Bicycling
MARC should (and must) allow bikes
Maryland's MARC commuter rail system is one of only two in the nation with a blanket ban on non-folding bicycles. The only other commuter rail line with a total bike ban is the South Shore Line between South Bend, Indiana and Chicago operated by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District.
Photo by richardmasoner on Flickr
The Maryland Transit Administration, which operates MARC, cites safety and a lack of storage areas as reasons for keeping bikes off of trains. However, the fact that 20 other commuter rail operators, many using the same rolling stock as MARC, allow bikes on board would suggest that MTA should be able to determine reasonable standards.
In fact, they have a legal obligation to do so, but have not. In the 2000 legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 1260, which required that "The [Maryland Transit] Administration shall adopt regulations to facilitate the transportation of bicycles on board passenger railroad services." The reference to "passenger railroad services" indicates that the law is binding on the commuter services taken over from B&O and Amtrak by the state This bill became part of the Maryland Code of Regulations, Title: Transportation §7-902 (f). House Bill 1260 was passed by the House of Delegates and Senate without dissent in either chamber. The Governor signed it on May 18 and it became law over nine years ago on October 1, 2000. Yet even today, bikes are prohibited on all MARC trains.
At some level, this is understandable. After all, some MARC trains are already running standing room only. But then, so are trains on Metro North and the Long Island Railroad in New York and on Metra outside Chicago.
Nothing in Maryland law, including HB 1260, requires that MTA allow bikes on all trains. They could easily adopt a policy like Metra's, which prohibits bikes on any train terminating in Chicago during the morning rush or departing Chicago during the afternoon rush. SEPTA, in Philadelphia, bars bikes on all trains during rush hours, but allows them at all other times. Within our own region, VRE specifies certain trains where bikes are permissible, which gives cyclists some flexibility to take the train, even in rush hour.
And of course, we have to consider crowding out other users. But that's a factor on other systems as well. The Long Island Railroad limits the total number of bikes to 4 on each train (2 at each end of the train). Dallas' Trinity Railway Express doesn't put a specific limit on capacity, but bikes have to fit in the area reserved for wheelchair users. And if a person needing that space boards, bikers have to vacate it and wait for the next train.
Some operators take quite the opposite approach than does MTA. Caltrain, operating in the Bay Area, runs each train with a "Bike Car." This means that there is at a minimum room for 40 bikes. In Salt Lake City, the UTA is looking for ways to increase bike capacity, including removing seats. Neither of these agencies ban bikes during rush hours, either.
It would not be difficult for MARC to specify in the schedule certain trains which would allow bikes. They could bar bikes during rush hours, as Metro does, or allow them on reverse commute trains only. A more proactive approach would be to add a bike car to trains. Or short of that, allow two cyclists per car. Even two cyclists per train (VRE's limit) would be a step in the right direction.
Bikes needn't compromise safety either. Many agencies require that bikers use tie-downs to secure their cycles. Others require bikers have a permit. Although none in the United States do, some transit operators abroad charge bikers extra to bring their bikes along.
Not every MARC train runs full. With cycling becoming ever more popular, providing a rail link between Washington, Baltimore, and the suburbs would improve mobility for those who cannot walk to MARC. A blanket ban on bikes fails to leverage some of the empty space on trains. And encouraging cycles might alleviate parking crushes at some stations. MTA should follow the example of other commuter rail operators because it's the right thing to do and because it's also the law.
Matt Johnson has lived in the Washington region since mid-2007. He has a Master's degree in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a BS in Public Policy from Georgia Tech. He has worked in the planning field since 2006 and lives in Greenbelt, where he serves on the city's Advisory Planning Board. 
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
One thing to consider is not all MARC stations have raised platforms. I suspect it would be difficult to carry a bike up those steps, then make a turn into the cabin. How do the other rail lines do it with low platforms?
by Erik on Dec 9, 2009 12:26 pm • link • report
by Jason on Dec 9, 2009 12:32 pm • link • report
by neff on Dec 9, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report
For more information on how other transit agencies cope with bikes, see: http://tracktwentynine.blogspot.com/2009/12/transit-tuesday-bikes-on-board.html.
