Advocacy & Safety - Tom Vanderbilt: How decent bike parking could revolutionize American cities

There is an article located at http://www.slate.com/id/2225511/pagenum/all/#p2 where the author argues that having sufficient bike racks would encourage cycling.

I'm afraid I disagree for the most part, because well, there are enough poles and parking meters that people generally can find a place to park their bike anyway, unless there are already lots of cyclists. But if there are already lots of cyclists, we wouldn't have the problem would we? Your thoughts?

I think that bike lockers might make many people more willing to bike commute. The other issue is showers/locker rooms.

The cost of automobile parking is pretty outlandish. The governments in my area have spent huge amounts of money building parking garages, as has Penn State. It was a shock when I realized that such a rural area has the parking problems that it does.

Just my opinion, but I don't believe that lack of parking is what's holding people back from cycling and/or commuting more. Time and distance are larger factors in a lot of cases, though I speak from a suburban standpoint and more bike racks may have a more substantial impact in urban areas.

Tom Vanderbilt makes the point that a lot of bikes are stolen. In my previous job across campus, I saw a fully equipped bike parked out front exactly once. It had all the expensive equipment, SON dyno, pitlocks, etc. I'm guessing that guy would ride more often if he could feel that his bike was safe. People generally feel compelled to ride on crappy bikes for that reason. I agree that it probably wouldn't add 10% to the number of commuters.

There are some shopping districts, for example, that don't have enough parking, even if you are creative about using poles and trees. Also, it's pretty obnoxious to lock on a railing or in an entrance where your bike is going to be in the way of other people. So yes, I do think that better parking would encourage bike use in some areas.

There is an article located at http://www.slate.com/id/2225511/pagenum/all/#p2 where the author argues that having sufficient bike racks would encourage cycling.

I'm afraid I disagree for the most part, because well, there are enough poles and parking meters that people generally can find a place to park their bike anyway, unless there are already lots of cyclists. But if there are already lots of cyclists, we wouldn't have the problem would we? Your thoughts?

accessories and components can be stolen without secure parking. and I think that a lot of people have limited space for the number of bikes they can own. i don't think that the effect is trivial.

with regards to commuting, i think one needs to add showers for a large effect.

I agree that bike lockers are what would make a bigger difference. I commute and am car-lite (my wife has a car which I use occaisionally), one big problem with using a bicycle as your primary means of transportation is that the risk of theft is much higher than for a car. Bike lockers would help this.

I think that bike parking increases when utilitarian cyclists have the social, political, and enconomic power to affect their built environment as well as an interest in doing so.

Oftentimes utilitarian cyclists do not see themselves as likely to benefit from investing their time and energy in obtaining better bicycle parking. They may imagine themselves changing travel modes or cities before reaping much reward themselves. Society may view utilitarian cycling as a short-lived activity by transients, even if it keeps happening. I noticed that it took a long time before the university I attended provided an adequate supply of bike parking to meet the demand - it took student backlash from an enforcement effort aimed at impounding improperly parked bicycles to change things.

When long-term residents envision themselves cycling over a long term, they talk to business owners and city planners. Eventually, better infrastructure results over time. This is starting to happen in Cary, NC, where although cycling isn't a high mode share, the cyclists here are dedicated and well connected.

Accommodation of car parking has a somewhat different dynamic. Improperly parked cars create a greater hazard or annoyance for others than improperly parked bicycles. I feel that motorists unintentionally extort a higher level of service than other mode users because their behavior can be so toxic when their needs or preferences are not met.

The cost of automobile parking is pretty outlandish.

It was a shock when I realized that such a rural area has the parking problems that it does.

These two sentences contradict each other. If you can't find parking, the cost of parking must be too low--in other words, below the rate the market would have chosen.

As Donald Shoup would say, there's no such thing as not enough parking, there's only mismanaged parking.

I guess Donald Shoup didn't work downtown.

eliminating subsidized parking for automobiles is a good first step to lower the number of people using cars in a wasteful manner.

making motorists pay an extra premium to park in a congested area is a good second step.

providing secured parking for bicycles that matches the parking supplied for automobiles will encourage cycling more than it is currently encouraged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgtF0B_mxuE

It's not just the parking. Parking would help a bit, but it's a dozen other things. Mostly the laziness of the fat americans.
dc

I bought Vanderbilt's book Traffic recently after a thread about it. It's an enjoyable read, with a lot of good information, although I think he overanalyses some issues or draws questionable conclusions from some of the research he cites. For example he discusses at great length the moral and social implications of motorists engaging in "late merging" vs "early merging" where one lane of traffic is blocked, and concludes that late merging is better for over all traffic flow. Yet he doesn't show why that would be the case. Surely it's the flow rate of the single file traffic through the obstructed zone which determines the impact of a lane closure, not where the traffic merges.

These two sentences contradict each other. If you can't find parking, the cost of parking must be too low--in other words, below the rate the market would have chosen.

As Donald Shoup would say, there's no such thing as not enough parking, there's only mismanaged parking.

There is plenty of parking here if you are willing to pay for it. I have to admit, it's an issue when I drive downtown. What I meant by the outlandish cost of parking was how much money the University and town have spent on parking facilities. The parking on campus is about $40 a month and fairly heavily subsidized if you take the sunk cost of the garages into account. The town has at least 3 parking garages in a downtown area that is no more than 10 blocks long by a block wide. When I was driving to work every day, I spent a half hour walking to my car. That was no fun. I'd rather be halfway home on my bike instead of that.

There is plenty of parking here if you are willing to pay for it. I have to admit, it's an issue when I drive downtown. What I meant by the outlandish cost of parking was how much money the University and town have spent on parking facilities. The parking on campus is about $40 a month and fairly heavily subsidized if you take the sunk cost of the garages into account. The town has at least 3 parking garages in a downtown area that is no more than 10 blocks long by a block wide. When I was driving to work every day, I spent a half hour walking to my car. That was no fun. I'd rather be halfway home on my bike instead of that.

So you're referring to the outlandish cost of building parking facilities, not to the almost free cost to the driver of actually parking in them. I think you're absolutely right to point this out.

Every time I ride my bike to the supermarket, and struggle to chain it to a sign post in the car parking lot, I am paying 10 cents more (or whatever) for my groceries, in order to subsidize so-called "free parking" for fellow shoppers who drove to the store.

And my aching eyeballs are paying the price of all the parking lots and parking structures, which are arguably the ugliest things on this planet.

And I'm having to ride further and further because parking facilities take up most of the room in the city, directly contributing to urban sprawl and the low density of American cities.

And people on a "cycling advocacy forum" are arguing about whether parking for bikes should be provided?!

Shoup shoup shoup, donald shoup

Every time I ride my bike to the supermarket, and struggle to chain it to a sign post in the car parking lot, I am paying 10 cents more (or whatever) for my groceries, in order to subsidize so-called "free parking" for fellow shoppers who drove to the store.This is true, but from the business owner's perspective it makes sense. "Free" parking brings in customers who pay enough premium on their merchandise to pay for the parking. We're collateral damage.
Any ideas on how to get businesses to cater to us? Bike parking would be a start, but since it's cheap to provide compared to car space, we'd still be subsidizing drivers. Lobby for a cycling discount? After all, if we bike, we leave a car parking space open for an additional customer.

I guess Donald Shoup didn't work downtown.I work downtown and have no trouble parking my bike. I have no trouble parking a car once or twice a year when I drive to work. It just costs a lot: $12 for two hours, last time.

Business owners are usually forced by municipal codes to provide a certain number of off-street parking spaces, the number of which depend on the size and type/usage of building. I'm sure many if not most businesses would prefer to provide fewer parking spaces than they're currently required to, because each parking space costs $100 or more per month in maintenance and amortization. So I think the place to start lobbying for fewer parking spaces is with your city. Point out that "free" parking is regressive.

Top 4 factors that will help Americans bike more.

1. Higher gas prices

2. Safer routes

3. Better acceptance of electric bicycles as a bicycle

4. Better and more bike racks

I think the automated secure underground parking that's used in Japan (and possibly elsewhere) would be great.

As a native NYer, having dealt with this issue all of my life, I have to agree with Mr. Vanderbilt. Parking in business districts is far too cheap here making it more appealing to drivers. They'd leave their cars at home and either travel by bus, train, bike or even carpool into NYC if they had to pay a lot more for parking.

