The Chainlink

We don't need bike to work week

We need more bike parking for the people who already do ride. This morning was ridiculous. Took me literally half an hour to find bike parking centered on Clark and LaSalle.  Why even put on bike to work week, or add all these new bike lanes into the city, when bike parking is so bad. Oh yeah, I forgot, bike parking doesn't make for a nice photo op for the mayor and Active trans...

Views: 1857

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sue Clark on June 22, 2012 at 10:09am

Even if there's a requirement for bike parking, the building might also seek a variance and reduce the number. (Not sure if that's done/how effective it'd be....but I could see it happening.)

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on June 22, 2012 at 10:29am

My building has parking inside it's receiving garage.  It's free and you get a sticker to put on your bike.  Two and a half racks.  I use it in the Winter as there are only 5 - 10 other bikes in there.  I don't dare use it in the Spring/Summer; it gets so crowded that if you're an early parker there's no way you're getting your bike out when shift is over.

Permalink Reply by Julie Hochstadter on June 22, 2012 at 10:32am

reminds me of downtown parking garages after 8am!

in it to win it said:

 I don't dare use it in the Spring/Summer; it gets so crowded that if you're an early parker there's no way you're getting your bike out when shift is over.

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) on June 22, 2012 at 11:21am

My building has space for six bikes in front of it and it's a 30 storey building in the Loop. It's getting harder to find a space now that the weather is getting nicer. I've already put in a request with the city. My building is also across the street from a parking garage. Why do we have huge parking garages and on-street parking for hundreds of cars, but only space for six bicycles?

Permalink Reply by Serge Lubomudrov on June 22, 2012 at 11:35am

I think you know the answer to that, Adam.

Adam Herstein said:

Why do we have huge parking garages and on-street parking for hundreds of cars, but only space for six bicycles?

Permalink Reply by David on June 22, 2012 at 11:38am

You know, I've heard ATA reps say stuff like this before and it just makes no sense at all to me.   The question isn't why didn't ATA react to the meter deal in time, the question is why wasn't there something on the table long before the meter deal was made.

I didn't even live here yet in 2007-2008 and I had already had multiple conversations with Chicagoans about what was going to happen with bike parking when the meters got converted.   Most large cities in the world had already dropped meter parking and it was obvious that Chicago would do so soon.  And even during short visits it was obvious to me how critical the meters were to cycling in the city.  

And what really galls is that a bike rack conversion program for the meters would have been chump change given the size of the deal. It may have even saved money.   It didn't look like a situation where lobbying failed. It looked like a situation where nobody had ever brought up the topic over the preceding years and so converting the meters simply didn't occur to anybody at the top. 

Sorry, this is all a bit rant-y, but I've been holding it in for a while.  The thing is, it wouldn't bother me at all if ATA said "you know, we're a small underfunded organization and we missed that one and we're sorry".  Or if they said "we had a good plan but all the meters got sold cheap to Daley's second cousin, what are you gonna do?".   What burns me over time is the constant happy talk of "everyone did their bestest but things just moved too fast! Who could have predicted that?!?".   


Active Transportation Alliance said:

Active Trans did bring up the issue of bike parking in conjunction with the impending parking meter lease with city departments that we work with. Some of them, including CDOT, were aware of the challenge and trying to address it.

In the end, the parking meter deal moved quickly to approval and we are all (city, CDOT, Active Trans, Chicagoans) trying to work within and around the specifics of the lease and how it impacts our work.

Permalink Reply by James BlackHeron on June 22, 2012 at 11:57am

For all the talk during the last regime about how "bike friendly" Daley was -it was nothing more than a smokescreen.   Daley didn't give a rat's patootie about bicyclists and the LAZ deal showed this one final time.  It happened fast -not quite as fast as the bulldozers taking out the Meigs Field airstrip in the middle of the night, but pretty darn fast.

I'm not super happy with a lot of the policies of Active Trans and their kowtowing to helmet BS, harassment of actual commuters via the "ambASSadors" ticketing them for BS stuff, and the insistence of playing by the car rules where bicyclists lose.   But I have to say that the parking meter thing went down so fast that it took us all by surprise.  The loss of the meters as our main parking method kind of sneaked up on all of us. 

Permalink Reply by h' 1.0 on June 22, 2012 at 12:36pm

I've tried to get  them enforced without success. I've even contacted the alderman who chaired the committee that came up with these requirements, and he knew nothing about them.

Also, they only apply to new construction. 

We're completely on our own here.

 


Cameron Puetz said:

There are some requirements for bike parking in the Chicago Building Code. Section 7-10-0200 specifies minimum ratios of bike parking to car parking. However these ratios don't seem to be enforced. Also there are no requirements for this parking to meet any quality standards, so brace yourself for some picket fence racks.



James BlackHeron said:

Regarding Steven's  excellent point about businesses putting in their own bike parking; has there been any push by Active Trans or other bike organizations to include language in zoning laws and permit applications for said businesses to include a specified amount of bike parking using some sort of formula?   This is done for handicapped parking and I think many businesses are required in some building zones to have a certain amount of car parking as well.   Why isn't bike parking language being written into these permit applications so that new construction, remodels, and larger business move-ins are required to provide this on or near their entrances and give the city  little break in trying to spread a woefully inadequate 600 racks/year around a city this size.  

 

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on June 22, 2012 at 1:06pm

Thanks, James, we appreciate your understanding of our position on this one. We know you aren't with us on all of them and we appreciate the debates, of course.

Thanks,

Ethan, Active Trans



James BlackHeron said:

For all the talk during the last regime about how "bike friendly" Daley was -it was nothing more than a smokescreen.   Daley didn't give a rat's patootie about bicyclists and the LAZ deal showed this one final time.  It happened fast -not quite as fast as the bulldozers taking out the Meigs Field airstrip in the middle of the night, but pretty darn fast.

I'm not super happy with a lot of the policies of Active Trans and their kowtowing to helmet BS, harassment of actual commuters via the "ambASSadors" ticketing them for BS stuff, and the insistence of playing by the car rules where bicyclists lose.   But I have to say that the parking meter thing went down so fast that it took us all by surprise.  The loss of the meters as our main parking method kind of sneaked up on all of us. 

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on June 22, 2012 at 1:10pm

Hey David,

You know of course that we can't say things the way you would like us to (we didn't even know Daley had a second cousin!), but here's a more direct, succinct way to re-phrase what we said:

We made some recommendations to avoid a bad bike parking situation but the meters got sold anyway.

Thanks,

Ethan, Active Trans



David said:

You know, I've heard ATA reps say stuff like this before and it just makes no sense at all to me.   The question isn't why didn't ATA react to the meter deal in time, the question is why wasn't there something on the table long before the meter deal was made.

I didn't even live here yet in 2007-2008 and I had already had multiple conversations with Chicagoans about what was going to happen with bike parking when the meters got converted.   Most large cities in the world had already dropped meter parking and it was obvious that Chicago would do so soon.  And even during short visits it was obvious to me how critical the meters were to cycling in the city.  

And what really galls is that a bike rack conversion program for the meters would have been chump change given the size of the deal. It may have even saved money.   It didn't look like a situation where lobbying failed. It looked like a situation where nobody had ever brought up the topic over the preceding years and so converting the meters simply didn't occur to anybody at the top. 

Sorry, this is all a bit rant-y, but I've been holding it in for a while.  The thing is, it wouldn't bother me at all if ATA said "you know, we're a small underfunded organization and we missed that one and we're sorry".  Or if they said "we had a good plan but all the meters got sold cheap to Daley's second cousin, what are you gonna do?".   What burns me over time is the constant happy talk of "everyone did their bestest but things just moved too fast! Who could have predicted that?!?".   


Active Transportation Alliance said:

Active Trans did bring up the issue of bike parking in conjunction with the impending parking meter lease with city departments that we work with. Some of them, including CDOT, were aware of the challenge and trying to address it.

In the end, the parking meter deal moved quickly to approval and we are all (city, CDOT, Active Trans, Chicagoans) trying to work within and around the specifics of the lease and how it impacts our work.

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on June 22, 2012 at 2:52pm

When I moved my law firm into a new office suite last year, indoor bike parking was at the top of my list. At the time the old Bell Savings Building at 79 West Monroe was being rehabbed. I asked the leasing agent about bike parking and he said they didn't have any. The agent said that they would give me an "exception" to take my bike to my office every day. I told them it was a "no go" then as that just wasn't practical and I had other options. The agent got back to me the next day and said that they were turning a storage room off of the main lobby into a bike room. It costs them probably less than $500 for the bike rack and they got me as a tenant.The bike room has been a huge success and the agent (Andy Demoss) said they now realize how much prospective tenants appreciate bike rooms.

Morale of the story is sometimes all you have to do is ask. So ask your building if there is anything they can do. Even if the building already has a bike room, maybe there is space for another bike rack? Maybe there is another room than is underutilized and can be an extra bike room? The worst thing they can do is say no. But maybe they say yes. It's always worth a shot.

Active Transportation Alliance said:


A few ways we’d suggest people can help get more bike parking:

  1. Request bike racks through CDOT’s website (www.chicagobikeracks.org) or by calling 311! Right now is the best time to do this. The city learns about the demand and lack of supply through the public, and CDOT has said they’ve received fewer than usual requests in 2012. The city is starting to survey requested locations now for 2012 installation, and you want to make sure your request is in their queue as early as possible. CDOT typically surveys more than 1,000 locations each summer.

  2. Contact your local Chamber or SSA to encourage them to incorporate bike parking into their programming through bike corrals or unique bike racks.

  3. If you work in a large office building, request additional bike parking or a bike room from the building manager.

 

Thanks much,

Ethan Spotts, Active Trans

Permalink Reply by James BlackHeron on June 22, 2012 at 5:13pm

I knew that was going to happen from the start.  Those things are hella-valuable.  It was a no-brainer that they weren't going to just let them just sit out there not collecting revenue  -at least not for long unless their arms REALLY got twisted.   Nobody in city government really cared enough to twist that hard.   Thus FAIL

They were "harvested" for their value on the used market and there wasn't anything anyone was going to do about it once they had their crony-capitalist "privatization"  deal from the city. 

 

$$$Follow the money$$$



Active Transportation Alliance said:

We made some recommendations to avoid a bad bike parking situation but the meters got sold anyway.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2008-2013   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service