Opposing something but supporting the high cost alternative isn’t necessarily in conflict. I’m opposed to spending $6B on the current 520 plans (way too expensive for what we get) but I’d fully support an $8B plan that replaced the concrete rafts with a double deck bridge that had rail six lanes. I’m opposed to the Pacific Street interchange unless it’s the expensive tunnel option it is design primarily to incorporate high capacity transit.

My concern is that if the inside bike racks are convertable to people space, even standing room only, then bikes will have no place to go during peak commute which is when it’s most needed. Reserving room for bikes that doesn’t get used doesn’t make sense either. Nobody wants to ride on the bike rack (well, maybe some people would) and they fold up when not in use. Given the relatively straight express routes and articulateds are already a super tanker it seems silly to put the bikes inside. On a well used route the bike is loaded before the rest of the passengers get on board and a bike rider should make sure they exit quickly and remove their bike.

Is the problem that the front door will be entrance only on some routes? I can see where that would be a problem but a “bike bell” like the request for stop could solve that problem.

In fact, the above, reminds me of those former days when the Times had more liberals and transit enthusiasts on its staff. Most of the time, we don’t get favorable reports/reviews/editorials like this, but we’ll take them when they come and be thankful.

Tim

http://www.commtrans.org/Projects/Images/Swift_bus.jpg

“Bicycle boarding at the third door onto onboard bike racks fitting up to three bikes.”

No front racks.

I’ll have to see if I can get a tour of the new coach and post about it.

We’re going to have to look at how crowded rapid ride buses, but the show-coach and the APTA bus rodeo didn’t have a bike rack on the front.