Raise the price of parking to the lowest the market will bare. Also, raise the price of bridge and tunnel fares into NYC and seriously watch traffic clear up.

New York City would be a much better place to live, work, play, walk, bike and visit without all the cars overrunning the streets.

I bought Vanderbilt's book Traffic recently after a thread about it. It's an enjoyable read, with a lot of good information, although I think he overanalyses some issues or draws questionable conclusions from some of the research he cites. For example he discusses at great length the moral and social implications of motorists engaging in "late merging" vs "early merging" where one lane of traffic is blocked, and concludes that late merging is better for over all traffic flow. Yet he doesn't show why that would be the case. Surely it's the flow rate of the single file traffic through the obstructed zone which determines the impact of a lane closure, not where the traffic merges.

Actually, based on my past observations, the effects of a lane closure are worst around the place where the reduction is taking place. Once everyone is merged into the reduced number of lanes, things get moving again at a new normal, at least until there is another merge (say from a freeway on-ramp).

Actually, based on my past observations, the effects of a lane closure are worst around the place where the reduction is taking place. Once everyone is merged into the reduced number of lanes, things get moving again at a new normal, at least until there is another merge (say from a freeway on-ramp).I actually meant the same thing- the rate at which the merged or merging traffic passes or enters the point of constriction is what is important. Vanderbilt seems to think that merging right at that point is more efficient than merging ahead of time, but doesn't present evidence to back it up. In contrast, I would speculate that pre-merging would allow the line of cars to enter the constriction a bit more smoothly rather than jerkily.

(This is a bit off-topic, except as a general comment on Mr Vanderbilt's analytic capabilities.)

The primary reason for not riding a bike from point A to point B is that the distance from A to B is too far, about 3 mi for most people. My guess is that if bicycling were a real commuting possibility things like showers and ect would appear.

The article misses the point. First people were in a high density situation where a bicycle was possible solution, then the parking options opened up.

This is silly.... when I spend most of my commute dicing with death and then spend a couple of minutes finding an ok-ish parking spot for my bike, the parking situation is my lowest priority when it comes to improving my commute.

I'll gladly trade an improvement in my odds of being killed by a cager over inproved bike parking any day.... It's kind of like sending soldiers into a war zone and trying to increase their willingness to risk their lives by providing orthopaedic chairs back at base camp so they don't get a sore rear while they have their dinner.

I think the automated secure underground parking that's used in Japan (and possibly elsewhere) would be great.

It probably makes sense for Japan. But for us: Space is much cheaper and bikes take up comparitively little: If you put a bike parking lot next to your Wal-Mart it's gonna be smaller than the store. If you put a car lot there it'll be bigger.

In downtown areas multi level bike storage might make sense. But you might as well just use the existing car garages...

Besides, we couldn't maintain anything that high tech.

Let's see, what would make American's bike more? Probably something along these lines:

1- safe, secure parking for bike and attachments as city requirement for shopping areas and major businesses

2- making parents who drive kids to school pay a daily access fee and rebating access fees to students who ride bicycles

3- paying employers for each year to year increase in number of employees cycle commuting

4- increasing funding {higher gas, or whatever** so roads are improved at least as much as the percentage increase in vehicle traffic

5- sales tax freedom if cycle to business for purchase.

6- IRS $5 credit for each day of cycling to work

7- full IRS credit {not deduction** for stolen bicycle/gear {prorated by age and life expectancy of 3 years**

8- requirement that each state that receives Federal funds must show improvement in the number of citizens cycling last year over previous, or will have Federal funds held in escrow until participate rates improve. {Cap at 50% participation level**


Any one of these should help. If all 8 were adopted, this thread would not exist.:speedy:

The primary reason for not riding a bike from point A to point B is that the distance from A to B is too far, about 3 mi for most people. My guess is that if bicycling were a real commuting possibility things like showers and ect would appear.

Distance certainly rules a lot of people out. But I would think that most big cities have high enough density such that the three mile criterion would include a lot of people.

In regards to the second sentence, it is unclear to me whether the signals/incentives are strong enough for an uncoordinated action to be enacted. Moreover, some of the benefit of providing parking and showers goes to people outside the transaction -- say between employee and employer -- such that the parties' decision will not necessarily agree with the social optimum.

$7/gallon gas would result in lots more bikes on the roads (and lots more folks taking public transit).

