South Shore NICTD Double Track Project

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 12:52 pmI'd have to see the research before making those decision, but also having a small bike share location would prevent the need to take up half a passenger car (50 passengers) for a handful of bikes. The object of this is not so much providing bikes as it is negating the need to carry bikes aboard.

They have the room for the number of bicycles people are bringing. They are not turning away passengers because bikes are allowed on board and may be attracting passengers who don't want to ride a different bike (and pay for the privilege) each day or even at each end of the trip.

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 12:54 pm

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 5:52 amWhen I was at the Pentagon as a contractor, my commute was to take the Metro in with my bike on board and to ride the bike home as part of my exercise routine (it was a 25 mile ride). Bike rentals at stations would not allow for that kind of routine, but there is zero valid reason to prohibit people from doing their best to be and stay healthy while also using public transit provided there is space available to do so.

I dont' see how bike share prevents this. You ride your bike to the home station, get aboard the train, arrive at your destination, and ride the bike share to the office. Most major office areas in big cities have a bike share dock so you drop the bike off after arriving at work.

I rode bike shares often when I lived in Chicago and I was in great shape. Never had a need for my own bike. And certainly never wanted to carry one aboard teh train.

I believe you missed his use case ... ride train with bike into the city, then bike all the way home 25 miles in the afternoon (no train). Bike rentals would not prevent him from taking his own bike but removing the option to bring your own bike would prevent his routine.

He would need to find a bike rental at the Pentagon that would let him take the bike 25 miles away and leave it there every day that he wanted to ride home.

That's correct, and even with the Metro being extended out past Wiehle Ave, the closest bike rental location is still 5 miles from where I live (at Reston Town Center), so I'd be in the absurd situation of cycling to and/from a bike rental kiosk to be able to get adequate exercise while cycling to stay in shape to meet the fitness standards I was held to while I was in military service.

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 4:55 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 12:52 pmI'd have to see the research before making those decision, but also having a small bike share location would prevent the need to take up half a passenger car (50 passengers) for a handful of bikes. The object of this is not so much providing bikes as it is negating the need to carry bikes aboard.

They have the room for the number of bicycles people are bringing.

If the cab cars seat 130 and 1/4 is used to carry 10 bikes, we are taking the place of 30 passengers to carry 10 bikes. That's not a good financial case. It's the same reason diners don't add up. You are taking out X revenue passengers to provide a money losing service. So you have all the expense of running that space and zero revenue.

This is why bike share makes more sense, and why they have bike share at most CTA stations and downtown terminals. I understand Randall has a different use case, but we can't cater to every use case. This is public transit, not luxury transit.

Bottom line is this is a bad financial decision. You may have an opinion that you like it, but we can't change the financial facts. It's the same reason we don't have diners, first class, or other niceties. This is a commuter train the state pays for to bring lots of people in and out of the state and supports a large tax base.

Given how empty most transit is these days, more than just those 30 seats are likely empty on most trips, and if allowing 10 bikes to take that space means more passengers actually pay to use the train, then it makes financial sense.

That Metra is now seeing the same number of bikes on board its trains as it carried prior to the introduction of Divvy Bikes at its stations suggests that either the bike rental isn't enough in Chicago, or the bike rental is being rejected by people who may otherwise just drive (i.e., allowing bikes on board increases train ridership).

Did the old Metra Electric 2600 series cars have the capacity of two bikes per car? I have not seen inside of the rebuilds that NICTD is leasing for use on their service.

As long as there are enough bike spaces for the expected demand and enough seating for the expected passenger demand bikes on every train year round can be done.

RandallW wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 7:48 pm That's correct, and even with the Metro being extended out past Wiehle Ave, the closest bike rental location is still 5 miles from where I live (at Reston Town Center), so I'd be in the absurd situation of cycling to and/from a bike rental kiosk to be able to get adequate exercise while cycling to stay in shape to meet the fitness standards I was held to while I was in military service.

I also used to do Bus/ train to dc bikeshare from baltimore.
This was before having bike racks on the MTA buses was widespread, otherwise I might have brought my bike on train to DC, instead of bike share.