“We will cap the freeways! We will build glass boxes! But never shall ye see a pedestrian on Alameda that safely crosses.”

I can’t wait for construction to start on 100% of the things that don’t matter to me as a user of Union Station.

Things that matter deeply to me: safe and non-scary pedestrian entrances; protected (guarded) bike parking; clean bathrooms.

Things IDGAF about: new buildings; ripping up the guts of the station; planting more “trees” using CAD drawings; construction for the rest of my adult life.

They can build a flying bridge over the trains but they just … can’t .. narrow … a … single … street … around … the sta- … tion. Ith too hawd to do dat. But wook whud we can mak wif ow duplo bwocks!

And Cesar Chavez and Alameda? Cesar Chavez and Vignes? Alameda and Arcadia/El Monte busway/5 freeway?

Nuthin’

Praise Allah for the bike parking. But no cycletracks/bike lanes leading into Union Station? I know it’s moving the goalposts from my earlier statement, but I feel like the focus is on stupid shiny new things instead of making things just work for people on the ground, day-to-day.

The porta potties at Patsouras Transit Plaza are a half-assed god send. How about showers and lockers and a permanent bathroom setup instead of a flying pedestrian bridge built with borrowed money from my grand childrens sales taxable purchases?

The proposed changes would compliment a bikecar on every train running through Union Station (at least). Can’t wait to see how the proposed changes encourages residents to use more ‘active modes’ of transportation.

Contrary to your opinion, there is a growing bicycle culture — a bicycle commuting culture within the weekdays. Further, at the 12th of June Metrolink Board meeting earlier this year, a decision was made to incorporate a “Utility Passenger Car” (i.e., a 1/2-bikecar) on every Metrolink train by the end of the calendar year for bicycles and surfboards.

The problem with the current situation is that there is not “consistency” in frequency and location (within a train). With the addition of a “consistent” (in location and on every train), bicycle commuters/adventurers will board in a defined area. You are more than welcome to sit on another car if you are without a bicycle. For the growing bicycle culture and in addition to other emerging programs to encourage active transportation (i.e., bike share programs), this solution will be useful over time.

Each of us has a right to be on the train.

The Caltrain solution might be a better option. Take out a few seats in the front of the cab car and make a bike storage area. Every train has a cab car.

That goes without saying — ALL passengers should read the instructions on the Metrolink website. There is no benefit to banning bicycles on public transit — not a viable or equitable solution.

Three bikecars on every train ? Complete overkill. The problem is not enough bike usage of the existing bikecar, taking up too much space and forcing many paying commuters to sit on the floor. On O.C. and 91-Line weekday trains, the bike areas are taken up by passengers, leaving no room for the bikes ! Bikes should have a “corral” in the front of the cab car. The loss of a a few seats would be better than losing the entire seating capacity on the bottom level of three coaches for just a few bikes.

Actually the solution is to charge for a bike. That is common practice in Europe.

http://www.achimbodewig.de/blog/wp-content/2012/10/2012-10-28-2342.jpg

For example, this picture from Germany Northrhine Westphalia region shows four options for “Fahrrad” tickets, which allow you to travel with your bike on commuter trains.

Some trains are now standing room-only and Metrolink has even started using an eight car consist on one train a day on the San Bernardino Line because the trains are so crowded.
https://youtu.be/PVHjCy94vPQ?t=1m8s

While bikes are a great way to get to transit, their benefits on transit are markedly more questionable. On buses, they add quite a bit of dwell time, though not necessarily more than loading wheelchairs. On trains, especially commuter and rapid transit oriented services, they take up valuable space on board that especially during peak hours, exacerbates crowding issues. If someone switches from transit back to driving due to being unable to find a comfortable spot on a train, that’s a net loss for society. Since more people can fit on a train without bikes than one with bikes, it’s an acceptable trade-off to have more people on the train without bikes, even if that means those with bikes go back to driving. Chances are, especially with infrastructure improvements that are being worked on, more and more bicyclists will find it acceptable to just ride anyway.

As such, bikes and transit work best together when bikes are not on transit, certainly not in large quantities. Now to that end, I would certainly agree that bike parking at train stations in America is generally next to atrocious, if it even exists at all. That’s undoubtedly one reason that many people prefer to bring their bike on board. The lack of a bike at the other end is another reason along the same lines. However, adding decent bike parking is certainly cheaper than adding train capacity, though I’m sure that might not necessarily be a reviled move by the general populous. Transit operators should focus their efforts on expanding good bike parking at stations, not trying to provide space for bikes on board. If biking ever even reaches a decent fraction of Dutch levels, there would be no room on trains for bikes. But that point is too late to start looking at addressing the problem.