Comments on: DC Could Mandate Bike Parking, Sort Of

By: psycholist

psycholist — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:58:49 +0000

Wols – again, this represents a minor percentage to car parking. We’re not talking about vast fields of bicycle racks- it’s 10 percent or roughly one parking spot allocated to bikes for every 100 car spaces. Around my home there are bikes locked to every stationary object – new bike racks are constantly in use as soon as they’re installed. I imagine DC is seeing similar issues which they’re attempting to address. Regardless of your prejudices there is a demand for bike facilities. Also you can hardly compare the cost of installing a bike rack to the cost of building light rail. White elephant indeed.

By: gelston

gelston — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:26 +0000

Of course residents of buildings without parking take up available on-street parking (and may soon be given permits to do so.) In this case, there should be a forumula for allocating a portion of a neighborhood’s curb space for bikes as well as cars.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:31:00 +0000

(If a parking space in a garage was equipped with a bike rack that could fit ten bikes, it probably wouldn’t take up more than the space normally given to one car. If there was no demand, you could remove the bike rack quite easily.)

Again, perhaps I’m too focused on NYC. Do most existing, older residential and commercial buildings in DC have indoor parking?

Such a regulation is more likely to work here if applied to paid parking garages, with some kind of fair price relationship enforcement.

By: d

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:09:49 +0000

Also, the consequences of providing too much bike parking is easily fixable: turn it back into parking for cars. If a parking space in a garage was equipped with a bike rack that could fit ten bikes, it probably wouldn’t take up more than the space normally given to one car. If there was no demand, you could remove the bike rack quite easily. This certainly will not create an undue hardship for building owners.

By: gelston

gelston — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:14:52 +0000

The problem is that creating LESS than the expected eventual demand is also wasteful. Better to prepare for the expected demand. To avoid the image of waste in the meantime, the space could be awarded to “any transport device” – including kayaks, push carts, children’s prams, mobility scooters. The idea is to establish some principle of parity among tenants who have different needs for storage space.

By: Wols

Wols — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:06:11 +0000

Creating a supply for which there isn’t demand runs into the white elephant problem, like building a light rail line in low density suburbs. Failure or perceived failure of a broad mandate about cycling doesn’t help us. Car parking is in greater demand, like it or not SB ideologues.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:53:25 +0000

Am I to imply from the post that the legislation would apply to EXISTING buildings?

That is a pretty radical step when it comes to land use regulations, although not unheard of (lots of tenement upper stories were boarded up in the Great Depression after the NYC building code required separate bathrooms and hot water).

By: psycholist

psycholist — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:40:48 +0000

What’s kooky about mandating bike parking when car parking is already required? Developers whine about everything, have you seen a bike? They take a small fraction of a car’s space. 10-12 bikes fit in a parking spot. So for a small sized lot we’re talking about one parking space. ONE! Maybe if they provided bike parking on their own it wouldn’t have to be forced.

By: Wols

Wols — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:16:54 +0000

Why is that a “major concession” ? How would it help anyone if government is seen as imposing a kooky mandate irrespective of demand?