jjabramsisagod wrote: It's not like some militant terrorist organization of bikers. Geesh, no wonder why Bush got elected to two terms.
Are you so sure? Cyclists are already organizing themselves as victims of the mean ol' nasty MTA, and we know how hip it now is to be a victim - hell, it was the Victims' Coalition who voted in todays political culture of entitlement. Scream loudly enough and Big Brother will schlep you a pacifier to suck on - the NIMBY's learned that a long time ago.
It seems to me that when it comes to having bikes on trains, each of the entities involved should policies that address and reinforce whatever their respective missions are. Since the mission of the subway is to provide inner-city transportation to people who live and work in New York, it's logical that they allow - and allow for - bikes for their intended customers. Amtrak has several options for long-distance bike transportation, but they're not entitlements, and its first-come, first served on their available space to help fulfill their mission of transporting people around the country.
The primary mission of the Metro-North Commuter Railroad is to transport people back and forth to work to New York City. If bicycles interfere with providing that mission in a safe and expedient way, then they don't belong on the trains. If there happens to be room, the smart thing is to look the other way. But if you're going to insist on having specific rules that allow certain numbers of bicycles, then to avoid being charged with discrimination you're going to have to follow those rules, and that means that some of those bikes are not going to be allowed on the trains anymore.
It's too bad for everyone that Big Brother had to stick his nose where common sense used to run things.