I'll stick by my "what do you want for nothing, your money back?" crack. I also disagree with the statement that it is easier to handle a bike box than a large piece of luggage (within the guidelines). And that comes from personally handling the boxed bikes, not from listening to a disgruntled employee.In California (as far as I know, other state subsidised routes too) roll on bikes are free. You need a reservation on the Surfliner, but that's as much a benefit as a hassle. There's no reason not to treat a bike like any other piece of checked luggage.I classified the $25 complaints as what do you "want for nothing, your money back?" It exactly matches the current cost of $15 for the box plus $10 handling fee. Not to mention that currently, you can't take you bike if you board or detrain at most of the stations in the system.
Current policy is asinine. $10 to "handle" a box that's no more problem (and likely lighter) than any other big piece of luggage is simply a matter of "we can get away with it, so we do". $15 for a box is reasonable enough, except that it's unnecessary. So is restricting it to stations with luggage service: the state routes don't have luggage service at all.
The big question for me is how will Amtrak deal with bikes once the Viewliner II bags are fully deployed and operational. If this is a preview, it's not looking good.
Yes, because long distance trains serve the same purpose and needs as local transit agencies. Umm, what?The "preview" I'm talking about is this thread -- that's as much as I know about the Capitol Limited. Never rode it.
OTOH, except for going east out of LA, I've been on all of the Californian routes – state and long distance, with and without a bike – and a few others. There's no rational reason for the current LD policy other than pure bureaucratic cussedness. If Amtrak wanted to put roll on bike racks in some LD cars, it could. Or racks in current baggage cars. Or just bungee a bike, boxed or not, to something, if only to bridge between a station with luggage service and one without. I don't know of a single transit agency on the West Coast that doesn't accommodate roll on bikes, albeit with occasional restrictions (if you know of one, cool, I'd like to know about it, but I've never seen it).
Of course they do, if you change "local transit agencies" to "state supported" trains. The distinction is strictly arbitrary (or legal, same thing). Two big differences are that LD trains in general have greater distances between stops and run hours vs. minutes late, both of which mean the extra minute or two to load bikes doesn't affect LD trains as much.Yes, because long distance trains serve the same purpose and needs as local transit agencies. Umm, what?
Two big differences are that LD trains in general have greater distances between stops and run hours vs. minutes late, both of which mean the extra minute or two to load bikes doesn't affect LD trains as much.
In California outside of the Bay Area and the LA/SD metro, in addition to state-subsidised trains, LD trains and local buses also provide intercity service. You can stitch together local bus rides to go between, say, Berkeley and Davis, but that's not what the systems are designed to do. There are two LD trains that serve that route, but there's enough Capitol Corridor service that the bike ban isn't a big problem.Yes, because long distance trains serve the same purpose and needs as local transit agencies. Umm, what?
Enter your email address to join: