Bike Parking, Sure. As For Showers…

A few links on car sharing and zoning regulations:

http://www.toronto.ca/zoning/pdf/car_share_2009-04-02.pdf (see pages 6 and 7)

"The Director of Planning and General manager
of Engineering Services, on conditions that are
satisfactory to them, may allow the substitution of co-operative vehicles and associated parking spaces for the required parking spaces at a 1:3 ratio, up to 1 co-operative vehicle for each 60 dwelling units, rounded to the nearest whole number, or such greater substitution of co-operative vehicles and associated parking spaces at such ratio and for such number of dwelling units as they may consider appropriate with respect to the site."

"For any residential development, the greater of 1 space or 5% of the total number of required spaces may be used to provide for car sharing vehicles and 1 space will be reduced from the number of required parking spaces for each space leased by a car share provider."

http://www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/vol7iss2more.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/about/pr042610.shtml

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8001/testify-on-car-and-bike-parking-rules-monday/

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/car_share/index.shtml

As a city employee often instructed to do research by the aldermen I'm very frustrated as the BOA has a staff of 11 assigned specifically to them with no other task. I've got a full work load as I'm sure T.T. does and every "in depth" research request does not come without influencing other work. Why can't LR do this???

once again the "Cycling Elite" are the green darlings of a broke ... city.
Showers for cyclists, how about showers for the huhundreds of homeless people in new haven? hell, how about bathrooms for them?
We are spending all this money on "bike icons" and bike parking, and bike lanes while our poor majority goes cold, hungry and once again....forgotten. Great job guys.

Andy - people will not walk, bike or take buses to work without the proper infrastructure. We currently provide a ton of free infrastructure to vehicles (mostly from outside the city), while providing very little to the majority of residents who use the first three forms of transportation to get around our city on a daily basis. It's time to re-balance things a bit and level the playing field.

It is also worth pointing out that folks who take transit, walk or bike save enormous amounts of money each year over those who drive. This money is plowed directly into the local economy (e.g., shopping, housing, higher taxes to support homeless shelters) instead of into the coffers of the United Arab Emirates. This is also known as the "Green Dividend" and is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in some cities.

If New Haven taxpayers want their city to stay solvent, it had better follow the lead of virtually every other city and try a lot harder to earn this Green Dividend.

Andy Swain,
Most elite bicyclist pay taxes. So I think they should take maybe a little higher priority on showers and new programs. It pays to be involved in the government. The homeless are already sucking new haven dry anyway.

How about some parking incentives for motorcycles. They have free parking for hybrids that get 50 MPG almost all motorcycles get at least that.....

Thank you Andy for speaking the truth, and "anon" and "outoftowner", i give no creedence to those of you who stay anynomous.
I too am from out of town, i take the bus into town when it's not snowing or freezing rain, because it saves me money on parking and i like to read on the commute, however were i to bike into town, i would not expect showers, extra bike "parking" or any of the frivolous suggestions mentinoed here.
Take care of your poorest souls first, then worry about your gravy.
I will be honest, in my opinion, the majority of you "cycling community" come across as elitest, self indulgent, self important egotistical jerks. in my opinion, which is a humble, less educated im sure, opinion then yours. i like to read this paper because it's updated often, and is easy to read, but i'm afraid i'm loosing interest and faith in it as the writings of both the staff and "bloggers" becomes more and more slanted. too bad, it's been a good source of news until recently.

Outoftowner--... every town around here dumps their homeless in New Haven. Showers for the homeless makes a lot more sense than for spoiled rotten twits, nearly all of whom are transients. What we should do is impose a toll on out-of-towners who obviously can't stay away but do not want to pony up for the privilege. I'd suggest $1000.00 per entry would be good.

i agree with mitch that we must take care of homeless persons... the city needs to send a bill, however, to the towns that the populations come from as the majority are not from new haven.

if anything, though, having a greener city like more zipcars would make us much more able to take care of social problems, by saving money and thereby enabling people to pay higher taxes.

it seems like many suburbanites are self interested folks who actively want the city to fail. they call for more car access / parking garages / highways which massively strains city coffers, while also calling for more homeless shelters, neither of which they have to pay for.

suburbanites should instead recognize that to have a stronger economy in the suburbs, they need to work to promote a stronger center city. all of the best cities and small towns in the world promote transportation / walking / culture and things other than polluting suburban car hordes.

Let's hope they can't park their bikes for free. The City should be making earning revenue from this mode of transportation, just as they do from car owners who need to park on city streets or in city lots.

So, let me get this right. You pro-cycling, pro illegal / undocumented / whatever you want to call it, alien anonymous and nonymous people want to bill our neighboring towns for strewing out streets with their homeless, but welcome, with open arms, uninvited, unsupported undocumented aliens.. is this correct?
Really now, please make me understand, or pass me the kool aid, or something.

I just googled "parking space bicycle zoning" and came up with 995,000 hits. First up, the Big Apple! "Studies and surveys ... have found that the lack of a safe and secure bicycle parking facility is a leading factor preventing people from cycling to work."

Then Pittsburgh, then Cambridge, etc etc..

C'mon Mr Talbot...you can do better than that.

I wouldn't disagree that the vocal bike advocates in this city are largely cyclists by choice, but to characterize biking itself as an elitist activity is comical. Since when are the people riding $50 used bikes (the majority of bike riders) partaking in snobbery? It is possible for people of some wealth and leisure to advocate for improvements to infrastructure that benefit the masses.
There is very little the city can do to accommodate more car traffic that does not erode the city's character, increase travel speeds, encourage more driving, increase danger, bankrupt funding sources, and degrade the environment. Much of the city's current infrastructure has already been compromised by being overly designed for cars. The examples are any street where on-street parking has been sacrificed for travel lanes, where one-way streets have replaced two way ones, where sidewalks have been shortened to widen roads, and where neighborhoods have been demolished to build interstates.
We have to get smarter if we want to address traffic issues, commute times, accident frequency and severity, and street conditions.
A major contributor to safer, more efficient, and pleasant streets would be less cars. This can be partially accomplished by encouraging alternative transportation modes to driving. If the travel and storage infrastructure is in place for biking, it is more likely that more people will use it.
It would be a mistake to see things like bike lanes, sharrows, and lock-up racks and think that this is a massive investment for a small, elitist constituency. Highways weren't constructed in the 60s only for the existing car users, they were designed for them in addition to the estimated capacity that would exist in the future as a result of the highway being completed. It's the same reasoning here. All transportation users have been paying taxes that support car infrastructure for decades, but as soon as a small portion of those funds are allocated for a slightly different purpose, the world is suddenly ending. The outrage is ridiculous and misguided.

ANON,

Where did you get the data showing that most homeless in New haven are from out of town?

I thought the hot water used by cyclists taking a shower after a ride caused more use of fossil fuels and more environmental damage than a car driving the same commute. Now this alderman wants city employees to have free showers at tax payer expense if they ride a bike. What a joke. Other stories say the city needs to call in the State as the budget deficit is so big. No surprise there with this type of pandering.

CHARLIEOKEEFE,

You're incorrect. There are 114,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas and a brief shower only takes about 17,000 BTUs.

Your myth has been thoroughly chewed and spit out in this previous forum.

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cyclists_protest_lame_solution_to_dangerous_crossing/

How about bring this back.This was before Bikes and cars.


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

Wait a minute. The Board of Aldermen has 11 people assigned to do research? 11? Can someone please verify this comment by the second poster?

Well said Mitch, Eli, Andy and others.

Even the bikists, on this site, always, it seems. anxious to spend developers' or tax money for the benefit of bikists seem to be a bit cool to Elicker's ridiculous bikist-showers ploy.

Mitch has a good point re the anonymous, too. I used to use my full name too until warned by friends that there are a few nuts out there.

After receiving a few threats, I decided to become semi-anonymous.

Here in Hamden those posters who use full names are usually politicians seeking publicity. In New Haven and in the Independent it may usually be the same.

new battery operated hybrid electric bikes are starting to hit the market. They allow for people to motor in to work in the morning and pedal home = no sweat.

Liz,

Sry, I miss counted. See page 3-41 of the budget, page 202 of the attached pdf.

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Finance/pdfs/FY_2011_BOA_Approved_Budget.pdf

"the city needs to send a bill, however, to the towns that the populations come from "

They already do, since the state pays 50% of New Havens budget.

Showers would be a nice luxury, but honestly, for a short commute not entirely necessary. Better parking infrastructure is a more important priority. Reactionary moaning and groaning aside, developers are already required to provide parking for automobiles. Common-sense incentives to provide better better amenities for cyclists make good business sense, and if they're created properly, can come at no net increase in costs. (For example, allowing a developer to provide more bike and fewer car spaces).

"But I haven't done any deep research."
followed by:
"I did look into it," Talbot replied.

And yet, these policies are in place, and a 5 second google search yields results.

Did City Plan look into it, or not?

The policies Elicker suggests are widely practiced in other metropolitan areas around the world, with significant public benefit.

As it stands, when I see the people who car commute bashing the idea of incentives to businesses to provide bike parking, I think to myself, "Oh great, another person who doesn't want to give up their 85 billion dollar a year parking subsidy."

The current national, state, and municipal policies solely reward auto commuters, at the cost of roughly 85 billion a year, yet I don't see anyone whining and carrying on about car drivers culture of entitlement.

Threefifths,
I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll responde anyway. Horses do not work in urban areas because of enormous amounts of poop, and the associated issues of health that result from streets covered in excrement. Going back to horses would represent a regression of technology because we've managed to replace horse power with electricity.
Similarly, internal combustion engines represent a regression from electrically powered transportation devices, such as trolleys. The assumption that progress is defined by increased personalization of transportation is a myth that originates from propaganda pushed by major auto and oil companies through marketing campaigns and advertising. It was a regressive move to go from extremely efficient, and desirable electric trolleys to crude, engine-driven vehicles.
Cars as a mass transit device are only viable with fossil fuel as an energy source. Leading geologists predict peak oil to occur within the next 30 years. Peak oil has profound ramifications in our industrialized world. Essentially, it implies that the automobile age is coming to an end. While I acknowledge that electricity is largely derived from fossil fuels, it is also possible to be sourced from alternative energy. Cars and their infrastructure will never be retrofitted for an electrical source and continue to serve as a mass transit device for a large portion of the public because it is prohivitably expensive and irrational.

Walt,
It costs a developer between $5,000 and $7,000 to construct each surface car parking space (much more for structured parking). Allowing developers to choose to build less car parking spaces in exchange for bike parking will save them money. Reduced car use will also increase the life of roads, improve air quality, minimize storm water run off into our overburdened sewer system, and have a positive impact on many other aspects of infrastructure that is payed for by all tax payers.

Johnathan, $5 to 7 thousand a parking stall sounds extremely high. May I ask were you cited these numbers from?

Jonathan

Do not really mind if the developer is given the choice re bike parking but a mandate re bike parking is different and as I see it objectionable.

Your ultra- pro electric vehicle and trolley stance still seems horribly antique and would not at present get many votes in this country.

Certainly not mine,



Where except for fossil fuels are you going to get your power?

No one has been able to construct an atomic power plant in the U>S< since you were a kid.

Gas powered (also fossil fuel) power plants have often been condemned by power experts as wasteful of supplies needed, and reasonably efficient for home heating etc.


The late (?) Dick Bowerman, Pres. of Southern Ct Gas often condemned such use of gas as impractical and leading to a serious shortage of natural gas, together with skyrocketing costs for heating..

As I see it your aims will never be favored by the voters, as it is so early 20th century and impractical..

Cant understand your claim that stormwater will be reduced by reducing car use. .

Cleaned up a bit, probably, but can't see stormwater reduction of even a little bit unless rain is reduced. Does reduced hydrocarbon equal reduced rain?

Please explain.

Hopkins makes a great point:

"It costs a developer between $5,000 and $7,000 to construct each surface car parking space (much more for structured parking)."

The proposal is to allow developers to build bike racks (100-200 dollars) and install a shower versus building 5 parking spots.

Downtown has vast numbers of parking spots already. In the US, studies show that FIFTY PERCENT of all parking spots go unfilled. Fifty.

So, is it horrible to ALLOW a developer to save money by instead installing a bike rack & a shower?

That so much bloviating can be done over so little is still astonishing to me, and I hope it is just the way the article failed to explain the concept.

I want to point out for the editor that the title (Showers) is not reflected in the piece in any way. Without reading past articles or reviewing the proposal, readers have no idea what you are referring to. I think it was irresponsible and sensational.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on November 30, 2010 4:10pm
Threefifths,
I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll responde anyway. Horses do not work in urban areas because of enormous amounts of poop, and the associated issues of health that result from streets covered in excrement. Going back to horses would represent a regression of technology because we've managed to replace horse power with electricity.

It works here.And we can low the cost.

http://www.centralpark.com/guide/activities/horse-drawn-carriages.html

Vinny,
Good catch. I have a lot of numbers bouncing around in my head and sometimes get mixed up.
Construction costs for surface parking for cars costs about $2,000 per space and about $15,000 per space for structured parking. This does not include the proportional cost of designing the parking lots and garages, which represents a massive waste of time for architects and engineers to design for such generous parking standards as most municipalities have under current zoning. Reduced car parking requirements would mean less difficulty fitting parking spaces onto narrow urban lots like those in New Haven and that means less time designing.

Walt,
Support of the populace is one important factor in decision-making, but by no means is it the only important factor. This is especially true when there is a populace characterized by largely uninformed people who are not consistently active in civic matters.
What's interesting is that when one looks at history, we discover that the US public was far more civically active a century ago than we are today. This is a direct result of our sprawling suburban patterns of development that have emerged over the last 60-80 years, which have spread people thinly across the landscape to a point where isolation and privacy disallow for or at least discourage democracy, civic involvement (more than voting once every 2 or 4 years), and community.
The measures I, and others, advocate for would actually begin to restore some of the civic life in our country by providing spaces, opportunities and connections for people to congregate, enact their first amendment rights, and have more than a marginal role in governance.
As Streever correctly points out, there is a plethora of excess parking all over this city and country. Parking shortages are an illusion.
As for stormwater run off. More cars means more impermeable surfaces for roads and parking, which means more water that needs to be carried by our sewers that otherwise could have been handled by natural systems.
No amount of alternative energy sources (solar, wind, biodeisel, shoreline tide power, etc) can replace the energy demands that we've accumulated in the age of oil. In order for alternative energies to be viable for supporting our society, enormous changes in our living arrangement, and organization of our habitat need to be made. And if not for the sake of sustainability, then for the sake of the state of our republic controlled by a happy, informed and involved public.
As for oil, I'll quote a scientific study by A.E. Kontorovich, a leading Russian geologist and geophysicist. "A probabilistic estimate of the global conventional recoverable oil resource was performed based on the concept of the Earth's sedimentary cover as a holistic system. A forecast for global oil production was made for the period till the end of the 21st century. It has been shown that the global oil production will most likely peak at 4.2–4.7 billion tons a year in 2020–2030. For that period, the top oil-producing regions in the world will be the Persian Gulf, West and East Siberia. The upstream sector at that time will turn its focus to the Arctic shelf. Annual oil production could be maintained at a level of 4.2–4.5 billion tons till the late 2040s."
For a pretty good explanation of peak oil, you can watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk
For other fossil fuels, here is a pretty good assessment:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/11/sixty-lame-minutes.html

A transportation system supported by electricity is more progressive than one powered by fossil fuels, because electricity can be derived from a myriad of sources. The destruction of our trolley systems by illegal means (GM was convicted in court of conspiracy to dismantle trolley systems) represents a replacement of a sustainable, efficient transportation system in favor of an unsustainable and inefficient one. The rise of automobiles and the fall of fixed-path transit didn't have anything to do with improving transportation, it was done solely by and for the benefit of large corporations.
If you were to take a pole of Oak Street neighborhood residents in the 1950s about whether or not they wanted their neighborhood, their home and the physical representation of their culture and memories to be destroyed for an elaborate infrastructure of roadways, I very much doubt a majority would have favored that. Sometimes decisions have to be made in opposition to public opinion. However, the difference between the decisions being made in the post-war reconstruction period in the US and decisions like the one's being considered in this article is that the decision-makers in the mid 20th century in New Haven were elite bureaucrats making decisions about a place where they didn't live, informed by elite planning professionals who were educated in elite design programs modeled on leisurely activity and decadence and the people advocating for minimal bike infrastructure today are encouraging a mode of transportation that nearly all of the population has access to and can afford, but which is not viable for wide spread use due to obsolete policies left over from an earlier, elitist period that make funding for multi-modal infrastructure scarce.

Robn.

Using your numbers. A 4 mile commute in a car at 25 miles per gallon uses 18240 BTU. A little more than your 17,000 BTUs for a short shower. What if the bike rider takes a medium length shower, or even a long shower. Its quite obvious to me that cycling to work and NOT taking a shower is the environmentally friendly thing to do. Why one of the aldermen wants to provide free showers to bikers at tax payer expense is completely beyond reason.

Charlie,
No cyclist riding 2 miles is going to be taking a shower.

The showers would be used by cyclists traveling 15-25 miles to work. I know many who do already, and are forced to drive one day a week to stock clean clothes and other things at their jobs.

Also, this article does not in any way show what cyclists are looking for.

We're proposing alternatives to the REQUIREMENT that businesses build extremely expensive and mostly unused parking spots. We are proposing a way they can save money. No one is being MANDATED to build showers, or for that matter bike parking.

We are proposing carrots, not sticks. I find it frustrating that an article would be run with such a misleading tone with literally not one request for comment directed to the cycling community.

Once more, for the cheap seats:

The supposed problem of a shower using more energy than a short drive to work rests on the assumption that drivers don't shower before leaving the house. Quibbling over the length of the shower is silly, Mr. O'Keefe.

Mr Streever.

Charlie O'Keefe's posting rings true. When you refer to the CYCLING COMMUNITY do you include the youths in the run down areas of New Haven (I'm being polite, the entire city is run down, and looks much worse than Detroit)who wear hoodies and mug people with impunity. Do they bike 15 to 25 miles a day and need showers.

Madison is 25 miles from New Haven. I don't see the hordes of bike riders racing to work in New Haven every day. I see none. I do see well loaded trains and traffic jams on the turnpike.

Come on. Just admit it. You want pork at the expense of people that go out and put in a hard day's work. About time bikers had to get licence plates and pay to ride the streets like everywho else.

William Kurtz.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I don't think you've ever been on a bike in your life. Taking a shower before a bike ride is irrelevant. When you ride a bike you sweat, or am I using the wrong words. Horses sweat and people perspire is a well known saying. Anyone who rides a bike for a few miles sweats, or if you want to be polite, perspires. That's a fact of life. We are all animals, even if we believe it or not. Just ask your doctor the next time you go for a colonoscopy. He'll put you staright.

Charlie,
Kurtz point is that people who drive to work most likely shower before they leave as part of their daily routine. Therefore they are using energy to shower AND to then drive afterwards. Whereas cyclists would only use energy for a shower once they arrive at work (I doubt anyone would shower right before they had to bike a moderate to long distance). Both drivers and cyclists shower, so when comparing their energy consumption, the energy used for showering cancels out and what we are left with as a comparison is the energy used for driving versus biking, which ends up not really being a comparison at all.

Point of Order:
I personally know many people who commute 15+ miles on bikes.

Charlie:
Perhaps you don't take a daily shower. Kurtz' point was that a cyclist will take a shower at some point during the day, preferably, after they ride their bike. Therefore, unless you are arguing against taking a shower, you have missed his point completely.

Point of Order:
Furthermore, your post is just deliberately incendiary.

We've already explained that the proposal is to ALLOW a business to NOT pay for an expensive parking spot, but instead do a LESS expensive option.

No one is asking for any state money.

You seem to think that cyclists don't work or contribute, but I assure you, as someone who doesn't own a car, I WOULD like to see some pork come my way. I already support 85 billion a year for parking spots I do not use with my taxes.

