I've been harping on this point for years, perhaps because I have personal experience with it, but Metro needs to allow bikes on sparsely-used reverse commute trains during rush hour.
Currently, full sized bikes are banned during the rush hours of 7-10 a.m. and 4-7 p.m everywhere in every direction. This is an improvement over the older policy of requiring licenses to take your bike on Metro or a no-bikes ban, but Metro is still leaving cyclists out of the system and money on the table.
When I ride from Potomac Avenue to New Carrolton in the morning, my train is so empty that I never have to sit next to anyone. Most of the traffic in that direction got off at Capitol South. Despite all of the available space, if I want to take a full sized bike, I can't. Some cyclists have expressed frustration with the policy that has either driven them to buy a folding bike, just skip Metro and bike the whole way, or drive the whole way. And they're not alone in finding this to be costly, inconvenient and bad policy. When Metro had a public workshop on bicycle facilities at stations, the rush hour restriction was the number one thing people wanted to talk about (even though policy changes were not part of the review).
Metro could develop a more nuanced policy. They could allow cyclists to use only certain stations and only go in certain directions. San Francisco limits the stations and lines (highlighted on the schedule here) bikes can use, but it's not a wholesale ban. They also have a rule that "Bikes are never allowed on crowded trains...Use your best judgment." LA used to allow bikes, but reserved the right to turn cyclists away when trains were crowded. Since then they've decided to always allow bikes, but only on the last car of the train. This is the same policy that Dallas has on its light rail. Certainly, if these systems can do it, Metro can make it work.
Allowing reverse commutes on Metro has become more important than rush-direction commuters, because cyclists coming into the city in the morning can, in most cases, grab a CaBi; thereby negating some of the need to bring a bike along. If Metro upgrades its storage and parking to make it secure as it plans to, it will be easy for someone to bike to a suburban station, ride metro and finish the trip with a CaBi. In the reverse direction that's a bit less convenient, as it would require leaving a bike parked at the suburban station at night and on weekends - which means getting a second bike.
Metro should at least start a pilot program on one line to see if it will work. Try it for a year. See if people cheat (enter at one of the allowed stations and then go the wrong way). Maybe they could have strict enforcement at the first "No Bike" station on the line. For example on the eastern orange line they can place a Metro police officer on the platform who looks for bikes when the train comes in to Capitol South. If she sees one, she pulls the scofflaw off the train, writes them a good $150 ticket and makes them get on a train going the other way. I would have no problem with that. There is a way to make the system work.
This would benefit reverse commute cyclists as well as Metro. Increasing ridership doesn't make Metro money if they have to add more cars or service, but when they fill deadhead space it does. Furthermore, Tony Mendoza, DART's senior manager for consumer programs said this
"All the literature we're reading indicates that if an agency is bicycle-friendly, ridership will grow," Mr. Mendoza said.
My biggest complaint is that they haven't tried and so we don't know what it will do. Maybe this change is ranked too high (I mean the CCT/MBT improvement will help cyclists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year). I don't know how many users we're talking about. But if it's only a few, then it won't overwhelm the system. If it's a lot, then they're missing out on a lot of business.
While they're at it, on the 4th of July, they should allow bikes on before 5pm.
Photo by Daquella manera
Not $150 but just $20 would suffice. In other words, we can remind people without harming them.
Posted by: Jack33w | December 20, 2010 at 09:05 AM
I brought this up with WABA a few years ago and they said this was an extremely low priority, in that it would take a lot of effort to get done and would help relatively few people, and besides I could just buy a folding bike. Which I did end up doing, grudgingly. I can definitely see that perspective and I can't really say where to prioritize this for the region, but personally I think this is very important and it would be among the very top improvements I could hope for.
Posted by: Tim H | December 20, 2010 at 09:12 AM
I used to be a regular bike commuter with the same problem: I would try to get on at Dunn Loring going into the city in the evening and would be forced to wait outside the turnstiles as empty train after empty train rolled through the station going back into DC. I'm a curtious commuter who would follow a sensible rule like the one proposed in this article. I'm also a big proponent of public transportation, so it makes me wonder how many potential metro riders are being turned away?
Posted by: Ben | December 20, 2010 at 09:42 AM
Yes, this would be great! In my case, the rush hour restrictions (btwn Foggy Bottom & Vienna) have meant more driving, even though the trains are mostly empty btwn Rosslyn and Vienna.
Posted by: jj | December 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Metro is incredibly bureaucratic and they need to be more flexible.
Posted by: w | December 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM
I can understand Metro's concern with crowded trains and blocked exits. But why do they specifically single out bikes? Wheelchairs, baby SUVs, and huge luggage containers all cause the same problem.
Of course we wouldn't exclude anyone based on those so why such a hard line on bikes?
I think a good first step would be to shrink the hours that bikes are banned from rush to peak of peak.
Also - the bike problem could be easily solved just by adding so hooks by the doors. Then the cyclist could hang the bike vertically so that it is out of the way.
Posted by: JeffB | December 20, 2010 at 01:19 PM
JeffB, I think making an exception for wheelchairs and, to a lessor degree, strollers makes sense. But bikes really are comparable to luggage. I guess the main idea is that a bike takes up space that could be used by a paying passenger. Which makes sense to me. Of course, Metro always claims it's a safety concern, which is ridiculous. Once I heard them talk about the comfort of customers, which at least is more believable, but in general I think it's about revenue and as such that is a legitimate Metro concern. Even a hook doesn't solve that.
If revenue really is the main concern, I wonder if bike commuters would be willing to pay a fee to bring their bike on during rush hour. An annual fee perhaps? I probably would. At $250 (or about $1 a day) it would be only slightly more than renting a locker and you have your bike with you at all times. Just a thought.
Posted by: washcycle | December 20, 2010 at 10:04 PM
The reverse commute does not crowd out anyone so the fee seems unnecessary for revenue purposes for a reverse commute.
Another reason for reverse commutes is that alot of suburban employment centers are a 10-15 minute bike ride to a Metro, whereas in the city is might be a 10-15 minute walk.
Using the Orange Line to New Carollton as an example, I'd say that the really easy step is to allow bikes on at New Carollton starting at 6:00 provided they exit at RFK. Most will honor the terms, given the penalty of going beyond (I'd say the fee might be somewhere between an HOV violation and a parking in handicap space). But the few who don't can cause too much mischief because they are unlikely to go Metro Center before 6:35 anyway.
Similarly, RFK might allow bikes until 7:45 AM for Eastbound trains--a 7:00 AM cyclist from Shady Grove might arrive around that point anyway.
Posted by: Jim Titus | December 21, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Prohibiting wheelchairs is an ADA no-no. Lots of lawsuits there. Generally, I think families get an extra nod. If you really want people to rely on Metro, then parents need to take the kid places and carrying them is often not a serious option.
Luggage and bikes are somewhat comparable. So I think that the average bike takes up more space -- volume and floor space --than the typical piece of luggage there are exceptions. I've heard the complaint that oily chains distinguishes the two and the wheels of a bike tend to get dirty and are much easier to bump into than say luggage wheels.
Nonetheless, I think WC has an excellent point about reverse commutes. The only potential hitch is enforcement.
Posted by: Geof Gee | December 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM