Comments on: Can SF Improve Upon New York’s Bicycle Access Bill? http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/can-sf-improve-upon-new-yorks-bicycle-access-bill/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:33:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: g http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/can-sf-improve-upon-new-yorks-bicycle-access-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-23791 g Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:20:57 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=15401#comment-23791 I think the simplicity of just allowing general access is a good way to go and that such an ordinance would easily move through the Board of Supervisors. Having bike wheels on the floor is no different than delivery hand-trucks. Bikes don't really cause damage to historic elevators in buildings I have see that have this policy. I think the simplicity of just allowing general access is a good way to go and that such an ordinance would easily move through the Board of Supervisors. Having bike wheels on the floor is no different than delivery hand-trucks. Bikes don't really cause damage to historic elevators in buildings I have see that have this policy.

]]> By: Nick http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/can-sf-improve-upon-new-yorks-bicycle-access-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-20331 Nick Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:54:56 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=15401#comment-20331 I've worked on a lot of different renovations in the downtown highrises and in the process I've had access to parts of the building that are closed off to the general public. What I've seen is that a lot of these office/commerical buildings will have an indoor area with secure bike parking. Typically it will be located in the basement in a separate space that was formerly reserved for building maintenace. One I was at recently was set up like this: A cyclist rides to the back service entrance of the building, flases their ID card to the guard, walks through a long corridor, scans their ID on a card reader, walks through another corridor to where the building engineer's storage room is located, and in that room is a fenced off area (30 x 30 feet with a chain and padlock) where bike racks are mounted to the concrete. This might want to be a model we encourage voluntarily as I doubt that building owners want bicycles on the tenant elevators. The problem with allowing them on freight elevators is that for security reasons they don't stop on every floor and when they do stop they drop you off in an area that frequently does not allow easy access to the tenant areas. I've worked on a lot of different renovations in the downtown highrises and in the process I've had access to parts of the building that are closed off to the general public.

What I've seen is that a lot of these office/commerical buildings will have an indoor area with secure bike parking. Typically it will be located in the basement in a separate space that was formerly reserved for building maintenace.

One I was at recently was set up like this: A cyclist rides to the back service entrance of the building, flases their ID card to the guard, walks through a long corridor, scans their ID on a card reader, walks through another corridor to where the building engineer's storage room is located, and in that room is a fenced off area (30 x 30 feet with a chain and padlock) where bike racks are mounted to the concrete.

This might want to be a model we encourage voluntarily as I doubt that building owners want bicycles on the tenant elevators. The problem with allowing them on freight elevators is that for security reasons they don't stop on every floor and when they do stop they drop you off in an area that frequently does not allow easy access to the tenant areas.

]]> By: gd http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/can-sf-improve-upon-new-yorks-bicycle-access-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-20271 gd Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:59:55 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=15401#comment-20271 dave snyder - I don't know what you're smoking. The city's bike parking requirements for garages and commercial buildings are pathetic! First of all, the bike parking requirement is tied to the provision of car parking. How perverse and backwards! That means if no parking is provided, there doesn't need to be any bike parking, and that the bike parking requirement goes up only relation to how much car parking there is rather than with demand for bike parking. Second, the requirements themselves are tiny. Essentially it's one bike space for every 20 cars. Most garages are less than 500 spaces. 25 bikes spaces for a 500 car garage?! Spatially that means only 2 car spaces are being converted to bike parking. For office buildings, it's also pathetic, as the maximum requirement is 12 bike spaces, regardless of the size of the building. So for a building with like 2,000 employees in it (typical 35 story office building), that means there only needs to be bike parking for about 6/10ths of one percent of employees! dave snyder -
I don't know what you're smoking. The city's bike parking requirements for garages and commercial buildings are pathetic!

First of all, the bike parking requirement is tied to the provision of car parking. How perverse and backwards! That means if no parking is provided, there doesn't need to be any bike parking, and that the bike parking requirement goes up only relation to how much car parking there is rather than with demand for bike parking.

Second, the requirements themselves are tiny. Essentially it's one bike space for every 20 cars. Most garages are less than 500 spaces. 25 bikes spaces for a 500 car garage?! Spatially that means only 2 car spaces are being converted to bike parking. For office buildings, it's also pathetic, as the maximum requirement is 12 bike spaces, regardless of the size of the building. So for a building with like 2,000 employees in it (typical 35 story office building), that means there only needs to be bike parking for about 6/10ths of one percent of employees!

]]> By: ZA http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/can-sf-improve-upon-new-yorks-bicycle-access-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-20221 ZA Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:44:27 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=15401#comment-20221 San Francisco's own bike parking requirements and law can be found here: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bpark/3176.html The 2004 compliance report on bicycle parking facilities in publically-owned garages is here: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Parking/All_Garage_Compliance_Report_07_19_04(1).pdf In my experience, the public-parking garages offer little additional security than the open street. I think they may even be worse, because they're more out of view. It seems to me, closing the gap on privately-run parking garages for bicycle facilities could achieve a lot of what riders need. Question is: should a fee system be allowed to ensure a minimum of property protection that is not necessarily extended to those publically-accessed garages? San Francisco's own bike parking requirements and law can be found here: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bpark/3176.html

The 2004 compliance report on bicycle parking facilities in publically-owned garages is here: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Parking/All_Garage_Compliance_Report_07_19_04(1).pdf

In my experience, the public-parking garages offer little additional security than the open street. I think they may even be worse, because they're more out of view.

It seems to me, closing the gap on privately-run parking garages for bicycle facilities could achieve a lot of what riders need.

Question is: should a fee system be allowed to ensure a minimum of property protection that is not necessarily extended to those publically-accessed garages?

]]>