Dallas placing new focus on bicycles as commuting alternative

Andrew Laska, says:

I greatly admire TG. That said, I have to disagree being a rider who uses the train to go from a suburban location to downtown almost everyday.

Let me address these points: 1) A person certainly has to carry their bike onto the train and move it to the open portions of the end of the train. However, I've not often seen this as all that difficult. I've seen it cause no more trouble than someone carrying luggage. It certainly would become a problem if there were masses of bikes brought on board but at this time there is no problem.

2) That there is no alloted space is a matter of opinion. There is a huge gap between the first seats and the door at the end of the train where. That gap seems to work fine. As for the comment about competition, I've seen very little overage of women with strollers, wheelchairs, and bicycles. For all the times I've seen at least one of those on a train (which is frequent) I've maybe seen two occasions where it was too crowded because of bikes, stroller, wheelchairs and so on.

3) This point makes no sense as all the trains are the same. As long as the person doesn't try to bring it in the middle door everything will be fine. There is no "most trains." There is all or none.

4) Most suburban stations have bike lockers so they are covered by default. A commuter going to a destination like downtown (which seems to be a the biggest destination for suburban commuters) would take their bike to their jobs and therefore wouldn't need lockers. Further, if DART expands bike lockers and racks (as the story indicates) then the complaints about not having enough room on trains themselves is nullified.

Austin has had bike carriers on buses for years and it seems to work great. It seems DART is taking this step.

Andrew

Brett Hoerner, says:

What time do you ride the rail, Andrew?

I think in regards to (1) and especially (3) she's talking about different 'trains' meaning each specific one at a specific time (they are very different beasts). The 7 am or 8 am train is going to be a LOT more busy than the other trains...

Montgomery Sutton, says:

It's certainly going to take a lot of work to get the bicycle facilities to where they need to be, but I'm glad for each step along the way.

I'm living in Paris through the end of the year, and would love to see Dallas--some ways down the line; probably wouldn't make sense for at least another decade--employ some variation on the theme of the Velib system now running here. Especially with these past couple of Metro strikes, the Velibs have really helped to curb the chaos.

Any thoughts on whether such a system would be practical in Dallas anytime in the next quarter century?

John McClelland, says:

DART should also be looking into providing more park and ride facilities.

Andrew Laska, says:

Brett,

I ride in the 7AMish time frame.

Monty,

By Velibs I assume you mean the rental bicycle system? I don't see that on any transit planning horizon. I've seen that effort in Paris and it is impressive.

One thing we are seeing in the Dallas area is a strong effort of trail connections. "Trail" is a misnomer. What they mean is a series of interconnected paved byways which is separate but overlaying the urban areas. For example, some might follow DART rail right of ways or large scale electric utility easements. This will make is possible to travel long distances without traveling on surface streets (or very little.) Its going to take years but pieces are coming together.

Andrew

Pavel Lishin, says:

More "trail" connections would be pretty great. As it is, I absolutely hate riding on the street - I have zero faith in my fellow man not to doze off / answer a phone / sip a latte / put on make-up without smearing me into the curb. And sidewalks around where I live frequently just sort of stop randomly for no good reason.

Scott Doyle, says:

Pavel, you work a 5-minute bike ride from your apartment.

I concur with John McClelland on this one. Anybody know if there's any steps being taken to improve the option which the vast majority of people would actually use?

Pavel Lishin, says:

That doesn't mean I don't want to bike around town without shivering every time a car passes me.

Montgomery Sutton, says:

I usually ride without a helmet, and have yet to be harrassed.

I do agree, though, that while the bike trails are great we really need an increase in bike lanes along the roads. Seems to me those can be defined much more quickly than building entire biking/jogging paths, and they're going to make adding bikes into the normal transit mix even easier.

That said, I do think there is the potential for the trail system to become in essence the "highway" for bicyclers in DFW. But as far as the most practical purpose of bikes in commuting--taking your bike to the nearest mass transit station--bike lanes are infinitely more practical and important.

Andrew Laska, says:

Re: Trails.

Clay said,"Commuters don't really ride on bike 'trails.'"

Comments like these show why a lot of education needs to be done.

Of course, it wouldn't be the favored now because the interconnecting system isn't in place yet. Nor would it mean that cyclists would never ride a surface street.

Consider this, if you wanted to ride to work, and your choices were these:

100% Dallas area surface streets, OR 50% trails and 50% surface streets with possibly reducing overall distance and reducing encounters with intersections which would you take?

Monty said, "we really need an increase in bike lanes along the roads." Actually in many (perhaps most) cases this might not be easier. It requires diving into complex issues dealing with transportation and street policy. If a road needs to be widened then land must be acquired. This doesn't solve the problems of major intersections. You might run into federal and state legal issues. With lanes the cyclists are exposed to traffic, the lanes require more maintenance, and they are mostly single use whereas the paths promote multi-uses. Lanes are likely more expensive but I don't know that for sure.

There is a known need to increase bike lanes amongst some municipal leaders. During the last May election, I was running around to various precinct polling places. I ran into a particular rather conservative politician while hanging out outside. It was slow and a few people were around chatting. He looked up and down the road and completely out of context in any jabbering that was going on he said, "We really need a bike lane on this street." It shows to me that some leaders are paying attention.

Andrew

James Scott, says:

I completely Agree with Andrew...I have never commuted to work, as this would involve a death-ride down Northwest Highway and the Tollway (possibly Inwood as a substitute for the Tollway, but I'm not taking any chances). It's about a 13 mile drive, which I could see increasing to around 15-20 with an alternative bike route - if there were such a thing. And if there were, I could conceivably imagine riding it as an alternative to driving. Otherwise, there's no way I would ever everyday ride on a busy street (with or without bike lanes).

Pavel Lishin, says:

Heh, rush hour is the safest time to ride - it's like biking through a parking lot.

Pavel Lishin, says:

I'll be dead and cold in the ground when I start biking on the road with cars while there's an empty side walk right next to me - probably because some jerk hit me. My thinking is as follows: 1. On average, there's less chance for injury if i hit a guy while on my bike than if a car hits me while I'm on my bike. 2. As bear pointed out, people in cars don't know anything about bikes. Hell, people have honked at me before and I've nearly gone tumbling into a ditch from the surprise of it. 3. I love living.

Pavel Lishin, says:

Why is it that much more dangerous? Because there's more stuff I can run into?