Thank you for your reply to some of my questions. My responses and other questions follow.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, CisMail wrote: > Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, as with any of > our routes, passengers always take precedent over transporting bicycles. > There are some restrictions on when bicycles can be transported. Bikes are > not permitted on the trains heading downtown during the morning peak hours > or on the train during the return trip from downtown during the afternoon > peak hours. There are a huge amount of riders travelling at those times and > it would be unsafe to load them onto already crowded trains. However, bikes With such large numbers of passengers at those hours, it sounds as though you could very easily justify providing more frequent service to alleviate the overcrowding and eliminate the reason for RTD's bicycle commuter ban. (By a ban, I mean during traditional commuting hours, when access is MOST needed. I acknowledge that you allow some bicyclist use of LRT during "off peak" hours.) I also wonder whether it would be feasible to provide racks for bicycles on the outside of the trains, as you have on the front of your diesel buses, to provide additional capacity. If not on the outside of the trains, bike racks _in_ the trains would resolve the hypothetical safety concerns. Even better would be to have a specifically-designated bicyclists car on the trains that make the more heavily used commuting runs if hypothetical safety problems resulting from "inter-modal" conflicts are your concern. As a bonus, that kind of commitment to socially and environmentally responsible transportation would be a great promotional asset to RTD in encouraging more transit use and less solo automobile commuting. Please understand that peak hours are _precisely_ the time that most bicycle commuters--like most all other commuters--would most need to travel on mass transit if their trips to work are such that transit use is a necessary or desirable component of an otherwise human-powered commute (e.g., for lack of safe bicycle routes and/or too long a ride for some people to make the entire trip by bicycle). For those whose origin or destination is not adequately served by transit, the only alternative to a bike-and-transit trip might be private automobile use--exactly the sort of thing it is your agency's mission to reduce. Bicyclists aren't likely to be any different from other commuters (motorvehiclists or transit-only riders) with respect to their predominant times of work and direction of travel. So why should they be treated any less favourably than other transit users? Certainly a bicyclist should not be treated worse than someone who burns gasoline in an already polluted metropolitan area to arrive at a park and ride or other train station/stop. I wonder how many bicycle commuters or would-be bicycle commuters who are otherwise beyond convenient access (geographically or because of RTD scheduling) to RTD routes at one or both ends of their commute end up driving motor vehicles to and from work because of your bicycle-unfriendly policies? [For those bicycle-and-transit commuters who might not need to take their bicycles on the trains because they are able to reach their destinations by transit--rather than needing to continue their trips by bicycle beyond the convenient reach/schedule of a transit route--do the park and ride stations have secure bicycle parking (i.e., bicycle lockers) available in proportionate numbers to the motor vehicle parking spaces provided at each of those locations? After all, the area occupied by a single motor vehicle parking space could accommodate at least three or four bicycle lockers, therefore serving many more transit users per land area devoted to park-and-ride. If you do not have them now, what are your plans for adding them as a way to achieve parity with the park-and-ride access you now provide for motorvehiclists?] Bicycle commuters and public transit utilities are both seeking the same goals--to reduce motor vehicle congestion and pollution. We need to work together in pursuing efficient and clean transportation. Banning bicyclists when access is most needed is contrary to that common goal and a cooperative spirit. > can be accommodated during peak hours if you are travelling in the opposite > direction of regular commuter traffic where much lighter passenger loads > will be experienced. > > I consulted our Light Rail department on this and they stated that > passengers would not be asked to exit the train, but they might be asked to > wait for the next train if there was a heavy passenger load. That rule is > to discourage passengers from attempting to load their bikes on an already > crowded train. In addition to the passenger safety concerns, a fellow > passenger could also step back and inadvertently damage the bicycle. This > rule simply means if an RTD official were to ask you to exit for safety's > sake, you should do so. The passenger should be able to board the next > Light Rail. This would be a very rare occurrence, as passengers are not > normally asked to deboard, although the train may fill up enroute. > > The webmaster also received the comments in your e-mail to him and forwarded > those to us at well. The webmaster only takes comments pertaining to the > website itself. Any other issues would be handled through Customer Service > on the forms provided. Thank you for your input. > > Karen Campbell > Customer Service Correspondent -- Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino NOTE: Please change your address books Madison by dropping the "earth" from the address! I can taste my beer; can you? Support your local craft brewers!
