Something that missed my own editing: I don't agree that there aren't places to put more racks outside of the station. I took a photo of where more racks could go. My mistake.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 28, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report

CTA in Chicago offers some bike parking inside the turnstiles:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/2854195763/

by WH on Oct 28, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report

Why Metro wont get serious about improved bicycle parking as a cheap way to increase access is a mystery.

by ccort on Oct 28, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report

Well, I can sort of understand WMATA's position: adding more bike racks insn't going to add to the total ridership; it just shifts people who would walk, kiss n'ride, or take the bus to taking a bike.

And "inexpensive" bike racks might be, once WMATA finishes with them, 50 or 100K.

Can the County partner up with WMATA to install them? or local neighborhood?

The area you have identified inside the station, if I recall correctly, is past the gates. Is that an issue?

by charlie on Oct 28, 2010 12:43 pm • link • report

The indoor photo, above, shows a possible location for bike racks. The turnstiles and some railings/gates could be adjusted so that it is outside of the turnstiles, creating a bike parking area to the left of the gates and escalator that doesn't require one to carry their bike through the turnstiles at rush hour.

The parking issue is a big deal. Approximately 50% of the cars are from residents living within two miles, and 22% of cars drive only up to one mile? The cars can hardly get warmed up with that kind of commute! That is an outrage. It would never happen, of course, but I would love to see a parking license system, granting favored parking status (60% of the spots?) to cars with a parking license awarded to applicants based on location. (Live less than two miles from the Metro, along a bus line that goes straight to the Metro? You don't get a license. Live 3 miles away? You get a license. Have a disabled license plate? You get a license. Live 8 blocks away? Walk.)

by Chris on Oct 28, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

@charlie: how do you figure it wouldn't increase ridership? if the person riding their bike used to drive and park, now that parking space is opened up to someone else. If there are more racks, maybe people will shift from kiss and ride to cycling, and maybe people for whom it's a long walk would ride. It increases the effective range of the station and the number of people that can use it. That's gotta increase ridership. Think about the opposite, if we took racks away wouldn't that reduce ridership, or would everyone suddenly start walking or getting dropped off?

I'm working with the county to see if Arlington can fund purchasing the racks. They're not terribly expensive and installation is basically placement (no permanent modifications needed) for the style used at Eastern Market.

As far as racks inside the paid area go, BART and apparently CTA do it.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 28, 2010 1:12 pm • link • report

@Charlie

I lived near the EFC metro for 2-1/2 years, about 1 mile from the station entrance. I wanted to walk to the Metro all the time, but if I was running a couple of minutes late, (which was about 3 times a week), I'd just drive all the way into D.C. instead.

If I had seen biking to the metro station as a viable option, which it would be, saving me 7-8 minutes each way, that would have saved me a lot of car trips in those two years.

Of course, if the new EFC development adds a west entrance to the Metro, then the walk would have been much shorter for me, and it would have similarly encouraged me to take Metro rather than driving.

by Jacques on Oct 28, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report

Mperkins; you are assuming a bike rider is being replaced by a parked car. No evidence for that. I think we'd have to look the number of riders that are between 1-3 miles out and how they get there. How many racks are we talking about: 100? 200? Very marginal increase in usage.*

I don't use EFC during rush hours, and it doesn't seem very busy to me. I think the problem with the racks behind the gate is would that many bikes cause delays to enter thought the "wide" fat people gate. I don't think that should be a killer problem.

* I'm on thin ice here, because I remember making an argument that the reduction in parking spaces (100?) would impact revenue for the station for a bit. So maybe 100 new bike racks would help an underutilized station. That being said, my major point is given how bad parking is right now, the new racks would likely be substitute kiss n'ride or pedestrians, rather than new WMATA customers.

by charlie on Oct 28, 2010 1:23 pm • link • report

@Chris -- I could be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure that NJTransit used a similar system for parking permits at some of its stations. Because the demand (vastly) exceeded the supply, they would be distributed via lottery, where your odds were weighted against your distance from the station, with 5-10 miles being in the "sweet spot" that gave you the greatest probability of getting a space.

by andrew on Oct 28, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report

@Charlie -- That cost argument could be used against any action taken by WMATA. It's a dumb argument, and if you really care, you should advocate for practical actions that will reduce Metro's cost structures.

(It's like Chris Christie's argument that the ARC Tunnel would turn out just like Boston's criminally-mismanaged Big Dig project, and therefore all transit-related capital projects should be opposed.)

by andrew on Oct 28, 2010 1:39 pm • link • report

@ andrew; maybe I wasn't being clear; I brought up the cost in reference to WHO should install the racks. I suspect someone other than WMATA might be able to do it much cheaper. They are, after all, just bike racks.

by charlie on Oct 28, 2010 1:42 pm • link • report

Why not replace some of the parking spaces with bicycle parking? One parking space could 4 or 8 bicycles.

by Cullen on Oct 28, 2010 1:42 pm • link • report

charlie, I think it's highly unlikely that every new biker would merely be a former pedestrian/driver and that none of those drivers would be replaced. If the lot is full, that means there is more demand for parking than there is space. So opened spaces should continue to fill until that is back in balance.

WH beat me to the CTA racks

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/3333909753/

But another option is doublestacked bike cages like this one.

http://washcycle.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/23/cta_bike_parking.jpg

by David C on Oct 28, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report

@DavidC; not sure I understand you. But a new WMATA user is going to be driven by other factors besides HOW he gets to the station; i.e. new job, higher gas prices, employers giving transit benefits, etc.

Will a few people say, oh, I can park my bike there easier now, so I've decided to take the metro to work rather than drive/bus/whatever. Sure. But very few.

I like this idea. Just don't oversell it.

by charlie on Oct 28, 2010 1:56 pm • link • report

charlie, the only person to give an opinion on how many people this would add to Metro ridership was you when you wrote that bike racks "insn't going to add to the total ridership." Which is what we're disagreeing with.

Michael wrote "If Metro provides more bicycle lockers or racks at East Falls Church, it's possible that some of these drivers might switch to bicycling. It's possible that some more people might decide to bike to Metro instead of driving all the way." (emphasis mine)

Where was the overselling?

by David C on Oct 28, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

Regarding people's mentions of the CTA bike parking.

The first linked photo (showing wall-mounted bike racks) is at the Skokie Yellow Line station. Skokie is a suburb.

The second linked photo (showing a series of inverted u-racks) is at the Logan Square Blue Line station in Chicago.

About Logan Square: The racks in the photo fill up every single day. Very early, too. I believe there are 14 racks, so, officially, there are 28 spaces. But people lock more than 2 bikes per rack and also lock to the handrails or other fixtures. This should be discouraged. But you can't discourage any kind of bike parking without providing real and additional places to lock one's bike.

The Logan Square example shows how much people like convenience, whether they walk, drive, or ride a bike.

This photo of Logan Square station demonstrates that very well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/4819628393/

Additional bike racks were installed (by the City, not the CTA) under the canopy within 15 feet of the staircase. Notice what happens to the racks that are far away.

Here's an example of high-capacity, double deck bike racks at the Sox/35th Red Line station in Chicago:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/3908902540/

The City and CTA have been experimenting with these racks. One conclusion is that this is not the best design. It's difficult for many people to raise their bike up that high. And for those that can, it then becomes difficult to properly lock one's bike in that position.

by Steven Vance on Oct 28, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report

I park my bike at EFC several times a week. I totally agree that adding additional bike parking would be a relatively inexpensive amenity. I disagree that it totally maxes out, though. I am always able to find a space, although it is often 80-90% full, which creates the illusion at least of being completely full.

If I'm eyeballing the parking graphic right, EFC is among the top 5 stations for people driving less than a mile to park at the station. Seems like a pretty good idea to add more bike parking.

@Micheal Perkins
There used to be parking in those spaces alongside the north side of the station. Few if any people used them, so WMATA didn't replace the obsolete racks with new ones. I think part of the problem is that one would never see those racks coming from the much-more-commonly-used trail side of the station. There was even a sign: "More bike parking by bus bays" (or some such wording). But they stayed mostly empty.

What about the idea of putting the lockers inside the gates and adding more racks where the lockers are (and cover them)? There's room for a couple dozen at least. Also, that way WMATA has a bit more control of the bikes that come through the faregates--if that's part of their concern.

by Steve O on Oct 29, 2010 10:54 am • link • report