Newspaper Editorials

Make for room for bikes on trains

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:56:36 -0500

Westport News
Editorial: Make room for bikes
Published: 02:26 p.m., Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Last week members of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, DOT Commissioner Joseph Marie, and Metro-North planners met with cyclists and told them they would work to encourage the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the state of Connecticut to consider more ways to expand access and improve amenities for bicyclists on Metro-North trains.
They also revealed that next month Metro-North plans to award a contract to design a bike rack prototype to be considered for installation on the state's new fleet of M-8 rail cars.
This comes on the heels of Metro-North installing some prototype bicycle-mounting devices on a pair of M-7 train cars as part of an on-going effort to review and encourage bicycle opportunities and options on the railroad.
Jason Stockman, director of Rail, Trains, Ecology, Cycling, an advocacy organization, addressed last week's group, emphasizing benefits of full access for bicyclists on the New Haven Line, including reduced automobile use and accompanying carbon emissions, conversion of parking facilities into transit-oriented residential developments and health benefits for riders.
We support full access for bicyclists for the same reasons.
Currently Metro-North now issues permits to bicyclists and conductors can bar cyclists from trains that are deemed too crowded.
Unfortunately bikes are banned from morning peak trains -- those traveling toward Grand Central Terminal in the morning, and then north back toward Connecticut during the evening rush hour.
If bikes aren't allowed on peak trains, then how are people supposed to bike to work?
Think about the number of Fairfield County residents who live within bike riding distance from the train stations in their towns and cities and whose offices are a convenient bike ride from a train station along the New Haven Line. They would certainly be more inclined to take the train to work during peak hours rather than sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Interstate 95 if bikes were allowed on the train during that time.
Consider, too, how finding a better balance between bikes and train passenger space might boost tourism in the area. There are so many open spaces and beaches to enjoy in the Gold Coast by landlocked New Yorkers, for instance.
Creating a convenient transportation option for cyclists between Toronto and the Niagara region helped revitalize local tourism in Ontario, Canada.
The Bike Train Initiative was developed by Toronto cyclist Justin Lafontaine and launched in partnership with VIA Rail Canada between Toronto and Niagara in 2007. The Bike Train Initiative introduced bike racks onboard select passenger rail trains to destinations across Ontario, making cycling adventures easy and accessible. According to the initiative's Web site, passengers travel in comfort while their bicycles are safely secured in a baggage car with bike racks.
Connecticut should also note the success of Caltrain, which runs along the San Francisco-San Jose corridor. It has become a leader in bike access among commuter railroads in the United States. Bikes are allowed on every train, every day. Caltrain operates two types of train cars. The gallery train set can accommodate 40 bikes while the Bombardier train set can handle 48 bikes, 24 in each of the two bike cars. In 2009, Caltrain increased bike capacity by eight spaces per train and is running more two bike-car trains.
While we realize these projects took some time to bring to fruition, we hope government officials, tourism organizations, small businesses and the public in our area will work together to make improve the bike-to-train-to-bike connection along the New Haven Line.
At last week's discussion, there was talk about integrating questions about bikes into Metro-North commuter surveys to gauge support for more bicycles on trains.
Let's get those surveys into passengers ASAP and make easier access for cyclists on trains a priority in 2010.
The only things we really have to lose are carbon emissions ... and maybe even a few pounds.
Originating link to Editorial: http://www.westport-news.com/opinion/article/Editorial-Make-room-for-bikes-388577.php

New Britain Herald on busway

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:19:43 -0500

OPINION
OUR VIEW: Bus vs. rail — Your vote?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:44 PM EST
The scarcity of mass transit options in our state has long meant that commuters are forced to drive back and forth to their jobs on clogged highways and children learn a way of life that necessitates a car as soon as the law allows.  Now, 50 years too late, our state leaders are beginning to talk about new ways to move people that will be both efficient and appealing.  In New Britain, a busway into downtown Hartford has been proposed; in Bristol, light rail is on the drawing board. But Michael Nicastro, president of the Central Connecticut Chambers of Commerce, and others favor abandoning the proposed busway in favor of a passenger rail system that they say would cost less, move more people and connect more communities than a busway.  “We’re not anti-busway, but it is in the way,” said Nicastro. “We’re at a tipping point and we need to make those changes. We have a rail infrastructure that’s already in place.”
He asked U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1st District, for help in redefining federal money earmarked specifically for the busway into transit aid for the railway instead.  The competition between the two systems is a competition between two cities, both fighting for a better future, a more attractive and accessible downtown. And it’s natural for each town’s leaders to be chauvinistic, to fight for their home turf, even at the expense of a neighbor.  But we applaud Larson for refusing to put one above the other. He supports the rail concept, but wasn’t ready to discard the New Britain busway either.  “We’re going to work hard to make them both come to fruition,” said Larson, whose district includes Bristol and Berlin but not New Britain. “I don’t think you can pit one constituent against the other.”  Frankly, we think that the state needs more than either option. As an anonymous poster on the Bristol Press Web site noted, “Once this train reaches Union Station (in Hartford), where are people going to go? There is no subway system or other transportation for people coming off the train. How far are people willing to walk to their offices in the middle of winter?”  Rather than parochial plans for a single line serving a single city, we need a regional plan that will truly move people — and get them to the places they need to go. Expensive? Maybe. But the federal government is currently interested in lending a hand. Besides, neither plan is as expensive as building lines to nowhere or, even worse, waiting another 50 years as highways get more and more crowded and gas prices continue to soar.  You can expect to hear more from us, in both our news pages and on the editorial page, about this critical issue in the near future. We expect you’ll have something to say, too — and look forward to a strong debate that will end in a plan we can get behind and implement quickly.
COMMENTS
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of newbritainherald.com.
Jim wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:49 AM:
" Rail is the only way i commute. if there is no train i drive, never the bus. we need a central connecticut rail corridor. "

Tim wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:46 PM:
" The busway was proposed over a decade ago. It is a bandaid fix, and the wrong choice. Yes, we need a comprehensive transit plan. But to build a road on a rail bed is a terrible idea. New Britain residents won't only be traveling to Hartford. Why not allow them to travel to Bristol, Waterbury, and the Naugatuck Valley. If egos get out of the way, the busway will be scrapped for rail. "

Chuck Searle wrote on Nov 19, 2009 8:36 AM:
" ! The busway is not going to happen. It is an appeasement factor, just like Joe Harper's Landmark Center, over the highway on Main St., remember
2 The best thing would be to create a whole new industry, and transportaion system, a monorail system. It would create jobs, and not impede traffic as it would be elevated.
3 It is time for some forward thinking, innovative people to step up to the plate. "

Nextdoor wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:05 AM:
" Either concept is acceptable as long as it significantly reduces the number of cars on the highway. That should be the goal of any new transit system. I look forward to the free and open highways during my commute. "

Phil wrote on Nov 19, 2009 3:54 PM:
" As long as fat cat road builders contribute to politicians and politicians wives work for the DOT the busway will be built. "

Mark wrote on Nov 19, 2009 4:32 PM:
" Different areas of the state require different solutions. All options should be on the table including light rail, bus, and even a monorail system. The main problem is the Department of Transportation. They've pushed highway construction for so long their brains are muddled.

One other aspect is getting the average commute to start thinking about alternate forms of transportation too. Raising the state gasoline tax would force the issue but as of yet there is little in the way of choice in most areas of the state. It's the highway or no way for many. "

The mass appeal of the bicycle

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:09:52 -0400

Fairfield County Weekly Thursday, October 16, 2008
News
Bolstering the Cycle
Comments (2)
Thursday, October 16, 2008

By Dave Bonan
Pierre Lallement may have invented the bicycle in France in 1863, but he patented it in the United States after he settled in Ansonia and test-road his invention around the New Haven Green. The "safety bicycle," as it was called, was affordable to almost all and had mass appeal across socio-economic classes.
More good the bike has done for the world: It helped jump-start the women's suffrage movement (bloomers vs. corsets); it created the second African-American world champion athlete; and the Wright brothers' cycling shop funded and inspired their attempts at flight.
The automobile and the Eisenhower Interstate System made bicyclists second-class citizens of the road, and that's more true in the commuting loop to New York City—where Lallement invented the practice of bicycling and where 120,000 people commute by bicycle everyday—than in most places in the United States.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority only allows cyclists to take their bikes onto Metro North trains and go inter-modal on off-peak hours and requires them to buy a $5 lifetime permit to bring their bikes aboard.
The MTA is the only major transit agency in the United States that charges cyclists a fee. Caltrain (California), Chicago Transit, New Jersey Transit, Sound Transit (Seattle), MARTA (Atlanta), SEPTA (Pennsylvania), Tri-Rail (Florida), DART (Dallas), and MBTA (Boston) do no require a pass. RTD (Denver) requies one, but it's free.
MTA might charge only a $5 fee for an entire lifetime, but unfortunately it goes straight to the General Fund. In 2007, 3,894 bicycle permits were sold. That adds up to $16,920. As vocal as we've been for enhanced bicycle infrastructure (like covered and secure bicycle parking and lockers) the MTA has grown deaf. I propose from here on, all permit money is deposited into a separate "Bicycle Infrastructure Fund."
But there is some hope on the horizon for cash-conscious cyclists. After seven unsuccessful years, its original architect, Sen. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), has passed the Bicycle Commuter Act. (It was nailed onto the Wall Street bailout bill.) The law creates a fund, to the tune of $1 million, that will reimburse any employee who bikes to work $20 per month. Businesses sign up and cyclists sign up through their employer. Granted it's an indirect process, but it's funded until 2018 and it finally gives cyclists nationwide what they have earned as users of the road: tax-free money for commuting to work.
Viva la Velorution!

Mayor’s blog site: bike at peak hours

Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:56:50 -0400

I read an interesting bit from the Hartford Courant from their May 28 feature, Bicyclists Want To Take The Train Too. It quoted Jim Cameron, who insists that Metro North should continue to keep people with bicycles off the trains during rush hour because the trains are crowded and he’s tired of people not being able to find seats. Speaking as a person who has often had to ride on the train standing up, I can certainly appreciate that argument. But he’s leaving out something pretty darn important.
The next time you ride Metro North (preferably one sitting at the Stamford station during the morning rush) look at the people who are boarding. When you ask yourself how they got there, you’ll quickly conclude that if they drove their car, they used the roads. They drove, on crowded city streets, to get to the station. In short, mass transit isn’t being true to its mission - must less effective - if we’re going to have to clog streets with traffic in order to make it work!
I bike. Ask anyone. I also own an SUV which you can have when you pry it from my cold, dead hands, but I prefer my bike for short trips, such as the one to the railway station. I’m lucky I live close enough to get to make commuting choices like that, but since I can’t take my bike on the train most times when I need to go into Manhattan, I drive my SUV to the Stamford station and park. Now folks who have no choice but to drive a motor vehicle to the station (or just like driving more than cycling which is fine too) should try to imagine what unrestricted bike access on Metro North would look like:
1) You will have fewer cars around you when you drive to the station.
2) You will have more parking spaces available to you when you get to the station since cyclists don’t need them.
The bliss of the second point closes the case by itself! I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d rather make room for a few bikes on a commuter train than miss my train entirely (as I’ve done a few times) because I was burning pricy gas trying to find a parking spot at the station garage.
The mission of mass transit (as well as the promotion of other car-free ideas, such as the Mill River Bridge, which, according to Wednesday’s Stamford Advocate, will remain car-free) is to reduce automotive congestion, reduce pollution, and provide a low-cost means for people to go from one place to another. Giving people options for getting around also improves quality of life, allows folks who can’t afford or don’t want cars to get to the jobs they need, and promotes local business growth (if people can’t get there, chances are pretty good they won’t spend money there). I urge Jim Cameron and others to look at the bigger picture: allowing bikes on Metro North and commuting by bicycle is for everyone, even if you never ride a bike or a train for the rest of your life.

Connecticut Post - Accommodate bikes-on-trains

Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:08:37 -0400

SUNDAY, JUNE 01, 2008
Editorial Page
Connecticut Post Sunday June 1, 2008 D2

Accommodate bicycles on trains

The signals are mixed.

We're supposed to stay off the roads, which most people can agree with, what with $50 fill-ups looking like the norm for a while. That leaves walking, biking or mass transit. That's fine, as far as it goes.

Walking works, if you're not going far. Biking? Fine for some people, and the train works for even more. But combining biking with the train? Not so fast.

Metro-North Railroad doesn't make it easy for the bicycle-inclined, keeping the two-wheelers off peak-hour trains. And when they are allowed, there's no storage to speak of, so riders must stand them in the vestibule, forcing everyone else to walk around them and inviting serious grumbling.

It's not that the peak-hour ban is indefensible. Indeed, with gas prices spiking, transit ridership is up around the country, and there aren't enough seats to go around as it is. Crowded conditions with bicycles to boot makes a less-than-pleasant ride a full-on aggravation.

But there are other ways. In California, for instance, Caltrain service south of San Francisco features front cars with no seats but plenty of bike parking. It shouldn't be hard to find old cars around here that have outlived their usefulness for regular passengers but could be gutted for use by cyclists.

Connecticut is near-impossible to get around without a car, which is why our roads are always clogged, climate change is fast approaching and the air is hard to breathe. To think there's a way out of that trap that the trains won't oblige is hard to understand.

With a new batch of train cars scheduled to start arriving next year, now might be a good time to consider some changes. Helping accommodate bicyclists would be a good start, as well as, of course, listening to the problems of everyday commuters. A gasoline crisis can mean big things for mass transit systems, but it takes preparation to get it right and satisfy all customers, old and new.

E Magazine bikes on trains Commentary (online)

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:29:35 -0400

Green Living
The E MAGAZINE Handbook for Living Lightly on the Earth
New this week
June 25, 2007

COMMENTARY: Bikes on the Rails
Making Room for Bikes on Trains (and Everywhere Else)

By Julia Hirsch & Jim Motavalli

Traveling across Connecticut during rush hour can be beastly. During a typical afternoon on Interstate 95, cars crowd the road, crawling along at 30 miles per hour or less. Drivers, often solo and on cell phones, dangerously crisscross the lanes and slam on brakes, just to nose a few inches ahead. All the while, they waste fuel and spew dirty emissions. Traffic is not only an inconvenience, but also a symptom of our fuel dependence and environmentally irresponsible behavior. But what are the alternatives?

Recently, a group of concerned citizens have been trying to ease the way for a bicycle-friendly form of train transportation. Biking to work can reduce one’s carbon footprint and help de-clutter the highways. And the distance one bikes to work can be extended when used in conjunction with a commuter rail service. Transportation Alternatives, a New York City-based nonprofit group working to promote bicycling, walking and public transit, advocates this combination, citing that it is often faster, cheaper and more environmentally sound than driving.

Bicycle commuters traveling on the Metro-North line between New York and its suburbs have been hampered by cumbersome regulations. In order to bring a bicycle on a Metro-North train, one must have a bicycle permit. This regulation alone discourages potential commuters. In addition to the permit regulation, bicycles are not allowed on trains during peak hours, obviously the most convenient for commuters en route to work. Finally, many of the cars on the Metro-North line have minimal bicycle parking and storage, limiting the number of bicycles allowed per car. All of these regulations work to discourage bicycle commuting.

At a recent Metro-North Commuter Council meeting, Richard Stowe and other members of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council circulated petitions advocating the deregulation of bicycle travel on trains. Although most of the issues are still pending, there was discussion of removing the bicycle permit requirement. Another issue that the Council plans to address is the safety and convenience of bringing a bicycle on the Metro-North trains. Some argue that bringing bicycles on trains is dangerous to other passengers and may crowd and inconvenience an otherwise smooth commute. Stowe argues that designated bike parking would eliminate the safety concern and help integrate bikes into the daily commute. The Commuter Council’s strategy is to persuade Metro-North to include bicycle parking on its new train cars (which are slated to begin service in 2009).