NJ Transit does limit bike boarding to high-platform stations only. None of the other commuter rail operators do so, however Pittsburgh's LRT also bars bikes from boarding at low-platform stops.
by Matt Johnson on Dec 9, 2009 12:36 pm • link • report
However, I don't believe there is space on MARC's Kawasaki cars
by Davin Peterson on Dec 9, 2009 12:43 pm • link • report
Bikes always compromise ped. safety? I walk a lot through DC and GMU (where I go to school and there are a fair amount of bikes and even more peds.) and have honestly never had a problem with anyone on a bike while I was on foot. And is a train a pedestrian space? It seems like a train is a space for train riders whether they have a bike with them or not.
by Canaan on Dec 9, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report
by Jason on Dec 9, 2009 12:56 pm • link • report
boo gaithersburg city council.
by jared hautamaki on Dec 9, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report
I ride 2 different MARC lines for my commute and have seen people with folding bikes many times, and they're usually kept in the vestibules. There's already this really enclosed nice place at Union Station to park your bicycle during the day as well as bicycle lockers at some stations. Contrary to your incorrect statement "not every MARC train runs full," nearly all rush hour MARC trains are already very, very crowded and I can't possibly see how bikes could fit on either MARC's bilevels or single levels. On the Penn Line lots of people are forced to stand.
Good for VRE that they have space for bikes. They don't have the overcrowding issues that MARC does. Plus, they just ordered brand new cars. Is the MTA/MARC supposed to order some brand new cars @ $2mil a piece just to allow bikes on board? From what I've heard and haven ridden on a few MARC has of the same type, VRE's older gallery cars (which they still operate) are pieces of sh*t, and not having room for bikes were the least of their probelms.
If you've ridden Metro-North or LIRR, like I have may, many times there is plenty of space for bikes because of the design of their equipment (which are kind of like Metro cars). They have all high platforms, large door openings on the newer M7's and much larger open area in front of the doors since they don't board in vestibules. Metra operates the same type of cars as VRE. Most other systems use low-floor Bombardier bilevels which like the MNR/LIRR cars provide a lot of space in front of the doors, since they also don't board in vestibules.
Sure MARC could allow bicycles off-peak and on the weekend, but they still don't operate on the weekend (thanks to Amtrak) and have limited off-peak service (none on 2 of the 3 lines).
by King Terrapin on Dec 9, 2009 1:38 pm • link • report
boo gaithersburg city council.
---
it prob takes a grand total of 30 sec. to walk to the free parking garage from the train station. How is that inconvenient?
by King Terrapin on Dec 9, 2009 1:41 pm • link • report
by bko on Dec 9, 2009 1:47 pm • link • report
So, -1 for saying "it's the law" when it's really not. And -1 for not knowing how legislative interpretation works. And -2 for recounting the legislative history in the 4th and 5th paragraphs, but not knowing what it actually means.
by Fritz on Dec 9, 2009 2:00 pm • link • report
it's generally no problem loading your bike on the train. the steps are big-ish, but every type of person does it -- tall or short, whatever.
all that said, the fight to get caltrain to do *anything* about bikes was a years-long process, and you should have heard the stories about people getting 'bumped' -- left at some desolate station in the middle of the night, scared to death, etc. -- heart-braking and infuriating -- made you want to get up and speak truth to power. i have a feeling that personal letters to elected representatives finally helped.
my advice? keep hammering. keep pushing the multi-modal/livability thing. everyone has a stake in seeing bikes-on-board. that means pulling in the pedestrian people, and other transit-advocate types. you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. we simply have to start working together more. it was too easy for Caltrain to ignore 'the dirty/hippie bikers', imo -- even if their class level in society was tops.
and, look into kick scooters, like xootr. fold it up, ready to go! :)
by Peter Smith on Dec 9, 2009 2:01 pm • link • report
by Anna on Dec 9, 2009 2:09 pm • link • report
by BeyondDC on Dec 9, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report
by Gavin Baker on Dec 9, 2009 2:29 pm • link • report
by J on Dec 9, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report
Boo Gaitherburg City Council + King Terrapin.
by Jared Hautamaki on Dec 9, 2009 4:27 pm • link • report
Boo Gaitherburg City Council + King Terrapin.
------------------------------
I figured you were, but what about cyclists coming from that direction (MD 355/parking garage). Hardly anyboody even uses the tiny parking lot at the station. Most people use the garage, so it would make sense to put the bike lockers there too.
by King Terappin on Dec 9, 2009 6:54 pm • link • report
Allowing bicycles is a proven revenue generator for public transportation.
by Phillly Bicycle Coalition on Dec 9, 2009 9:55 pm • link • report
As for bikes on trains, where exactly are they supposed to fit? For peak trains, this is flat-out impossible. There is barely enough room for people on these trains. Off peak trains COULD do this, possibly, but again, where would they go? MARC's railcars weren't designed with bikes in mind. And I highly doubt the MTA wants to spend money on new railcars just so a few people can get their bikes on board. And since there's bike spaces available at many stations, what need is there for you to take your bike on the train with you?
by Justin..... on Dec 10, 2009 12:33 am • link • report
Many commuter rail operators specify that bikes are to be placed in the ADA-accessible areas of the car. MARC has these, and bikes could easily be kept there.
Commuter rail providers almost uniformly require that bikers leave the train or move to another car if a wheelchair user or other disabled rider needs the ADA area.
by Matt Johnson on Dec 10, 2009 10:12 am • link • report
If you are like me needs to shed some weight biking will be perfect since you donÂ’t need that much effort in doing your daily routine biking exercise. Just have 30 minutes of biking around your area it will have some effect on your weight loss.
by Carrera Bike on Dec 10, 2009 11:35 am • link • report
@Matt. Have you ridden a rush-hour MARC train? People are sitting and standing in ADA areas. The ADA space on a single level car is barely large enough to accomodate a bike. There's more space on the "middle level" on the bilevels but passengers crowd that space during the rush. Yes, you could allow bikes off-peak (which only applies to the Penn Line), but is it really worth it?
by King Terrapin on Dec 10, 2009 11:48 am • link • report
The MTA is clearly violating both the letter and spirit of the law adopted by the General Assembly in 2000.
Mr. Johnson is spot on; the MTA is violating the letter of law. According to the Maryland Style Manual for Statutory Law, "shall" is used to state a requirement or duty. Therefore, a statute that says the MTA "shall adopt regulations to facilitate the transportation of bicycles on board passenger railroad services" requires them to do just that. Not adopting any regulations at all does not meet the letter of the law.
(Even if there is case law that case law relegates "shall" to being discretionary, it still violates the stated intention of the General Assembly that passed it and the Governor who signed the bill into law.)
If you're going to be picky about it, you should know better than to say the General Assembly could adopt its own regulations. The General Assembly can change statutes, but can't adopt or amend regulations.
Mr. Johnson did make a minor error in identifying the relevant provision of law. The provision he cites is Section 7-902(f) of the Annotated Code of Maryland, not the Code of Maryland Regulations. The Code of Maryland Regulations is a compilation of administrative regulations that the General Assembly cannot change.
If you really want to pick nits, once HB 1260 was signed by Governor Glendening it became Chapter 684, Acts of 2000, and lost its House bill number.
My score: Fritz -3, Johnson 1
by Stanton Park on Dec 10, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report
Section 7-902(f) of the Transportation Article, Annotated Code of Maryland
by Stanton Park on Dec 10, 2009 12:22 pm • link • report
I would appreciate seeing some of the caselaw that you believe supports the proposition that an administrative agency can, based on its own independent policy judgment, choose to disregard a directed rulemaking. It would surprise me to learn that Maryland courts have held that the agency can pick and choose which statutes they must follow. I'm not necessarily saying that you are wrong, but I suspect that you are.
Moreover, I think that an agency would have a tough time justifying such an action based upon a factual determination that it is "impossible" to safely store bikes on a train. MTA could, of course, dedicate one car on each train solely to bicycle storage. That might not be a good policy option, but the rejection of such an option would be an exercise of policy judgment by the agency not the natural consequence of impossibility.
