Bikes on the Metro During Rush Hour – WABA Petition

[lordofthemark]

1. I am not absolutely convinced DC area people are necessarily less able to follow rules on this than Californians, but I don’t want to rehash that argument (I will note that while I do kvetch about people who pass without calling, I do notice lots of people who DO call their passes) though I am not sure that a short term pilot would be so bad.

2. The increase in the number of people riding with bikes would be offset at least a little because biking itself would be easier. To explain – there are days where uncertainty about the weather or about my evening schedule leads me to NOT ride in in the morning. If I knew I could get my bike home by transit (100%, train as well as bus) I would likely ride my bike in on those days, and since sometimes the weather proves rideable (for me) or my schedule works out, that would also mean riding my bike home. Thats for me a relatively experienced rider who will ride in a fair variety of conditions. For newbie commuters this would be more important.

3. I think allowing bikes makes the most sense for times and places where metro is predictably not crowded. This means (generally) reverse direction commutes, and Fridays. Now its probably not possible for metro to enforce a rule about direction of commute. I don’t see why it would not be possible, and make sense, to allow bikes on metro at all hours on Fridays though. Heck could they just try it one day a year – Bike to Work Day? When some newbies worry about being able to ride home?

[huskerdont]

I was looking at the BART site, and it appears that even they say that bikes are not allowed on crowded train cars.

“Regardless of any other rule, bikes are never allowed on crowded cars. Use your good judgment and only board cars that can comfortably accommodate you and your bicycle.”

Good judgment, ha. Getting any three cyclists to agree on one thing would be like herding especially truculent cats.

One important difference was that the BART cars I was on had special places to stow bicycles, which our cars do not have. (Seems to contradict their “Bicyclists must hold their bikes while on the trains” rule.) Providing special stowage places on Metro cars would cost $.

Seriously, I think this is a nice but impractical idea for this area. The public’s limited tolerance for cyclist rights would be better taxed in trying to reduce us getting run over by cars.

https://www.bart.gov/guide/bikes/bikeRules

[baiskeli]

I found data on “loading” expressed as a percentage of optimal occupancy, where 100 means full and over 100 means overloaded. See page 5 after the slides. Doesn’t seem to be restricted to rush hour though.

https://www.wmata.com/about/records/scorecard/upload/Q2FY18_Metro_Performance_Report.pdf

[bikesnick]

@huskerdont 181175 wrote:

One important difference was that the BART cars I was on had special places to stow bicycles, …

Indeed! We rode the BART as pedestrians last month, mostly during rush hours, and saw more bicycles than we see on Metro at any time. The bicycle space was always observed and people moved out of the way for cyclists. There were no confrontations.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18372[/ATTACH]

[mstone]

@dasgeh 181172 wrote:

I saw a data analysis a while ago that indicated the crowded conditions were limited to less than half the lines for less than half of the rush hour ban. Look at the data and figure out a policy that makes sense for the whole system, not just based on one person’s commute.

In return, don’t reject the real concerns of people who experience dangerous crowding on metro because you apparently do not.

[mstone]

@huskerdont 181175 wrote:

One important difference was that the BART cars I was on had special places to stow bicycles, which our cars do not have. (Seems to contradict their “Bicyclists must hold their bikes while on the trains” rule.) Providing special stowage places on Metro cars would cost $.

The BART racks don’t lock the bikes in, they just provide a designated spot where you stand and hold your bike (a spot that doesn’t have a seat facing it, so you don’t have to worry about banging people in the leg). Now, does anyone think WMATA would provide a designated space, or would we just cram bikes into metro cars not designed for them?

[dasgeh]

@mstone 181220 wrote:

In return, don’t reject the real concerns of people who experience dangerous crowding on metro because you apparently do not.

Not sure what you’re trying to say. I don’t reject the concerns of the crowded – I think the policy should take those into account, but not let them trump the fact that there is space elsewhere. Formulate a policy that makes room for both.

[nosweat]

@Tania 181162 wrote:

Really? I’d say it seems you live in metro fantasy land. I actually have to take the train a stop or two in the OPPOSITE direction in order to get back on a different train heading in my direction. And that’s at 4:30pm before the real rush hour crush.