Sadly, the politicians in both parties don't have the balls to increase the gas tax, because they know that their fat, lazy constituents would be p*ssed off.

You got that right. I always say the price of gas is TOO LOW. Other parts of the world have paid far more, 2 or 3 times more for many, many years.
dc

I regularly ask the managers of my 2 local grocery stores to provide a secure rack for my bike, so far with no result. One of them ( Fred Meyers ) suggested I just bring it inside! That is what I now do and without a lock. I figure the security camera's inhibit any would be thieves. I think that if enough of us let it be know that we'd like a quality rack system, eventually they will appear. Maybe I'm naive.

I regularly ask the managers of my 2 local grocery stores to provide a secure rack for my bike, so far with no result. One of them ( Fred Meyers ) suggested I just bring it inside! That is what I now do and without a lock. I figure the security camera's inhibit any would be thieves. I think that if enough of us let it be know that we'd like a quality rack system, eventually they will appear. Maybe I'm naive.

Right -- what the managers don't seem to understand is where all the bikes will go if more customers ride theirs.

I've not ridden places sometimes because I don't trust whether I'd find bike parking once I got there. The journey itself may be easy or difficult, but the effort is for nothing if there's no good spot for the bike.

I went to the bike shop on Parc Ave in Montreal yesterday. Walking along 200 yds of the street I counted 27 bikes parked. Some in bike racks, someto rings welded on parking meter, and some on light posts. There were 1o cars parked in the same distance. Similar state on the other side of the street. Its just part of the culture of the neighbourhood.

I regularly ask the managers of my 2 local grocery stores to provide a secure rack for my bike, so far with no result. One of them ( Fred Meyers ) suggested I just bring it inside! That is what I now do and without a lock. I figure the security camera's inhibit any would be thieves. I think that if enough of us let it be know that we'd like a quality rack system, eventually they will appear. Maybe I'm naive.

If I were a bike thief, I would gladly take an unlocked bike from the store. By the time the owner noticed the bike was gone, I'd be 1 mile away. By the time the cops came and took a report, I'd be 10 miles away. By the time the cops said to the bike's owner, "Sorry, there's really nothing we can do," I'd be 15 miles away.

You got that right. I always say the price of gas is TOO LOW. Other parts of the world have paid far more, 2 or 3 times more for many, many years.
dc



I honestly believe that tripling the price of gas in CA right now, today, could only be a good thing...

You know what would be eliminated? Most of the unnecessary car trips that people take without thinking first. Bet we wouldn't see nearly as many cars with only one person in them, either...

Oh, here in LA a business only needs to request a bike rack (http://www.lacity.org/ladot/bicycle/Parking.htm) from LADot to get one...

$7/gallon gas would result in lots more bikes on the roads (and lots more folks taking public transit).


It would also result in the price of everything doubling overnight for no good reason. Personally I don't want to see Joe Sixpack screwing up traffic on his beater bike. There are too many of those boobs on the road already.

$7/gal would also result in the price of everything doubling overnight for no good reason. Personally I don't want to see Joe Sixpack screwing up traffic on his beater bike. There are too many of those boobs on the road already.

It would also result in a lot more locally grown and made stuff in the shops, and it would be for a good reason - to reduce excessive consumption of limited resources.

It would also result in a lot more locally grown and made stuff in the shops, and it would be for a good reason - to reduce excessive consumption of limited resources.

In other words, economic collapse and the next Great Depression. No, I don't want to have to give up 3/4 of my paycheck for a pair of apples, thank you.

It would also result in the price of everything doubling overnight

No, it wouldn't, and here's why:

1. Faced with higher fuel costs, shipping companies would find more efficient ways to move freight, such as moving it onto railroads, and that will save them money on fuel. Those savings will be passed to us through the miracle of competition.

2. Taking cars and trucks off the roads will reduce traffic congestion, saving us time and gas money, and it will reduce air pollution, improving our health.

3. Reduced traffic congestion will reduce the need to expand the freeways, saving us tax money.

4. Reduced demand for gasoline will lower the market price of gasoline.

What ought to happen is gasoline should be desubsidized, and the price of gasoline should accurately reflect all negative externalities involved in its production and use. There's no good reason why it shouldn't, and as you can see there are plenty of reasons why it should.

