On MARC Trains and Bikes
The Greater Greater Washington blog and The Baltimore Sun’s Getting There blog—both generally excellent regional transportation sites—have two recent posts up discussing the possibility of allowing bicycles on MARC trains. It’s an issue that doesn’t come up much because, I imagine, MARC’s incompatibility with bicycles is largely taken for granted at this point—or at the very least MARC’s overcrowding and general insufficiency is so taken for granted that encouraging new riders with cumbersome, awkward baggage isn’t much a priority. No matter the boon it could be for commuting in the region—not just Baltimore to Washington commuting, but other points in the MARC service area that might not have ace local transit systems—maybe we have bigger fish to fry, like getting longer trains, weekend service, comfortable cars, or locomotives that don’t break down, right?
Michael Dresser, author of Getting There, almost always takes a long, progressive view with regional transportation issues—he’s been speaking truth to the ICC project since the blog started—but, here, he argues against allowing bikes on trains:
As much as I like bikes and bicyclists, I’m skeptical. I tend to consider worst-case scenarios and I can’t help but think that having bicycles on a rail car such as the one above—without having a safe place to secure them—could be a real safety hazard in the case of a derailment. In a crowded car, they could become an obstruction; in an uncowded car, I can see them becoming a missile.
“Missile” might be a bit of an overstatement. This presumes the bike is unattended and sitting unrestrained in an aisle. Never mind that this overlooks other potential missiles—strollers, perhaps, or rolling luggage—but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this is how bicycles should be transported on the MARC. A scenario like that would really only need to happen during rush hour, when all rows and ADA spaces are certain to be full—and keeping bikes off of trains during rush hour seems reasonable (like Virginia Railway Express)—and also presumes that MARC wouldn’t do even a bare minimum to accommodate bicycles in terms of, well, making their transportation safe. Which isn’t much.
And, anyhow, the safety argument would seem to ignore that fact that Baltimore’s light rail and Metro, and Washington’s Metro, all allow bicycles on their trains at all times. He also fails to note that MARC—which, believe it or not, is not the most overcrowded, cash-starved train system in the country—is one of two commuter network’s in the country that has a blanket ban on bicycles. Which is unacceptable: There is nothing uniquely prohibitive about MARC trains.
At least two commuter-rail systems have dedicated bike cars—CalTrain, which actually often has two bike cars per train, Seattle’s Sounder—and many more have spaces set aside in cars for bike storage, usually just enough room for two or three. And other cities that do the bare minimum and allow bikes with no accommodations—Dallas and Nashville—let cyclists keep their steeds in ADA spaces with the stipulation they must leave the train if the space is needed for a handicapped rider. More, most systems across the country keep the crowding situation on trains in check with limits on the number of bikes allowed in each car and even the specific cars that allow bikes. Miami, for example, only allows bicycles in the last car of its trains. (Check out the Track Twenty-Nine blog for a full city-by-city run-down.)
As a solution to the bike-plus-transit commuting problem, Dresser makes this suggestion:
Instead, I would propose a solution employed by one gentleman of my acquaintance. He rides a bicycle to Penn Station and parks it there, takes the train down to Greenbelt, picks up a second bicycle that he keeps there and pedals to his workplace. Cost should not be a big issue for most riders. Anyone can pick up a used second bike for a fraction of the cost of a new one through the print or online classified ads. Rather than lobby to get bikes on trains, bicyclists ought to concentrate their efforts on getting safe, secure bike lockers at each station.
So, Dresser is suggesting that bicycle commuters purchase a second bike and rent a locker at their destination. It’s more of an onus than he makes it sound. Even a used bike is going to cost a few hundred dollars for something quality—and if you’re going any kind of distance, it’ll need to be of some quality—and renting a bike locker, assuming your destination has them, is also going to cost some coin. Keep in mind, too, that this second bike, once transported (somehow), to your destination is going to serve one and only purpose once there—getting you from the train station to work. Maybe you have to really like bikes to understand why that’s a problem, but it is.
Also, this presumes that you are a daily commuter, and don’t just ride once or twice a week to a destination, or maybe just need to get somewhere like a doctor’s office or any of the other myriad reasons people take the train that don’t involve an office and five days a week.
More than anything though, it seems like Dresser is taking a short, and regressive, view when it comes to bicycles on MARC. If getting around Maryland and Washington D.C. in a sane manner is to be at all sustainable, bike commuting needs to be an integral part. The whole buying-a-second-bike-and-keeping-it-in-a-locker is a work-around—and at this early stage in the United State’s return to sensible transportation (transit, bikes, walkable communities), work-arounds should not be permissible.
As the Greater Greater Washington post that kickstarted this whole discussion points out, the Maryland state legislature agrees. In 2000, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1260, which states simply that Maryland railroads, “SHALL ADOPT REGULATIONS TO FACILITATE THE TRANSPORTATION OF BICYCLES ON BOARD PASSENGER RAILROAD SERVICES.” In the post’s comments, there’s some disagreement related to case law as to what power that actually has—as in, MTA may not technically be doing something illegal in ignoring the bill, but can still be penalized by the state in non-judiciary ways—but there’s no question to the law’s intent.
Of course, if MTA were to concede to the assembly, it has every right to look to the assembly for funds to make bike access happen—which is, one can imagine, why lawmakers haven’t followed up in the nine years since the bill’s passage.
MTA and The Sun Are Still Wrong About MARC and Bikes
City Paper, Dec. 28 2009
The Baltimore Sun’s Getting There blog posted a response from the Maryland Transit Authority to all the hullabaloo about bikes not being allowed on MARC trains generated by a Greater Greater Washington post a couple of weeks ago. No surprise, but it’s not exactly satisfying.
The MTA’s Henry M. Kay notes in the Sun post that MARC’s Penn line is the fastest commuter railway in the nation. But it’s also worth noting that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s regional trains, which do allow bikes, hit a top speed of at least 100 MPH, nipping at MARC’s 100-plus-MPH heels. In any case, the solution MTA studied was removing two rows of seats for bike stowage—which, heavens, would take away seating for four passengers. Without explanation, Kay says the two rows would be per car, but it only seems necessary to have perhaps two or so cars per train with bike capacity, as do many other commuter rail systems in the country.
Kay is really only explaining Penn Line rush hour trains, however, in his response. And, again, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that allowing bikes on Penn Line rush hour trains is a good idea. What about non-rush hour trains when rows of seats are sitting empty, or far lower-speed and lower-capacity Camden and Frederick line trains? In fact, just allowing bikes on those lines seems an easy stopgap solution—and neither the MTA nor Getting There columnist/blogger Michael Dresser have come up with a reason, good or not, for not allowing them on those trains. One suspects there just isn’t one. As I mentioned before, bicycles are a rapidly growing part of commuting habits and, sorry, buying a second bike, transporting it somehow to your destination, and stowing it there full-time is not a solution.
Tags: City Paper, cycling, greater greater washington, marc, transit politic