We can’t even get cyclists to call their passes; there’s no way they’re not going to board crowded trains. And what if the train fills up after they’ve boarded?

I’ll say it again, it’s a TERRIBLE idea. Metro is bad (crowded) enough as it is. Ridership may be down but safety issues or crowded tracks (OSB for example) mean the trains aren’t running as frequently.

Even thought I want to be able to take my bike on the metro during rush hour, I have to agree with Tania’s sentiment in that the metro system is not well-designed for bikes. If they are going to do this and avoid a bikelash from regular riders, WMATA needs to think long and hard about implementation. Bikers should get on at only very specific places and there should be good rules/etiquette signage on how to bring a bike on board without irritating the 10-15 metro riders near you.

The more I think about it, it seems like some phased pilot implementation, limiting it to select stations or maybe scaling back the current no-bike hours, would be best. Metro should proceed cautiously.

[creadinger]

@Tania 181162 wrote:

Really? I’d say it seems you live in metro fantasy land. I actually have to take the train a stop or two in the OPPOSITE direction in order to get back on a different train heading in my direction. And that’s at 4:30pm before the real rush hour crush.

We can’t even get cyclists to call their passes; there’s no way they’re not going to board crowded trains. And what if the train fills up after they’ve boarded?

I’ll say it again, it’s a TERRIBLE idea. Metro is bad (crowded) enough as it is. Ridership may be down but safety issues or crowded tracks (OSB for example) mean the trains aren’t running as frequently.

You ever been on the green line heading from Waterfront out to Suitland in the morning? It’s dead. Each car has half a dozen Census workers on it. There’s no reason you couldn’t put a bike on.

[bentbike33]

@creadinger 181234 wrote:

You ever been on the green line heading from Waterfront out to Suitland in the morning? It’s dead. Each car has half a dozen Census workers on it. There’s no reason you couldn’t put a bike on.

Actually, the reverse commute would be ideal for bikes on Metro during rush hours. It also helps solve some of the problem of infrequent buses and reverse commute destinations being “too far to walk” from Metro stations.

[creadinger]

That’s why blanket bans in most circumstances are stupid. But people with the bikes have to use common sense too.

[lordofthemark]

@creadinger 181234 wrote:

You ever been on the green line heading from Waterfront out to Suitland in the morning? It’s dead. Each car has half a dozen Census workers on it. There’s no reason you couldn’t put a bike on.

From Waterfront to Navy Yard the BTS folks could count the bikes, and then the Census folks could tell us why our methodology is wrong.

[lordofthemark]

@bentbike33 181236 wrote:

Actually, the reverse commute would be ideal for bikes on Metro during rush hours. It also helps solve some of the problem of infrequent buses and reverse commute destinations being “too far to walk” from Metro stations.

Unfortunately it would require WMATA to actually check which trains people are putting their bikes on. Which is why I think the best modification is simply to drop the ban on Fridays.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 181230 wrote:

Not sure what you’re trying to say. I don’t reject the concerns of the crowded – I think the policy should take those into account, but not let them trump the fact that there is space elsewhere. Formulate a policy that makes room for both.

What I’m trying to say is that you seem to think that bikes on metro is something that’s too important to let any other concern derail it. Conversely, I think bikes on metro is a nice to have, but metro is in no position to implement that well. I’d rather preserve the status quo than see a half-assed unsafe policy change–and I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to demand that WMATA spend money on this when there are more pressing issues facing the system. There is no policy that metro can implement that will allow bikes at all times without degrading the safety and convenience of a larger fraction of riders.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 181252 wrote:

What I’m trying to say is that you seem to think that bikes on metro is something that’s too important to let any other concern derail it. Conversely, I think bikes on metro is a nice to have, but metro is in no position to implement that well. I’d rather preserve the status quo than see a half-assed unsafe policy change–and I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to demand that WMATA spend money on this when there are more pressing issues facing the system. There is no policy that metro can implement that will allow bikes at all times without degrading the safety and convenience of a larger fraction of riders.

But that’s not what I’m trying to say. The question (should we allow bikes on Metro) is being asked, and I think we should look at data, not just limited experience, in forming an answer.

You seem intent in reading anything I type in the worst (to you) possible light. It’s been going on for years.

[Author]

Posts