly.
POSTED BY: DINGDONG | MARCH 31, 2008 1:24 PM
Bill,
I'm a little perplexed by your comment. I don't own a car. I haven't for four years. What I am saying is that the State needs to encourage people, other than me, to travel by transit and by bicycle. Your idea of owning two bikes is a good one. Putting in more bike lanes or multi-use paths around the state is another. Allowing for transportation of bicycles on trains is a third. I don't really understand the grounds for your opposition to this. How is this dogmatic?
POSTED BY: BILL SAUNDERS | MARCH 31, 2008 5:07 PM
Ding Dong,
This current 'bikes on trains' debate fails to recognize a thing called reality. From my perpective, there is currently nothing standing in the way of anybody who wishes to be a multi-modal commuter. Sure, the present state of affairs might not be the 'perfect' solution in your eyes, but it is certainly workable. Recognizing the imposed limitations of any system should lead to creative, practical (and cheap) solutions. You can promote train/bike commuting right now, without looking for any further help from the state, or expensive retrofits from Metro-North. Now that you know Metro-North's plans in this regard, it is time to move on and refocus. (Unless your position is "Give me convenience, or give me death", to quote Jello Biafra)
Let's think about the present state of the rail system for a second. You may or may not be aware of the Acela, the high-speed train designed to significantly cut down trip time between NYC and Boston (New Haven being smack dab in the middle). Great idea, but the only problem is that the tracks are not designed to handle a train going that speed, so the super-train turned into a super-dud. So, in terms of infrastructure improvements to the existing rail system, given limited funding, don't you think that fixing the tracks would come before a biking retrofit (especially if there other workable options for cyclists)?
A lot gets bandied about 'things are different other places'. Well, we are not other places -- though specific examples are rarely cited.
Let's look at Europe, (which is often brought up). Though I never really thought much about it until today, it strikes me that bicycles are taken much more seriously as a mode of transportation there because of the severe economic trauma suffered by the populace from two great wars. Bicycles became a matter of necessity, rather than an option. When I was in Amsterdam several years ago I was amazed at the thousands of bicycles parked outside the train station. I've never seen so many bikes in one place. Don't tell me those bicycles are brought into town every day 'on commute' -- Europeans are much more realistic/practical than that.
Let's look at Boulder, Colorado, which is one of this countries great examples of a planned mecca for alternative transportation. The big difference there is the concept of regional planning, and an abundance of land to dedicate to such endeavors.
As you can see, the socio-economic realities cited above are much different than ours -- the oldest planned community in the Nation. As I have stated before on this board, I am all for more flexibility for riders, including designating some of our more desolate sidewalk space as multi-use. But there are limitations that everyone needs to recognize. For example, the little old lady I saw last week riding her bike on the sidewalk of Chapel Street -- are you going to tell her she has to ride in street because "It's the LAW", thought the busy street may be beyond her comfort level as a rider? (As a side note, with the hundreds of millions that Yale sinks into building projects in this town, one would think we would have one of the bike-friendliest downtowns in Connecticut).
As for the 'dogma comment', it was not directed at you specifically, rather at an overall tone of many of the above posts. Carbon footprint, personal health, stress reduction -- all hooey. People are going to make there own lifestyle choices based on their own personal realities.
So, I guess if you all must continue to fight metro-north to get your way, you must have a Sisyphus Complex. I say lessen your burden and get out of the way of that rolling boulder! There are better fights out there.
POSTED BY: NFJANETTE | MARCH 31, 2008 7:20 PM
Let's think about the present state of the rail system for a second. You may or may not be aware of the Acela, the high-speed train designed to significantly cut down trip time between NYC and Boston (New Haven being smack dab in the middle). Great idea, but the only problem is that the tracks are not designed to handle a train going that speed, so the super-train turned into a super-dud. So, in terms of infrastructure improvements to the existing rail system, given limited funding, don't you think that fixing the tracks would come before a biking retrofit (especially if there other workable options for cyclists)?