As is commonly the case, you don't understand where car taxes are actually spent, or where licensure fees go. Licensure fees largely cover the cost of licensing--that is it.

Actual road taxes come out of income & home owner taxes (paid by many through rent), and I pay those, although I derive little benefit from it.

posted by: streever on December 1, 2010 2:20pm

Actual road taxes come out of income & home owner taxes (paid by many through rent), and I pay those, although I derive little benefit from it.

You do benefit.Do you get mail delivery.Garbage pick up.Food delivery.Police patrol by car Fire serivces.UPS.FEDX.

3/5th,
I do receive SOME benefit--but certainly not to the extent of drivers.

Many of us cyclists simply want a more equitable use of our tax money.

posted by: streever on December 1, 2010 6:15pm
3/5th,
I do receive SOME benefit—but certainly not to the extent of drivers.

Many of us cyclists simply want a more equitable use of our tax money

Benfits are benfits my man.

3/5th
If you'd like to have a discussion, we can do so. Otherwise, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

It's unfortunate that a few so called cycling advocates get to speak for all cyclists. From my perspective they just cause more animosity towards cyclists. Generally cars pay for parking, while bicycles are parked for free attached to parking meters in many cases. So cyclists are getting a free ride.

Bill, the true shared social and financial cost of gasoline is about $18 per gallon in the United States (and much of that goes to Saudi Arabia, never to return). This includes the cost of parking, among other things, which is often paid for by corporations and then passed down in the form of higher consumer prices. Also, this $18/gallon cost increases every year, which effectively is bankrupting this country.

This bankruptcy allows our society to put up with issues such as trailer park schools, child poverty rates higher than Mexico, and not enough preschool classrooms, problems which would be unheard of in more progressive nations.

It sounds to me like drivers are getting much more of a free ride than the people who walk or bike to work.

If we had more financially sustainable transportation, which is what the City and state are trying to promote by providing basic infrastructure (like sidewalks), our city and state's bottom lines would look much stronger.

In order to start to balance things out and provide for everyone, not just drivers, we need to greatly increase tolls on our highways, increase the cost of parking, place huge taxes on the use of asphalt by developers, increase gas taxes, stop subsidizing huge oil companies instead of schools, build high quality mass transit and pedestrian facilities, and enact a host of other policies that are already being used in virtually every other progressive nation.

posted by: streever on December 2, 2010 9:52am
3/5th
If you'd like to have a discussion, we can do so. Otherwise, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Thanks DUDE.Read this.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=minimal brain damage

Bill,
by New Haven's parking regs, we exist in this bizarre scenario: 320 sq ft of paving for every 200 sq ft of retail.

Those 320 sq ft of free parking provide no return on our investment.

I invite you to ask ANY developer what parking costs them. They will tell you that parking requirements can literally break a small project.

Cyclists want to GIVE the option to developers to build a shower and a bike rack INSTEAD OF 1,600 square feet of impermeable surface to every 1000 square feet of retail. The one time cost of doing so is less than the annual maintenance and the reduction in taxes due to the 1600 square feet which is off the rolls.

As frustrated as you are that other people are working on things, understand our frustration that people who understand nothing about the way things work feel so inclined to lampoon and ridicule and derail our work.

Anon.

You bring up the most important point yet in this discussion. I applaud you and apologize for my blinkered opinions. What does it really cost per mile going by car and going by bike. You can add in trains, planes, buses, ships and trolley cars too. Its not just gasoline and subsidies. Bikes are made of steel which harms the environment just like making cars. How long do bikes last. How many extra calories do bike riders use, and how much chemicals does it take to fertilize the food cyclists eat to pedal. How much do these things cost when they come to the end of their useful lifes and end up in landfills. How much environmental damage to the planet do all these methods of transportation really cost. I doubt anyone knows or cares, and I think there would be a multitude of answers to these questions. I would wager walking from place to place is the most sustainable method of transportation

Don't have time to read all the comments, but it really seems like this is blown WAY out of proportion. All that has been suggested is to encourage developers to include bicycle facilities in place of some parking spots. What is wrong with that?

Also, someone should look up the definition of "elite". Most of us just want to get home to see our kids without being killed.