Home » Bicycling »Parking » Currently Reading:

We Need More Parking…For Bicycles

November 3, 2007 Bicycling, Parking 32 Comments

Next week is back to the bicycle for me. Sure, we are going into winter and it is easy for me to type this while in Miami Beach in 80-degree weather. Still, staying warm on a bicycle is easier than staying warm on a scooter. I’m not putting the scooter away, just not relying on it for 100% of my transit.

Later this week, I’ve got a convention downtown. It would be nice to bike there but where to lock? There are parking garages everywhere downtown, including one as part of the convention center complex. The large curved front is all cars — both the driveway and sidewalk are devoted to cars. No room for one little bike. Not to worry, I’ll find a place to lock it.

So this and some bugging from a friend got me thinking about what it is that I’d like to see in the city and the surrounding region. The first thing is bike parking. No doubt about it, bike parking is critical to successfully being able to park bikes. Duh, right? Bike lanes are rather useless unless you just want to ride around in circles. Sure, often a sign post or some other object exists to secure a bike but you just never know.

The uncertainly, if you have a choice, may cause you to leave the bike at home and take the car to the store a mile away — an easy bike ride. Convenient parking, on the public sidewalk, is a key element to increasing the daily use of bicycling. Of course the city owns and controls their sidewalk. Some, such as the City of St. Louis, allow taxi cabs to wait around for customers on sidewalks. A better use of this space would be to have bike parking throughout commercial districts.

But this is easier said than done. Because the city doesn’t want to have people installing bike racks left and right without any oversight (they may want to save that sidewalk for a taxi, for example), the process is long and brutal. Chicago has a better answer — they simply install them. It works like this, business owners ask for bike parking, the city quickly evaluates, and installs the rack. Likely in less time it would take to get on the agenda at the Board of Public Service to get your rack approved.

So what do I want? I want municipal supported bike parking! We can find ways to spend tens of millions on parking garages but the city can’t find any money to install bike racks downtown and in commercial districts?

Earlier today I met Andy Clark, Executive Director of the League of American Bicyclists. He was here, in Miami, speaking to rail advocates about the importance of cycling. Briefly we talked about St. Louis and how much we have to do before becoming a bike friendly city. I hope we get there some day.
In addition to bike parking, I’d like to see some of the following:

  • A transportation-focused bike plan
  • A bike station in the central business district as well as in downtown Clayton. Should include shower/locker facilities and indoor bike storage.
  • Municipal/Regional adoption of Complete Streets.
  • New zoning in the City of St. Louis, as well as nearby municipalities, to require a more urban form. This will benefit cyclists (and pedestrians) without punishing motorists. This is in conjunction with Complete Streets above.

There is a strong connection between using public transit (all forms), walking, cycling and yes even using my scooter. There is an upside here too for the motorist. The more folks we get out of cars the more room on the existing road there will be for you. Just give me a few feet of sidewalk for bike parking.

 

Currently there are "32 comments" on this Article:

  1. northside neighbor says:

    My first impression on reading this post was, “wow, Steve has a lyrical writing syle!”. Me second imrpvession was, “I never had a problem finding a place to lock my bike! How is this a meaty issue?

     
  2. Jim Zavist says:

    In theory, yes. But I think this requires a few nuances on execution. One big one would be to simply add a bike parking requirement or incentive to our current zoning requirements for commercial parking lots, with one bike space for every 30/40/50 vehicle spaces and similar in quantity to the number of accessible spaces required under the ADA. It wouldn’t be an instant answer, but it would slowly increase the supply, plus it would make the maintenance privately funded, not publicly (and more likely to actually happen).

    Two, I’m not a big believer in centralized bike stations – Murphy’s Law says it won’t be where I would need or use it, yet it would apparently require a large public investment to seve a relatively few number of riders (how long did the bike rental operation last in Forest Park this summer?). I’d much rather see incentives for employers to provide secure parking and showers. That said, if the consensus is that one or more bike stations could work, Metro would be a logical agency to become involved in and fund a major portion of the cost – can/should this be a part of the County tax increase? It would also be great if Metro provided secure bike lockers at their Metrolink stations as well – it gets back to that “first mile” challenge with public transit.