It was, at best, a pipe dream that the Acela train sets could significantly change the run time between New Haven - NYC. The route has too many curves and Metro North RR - which controls that track - is only interested in speeds less than 90 MPH - mostly 79 MPH. However, the primary function of the Acela, IMHO, was to be the "sizzle" that sold the "steak" of upgrading the tracks to Boston and installing the electric catenary wires. That was an important accomplishment and the first serious project to expand some aspect of the rail infrastructure in this area in many decades. Next: do the same for the tracks to Hartford - upgrade existing and replace the missing second track - and establish a new commuter schedule. Then, add the new bike-friendly design of the commuter train cars to that project...
POSTED BY: PATRICK | MARCH 31, 2008 10:31 PM
Wow...I don't really know where to begin, Bill. I guess I'll start by asking, why do you have such an attitude? What exactly is wrong with advocating for space on trains for bikes? Do you, or anyone else posting against such action, really feel passionate about keeping bikes off trains? If so, why?
Do you think that most of us haven't considered the revolutionary two bike idea? I most certainly have considered this at length, but, as David Streever already mentioned, I can't chance showing up at my destination and finding out that bike #2 has been stolen.
What do you mean, Bill, when you say "to reduce your carbon footprint, or whatever other politically correct malarkey you wish to spout"?
I, for one, do want to bike commute to: 1)reduce my carbon footprint; 2)lessen the amount of money I spend on my commute; 3)incorporate a work-out into my daily routine; 4)reduce the amount of stress in my life (i really get annoyed sitting in traffic on the Merritt).
Bill, you also say:
"If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, don't own a car (I haven't had one in nine years). Lead by example -- it always comes across as dogmatic whenever you tell people how they need to behave. Remember, not everyone is in a socio-economic position (families with children, people working multiple jobs) to jump on the biking bandwagon. Be happy that you have a lifestyle that permits it."
That's great that you haven't owned a car in nine years, but I have a wife and child and am not in the socio-economic position to go without a car (and I'm not really sure I want to live without one...you really should stop telling people how to live their lives, as it comes across as being "dogmatic").
I think I'll stop short of responding to your last post, Bill, as this is already long enough. Besides, the post was quite a disjointed mess that made few points and brandied about a good deal of speculation.
Look...none of us is telling people how to live their lives. We are simply doing our best to try to live a better quality, more responsible, and healthier life for ourselves. I really am at a loss here concerning the resistance in the community. I mean, I definitely understand NFJ's point about a funding shortage. There are options, though, some of which have already been suggested. Had the Metro-North administration actually considered some of these options as they said they would, we might not be wasting our time here arguing over this.
POSTED BY: PATRICK | MARCH 31, 2008 10:33 PM
bandied, not brandied
POSTED BY: BILL SAUNDERS | APRIL 1, 2008 5:52 AM
Patrick,
I believe I recognized the fact that not everyone is in a position to not own a car.
And I think the other typo in my post was 'though', instead of 'thought', when talking about the little old lady.
Thanks for lessen in semantics.
POSTED BY: DOWNTOWNNEWHAVEN | APRIL 1, 2008 9:49 AM
Bill, you wrote:
"I've never seen so many bikes in one place. Don't tell me those bicycles are brought into town every day 'on commute' -- Europeans are much more realistic/practical than that."
Don't be so sure about that. Many European cities have 10+ times more bicycling per capita than American cities, and that number is only increasing. European cities of all sizes have implemented bike-share programs and systems of bike paths - including tunnels, bridges, stop lights, etc. - that put our Interstate Highway system to shame. The impact that has is probably part of the reason why the dollar is becoming worthless, since Americans are tied to expensive cars that they each spend an average of about $15,000+ per year on (after gas, insurance, tax, maintenance, and car loans). They are also forced to buy more imported and chain-store goods (due to the large-scale strip malls created by an auto-dependent society), rather than shopping locally, which puts our country even further into debt. The key priority in current thinking about urban planning isn't how to serve existing cyclists, it is how to serve the people who would ride if they felt a little more comfortable doing so. There are 150 million bicycle-owners in the United States, but very few of them feel comfortable riding to work - and addressing the reasons for that would be much cheaper than building another few miles of highway. Look at the Farmington Canal Trail on any weekend and imagine all those thousands of people biking to work if there was a good way for them to.
