Comments on: Times Building Continues to Discourage Bike Commuting

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:44:43 +0000

The USGBC LEED green building standards specify bike parking for 5% of the expected peak occupant population. If the NYT Building were to meet this part of the LEED rating system, which it doesn't, that would be 20 spaces for every 400 employees/visitors. I don't know how many people the building is designed to hold -- but it's many times 400.

To go with the bike parking, LEED also requires showers and changing rooms for 0.5% of the occupants -- no point in creating bike parking if the bike owners don't have a place to freshen up before work.

By: Sam Clifford

Sam Clifford — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:17:09 +0000

20 spaces? How many floors tall is this building? How many employees work there? Absolutely ridiculous behaviour.

By: tonk

tonk — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 04:17:00 +0000

Ratner sucks

By: eLK

eLK — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:04:23 +0000

It's Forest City Ratner who is in charge of the security and building services. The NYT stepped aside on this one. The old building, which was run by the NYT, had a very generous amount of secure indoor bicycle parking.

Twelve spaces is not enough and there are no bicycle racks anywhere within a block.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:13:25 +0000

NYC needs a biker's bill of rights. The U.S. needs a biker law modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peak oil will put these ideas on the table. Not soon, but eventually.

By: Charlie D.

Charlie D. — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:05:16 +0000

It's really a simple solution:

1. Provide indoor bike parking and make it clear to employees where it is.

2. Provide outdoor bike parking that is easy to find or provide signage to point people to it. This would primarily serve visitors and would be overflow for employees when the indoor parking fills up.

Bicyclists park where it's easy and obvious. If you don't want them to do it somewhere, tell them where they should go instead!

By: ddartley

ddartley — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:20:04 +0000

Not on the shortage of indoor space, but about the outdoor chaining-up and the notes: I'll go against most of my feelings on the subject and point out that at least they are leaving warning notes on the bikes, much better than just clipping the locks without warning, like other neanderthals around town have done. If their argument is that "it's our building and we don't want bikes chained to it," there's little rebuttal to that. But if their argument is that bikes are blocking the sidewalk, and they're responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear, that argument is a zero, because the bikes are, visibly, NOT obstructing the sidewalk! It's like the architect consciously tried to devise the BEST sidewalk bike parking possible, with those perforated girders!

By: Charles Komanoff

Charles Komanoff — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:48:01 +0000

Not to put too fine a point on it ... but it's not the New York Times Building that is discouraging cycle commuting, it's the New York Times Company, a corporation (I believe) with a board of directors, listed here. Any effort to expand cycle access inside and create cycle parking outside the Times Building should target the directors, individually and collectively.

By: Stu

Stu — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:46:51 +0000

That was my thought too, #2. Those girders look like a great place to lock your bike: not at all flimsy.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:41:22 +0000

No matter how much indoor storage space the Times provides, there is nothing to stop bicyclists who don't work there from locking up to these lovely pierced girders. Mike's right that the the Times should install racks if they want to deter folks from locking up to their building.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:29:45 +0000

Beyond the obvious solution of providing more indoor bike parking, why doesn't the Times just install bike racks outside?