I would think the problem with a bicycle in the wheelchair spot on the bus would be what would happen if a wheelchair needs to board a few stops down the line? Do you kick the bicycle rider off at that point?

Aaron, I think you would just kick the biker off at that point.

Yes, no question the wheelchair gets priority. There are two wheelchair spots, so if the bus wan't very full, you might still accomodate a wheelchair user and one cyclist.

I have seen one driver (on the 12) allow a cyclist in the wheelchair spot. The driver used common sense, but was afraid he was breaking the rules.

I think the rule is...no bikes on buses. This is due I think to the chance that a bike could be a heavy flying object in case of a crash. Wheelchairs are anchored or at least held in place by their occupant.
Maybe its time for rear racks on TriMet. What do they do in Boulder, Co. and other bike friendly cities?

SMART (South Metro Area Rapid Transit) in Wilsonville also is seeing an increase of bikes on buses and not enough space on racks. There is no official policy that I am aware of at SMART regarding bringing a bike on the bus if space is available, as it is currently up to the driver's discression. Included in the latest update of SMART's Transit Master Plan, is replacing current bike racks with ones that have a three-bike capacity.

My first reaction to racks on the back sends out a safety alarm. Does the driver just guess when the bike is all clear? Maybe cameras are installed to see the rear of the bus I don't know.

Are there other transit agencies that currently offer racks on the back?

I have seen a SMART driver allow a bike in the wheelchair area.

I was allowed to do the same once when the driver was using a brand new bus that had not had the rack fitted yet.

Another idea would be to intergrate some type of bike space rack in the dead are just opposite the driver by the door, over the wheel well. Sometimes when the busses are packed someone stands close to that are, but even then two bikes could fit if some type of device was place up there. That would be one safe or at least semi safe way to add some bike capacity.

Also I must add. If a bike is considered a dangerous flying object in all reality it could be anchored to the bus just like a wheelchair.

This was brought up here before, but I can't find it. Basically, it probably is against the rules here but some operators allow it and other transit agencies (like Golden Gate Transit in the Bay Area) do it instead of bike racks and require that the bike be strapped down (possibly with rider-provided straps).

The good news is that TriMet IS listening. 3-bike racks is one of the things that were brought up in the CAC Report on TriMet Budget & Operations on PDF page 12.

Oh, and a bus like the #96 that travels at freeway speeds is not one that you want to have flying objects on. Just make sure the other biker(s) really need that bus and, in this case, know that they could also take the #12 to Barbur TC and catch SMART there (which, BTW, only requires a 2-zone fare vs an all-zone).

The three of us standing there trying to figure out what to do discussed the 12/SMART option (I use that in reverse on my way home) but the timing didn't work out in the particular instance.

Yes, we do have a capacity problem on Tri-Met for bikes. I ride from Beaverton to Hillsboro and back every day, and during rush hour we consistently have 6 bikes/car. Riding downtown, it's not uncommon to have 8 or 10. The fare inspectors have typically been less than understanding - one recently asked someone to leave the MAX car, and told them "it's called biking to work, not riding MAX". If we're going to be bike-friendly, we need to do something about capacity, and soon.

There is an issue with bike capacity on MAX in that allowing capacity for more bikes causes the removal of seats.

Currently, on low-floor cars, there are 4 bike racks per car. When these bike racks were installed, two seating positions were removed per rack. Thus, a two-car train which can carry 8 bikes has 16 fewer seating positions.

Even on runs where there are no bikes on the train, if the train is getting full, 16 people who could have taken a seat will have to stand.

Also, a bike plus the owner equals the space consumed by two non-bike standees.

I think the bike racks (hangars would be a more appropriate term) are great, and I have utilized them from time to time. But, I believe transit must first serve the pedestrian, and that bike racks should be viewed as a convenience but not a primary feature of transit, because of the space and seating considerations.

A cyclist who intends to use MAX as a regular part of their commute should expect to have to wait for a couple of trains to pass during peak hours if the racks are full.

MAX trains already fill up enough during peak hours that a further reduction in seating capacity is not a good idea.

- Bob R.