    And three, one solution to your original point (bike parking in commercial districts) could be Denver’s – add bike racks to existing parking meter posts. Bottom line, I’m a big believer in incentives over requirements, KISS, and looking at the bigger picture. Parking is the least of my worries or challenges when it it comes to using my bike – getting killed between here and there is a much bigger worry, followed by hot and sweaty and general driver attitudes/lack of attention. There are multiple barriers that are a bigger priority in my mind – the Arsenal viaduct over the River Des Peres is my personal “favorite”. We already have many rideable streets, even without designated bike lanes – it’s those “missing links” that keep more people from using bikes for transportation instead of just recreation.

    [SLP — I guess it depends upon your skill level.  Most people can manage to ride a mile to the store without getting overly sweaty.  I think the bike racks on the parking meters are a decent enough compromise but I wonder about accessibility to the meters for those parking at them.]

     
  3. Adam says:

    “My first impression on reading this post was, “wow, Steve has a lyrical writing syle!”. Me second imrpvession was, “I never had a problem finding a place to lock my bike! How is this a meaty issue?”
    .
    so tell us where you lock your bike, then. street signs? lamp posts? trees? these are not appropriate places to lock a bike. i’m not even sure it’s legal.

     
  4. Adam says:

    and enough with the “not meaty enough” comments. they’re getting old. clearly it’s a meaty issue to many of us. if you think it’s such a waste of time then stop commenting and let those of us who care continue the discussion.

     
  5. publiceye says:

    “so tell us where you lock your bike”

    There are certainly more bike racks on Washington than there are locked bikes.

     
  6. Ben H says:

    public eye, thats nice. And it should be that way everywhere else too.
    Its been pointed out many times there are more parking spots downtown than cars to park. That fact didnt stop the demolition of the Century building for a TIF subsidized garage. The logic was nobody wants to walk more than one block to park their car. The same logic, twisted as it is, should be applied to the parking of bicycles. The beauty part is you wont have to tear down the city’s architectural heritage to do it. systematic and thought-out placement of racks is all thats needed.

    [SLP — Exactly, if your life is contained to Washington Ave from 10th to 18th you are pretty well covered.  Otherwise it is hit or miss — mostly miss.]

     
  7. GMichaud says:

    This is a good introduction for implementing bicycle use in St. Louis. As far as the matter of central bike spaces, unused spaces etc. once again it requires a comprehensive system of transportation planning to be successful.
    I have mentioned before that I have found that in Finland, more people ride bicycles in winter, under difficult conditions, than here in St. Louis in midsummer.
    The reason is that cities throughout Finland include bicycles as an integral part of the transit system. (Finland and much of Europe also does an excellent job of separating autos and bicycles) Here in St. Louis it is generally assumed you are a kook, extremely poor or some other kind of fringe green nut if you ride a bicycle to get around.
    Until there is new leadership, St. Louis is going to struggle to become a destination city and a vibrant, diverse city for residents.
    Steve you have laid out some simple steps and references to help government officials in making a viable bicycle system a reality.
    The truth is the priority is to give their friends huge tax breaks rather than serve the community. Thus, from what I have seen, transportation planning will continue to be the MoDot mantra of more concrete everywhere to accommodate automobiles.
    After all this is the government policy that stuffs the pockets of the political insiders, that, along with multi million dollar tax breaks to billionaires comprise what is called progress in St. Louis.

    [SLP — True enough.  Can’t they give tax breaks to some friend to do a bike station in the base of a renovated building downtown?  What about one of those hard to lease spaces retail spaces in a parking garage?]

     
  8. john says:

    Yes to more and better bike parking and a big YES to more bike lanes. My friends who moved here from Europe find this to be a hostile and unfriendly environment to cycle and law enforcement is nonexistent. Consequently they buy cars and drive.
    Auto-truck drivers are major barriers to incresing the number of cyclists. Too many have grown up being chaueffered to school and at 16 couldn’t wait to get behind the wheel. We thus have a large and growing set of drivers who have no empathy for cyclists or pedestrians and do not like STR-sharing the road.
    Bike lanes, bike racks, and STR signs send positive messages. Progressive cities like Davis, CA, Portland, Madison, Chicago, NY, etc. have written and publicly debated bike plans. Talk about details and great ideas, the 10-year plan being debated for Seattle is here: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaster.htm
    Can you imagine how how much better the region would be if open democracy existed here too?

