There's more to encouraging bike use than bike parking. I live in Seattle, where bike parking is plentiful - but yet I'm still apprehensive to ride many places because of snarly, downright dangerous traffic.
Bike parking will only be an issue once enough streets have bike lanes, and the law properly protects bicyclists against hostile drivers. As it is most of the city is still off-limits to me unless I feel like weaving through a crowd of fast-moving 1-ton pieces of steel piloted by irate people. I don't even get far enough to have to worry about where to place my bike.
Showers (and lockers if other lockable storage is not available) at work places would be needed, too, for bike commuting to be viable for a lot of people.
Interesting. I have spent a bit of time on my bike in Seattle, and the thought of traffic never occurred to me. I think drivers there, like in Chicago, are used to cyclists and shouldn't cause you any problems.
It's certainly better than some other cities I've lived in - but I live and work downtown, and navigating downtown streets on a bicycle to/from work is an intimidating proposition. Not many of us who work here do it - and I commend the brave souls who do :)
I partially agree with you. I lived in Seattle's International district this past summer, and biked quite a bit. At first, I was apprehensive about the traffic, but it wasn't bad once I got past my first ride.
One resource you might find helpful is the maps on Seattle's Department of Transportation website: (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaps.htm). They show the streets that are safer to bike. When I lived there, I biked southbound on 5th because I live on 5th, but that felt a little sketchy around 5th and Pike. According to the map, 2nd has a bike lane that I could have used for going southbound.
The non-profit I work with is interested in bringing biking to my home town (El Paso). We're first going to create some "artsy" bike racks for local business. Hopefully that'll raise awareness for bikes, and perhaps we can get city council to back us on adding more bike racks/bike lanes/etc.
When I hear about "awarenesss" I want to get out my gun. Kidding, but real functional bike parking would be much more to the point. Imagine artsy car parking spaces - I would just think "oh cut it out".
It may not be a work of art, but it is very effective. (The only problem is that many cyclists don't seem to know how to use them correctly. You lean your bike against the long part!)
We'd probably go with standard bike racks if biking was our only concern. It's not. We're also trying to draw people to local businesses in a town dominated by franchises. It might be gimmicky, but if it gets people to explore a little, it's worth it.
I agree here. I don't understand the big deal about bringing them into your building with you. They are smaller than a person and 10% of the weight. What could possibly be a risk? Why would people even consider it unacceptable to bring your bike inside?
(I have not tried yet at my $new_job. Soon. I know nobody in my department would care, but I am sure security would complain.)
Assuming your bicycle is properly maintained, it will not be dirty, greasy, or have pointy bits. Daily lubrication of the chain prevents it from becoming dirty, and a chainguard (or even better, a chaincase) prevents most things from touching it anyway. After that, no exposed part should be greasy or dirty.
I share my apartment with three bikes, and they are as clean as anything else in the house.
All scrupulously clean, except of course the tires which are exactly as clean as the gutter you have been riding in.
Every part of a bike is a pointy bit, made abundantly clear when you go down and tangle with it.
Transportation devices belong in the garage, not in the living room.
I live in Berkeley and ride constantly. I occasionally have trouble finding a pole to tie my bike to but generally I have absolutely no trouble.
I'd say parking is only a problem in places like New York City and maybe Chicago. Traffic, on the other hand, is something that scares a lot of people.
Incidentally, automobile traffic moves about as quickly in the city center as does bicycle traffic. Outside of the center, a bike moves about as quickly as a city bus. (Seems like I play leapfrog with a bus every time I ride down Roosevelt or Damen.)
The first comment is amusing; tow trucks for bicycles? It is easy to fix a flat on your bike; stick a stick-on patch over the hole in the tube, inflate with your CO2 cartridge, and ride on. You don't even need to remove the wheel!
(When you get home, you can fix it "forever" with a glue-on patch.)
I think one of the biggest problems facing cycling advocates is the general lack of knowledge among people "considering" cycling. They don't know how to ride in traffic, they don't know how to maintain their bike, etc., etc., so they get scared and never try. (I didn't know these things when I first started riding as an adult, but Google fixed that problem for me in about 15 minutes.)
There really is something cool about knowing that you could completely tear the machine that you're using apart, and put it back together again with the tools in your backpack.
Parking is not the gating factor for bicycle commuting in any city. Finding roads and paths to ride on without raising your chance of getting killed significantly is the difficult bit.
The entire article is explaining why this isn't the case. Would you drive to work if you knew that you wouldn't be able to park your car anywhere? Of course not. This is what is faced by cyclists. Sure you can leave your bike on the street (if it's not raining) but as the article states the rate of theft is so exceptionally high that it's idiotic to do so.
Do most offices not allow you to park your bike inside, but out of the way? Perhaps I've been more fortunate than I thought to not have that problem.
Parking is not the be-all-end-all solution (proper bike lanes is also crucial, and showers/lockers are a requirement for an additional subset of potential bikers) but obviously it helps lower the barrier to entry for enough people.
Yes, I disagree with the article's conclusions, that's the point.
Portland and New York are not every city, they have unique problems that other cities do not have. In most cities bicycle theft is not as serious and merely improving bicycle parking does not necessarily get rid of the theft problem entirely. In the vast majority of cities the biggest roadblock to bicycle transportation is the roads. There is simply nowhere to ride except on the same roads that carry heavy vehicle traffic.
Bike theft is highest in places where bike transportation is already very popular (figure out why this is so), solving the bike theft problem is a 2nd order problem that most cities do not face because they haven't yet solved the 1st order problem of making it possible for anyone but the most committed to commute by bicycle.
Also, I should note that I've lived in several cities in 3 different states (Oregon, Washington, and Alabama) where a bicycle was my primary form of transportation, in every case parking was never as big a concern as just getting from point A to point B safely.
Parking is the main reason I don't ride my bike to work. The streets are no problem for me; I just don't want to leave my bike outside. The bike I commute on is not expensive, but replacing it would be a pain.
The second issue is showering when you get to work. My commute is short enough that it doesn't matter, really, but this is a big deal for other people.
I encourage all people who enjoy seeing lots of bikes on the streets to visit Florence, Italy. When you are there buy bike for 50 euros and sell it for the same amount when you leave. There are literally hordes of bikes parked everywhere. In this city crowded with tourists you can safely ride a bike though dense crowd, and leave your bike anywhere next to fifty other already parked there.
Of course bikes do get stolen as everywhere else so locks are obligatory, but herds work for bikes as well as they work for herbivores.
This reminds me of an article I read a few years ago, which talked about cities designed for walking.* Most cities have a code that requires that every new development must supply X number of parking spaces per Y square feet of land. However, all these required parking spaces spread out a city's points of interest. By requiring fewer if any parking spaces, some cities were able to achieve a higher density of points of interest. By two points of interest being closer, they are therefor more walkable. The article mentioned San Francisco as an example of a city that doesn't require many parking spaces, and consequently it is rated as the most walkable city in the U.S.
Personally, I always walk when I go to San Francisco. That's partly because it is so walkable (my points of interest are usually near Market St or along the waterfront), but also because it's impossible to park there. I often won't go to San Francisco if I want to stay out later than the public transit (BART) runs, because it's usually too much of a hassle to park. That second reason is the point of Slate's article.
* I would post a link to the article I read, but I couldn't find it after a few minutes on Google.
30 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 75.6 ms ] threadBike parking will only be an issue once enough streets have bike lanes, and the law properly protects bicyclists against hostile drivers. As it is most of the city is still off-limits to me unless I feel like weaving through a crowd of fast-moving 1-ton pieces of steel piloted by irate people. I don't even get far enough to have to worry about where to place my bike.
One resource you might find helpful is the maps on Seattle's Department of Transportation website: (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaps.htm). They show the streets that are safer to bike. When I lived there, I biked southbound on 5th because I live on 5th, but that felt a little sketchy around 5th and Pike. According to the map, 2nd has a bike lane that I could have used for going southbound.
http://trimet.org/images/portlandmall/bike_staple.jpg
It may not be a work of art, but it is very effective. (The only problem is that many cyclists don't seem to know how to use them correctly. You lean your bike against the long part!)
(I have not tried yet at my $new_job. Soon. I know nobody in my department would care, but I am sure security would complain.)
I share my apartment with three bikes, and they are as clean as anything else in the house.
I'd say parking is only a problem in places like New York City and maybe Chicago. Traffic, on the other hand, is something that scares a lot of people.
(When you get home, you can fix it "forever" with a glue-on patch.)
I think one of the biggest problems facing cycling advocates is the general lack of knowledge among people "considering" cycling. They don't know how to ride in traffic, they don't know how to maintain their bike, etc., etc., so they get scared and never try. (I didn't know these things when I first started riding as an adult, but Google fixed that problem for me in about 15 minutes.)
On the up-side I know exactly how it works and I appreciate its simplicity.
Parking is not the be-all-end-all solution (proper bike lanes is also crucial, and showers/lockers are a requirement for an additional subset of potential bikers) but obviously it helps lower the barrier to entry for enough people.
Portland and New York are not every city, they have unique problems that other cities do not have. In most cities bicycle theft is not as serious and merely improving bicycle parking does not necessarily get rid of the theft problem entirely. In the vast majority of cities the biggest roadblock to bicycle transportation is the roads. There is simply nowhere to ride except on the same roads that carry heavy vehicle traffic.
Bike theft is highest in places where bike transportation is already very popular (figure out why this is so), solving the bike theft problem is a 2nd order problem that most cities do not face because they haven't yet solved the 1st order problem of making it possible for anyone but the most committed to commute by bicycle.
Also, I should note that I've lived in several cities in 3 different states (Oregon, Washington, and Alabama) where a bicycle was my primary form of transportation, in every case parking was never as big a concern as just getting from point A to point B safely.
The second issue is showering when you get to work. My commute is short enough that it doesn't matter, really, but this is a big deal for other people.
Of course bikes do get stolen as everywhere else so locks are obligatory, but herds work for bikes as well as they work for herbivores.
Personally, I always walk when I go to San Francisco. That's partly because it is so walkable (my points of interest are usually near Market St or along the waterfront), but also because it's impossible to park there. I often won't go to San Francisco if I want to stay out later than the public transit (BART) runs, because it's usually too much of a hassle to park. That second reason is the point of Slate's article.
* I would post a link to the article I read, but I couldn't find it after a few minutes on Google.