No, it wouldn't, and here's why:

1. Faced with higher fuel costs, shipping companies would find more efficient ways to move freight, such as moving it onto railroads, and that will save them money on fuel. Those savings will be passed to us through the miracle of competition.

2. Taking cars and trucks off the roads will reduce traffic congestion, saving us time and gas money, and it will reduce air pollution, improving our health.

3. Reduced traffic congestion will reduce the need to expand the freeways, saving us tax money.

4. Reduced demand for gasoline will lower the market price of gasoline.

What ought to happen is gasoline should be desubsidized, and the price of gasoline should accurately reflect all negative externalities involved in its production and use. There's no good reason why it shouldn't, and as you can see there are plenty of reasons why it should.

Have to tend to agree... I don't see "everything" doubled in price in Europe, where indeed gas is almost double what we pay here. In fact, food tends to be cheaper and better... go figure.

Have to tend to agree... I don't see "everything" doubled in price in Europe, where indeed gas is almost double what we pay here. In fact, food tends to be cheaper and better... go figure.

I never saw "better" food during my time in Europe. Not even close.

I never saw "better" food during my time in Europe. Not even close.

You couldn't find Tater Tots or Twinkies?

I went to France a couple of years ago, and I found the variety and freshness of their food was pretty amazing.

I never saw "better" food during my time in Europe. Not even close.

What, were you in England the whole time???

You couldn't find Tater Tots or Twinkies?

I went to France a couple of years ago, and I found the variety and freshness of their food was pretty amazing.

Tend to agree. Even in Finland I had a nice choice of fresh and tasty veggies... at a company cafeteria, of all places.

I think that improved URBAN bike parking could help enhance bike use by SUBURBAN riders--if you have 2 miles to ride, a bike that you probably won't miss will work just fine. If you have a bike commute of 10 miles each way or more you probably are using a more valuable road instrument and are more concerned with it's protection. Not many riders have mastered the art of building a high performance bike that looks like a garage sale leftover--it's a fun project, though.

Here's a bike rack at my local grocery store. I just took an 8-block ride on my MTB to snap this picture. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/mondaycurse/IMG_2502.jpg
They are awful. As you can see, there is nothing to lean the frame/seat against- only the bar to which you carefully set your pedal against. I've never seen a bike stay upright on this thing for very long.
Another bike rack fail is at my community college. It's one of the sideways "S"-shaped racks, but instead of being placed away from a wall so that you can park your bike perpendicularly, it is bolted about 6 inches from a wall. I'm the only one in the school (of about 1200 full-time students) who rides, so I just park it parallel to the rack.

My point is that some businesses try to be bike-friendly, but don't know any cyclists themselves to get feedback. Therefore they have no idea how well their ideas actually work, even though as cyclists it seems obvious how it should be set up.
Our downtown district finally added bike racks that look/work great, even though they only hold two bikes each, with the advisory of a cyclist in the department.

What, were you in England the whole time???

Netherlands, Italy, Germany

In Italy ripping people off is the national past time. It's a miracle if you can ever find a decent selection of fresh produce, and you have to always check the expiration labels because stores occasionally leave things on shelves long past their expiration dates. You can have any bread you like as long as it's the same white hard-crust loaves. The good local pecorino toscano cheese (my weakness) costs a fortune because the tourists will always pay a premium for it. The one thing that was really a bargain in Italy was my morning cappuccino, which was always perfect and only $1. They have great finished goods like wine, cheese, etc, at a price, but the staples were pretty expensive there because you had to get them from the expensive mom&pop store on the corner if you didn't have an automobile to get out to the supermarket in the 'burbs. In the Netherlands...well, they have supermarkets just like we do here and it's all pretty much the same stuff you can get anywhere.

It would also result in the price of everything doubling overnight for no good reason. Personally I don't want to see Joe Sixpack screwing up traffic on his beater bike. There are too many of those boobs on the road already.

Where do you get this figure? Clearly $7 would raise consumer prices some, but I doubt if they would come anywhere near doubling.

Tom Vanderbilt lives in New York City. There bike parking could really change things, as well as anti-theft measures. People actually want to bike there, whereas in other cities it can be different. This is why I think it is important to understand how biking situations differ from city to city; some cities need things which other cities don't.