Getting There: Sounder trains are designed to carry bicycles along with people
By KERY MURAKAMI
P-I REPORTER

Question: Laurence DeShields doesn't like all the people bringing their bicycles on to the Sounder train. There was a problem with too many people bringing on bikes and taking up space before the Interstate 5 lane closure, but since then it's gotten worse, especially during the afternoon ride south, he says.

"Why does the Sound Transit system give priority to these inanimate objects over people?" he asks.

Answer: Sound Transit spokeswoman Linda Robson says seven-car trains have two cab cars and five coach cars.

The cab cars can hold six bicycles each; the coach cars can hold two each with tie-downs.

"That makes our total bike capacity for a seven-car train 22. To date, the most bikes we have had on any one train has been 21 and that was only once. The average high is only 13 bikes per train. Just as with buses, our Sounder trains are used by a lot of different people with a lot of different needs, including bicyclists," she says.

As for allowing bikes at all on trains, she says, "Unlike buses, Sounder bike racks can't be mounted on the outside, so each car has a space that pulls double duty and can be used as either more seating or a place for bicycles to be safely stored."

What is a sounder train?

What is a sounder train?

P.S. the amtrak to portland and south sucks hot ass. You have to pack your bike until they get the talgo cars fixed.

When did this happen? I took my bike on the train the last week of July no problem.

the sounder could be super fantastic transportation. Instead their trains are limited by the fact that they are running on the same rails as all the freight trains, which means they are limited by freight, amtrak, and existing rail placement as to where they can go, how fast, and when.

It makes sense to build a functional rail network to connect our cities, or it would make sense if this had been built 60 years ago before there were highways all over the place.

they've been overbudget and underutilized from day one and always seem to be in danger of getting shut down.

the sounder could be super fantastic transportation. Instead their trains are limited by the fact that they are running on the same rails as all the freight trains, which means they are limited by freight, amtrak, and existing rail placement as to where they can go, how fast, and when.

P.S. the amtrak to portland and south sucks hot ass. You have to pack your bike until they get the talgo cars fixed.

Don't let this math create a skeptic out of you. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers to rebuttle this, but think about how much you all pay in taxes for highways, and how much each person spends on buying a car and maintaining a car.

If all these costs were added together, I'm sure that the cost per car drive is more than a Sounder trip.

Finally, the Sounder is a legit operation because it is a progress towards creating an efficient, modern, multi-modal transportation system in the Puget Sound. Sure the Sounder may not be financially sustainable right now, but if more mass transit projects like these aren't funded, traffic and quality of life will deteriorate even more.

Don't let this math create a skeptic out of you. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers to rebuttle this, but think about how much you all pay in taxes for highways, and how much each person spends on buying a car and maintaining a car.

...

If all these costs were added together, I'm sure that the cost per car drive is more than a Sounder trip.

Also think about who you are paying for. The majority of public transit users are low income people who would have a hard time paying for a car. Paying for the Sounder is paying for a good public service.

i don't know what the right technique is to make these things more appealing to and successful in the eyes of the general public, because trying to convince a short-term minded constituency (seattle voters!) about long-term needs and planning has failed pretty drastically a few times. like i'm saying, hopefully the extra thousand daily folks that have been riding it during the i-5 construction have had a good experience and will stick with it.

unfortunately, from what i can tell economies of scale are just working against it. with that in mind i'd honestly guess that a drive to tacoma costs less than a ride on the sounder.

I won't believe this until I see the figures, and here's why. For many of us the car is a sunk cost (already purchased, plus interest due to financing) ... the variable costs are parking, gasoline (includes 43c/gallon tax, or between 1 and 2 pennies per mile), tires, oil, and other consumables. Insurance cost has to be paid regardless of whether we drive. So really, unless you organize your life in such a way that you don't own a car, the marginal (wrt miles driven) cost of using the car is dominated by the fixed costs.

Riding a bike makes sense because I can combine exercise with travel, and it's fun as hell.

Are a majority of Sounder riders low-income, or are you just speaking nationally?

Ironically, when you do congestion pricing right, you wind up with MORE cars on the road per hour, because they ultimately travel at higher speeds . . .

I won't believe this until I see the figures, and here's why. For many of us the car is a sunk cost (already purchased, plus interest due to financing) ... the variable costs are parking, gasoline (includes 43c/gallon tax, or between 1 and 2 pennies per mile), tires, oil, and other consumables. Insurance cost has to be paid regardless of whether we drive. So really, unless you organize your life in such a way that you don't own a car, the marginal (wrt miles driven) cost of using the car is dominated by the fixed costs.