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: 2192

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on June 22, 2012 at 5:21am

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 David on June 22, 2012 at 5:38am

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 Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 22, 2012 at 5:57am

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 Active Transportation Alliance on June 22, 2012 at 7:06am

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 7:10am

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 8:52am

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 Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 22, 2012 at 11:13am

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.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 22, 2012 at 12:00pm

There were a LOT of meters back then -and at 600/year new bike racks going in, even if we count each bike rack = 2 meters, it'll be 50 years to get back to where we were before the meters all got yanked out. 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 22, 2012 at 12:26pm

I think the shift in mode share to the point where all the meters would have been full of parked bikes is still a LONG way in the future.  Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as Serge.  You'll get people out of cars when you pry their cold dead fingers off of the steering wheels...

Plus, now we'll never know because that rug was yanked out from under us by Daley and his crony goons. 

Permalink Reply by Justin B Newman on June 22, 2012 at 11:15pm

Just to quantify this a bit, city-wide there were somewhere about 36,000 meters. Assume 25% were "saved". (Removal of 27,000). Assume all were "double headed".  13,500 poles. Each bike rack has 2 "poles". That means 6,750 bike racks are required to replace every meter in the city. 600 bike racks per year.

So, at the current rate of installation, Chicago will be "back to where it was" in 11.25 years. And that's with some generous assumptions. I suspect the number is more accurately 15-25 years.

And that's just to return the city to where it was, not taking into account locations that don't have meters, but still need racks...

-jbn

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on June 23, 2012 at 3:58am

Such a waste that more meters weren't able to be retrofitted.    Would have saved a lot of money and resources in the end, right? (I'm no expert in economics, urban planning, etc.)

Is it true that the meter deal itself was a catalysis in the jump in cyclists commuting downtown? 

 


Justin B Newman said:

Just to quantify this a bit, city-wide there were somewhere about 36,000 meters. Assume 25% were "saved". (Removal of 27,000). Assume all were "double headed".  13,500 poles. Each bike rack has 2 "poles". That means 6,750 bike racks are required to replace every meter in the city. 600 bike racks per year.

So, at the current rate of installation, Chicago will be "back to where it was" in 11.25 years. And that's with some generous assumptions. I suspect the number is more accurately 15-25 years.

And that's just to return the city to where it was, not taking into account locations that don't have meters, but still need racks...

-jbn

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on June 23, 2012 at 11:20am

2008 saw record gas prices, and ridership jumped pretty significantly in the loop that summer Julie, so that pre-dates the meter deal. I'd guess neighborhoods like Lakeview, Pilsen and Wicker Park/Bucktown saw an increase in ridership after the meter deal.

I wonder if anyone knows how many meters were actually in the loop before the parking meter deal? I seem to remember that parking meters were mostly removed after 2001 and replaced by pay boxes in the loop. This is not to negate the concern over bike parking, but I think that the Loop was already deficient in bike parking spaces before the meter deal.



Julie Hochstadter said:

Such a waste that more meters weren't able to be retrofitted.    Would have saved a lot of money and resources in the end, right? (I'm no expert in economics, urban planning, etc.)

Is it true that the meter deal itself was a catalysis in the jump in cyclists commuting downtown? 

 


Justin B Newman said:

Just to quantify this a bit, city-wide there were somewhere about 36,000 meters. Assume 25% were "saved". (Removal of 27,000). Assume all were "double headed".  13,500 poles. Each bike rack has 2 "poles". That means 6,750 bike racks are required to replace every meter in the city. 600 bike racks per year.

So, at the current rate of installation, Chicago will be "back to where it was" in 11.25 years. And that's with some generous assumptions. I suspect the number is more accurately 15-25 years.

And that's just to return the city to where it was, not taking into account locations that don't have meters, but still need racks...

-jbn

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service