Again, you might be right, but that sounds nutty to me.
by todd on Dec 10, 2009 12:44 pm • link • report
@Standton: You may be correct; I thought MD legislature could issue regulations; perhaps it's can't. But it can say that unless MTA issues regulations, it will hold back funding. As far as I know, it hasn't done that in 9 years. Which, in my mind, makes me wonder how important an issue this is to the Md state government.
by Fritz on Dec 10, 2009 4:55 pm • link • report
But even if they did, no federal case I am aware of recognizes the authority of administrative agencies to refuse to issue regulations when Congress has explicitly instructed them to do so (i.e. did not vest the agency with discretion to decide whether to regulate). In particular, the SUWA case was premised on the notion that the BLM had exercised its properly-delegated (from Congress) discretion not to manage lands in a certain way. The fact that Congress had vested the agency was discretion was key in that opinion. Same with Webster v. DOE and other cases.
I'm not sure why you think that Mass. v. EPA supports the position that an agency can disobey a directed rulemaking statute enacted by the legislature. I read Justice Stevens' opinion completely the other way.
If federal procedure law governed the MTA matter and if the MD legislature directed MTA to consider "adopt[ing] regulations to facilitate the transportation of bicycles on board passenger railroad services" (or used similar language vesting the agency with discretion re whether to facilitate the transportation of bikes on trains), then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Barring some other legislative language explicitly vesting MTA with discretion, I agree with Matt Johnson on this one.
by todd on Dec 11, 2009 10:08 am • link • report
"The Administration shall adopt regulations to facilitate the transportation of bicycles on board passenger railroad services"
by Anna on Dec 11, 2009 2:39 pm • link • report
If the law said "regulations concerning the transportation of bicycles" then I agree that the regulations could simply say "no bikes." But it says "facilitate." They should still be able to restrict the bikes to certain trains or otherwise put reasonable limits on, but not simply to ban them entirely.
by David Alpert on Dec 11, 2009 2:42 pm • link • report
by Miriam on Dec 11, 2009 3:49 pm • link • report
by Anna on Dec 11, 2009 3:53 pm • link • report
I have ridden on 2 MARC lines for substantial periods. the Brunswick and the Penn. I have been on the Camden for a handful of rides. On the Brunswick and camden lines non-folding bikes are simply not feasible on the single level cars that operate on those lines. I have seen people with non-folding bikes get on them and the only place to keep the bike is literally in the aisle. Tell me thats not a safety hazard. Even folding bikes that I have seen on these single level cars do not fit in the over head storage and are thus placed on the seat next to the bike riding commuter, taking up a seat that could be used by an animate being. Similar issues exist on the older double decker cars that run on the Brunswick line.
On the newer double decker cars that operate mostly on the penn line, but also on the other lines, there is a limited amount of room to place a non-folding bike. This space is also used by wheelchairs, luggage (since the penn line goes to BWI) and standing people. Folding bikes can and are placed in the open storage are immediately inside the train door.
It seems to me to be a very arrogant statement to say, "accommodate my bike," on a system that is under-subsidized and ran several cars short during rush hour this summer because of repairs, and has a lack of fully working engines. If a biker feels that strongly, they could use a bike locker to store one bike at their station and another at their destination station. You can get a used bike cheap in the classifieds. Also Union Station just opened a huge new bike storage/rental facility.
Speaking of laws that folks must abide by. I think that bikers are also supposed to obey traffic laws and signals. But they don't. If you experienced this then I suggest you take more walks in DC, especially around Capitol Hill, where I have learned to always take an extra look when the walk sign appears at a crosswalk, because the cars have the more courteous drivers. Its the bikes that run you over.
by Marc Rider on Dec 14, 2009 12:27 pm • link • report
by Marc Rider on Dec 14, 2009 12:32 pm • link • report
by Ray on Dec 15, 2009 8:27 pm • link • report
There are many problems and innacuracies in your post:
1. having MARC strip cars just for bikes wouldn't make any sense, for about 100 different reasons including the fact that the old cars aren't used anymore for a reason (maintenance, cost, safety, compatibility with other cars etc.)
2. Once again NYC and Chicago (the 1st and 3rd most populated cities) are being compared to DC. Also, MARC may have the midday schedules of these trains at rush hour(which in fact they don't, since MARC runs every 10-20 min in rush, and I know for a fact that NJT, MNR, LIRR run at 1 hour intervals during the day), but they have more packed trains, specifically on the Penn Line.
3. MARC does not use the same cars as Chicago. Chicago (and VRE) uses bilevel "gallery" cars which are a totally different configuraion than the conventional (and more comfortable) bilevels MARC uses. MARC in fact does actually use a handful of gallery cars (obtained from Chicago's Metra) but just on 2 Brunswick Line trainsets, and those can't accomodate bicycles (the newer ones used in Chicago can).
4. While Boston does use older versions of MARC's Kawasaki bilevels the single level cars are different (neither uses Pullmans though).
by King Terrapin on Dec 15, 2009 9:21 pm • link • report
by Josh on Dec 15, 2009 11:50 pm • link • report
if you are coming from Cumberland then you are riding the Brunswick line which is like the red headed stepchild of the Marc system They do indeed use some old Chicago gallery cars, but they are not the norm on the Marc system as a whole, which has the newer bi level cars. The Brunswick line also does not have as much crowding, which occurs primarily on the Penn line, and does not run reverse or midday schedules because there isn't as much demand on those lines. That in mind, comparing that experience to NYC or Chicago isn't just like comparing apples to oranges, its like comparing apples to kangaroos.
by Marc Rider on Dec 16, 2009 9:43 am • link • report
by Ray on Dec 16, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report
by Marc Rider on Dec 16, 2009 5:11 pm • link • report
by ray on Dec 17, 2009 1:12 pm • link • report
Why are you so pissed off about not having bikes on MARC? The guy who wrote this article is clearly uninformed since, as everyone else here has said, there is no space for bikes on MARC trains during rush hour, and they only operate (frequent) midday trains on the Penn Line. I ride the MARC Brunswick Line and by time we get to Silver Spring out of DC there are numerous people in the aisles standing. MARC is a victim of its own success and has seen rapidly increasing rideship and as a result, packed trains. The last thing they need is to be taking up space with bikes. I think bikes should be allowed on trains (and folding bikes are on MARC), but it's not that big of a deal. Regardless of what the law says, and I'm pretty sure the MTA isn't breaking the law here, it's impractical to have bikes on MARC's current equipment.
VRE has less than half the ridership of MARC and uses a totally different seating scheme in their gallery cars, which actually suck for passengers. They don't even use high platforms at all, while MARC and the other Northeast railroads do.
by Dan on Dec 17, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report
by Ray on Dec 18, 2009 12:11 am • link • report
"A bicycle whose frame folds and the wheels
come together is permitted on MARC Train. The
preferred method of transporting a folded bicycle
on MARC Train is in a case. Stow folded bicycles
so that passenger aisles are kept unobstructed.
Folded bicycles are not permitted to be stowed in
overhead storage bins. Extreme care must be
taken when entering or exiting MARC Train with
a bicycle from or onto a low platform. "
You are going to have some trouble with your goal of calling them "to the floor" when MARC will be able to say that this is their policy and that it was created in accordance with the law that was stated above, considering existing space and the safety of other passengers. They have done what they law required them to do.
As for disability, I'm sorry for the stress this puts you under, but I really don't think its going to fly in court. MARC has other accessibility issues such as low platforms and the 100 stairs you have to go up and down at the Halethorpe station in order to cross the tracks. Seems like the steps would get them "called to the floor" faster than your bike issue, but they haven't. You aren't going to get anywhere saying that MARC isn't accommodating YOUR bike, when they have really tried. They have lockers and they allow foldups.
by Marc Rider on Dec 18, 2009 9:26 am • link • report
by Ray on Dec 18, 2009 1:50 pm • link • report
by Marc Rider on Dec 22, 2009 10:39 am • link • report
Add a Comment