America by Bike

The movement to promote bicycle commuting in conjunction with train travel is growing all over the nation, but fighting for bicycles remains a guerrilla action in car-crazy America. While the U.S. has the highest per-capita bicycle ownership in the world, according to the League of American Bicyclists, automobiles are used for more than 95 percent of our trips. Only three million Americans say they ride their bikes “frequently,” meaning more than 14 or 15 times a year. According to Alex Campbell, a spokesperson for leading electric bicycle maker Zap, as many as 120 million bikes sit forlornly on flat tires, waiting for riders. In the U.S., bicycles are overwhelmingly used for recreation and exercise, not for commuting.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition fights for urban pathways, encouraging traffic-calming policies and lobbying on behalf of bike-friendly legislation. “Providing safe streets for bicyclists is like making a grant of $420 (a year’s worth of bus passes) to thousands of people with limited incomes,” the group proclaims. “That would improve the quality of life for the one-third of San Francisco households who do not have access to a car.”

San Francisco is also home to a monthly event called Critical Mass, in which thousands of bicycle riders take to the streets, many of them in colorful costumes. “We wanted to celebrate the bike and dominate the streets for a change,” said one spokesman for the loosely organized group. Police broke up a 5,000-strong Critical Mass ride in 1997, and arrested 100 people for blocking traffic, but there were ultimately no convictions. In 1999, state judge Sue Kaplan ruled that the arrests were illegal, and Critical Mass has operated without harassment since then.

People are finding innovative uses for bicycles. Joan Stein and Jim Gregory own and operate the pedal-power Fresh Aire Delivery Service in the small town of Ames, Iowa. Fresh Aire has transported furniture, lumber, even a children’s playhouse. No less than two bicycle delivery services were launched in Berkeley, California, run by Pedal Express and Berkeley Youth Alternatives.

The Colorado-based Bicycle Transportation Systems (BTS) has an idea that makes a crazy kind of sense, combining pedal power with an innovation in mass transit. It’s a kind of two-way tunnel in which bike riders are pushed along by a constantly moving column of air, reducing air resistance and allowing speeds of up to 25 miles per hour. The company claims its system is 90 percent more efficient than normal cycling, and bikers can travel six miles with the energy it would otherwise take to travel one. The system can reportedly be used to move freight as well as bike riders, but it would require an expensive and fully enclosed dedicated bikeway. Only a city intensely dedicated to bicycle transportation would even think of building such a corridor.

Bike racks are sprouting up all over. According to the International Bicycle Fund, 3,000 have recently been installed in Santa Cruz, California, and 1,600 in Seattle. In Portland, I saw some ingenious bike lockers, which make the enclosed bicycle nearly impossible to steal.

Perhaps it says something about America that our anti-car campaigns are couched in the positive rhetoric of encouraging the open-air sport of bicycling. Like motherhood, bicycling is very hard to oppose, even though our traffic regulations discriminate regularly. The rock band bicycle (with a small “b”), led by bike activist Kurt Liebert, toured from Portland, Maine, to Washington, D.C., in the summer of 2000 entirely by bike.

If we want to tackle our fuel dependence and carbon emissions head-on, we need to encourage the responsible use of public transportation on a national scale. Back in Connecticut, Stowe spoke of a movement to convince Congress to implement a high-speed rail service from coast to coast, as well as another line stretching across the Southern regions of the U.S.

If this is achieved, shorter high-speed rail corridors and commuter rail lines would easily feed off these larger lines, making train travel more accessible and efficient across the nation. Stowe predicts that this will have a positive effect on the fuel dependence and energy waste engendered by suburban sprawl.

So where do we go from here? In terms of the local struggle, Stowe suggests contacting New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell to advocate the removal of bicycle permits and restrictions during peak hours. Reducing our carbon footprint can start at the individual level, but in the end, it requires a greater structural change. A solution may be found in improving access for both bicycle commuters and their non-biking counterparts on the railways.

CONTACT: National Association of Railroad Passengers

JULIA HIRSCH is a student at Vassar College and an intern at E.
JIM MOTAVALLI is the editor of E/The Environmental Magazine.
http://www.emagazine.com