     
  9. william kruse says:

    I’m just happy to see that bike commuting is part of the discussion. NYC is doing some amazing things with bike lanes and facilities, and even Chi town is looking at the Parisian bike rental program with some interest. It would be nice to see St. Louis take the lead on a sustainable transportation alternative before fuel hits $5 a gallon.
    I love commuting by bike in Miami. The drivers all want to kill me, but the look on their faces as I pass them in traffic while they sit bumper to bumper is priceless.
    P.S. 359 days till I get back home!!!

     
  10. Jim Zavist says:

    Hot and sweaty is not an issue when it comes to shopping – I’m the customer, after all, and my money, while it may be sweaty, is still green. Hot and sweaty IS an issue when it comes to working (most places), and the reality remains that we can do more for the environment by getting commuters out of their cars on a daily basis than it is to convince people to use their bikes for shopping, especially for products (not services). Hot and sweaty is also an issue than can (and should) be “solved” on an individual basis when it comes to employment – everything from employer-provided showers, bike stations and athletic club memberships are all options, as is the draconian choice of changing jobs. I still contend, however, that the biggest challenge in St. Louis is the combination of driver attitudes and “missing links” that create physical and psychological barriers. I don’t need a bike lane, I need a series of CONNECTED streets (and paths) that are relatively safe (the difference between Morganford and Manchester).

    I live in SW City and now work in Clayton. I’ve mapped a route that works well between Clayton and Maplewood, staying off the likes of Clayton Road and Big Bend (a big advantage of the traditional urban grid). I even have several ways to get across Highway 40 as the bridges come and go. My challenge, even after many years of riding in urban traffic, is the River Des Peres and I-44, in combination with the rail corridor. My two “choices” are Wabash and Arsenal – neither of which are bike-friendly, but they’re the two most-direct connections. Southwest is the only other option, but it adds some serious hills and more than a mile to the trip. Yeah, it would do me a world of good in the exercise department, but I need to get to work, not get a workout. At this point, my best option looks to be using Metrolink (to transport both me and my bike) in the morning and getting a workout on the way home . . .

     
  11. Nick Kasoff says:

    The website I checked had a wide assortment of bike racks at about $100 a space. At that price, meeting Mr. Zavist’s bike parking requirement would cost less than striping the lot.

    To have a real impact, though, we’ll have to do more than just provide parking. In another life, I lived in St. Peters and worked at AB. I wanted to take the express bus to Metrolink, but didn’t do so because of the “last mile” problem – making a 2nd mode change downtown would have taken too long, and it was too far to walk. Bringing a bicycle never entered my mind.

    As far as paying for the racks, I’d urge you not to count on that county tax increase. I doubt it will pass, and I’ll certainly be working against it. In order to get it, Metro will have to promise more lines to the ‘burbs, something it can hardly afford. And frankly, I think running light rail to sprawling suburbs is a stupid, inefficient idea. No more stupid than spending billions of dollars on highways – but I wouldn’t do that either. I say if you want to live in the boonies, enjoy the traffic.

     
  12. john says:

    Boston beats StL on more than just the ballfield. The Boston Mayor after learning the benefits of cycling declares “we want to be a world class city” and has a Bike Summit for four days where experts were invited to advise.
    http://bostonbikessummit.info/
    No doubt transportation engineers have learned that simply building more roads and highways does not solve transportation problems, especially in urban environments. Health experts have warned for years that the greatest amount of pollutants absorbed by us is when we travel/stuck in traffic.
    Seattle plans to spend $240 million to upgrade biking infrastructure which includes bike lanes that will be stretched to 454 miles! How many miles of bike lanes (not paths) exist in StL?
    Other cities want to be world class and invests their time and resources to meet those standards. In StL-region, we adopt a “great streets intiative” which is not law and therefore unenforceable.
    How much does StL-region spend to support cycling or is it so insignificant it’s not worth discussing? Does StL-region have a street planning commissioner that is properly trained and committed to insure that our roads are designed to meet the needs of all users?

     
  13. GMichaud says:

    There is a four minute video on the business of biking in Portland, Oregon on the New York Times Web site. http://www.nytimes.com/
    Interesting, among other things it points out the support that comes from City Hall.

     
  14. mark says:

    The City of St. Louis already has a Complete Streets law on the books.

     
  15. Eric Rogers says:

    Providing bike parking is one of the best ways to encourage more bicycling. The famous bike-friendly cities like Chicago, Portland, Denver, etc. all make ubiquitous bike racks a key part of their strategy. And there is precedent in Missouri. Springfield has had a bike-parking requirement since 2004 and KC is adding one currently.

     
  16. Jim Zavist says:

    Nick – I’m intrigued by your comments on Metro. One, are you (still?) a County resident? Two, are you against the concept of expanding Metro, or just expanding it in suburban areas? Without digressing too far from the subject of this post, I agree that many County residents likely will vote against any tax increase for public transit, and to count on any bike-related amenities that rely on a successful vote is “rolling the dice” at this point. But, as a City resident, I see a lot more positives for city residents coming from a suburban tax increase than negatives, so I’m going to work hard to convince our suburban neighbors to support it. The alternative is the status quo, and includes continued reductions in service and NO expansions to the existing rail system.

     
  17. Frank says:

    Great to hear you’re back on your bicycle! I would say that you’re on the right track, but I would add that the thing cyclists need to incentivise them to ride to work is SECURE bike parking. I commute to work now that I live in st. Louis because I can bring my bike inside with me, lock it in my office and not have a second thought. It’s also an advantage that my boss doesn’t mind me showing up sweaty and hyper in the morning. I would pay to park my bike in a garage if I could be sure it had the same degree of protection as a car. I’m always a little iffy about that whole thing.

     
  18. john says:

    As GM linked, the #1 e-mailed story in the NYTimes yesterday was Cultivating a Culture of Two Wheels in Portland. Yes the Two-Wheeled solution is popular and intelligent city planners/mayors appreciate the numerous benefits, financially and in health. UR was mentioned and linked by the MoBikeFed with this writeup on parking. The MoBikeFed has more information on the abrupt firing by MoDOT of the Senior Planner of the Bike-Pedestrian program.
    Learn more: http://mobikefed.org/2007/11/missouri-dumps-its-bike-leader.php
    The Pitch in KC: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2007/11/no_bike_coordinator_for_missou.php

     
  19. Courtney says:

    I work for Metro and am also a car-less St. Louisan – I use public transit and my bike to get around, and really appreciate some of the constructive comments regarding bike racks, bike safety and partnerships with Metro and the City and County government to encourage bike commuting. I forwarded this entry to the Vice President of Government and Community Affairs at Metro – keep up the discussion! Community involvement is really how change comes about.

     
  20. In Davis California 25 percent of all passenger miles are done via bicycle. The national average is 2 percent. There is no reason we shouldn’t shoot for higher percentages of bicycle usage in St. Louis. The choice of using a bicycle is an advantage for our City which would attract those who want that amenity.

     
  21. Nick Kasoff says:

    Jim –

    > One, are you (still?) a County resident?

    I am still a county resident – I live in Ferguson.

    > Two, are you against the concept of expanding Metro,
    > or just expanding it in suburban areas?

    I am against expending Metro to areas which are ill served by public transit. If we have money to burn, I’d rather see better bus service in the city and inner-ring suburbs than another light rail line. If we don’t have money to burn, I’d rather see us maintain our current bus service than endure another line of gutting of bus lines when the new rail line starts burning operating funds. The reality is that the city, and inner-ring suburbs, are designed for efficient public transit service, and are inhabited by people who will use it. In Chesterfield and St. Peters, it’s little more than a publicly costly way of enabling people to avoid paying for parking at ball games.

    When they proposed expansion to St. Charles county, it was based on the misguided notion that people would drive to train stations. First of all, most won’t. Second, the environmental impact of light rail is very much negated by this – cold engine local driving is the most polluting and most fuel consuming.

    > to count on any bike-related amenities that rely on a successful vote
    > is “rolling the dice” at this point.

    It’s worse than rolling the dice. It’s flipping a coin, and betting it will land on edge. And even if they were going to deliver on bike amenities, putting light rail into the ‘burbs is an awfully expensive way of obtaining what, in reality, is a very cheap thing to provide.

    > The alternative is the status quo, and includes continued reductions in
    > service and NO expansions to the existing rail system.

    That tax increase will only pass if they promise some very costly expansion to the light rail system. Then, we’ll end up with another funding crisis. The status quo is probably the best you can hope for at this point.

     
  22. john says:

    “I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can’t get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood.” Susan B. Anthony
    Louisville gets it: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/BikeLouisville/bikefriendly.htm
    More bike racks means more freedom! Go girl…

     
  23. Jim Zavist says:

    Pretty much completely unrelated, but ties in nicely with my previous concerns about how do we attract more “better” jobs to the city specifically, and the region generally, is an article from Milwaukee – http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=682734. It takes money to fund government projects and it takes quality of life to both attract and keep high-quality employers. Many of the cities that have embraced bike parking are also the cities that are attracting the good jobs. Businesses have choices, especially in today’s global economy. Bike parking may be viewed as unimportant by many here, but it’s one relatively inexpensive component in making St. Louis more competetive . . .

     
  24. john says:

    Money is the typical excuse but a poor one. Cities that get it and are making great strides forward in terms of supporting cycling and more livable communities are much smaller than StL. It’s all about resource allocation. The following cities have received recognition from the League of American Bicyclists in becoming bicycle friendly: Carmel (IN), Carry (NC), Louisville (KY), Roswell (GA), Flagstaff (AZ), etc.
    These cities don’t have the budgets that are even close to StL, however they have wise and effective leadership.
    Learn more: http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/about.htm

     
  25. GMichaud says:

    JZ I couldn’t agree more. A modest investment that would be required for bicycle use would go a long way in making St. Louis a more desirable and competitive city to outsiders and residents alike.
    It speaks volumes about the inability of the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen to grasp urban issues when such relatively inexpensive improvements to the quality of life are generally ignored. They are clearly not supplying the leadership needed to move St. Louis forward.
    It was also interesting to read the link John supplied to the MoDot firing of the state wide bicycle coordinator. It points out the corruption and a lack of leadership on the state level that mirrors St. Louis. MoDot should be stripped of all responsibility for transportation except for automobiles. If not, under their governance all other forms of transit, including bicycles will continue to suffer.
    While bicycles become more important in progressive cities like Paris, (which already had decent bicycle transportation), St. Louis lingers and lags behind, waiting for the inevitable collapse of global energy due to shortages and/or global warming before action occurs.
    Political leadership needs to replaced at all levels of government in Missouri, it is that simple.

     
  26. I agree with Nick that we shouldn’t expand Metrolink lines any further West until existing lines are improved. Busses should come twice as often, almost every stop should have a bench with protection from the wind, and Metrolink Platforms need more wind and rain protection. Moreover, the heaters which are installed at Forest Park Station should be at every station and there should be twice the amount. Busses need to be more comfortable and need to be cleaned every day. All of this would definitely require tax increases, however if transit was more convenient then ridership would increase. Currently people don’t use transit because it is inferior. Due to rising gas prices, and a potential future shortage which would keep prices high indefinitely, the ideal time to spend the money is now, however would West County voters support better service for the City and inner ring? They would argue that they are paying but the benefits are concentrated to others. But we have the Zoo Museum district which is geographically far from people in West County, yet they benefit and can reap the benefit anytime.

     
  27. Jim Zavist says:

    Nick, that was a loaded question I asked you, and these responses are not aimed at you personally, but as a larger view of the proposed tax increase . . . I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but without promising more Metrolink lines out to the ‘burbs, we’re going to see a REDUCTION in existing bus services here in the city. Not the status quo, not increases, just reduced services. The existing ¼-cent sales tax is simply NOT enough to maintain existing Metro services, and the rate city residents pay won’t go up until the county rate goes up. We all know the price of diesel has pretty much doubled over the past 3-4 years. Metro is a government agency that offers its employees good benefits. Well, guess what? Like every other business, Metro is seeing its health care costs (and obligations) increase far faster than its revenues. Our local economy is relatively flat, so tax collections are also relatively flat. Bottom line, the system desperately needs more money for basic operations.

    How ‘bout some Public Transit Budgeting 101? Rule number one, EVERY trip is subsidized by the taxpayer, from a combination of local, state and federal funds. What you put in the fare box comes nowhere near to covering the real cost (which is more like $8-$10 per trip). Rule number two, we need to pander to suburban interests to get their money. Sales and sales tax revenues are higher outside the city than in. Yes, many suburbanites “will only use transit to go to the ball game”. So what? If they’re willing to increase their sales taxes to ¾ cents on every dollar so they can have express bus service 12 Sundays a year to go see the Rams, DO IT! For every $30,000 they spend in Chesterfield Commons or the Galleria, Metro would get $225 ($150 more than they get now). Rule number three, it takes money to run “empty” buses, yet you need to do it to justify both taxpayer participation/support and to serve your riders. “Doubling your service” will only rarely doubles the number of riders on that route. The fare you pay (when you do ride) actually helps pay for the 100+ bus trips that you didn’t take. Rule number four, Providing ADA-mandated “paratransit” services is expensive, but can’t be legally avoided – it’s another budgeting challenge that wasn’t an issue 10 years ago.

    Unfortunately, voting for new taxes is very much a personal decision, usually about “What’s in it for me?” Transit is a tough sell, especially in an increasingly autocentric area like ours. Transit is also important to bringing back the urban form many of us seem to desire on this site. While it would be easy to say “I don’t need to support this”, the reality is that we do, as a part of the larger solution / paradigm shift. It all boils down to if you really want fewer parking lots, you need to support the alternatives!

     
  28. Jeff says:

    Thanks Steve for posting this. The St. Louis Bike Federation is really working hard on this issue (bike parking). They have a $10,000 challenge grant (matching) from the William A. Kerr Foundation. They are currently up to $6,516 in donations! All donations must arrive before Dec. 31, 2007! Please donate… Because this is HOW IT WILL HAPPEN…for we the ones who will use and want bike racks. We can “wish” it to happen all we want. But it is groups like this who are making it happen. Make your donation and even get a tax deduction to boot! I know I have. No matter how large or small each donation will be matched dollar for dollar. Here is their web site with the pics of the proposed racks http://stlbikefed.org/

    Keep Cycling!

     
  29. Jeff says:

    Re: metro (nicks et. al) comments. I would really love a North County (parallel I-170) route for Metrolink. It would make my travels and so many others much easier. Although I also can see the point of more buses (less wait time) Perhaps down from the 1/2 hour in some places to 20 min. I think the 10 min. would require much more density. I also think that more “suburb” types would like the Metrolink vs. the Metrobus. Having a more “complete” North, South, East West system. Unfortunately there is still a “stigma” with riding the bus. Although if they are talking of putting a bus depot in Pacific MO…then maybe things are changing for the better!

    Gas is back up to $2.85+/- gallon which usually starts people thinking about options…(carpooling, transit, walking, biking) I for one will vote + for more Metro

    Keep Cycling, walking and using transit (Metro)!

     
  30. john says:

    Installation policies of bike racks is the key to success. Chicago facilitates this by paying and installating for any business that wants one and thus has over 10,000 racks. Locally, my wife and I have worked with store owners-managers to get racks installed and it can take six months, even longer. Successful cities like Portland are converting auto parking spots on public streets to bike parking spots. Throughout StL are wide streets with metered paking that can be easily converted at low costs. As proven, adopting policies is how it will happen.
    Great rack designs are easily available but it’s installation policies-advocacy that determine results. I like the Fish Rack and Ship Wheel designs for the river city-region: http://www.dero.com/custom.html

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe