Bike Parking a Good City-Wide Issue for Lewis Reed
The city faces many big issues all needing attention, including things like our outdated zoning and city charter. Michael Allen has a nice commentary on the big issues still facing us today, the day after a big election. He’s right, our political system needs a major re-think. But that is not what has kept me awake (it is 3am). No, I’m looking for some real & simple areas where Board President-elect Lewis Reed can use his new city-wide status and majority of the board support. Bike facilities came to mind.
Reed, during the campaign, rightfully bragged about being a founding alderman with Bike St. Louis, a series of on-street urban bike routes throughout a limited area in the city. Basically, those aldermen willing to part with some of their funds helped shape the routes through their wards. Interestingly, it is all south of Delmar. But I am not looking for more bike lanes or share the road signs, I want bike parking. Urban cyclists use their bikes for errands but need places where they can secure their bikes at they make their trips.
Here is where Reed, working with Mayor Slay’s office, can make a difference:
- Make it easier for private property owners to place an approved bike rack in the public right of way.
- For projects with public funding & public parking, require bike parking.
- For projects requiring a public parking lot, such as a shopping center, require bike parking regardless of any public funding.
- And finally set up a program such as Chicago’s whereby the city provides and installs bike racks along major commercial streets based upon a request from local cyclists or business owners.
Let’s examine these areas in more detail.
Currently for a building owner to place a bike rack in the public right of way (say on the outer edge of the sidewalk in line with street trees and lamp posts) they must jump through many hoops. You see, the city considers such a bike rack placed by a private entity to be an enchroachment into the public space. In reality, it would be an amenity such as a bench or trash can. Our current view of bike racks pretty much eliminates the possibility a building owner will opt to place a bike rack in front of their business. Policy changes within the city can reverse this without costing the city.
Similarly, for projects that require public parking we should look at mandating bike parking. This is especially important for those projects receiving subsidies from the public. In these cases, we should look at some ratio of reducing full sized auto spaces in exchange for providing bike parking. Throughout the country numerous cities have similar requirements, including Springfield MO. Issues such as rack type, dispersement and placement would need to be written into an amended parking ordinance.
Ideally we as a city would fund bike parking along public rights of way, perhaps through parking fees at meters and city owned parking garages. The more cyclists we have, the less demand we have to provide on-street spaces, vast surface lots and costly parking garages. Commercial streets such as Euclid, Martin Luther King, South Grand, Cherokee should all have bike racks among the city-provided amenities, just as is the case along Washington Ave downtown. This, unlike the others, requires funding. So this may need to be a stated goal while the others are implimented in short order.
Bike parking will not be a watershed moment that turns the city around. However, it will add to the quality of life for those who use the bike racks and set us apart from the balance of the region which simply cannot match the urbanity of our commercial districts.
As subtle as they may be, bike parking is something of importance to the “creative class” which seek out other cities while overlooking St. Louis. We need them as residents as well as the jobs that always seem to follow them around.
Sounds good . . . now if you can just reduce our humidity and improve motorists attitudes, we’ll be all set! Or is this just an under-the-radar conspiracy on your part to legitimize motor scooters parking on sidewalks?!
The St. Louis Regional Bicycle Federation has a grant to install bicycle racks. Perhaps you can contact them for more details and publish your results?
Keep Cycling!
Jeff
Of course more bike racks would be nice but changing drivers’ attitudes, better law enforcement, sharrows and/or bike lanes are needed too. Until we have more cyclists, I’m concerned that most citizens will not see the need for such necessary amenities. The City, County and EWGC should begin an education program alerting all drivers to the rights (and responsibilities) of cyclists. TV, radio and newspaper ads should be used to spread the word, especially with the disruption to be caused by the New I64.
We should insist that our local governmental bodies provide adequate consideration to ALL road users and ALL parking lots should be required to incorporate useful bike parking facilities. Cycling saves space, reduces the wear and tear of our streets, doesn’t pollute, or create the noise made by autos. Everyone benefits when people cycle instead of drive but our infrastructure spending continues to ignore these benefits.
This is rich. Of all the problems to focus on, we want the Pres locked-in on bicycle policy? Jobs follow the “creative class” around?
Subtle, indeed.