"As a side note, with the hundreds of millions that Yale sinks into building projects in this town, one would think we would have one of the bike-friendliest downtowns."
It is a very good point that Yale, as one of the largest and most significant employers in the state of Connecticut, should be more involved in promoting sustainable transportation. It is great that the University has invested so much into its overall sustainable building campaign, but they haven't (until very recently) been spending enough time on the biggest problem, which is how their students and staff get to and around the campus.
POSTED BY: NED | APRIL 1, 2008 9:11 PM
Portland, OR. streetcars (not exactly a train, but close) have space for bicycles, but, it looked to me, like a lot of wasted space vs. the number of standing passengers. In addition, you're not encouraged to bring your bike onto a crowded streetcar - like at rush hour... Also, note the part about "keeping your bike clean" (can you say chain grease? - pretty much describes the lower part of my bike), and not "brushing up against other [passengers]" - okay, show me how to do that on a crowded Metro North train? Not to mention that people in Portland are annoyingly nice. Noroton Heights RR station has bike lockers - maybe six of them. Metro North could do better. Bicycle parking at Union Station, in New Haven, is inadequate. A folding bike seems like the best option, but if you can get Metro North to accommodate bikes on the train, I'd like to see it work.
POSTED BY: PATRICK | APRIL 1, 2008 9:45 PM
Bill,
Sorry...I didn't notice that you used bandied...the "bandied, not brandied" comment was a correction of my own gaffe (I noticed in a read-through after posting that I'd accidentally written "brandied" instead of "bandied").
POSTED BY: RICHARD STOWE | APRIL 2, 2008 12:13 PM
Patrick, great comments. I would like to speak to you about your ideas. Contact me at bike.rail.politics@gmail.com or (203) 594-9097.
BIkes-on-trains is in part about having a place in our transportation system for bicycle culture. Think of it as a bike lane on the train. A bike lane is not always in use every minute of the day, but says "we" are traffic. Bikes-on-trains is super bicycle friendly when space on trains is granted and peak hour restrictions & bicycle permits are removed from the equation.
Regarding NFJanette's comments: C-DOT owns tracks bet. New Haven & Greenwich; NYS owns bet. Portchester & GCT. MNR operates signals. Track speeds are set by FRA (Federal Railroad Adm.) based on conditions. 15% of track in CT is 60 mph or less. Top speed in CT is 75. 3 miles in Westchester is 90 mph. Otherwise 80 mph or less. CT needs to come up with an upgrade plan to increase speeds along the corridor. Amtrak NYC-BOS is restricted by DEP agreement (based on CT Coastal Management Act of 1980) that restricts Amtrak + Shoreline East trains to 39 per day (original 1996 agreement = 34). That's 19 each way and is enforced due to five 100 year old drawbridges east of Old Saybrook. If those drawbridges are replaced with high level bridges (boats go under) - then unlimited trains can run east of Old Saybrook to Boston. CT residents need to initiate that call & that is tougher than dealing with C-DOT because Amtrak owns that track (& Amtrak has very little or no transparency - though a very opinionated U.S. Senator may influence)
Richard Stowe
Rail*Trains*Ecology*Cycling
POSTED BY: DOWNTOWNNEWHAVEN | APRIL 2, 2008 12:38 PM
Great points, Richard -- the current state of our national train system, even in the Northeast corridor, where it is best, would make the Albanians cry. I hope that some progress can be made at a national level. It is critical to our nation's economy (see my post above for details).
To follow the thread of comments, or post your own comment go to this New Haven Independent link:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/03/bikes_on_trains_2.php
Labels: bicycling, bikes-on-trains
.jpg)