Driver’s attitudes? How about more cyclists obeying the laws? I’m sick of seeing bicycles going the wrong way on a one-way street and running stop signs and red lights. And it’s not just from young kids who may not know any better. Some of them look like they’re dressed for the Tour de France. As long as there continue to be nuisance cyclists, there will be a voting bloc who will push related issues to the back of the line.
Which may be a good thing too. I have to agree with you, Craig. We have school board issues, high crime, job shortages, and development needs…and we’re talking about the need for more bike racks.
yes, craig. i’m sure steve is saying that reed should be “locked-in” on bike racks ONLY for the duration of his office.
are you serious? do you seriously oppose the president spending some time on this issue?
what about nuisance drivers? i’ve seen drivers do all of those things you mentioned. yet i don’t see anyone cutting back on automobile parking. by the way, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT NEED.
Adam, point well taken. I just don’t see being able to convince a developer that this is a need.
CDA…do you share similar indignation at all the scofflaw drivers who speed, run stop signs and red lights, and drive under the influence. When’s the last time you exceeded the speed limit? When’s the last time you rolled through a stop sign or accelerated through a yellow light?
I also think it’s rich that you’re ready judge people based on how they’re dressed. Who cares?! I suppose, though, that people pass judgement on your attire daily, too.
Steve pointing out the need for more bike racks is intelligent–because it’s the sum of all the little things that make a big difference. Little things like places to park, public green space unfettered by commercial entities, small neighborhood stores where people know you by name and face. This is the sort of stuff that brings people to an area and keeps people in an area. Of course there are lots of big issues, but big issues require big solutions–bigger than one man or woman. Small issues, though, can make huge daily impacts. Why not start with this?
The Board of Alderman has zero control over the school board or school board issues, so get that off your list of things for Reed to deal with. Development–yes, of course it’s in their realm of responsibility–but so far nobody’s challenged Barb Geismann and Slay/Rainford.
If you believe so passionately in the big causes, what are YOU doing to help them?
make it a zoning requirement. i seriously doubt that having to install bike racks is going to make or break a developer’s decision.
The extended Bike St. Louis trail to debut later this year will span the entire city, more or less, and of course will go, yes, north of Delmar.
Chris: I do share the indignation when I see drivers speed through red lights or stop signs or drive the wrong way on a one way street. Okay, maybe not for speed limit or yellow light issues. And I wasn’t trying to pass judgment on cyclists. I was merely trying to point out that it’s not just kids. And I am working to help Barbara Geisman and alderman in the development of their wards.
Adam: I’m intrigued about your zoning requirement recommendation. Make bike racks required for all parcels of land zoned F, G, or I (business/commercial)? That would make it a requirement for even developments without city-assistance.
I was a bit suprised to see bicycle parking as the first thing Steve brought up. I’m not very knowledgable about what role Reed can now play in city politics, but I would have figured this to be at the bottom of Steve’s top 20 things Reed could work for during his term.
I occasionally bike to work. My employer recently moved to a new building (Cortex 1) and we were able to get covered bicycle parking. This was not really an issue at all with the developers. We asked for it, and they provided it.
I’ve had several people comment in my presence about how it infuriates them to see cyclists break laws at stop signs, etc. I personally roll stop signs on my bike in my neighborhood and don’t think much of it. The biggest danger in cycling is to myself from the drivers. When I could to stop signs in the city, what I look for is not cars at the other sides of the interesections. I look for the maniacs barreling down the street that aren’t going to even slow down for a stop sign. Fortunately 90% of my route is on a dedicated Bike St Louis path.
I think there is a part of the general public’s psyche that views cycling as un-macho. A lot of cyclists dress in the outfits that people make fun of because it helps them be more visible, is cooler (temperature-wise), and more comfortable (light weight, padded shorts), etc. The type of people who get off on their giant SUV’s, trucks and minivans will never understand cycling. Most people in St Louis I would wager have never been to an ‘actual city’ where cycling is part of the norm.
-bch
No, steve/urbanreviewstl, I caught what you were saying. But reducing the cost to a developer means that the money comes from somewhere else. Now, if it’s just reimbursing the cost for the racks, then yes the total cost is pretty insignificant compared to the total development cost. That’s a proposal that would fly. If it’s a larger subsidy you’re suggesting, then that means greater tax dollar assistance. If you’re suggesting that such assistance (such as covered parking structures) be required for all commercial development, then unfortunately I have to tell you that the pool is not that deep. Maybe there’s a middle ground somewhere that I’m missing.
We have school board issues, high crime, job shortages, and development
needs…and we’re talking about the need for more bike racks.
The Board of Alderman have no control over schools or the police.
Think of the major political issues that are always on the mind of voters: Education, Crime, Economy, Environment, Political Corruption, Foreign Affairs, Transportation and Taxes. [There may be more but these spring to mind as CNN election night “biggies”.] Of these, only Economy, Environment, Corruption, Transportation and Taxes can be changed by the Board of Aldermen. Education, Foreign Affairs and Crime are out of their jurisdiction.
Steve makes a suggestion that he posits may positively effect Transportation, Economy and the Environment with little to no public funding. Why not let Reed’s staffers concentrate on the little achievable items like this that don’t cost me money or involve TIFs? Steve should write up a draft or forward the language from Springfield to Reed’s staffers who can then forward it to a favorable committee. In six months you could have a whole platform of small, progressive ideas passed through a unified board to make positive changes in St Louis.
There’s plenty of time to worry about big ideas and problems. I’m not suggesting Reed take his eyes off the big problems. I’m suggesting they invest a little time on the “politics is local” and get the small items through the system. Why do people spend so much time on streets and street lamps in CWE? Because it’s the little things that count. The little touches that make one area desirable and others “run down”.
Now, I’m off to spend the rest of my day curing cancer or whatnot.
CDA: if you weren’t trying to pass judgement on cyclists, your words betray you. Why mention clothing choice? Does the clothing somehow make the rider less worthy of respect for his/her RIGHT to use the public roadways? Does the behavior of a minority of a group justify aggression and restrictions against the majority? You did not lash out at everyone who breaks laws on public roadways or dresses oddly while operating a vehicle on a public roadway–you just spouted against cyclists.
Try living without your car for a week, then come talk the big talk.
I have an idea for Reed. Schedule meetings with the boards of every major and mid-sized company located in the city. Invite some small ones too. Tell them that you will do almost anything to help them get what they want as long as they stick with the City. Tell them that, unlike your predecessor who snubbed BJC, you will make it a priority to help businesses develop. Then ask what you can do.
If the business owners say they need more bike racks, then give them more bike racks. I doubt that it’s a pressing concern for them, though.
At Cortex we asked for bike parking right from the beginning and it was always assured. However, we felt the need to ask, ask again, and keep on asking to make sure we got it. We never had input on where or how they would provide the parking; we just kept asking for their assurance that it would indeed be provided. I was not in a position of power during the development, but am mostly pleased with the outcome. Visitors may not know where to park their bikes as the space is covered and hidden from view from the parking lot. Unfortunately it is in plain view from Boyle.
equals 42 (Douglas Adams fan?) has several good points, the common thread being Reed’s adoption of a focus on things for which City Hall can effectively advocate change. Even if it’s only for 6 months or a year, showing physical progress on small issues like bicycle and pedestrian transportation would be an indication that the 7.5% of St. Louisans who voted for Reed yesterday made a decision that will help to develop our city in a livable way. I’m sure there are numerous similar small issues, including traffic law enforcement (which generates funds!) that are easily acheivable with a little political will, and would foster a better quality of life for all St. Louisans.
“If the business owners say they need more bike racks, then give them more bike racks. I doubt that it’s a pressing concern for them, though.”
therefore, it should not be a pressing concern for anyone else?
If we left the decision making on key issues to corporations then Forest Park would become Forest Parking Lot. A simple proposal to provide bike racks is twisted to become an argument over “bigger issues” and curing cancer.
Truly StL is so hooked on overweight vehicles (carrying the obesity class) that a simple idea such as bike rack receives negative comments. Urban design becomes arguments over parking lots… If a Martian landed in StL he (it?) would report back that autos are the ruling class! These huge creatures that bellow toxic fumes must be in control as no living/thoughtful creature would tolerate such negative byproducts. They are also driven wherever they want to go by robots known as “humans”, who also wash, care and feed them.
Myopic attitudes insure that StL will continue to rank high in the list of cities with the worst air quality, highest obesity rates, depopulation trends, etc. Even when the EWGC subcommittee on Pedestrian/Bicycling Advocacy meets, there isn’t even a bike rack available and bike parking IS NOT permitted in front of the building! Truly unbelievable… truly St. Louis.
John, were you the guy riding your bike on Clayton Rd. who got hit with my styrofoam carton of leftover Chinese food this weekend?
craig,
i’m not at all surprised that you throw your garbage out your car window… very respectful.
Something tells me you are not being sarcastic by your need to always bring up throwing food at bikers. If you don’t respect bikers, you could at least respect our surroundings by not littering. hopefully you will get arrested someday for assault and pay that $1000 fine for littering. Grow up, even if it’s a joke.
I was in Belgium last summer and bikers there have the right to ride against traffic, and in some cases run red lights. They have bike traffic lights and regular traffic lights. At first is felt a little odd riding a bike against traffic, but the motorist there give bikes the right of way. After seeing how well it can work in a place with narrow streets, where the cars and bikes are very close together, I can’t really see much of a reason why riding against traffic is that big of a deal on our large, relatively low traffic streets. Also, bike parking was everywhere. Needless to say, a lot of people ride their bikes there.
I’m sure others here have read The Tipping Point (Malcolm Gladwell)? He goes in-depth about the 1990’s efforts of NYC to keep graffiti off of the subway cars and how it caused the huge turnaround in the crime rate. It was all about image, the broken window effect…something that doesn’t seem like such a big deal when you’ve got out-of-control crime. They realized that if you crack down on the little things, it creates an atmosphere where the bigger things won’t be tolerated. I think the same logic could be used with something as simple as a bent tube to lock your bike on…bike racks have an association with urbanity, with human scale & presence on the sidewalk, and can even contribute to the protection of pedestrians on that sidewalk. Bike racks are just FRIENDLY. No, this shouldn’t be a big issue, it’s a little issue that is part of a big solution.
Craig, were you the ass who didnt tip me?
To answer “Ted” whatever they do in another country is fine there. But our LAWs here in the 50 states (including Missouri) state to ride with traffic! It is also the law of physics. Going with traffic you get to subtract your speed minus the speed of the vehicle that MAY collide with you. Going against traffic you ADD the speed. If I (cyclist) am going 20 mph and I collide with a car going 30 mph that is a 50 mph collision! OUCH! Wheras if I am legally riding WITH traffic a 20 mph and a motorist collides with me at their speed of 30 mph it is a 10 mph collision. You have little to no rights if you go against the law and are at a higher percentage statistically for getting in to a collision in the first place if you ride against traffic! Plus the rules of the road get totally messed up if you ride against traffic! Drive your Bike! Treat it as a slower powered motorcycle! Read up on the Missouri Bicycle Rules and enjoy the ride!
Keep Cycling WITH Traffic!
The real point of my statement is that there are policies in place in other places around the country and world that work to create biker friendly cities and that we can learn from them. Also, cars weren’t speeding through the cities over there. While I would never ride against traffic on streets like Hampton or Grand, it may be possible on streets like Euclid, or Nottingham.
Darci,
if you read freakonomics there is another theory behind the reduction in crime rates around that time period. While I do not advocate for it (it involves abortion of which I publicly have no opinion) it suggests that there are many reasons that crime is reduced, not just focusing on the little things. While a valid point, I dont think fixing broken windows and removing some grafitti is the reason that crime went down either.
That being said, bike racks can go a long way to making things convenient for the cycling community, but places like Loughboro commons who can get away with having no sidewalk to their development for months as well as inaccessible retail establishments for the physically handicapped or disabled is a bigger issue. Should we institute more stringent accessibility guidelines? maybe. Maybe texas has it right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_Accessibility_Specialist) or illinios (http://www.cdb.state.il.us/forms/download/iac.pdf)
Should we have more bike lanes and racks? Sure!
Should we limit drive through lanes in urban environments? damn right!
Am I off on a tangent? absolutely!
I applaud Steve for his stance on all things bipedal. I love biking and if more bike routes and racks somehow make it to a board meeting than congrats! Sorry something like this is keeping you up at night. I guess its the cabin fever since today is going to be 60 and you need to get out and ride!
jason
Anyone who poo-poos transportational cycling as a minor issue is extremely short-sighted. Do you think gasoline will stay under $1/gallon forever, eh, I’m mean under $2/gal, eh sorry, under $3/gal forever? We cyclists are here to stay and poised to become an integral part of the transportation system. Time to wake up and smell the chain grease.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/E8D3FE9FF43FC3BD862572980012B385?OpenDocument
And to you garbage-throwing motorists, don’t you realize you have to stop sometime, somewhere? Remember, we are more fit than you. 🙂
Just imagine, bike racks will be celebrated and desired by all! Like alcohol and tobacco, petroleum dependency should be heavily taxed. Conservatives such as Alan Greenspan have recommended this as it is a national security issue. The continual subsidization of a dependency is creating urban design which is unsustainable. Even W admits that our society has an oil addiction problem.
I’m against taxes but, when existing, they should be designed to promote productive activities and deter self-destructive tendencies. Other conservative economists such as Gregory Mankiw, Marty Feildstein and Gary Becker have recommended similar policies. The point?: Wean the overdependent American consumer off the petroleum addicition before it destroys our country. Yes both liberal and conservative economists are in agreement.
A short article on this can be found even in the liberal NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/yourmoney/08view.html?ex=1317960000&en=3a74952dac47fe79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Don’t get me wrong, like every other free marketer, other taxes should thus be reduced! Imagine giving all workers an immediate raise of over 6% as FICA/Medicaid taxes are replaced with fuel consumption tax. Yes all of us will celebrate this and more bike racks will definitely be needed!
Very funny, Qing. I never tip at buffets (which is, of course, where I load up multiple containers to throw at cyclists on busy roads).
All of you advocates of biking to work: it won’t work for most people. Most people have to keep up a certain appearance at work. This means showing up without sweat pouring through your suit or without your hair flying in all directions or matted down from a helmet. How can I bike and arrive at work looking like the killer stud I am?
Craig,
Next time you come i make you something “extra special”, stud.
well Craig, nobody is saying that “most” people SHOULD ride a bicycle to work. But many COULD, and even many more could, if there were simple provisions made such as a bike rack. Further provisions could be made with bike lanes, more driver & rider education for safetys sake (same goes for motorcyclists), and larger EMPLOYERS could even play a part and provide shower & locker rooms as many business do in other cities around the country (my experiences in Albuquerue come to mind).
http://www.ridetowork.org
Off topic #1 – the pay stations are gone and the meters are back on S. Grand – what’s up with that?
Off topic #2 – Behind Loughborough Commons, on S. Grand, you’ve pointed out that there’s no sidewalk on the east side of Grand. Why has no point been made about the old deuce-and-a-half army truck that seems to be permanently blocking the existing sidewalk on the west side of Grand, just south of Loughborough? Blocking the sidewalk is illegal. Parking a truck this size in a residential area is probably illegal (from the city website: “Commercial trucks and buses are not permitted to park upon any public or private street where the abutting land is zoned for residential use. These restrictions do not apply to any pick-up truck, tractor or truck which is rendering service or loading or unloading materials or “non-Commercial” pick-up trucks with clean or covered beds, without advertising or stakes inserted in the sides, or bumpers raised more than 26 inches from the street. [A “non-commercial” pick-up truck is a four wheel motor vehicle, having an enclosed cab and an open body with low sides and tailgate, used or maintained privately for the transportation of property solely for personal use.]”)
Putting a sidewalk on the east side of Grand, while appropriate in a “perfect” urban world, would serve no real purpose. There is no access into Loughborough Commons site for a 5-block stretch (up to a 20′ drop), between Upton & Loughborough, while there are both multiple residences and an existing sidewalk on the west side of Grand. Better to keep pushing for appropriate sidewalks and curb cuts along the south side of Loughborough and the north side of Upton (extended), perhaps with painted crosswalks across S. Grand, and connecting all retail entrances in th complex, as the ADA requires.
. . . when the homes on that side were removed . . .
Then, by the same logic, sidewalks should be maintained along the north side of De Tonty and the south side of Lafayette, between Tower Grove and Grand, even though they would only provide access to the fence along the freeway. Sometimes, and especially in urban areas, green landscaping is preferable to concrete hardscape . . .
Given my choice, I’m more likely to walk on the side of the street that has houses on it. It’s probably psychological, something to do with “eyes on the street” and feeling a bit safer/having more “escape options”, or it may just be “more interesting”. Yes, you should be able to safely cross the street, and yes, sidewalks need to be kept in good repair – that was my original point – why beat on the developer when a local resident is blocking the sidewalk that’s already there?! And from a traffic engineering standpoint, pedestrians are safer crossing at full intersections than at “T” ones. However, where the non-house side wins out is if I’m on a bike path – there’s a lot fewer conflicts (driveways and curb cuts) to deal with!