[Editors: We'd like to welcome Kris as a guest blogger who in his first segment is going to document his pursuit of bike parking. Kris is a long term organizer of Critical Ass and a ward captain in the bike union.]
I've never been one to shy away from a good challenge. Really. One of the challenges I'm looking at right now is to get the city to install some bike parking in an odd little corner of the city. One of those unique little places that it would be completely impractical to accomodate in any official policies or guidelines as an exception to the general principles (because you'd have to list it, and all the others not quite like it, one at a time).
As far as I can tell, the place where I want to get some bike parking isn't a bad place to have it. It's just going to be politically inconvenient to get it installed. I expect the city staff to be busy enough with other things that I'll have to shoulder a good deal of the inconvenience myself.
So that's what I'm going to do. And I'm going to write about it here. That way, when you want to get some bike parking installed, you can take a look at your situation, figure that it isn't any worse than this one, and be able to refer back here as a guide if you need it.
Getting to the actual task, the location in question is my wife's street (the reasons I hesitate to call it mine are complicated, but they work for us). It's a small dead-end residential street with all of 8 houses on one side, and the back of a convent on the other. The sidewalk is narrow, and the street's not much wider.
So the street is about as minor as they come, which comes across as a bit of a hard sell for city-installed bike parking. On top of that, the bicycle parking facility guidelines indicate that ring and post racks are to be installed on sidewalks, in the direction that the traffic moves (and set some minimum widths).
In favour of the bike parking, the dead end of the street is just this empty little bit of land that seems almost ideally sized for a little row of ring and posts. Also, the page with the post and ring request form says that the city prioritizes locations without enough other bike parking. The only thing on the street that can really pass for bike parking is a guy wire holding up a hydro pole, so there's hopefully something to be gained there.
Another slight bonus is that the street was a crescent before its other end got reassigned and it became a dead end. There might be some sort of lingering paperwork somewhere that already identifies the dead-end as a sidewalk (even if it doesn't look like one). Perhaps instead it could be designated as sidewalk. Maybe it's just more straightforward to get parking approved that doesn't quite meet the guidelines.
We'll just have to see.
Comments
chephy (not verified)
Worthwhilte initiative? Hmm...
Sun, 01/04/2009 - 02:51I can very well see how the city might not consider it justified to install bike parking on that street. My question is, why do YOU consider it to be. Bike parking is a great thing, no doubt, and I'm all for more of it, however, how many cyclists is it going to serve on an 8-house street? The only people who will ever want to park there are those who live there or visit someone who lives there, and then a bike can usually be accommodated somewhere on the property. However small some city lots are, bikes can typically fit somewhere in the garage, backyard, on the porch... Would you or your wife even use those rings yourselves?
It's not just that the city staff is "busy with other things". It's that installing post-and-rings costs (surprise, surprise!) money. I'm not sure it's fair to spend a fair bunch of taxpayer's money for bike parking on a dead-end residential street, especially when there is such a dire need of it in so many other place.
Perhaps I (and the city) would be more inclined to support your cause if you explained why you thought bike parking on that street is a good idea and will be well used. Right now you come off as someone who's trying to see whether you can get the city to put post-and-rings where they're not particularly needed, just because there is space to put them. And document the process here so others can do the same. shrug
Of course, it is all about goals and priorities. Perhaps your vision is that of plentiful bike parking on every single street. After all, essentially all streets have car parking (of course, no special arrangements are required for that, only a road wide enough, but still). I can relate to this somewhat, but am not sure whether at this we have the resources or the need for that kind of level of accommodation.
The EnigManiac
The question is not why, but why not.
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 07:38I find it somewhat disheartening and distressing when I see fellow-cyclists who still view the world through a windshield. It doesn't matter if there are only 8 houses on the street or 800. If the residents on that street are granted street space for parking, should cyclists not be given the same consideration? Should infrastructure not be provided for them at all? Are they not tax-payers too? Does one need to live on only big, important streets before they get attention? Perhaps the ring-posts would encourage more residents and their visitors to cycle. Perhaps, right now, few folks cycle there because there is little or no place to safely lock-up a bike.
It's an age-old argument used by motorists who argue against bike lanes: there's not enough people cycling to justify their cost. But it's a chicken and egg thing. If we can't see cyclists than they don't exist, yet if we install lanes or ring-posts, nine times out of ten they get used. How often they get used is of little consequence. If only one person uses the ring-post, the cost is justified. Why should cyclists have to park their bikes and the bikes of their visitors on their portches or in their backyards? Motorists don't have to. Perhaps there's no room for bikes on the property, perhaps a home-owner doesn't want to accept the responsibility of a bike on their property, perhaps folks would like to sit and entertain their friends on their portches, not try to weave around a parking-lot of bikes on a portch, particularly when they look out and see all the motorists have parking and don't have their personal space infringed upon. They have every street in the city almost to park their car. We should have the same convenience. We, as a cycling community, need to start striving for the same rights as our neighbours.
This past summer I requested a ring-post outside my home on Dovercourt Rd. near Davenport to accomodate my many cyclists friends and maybe even provide easier access for my bike during the winter months, considering rear alley-ways are never plowed. It was declined. The city said the sidewalk was too narrow (and it is). The city said they only install ring-posts---if at all---on corners. The city said they wouldn't even approve of one on the city right-of-way in front of my steps (adjacent to but not impacting the sidewalk) where it would not be in anyone's way nor would they consider a cut-away on the street. I pointed out that my neighbours all have garages AND street spaces for their cars right in front of their homes, but I don't warrant even a few centimeters? Am I a second-class citizen? Am I less of a person because I choose not to own a car? I don't deserve equal consideration? I asked if my property taxes would be lowered because I am denied the same conveniences my neighbours enjoy. They ignored that, of course. But now, with the nearby bike lanes still clogged with ice, snow and cars and the city refusing to do anything about it, with being denied a place for my friends to park their bikes, maybe it's time for real action. Maybe hitting the city in the pocketbook is just what is needed.
The city said ring-posts are installed at destinations. I submit my home is a destination as is the blogger's wife's home. Ring-posts should be on all residential streets big or small. Until then, we are being discriminated upon and punished by a hypocritical city that does NOT encourage cycling.
Luke Siragusa
Re: The question is not why...
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:19Good points Enig. Kiwano's initiative is entirely justified even though it may benefit him and no one else. C'mon cyclists, be objective here: at work is the same standard of validity -- self interest writ large! -- employed in justifying on-street parking perqs.
I mean curb side parkers on Davenport -- the full length, from Church to Old Weston -- when precluding snow removal and effectively transforming one of the primary east/west bikeways into a parking lot several kilometers long, don't warrant their privileges in terms of our and outsider's interests do they?
Remove bicycles from the proposition and consider the principle: kiwano is just a local taxpayer availing himself of what, ostensibly, are local public amenities/services to his own advantage. (That, in the aggregate, velo-centric self interest tends to the common good should be an adjunct, not the prime motivator, to the enterprise.)
Digression: heresy it may be, but among the possible benefits of slapping cyclists with some type of nominal registration fee or city surcharge -- bureaucracy still sucks! -- would be a measure of undeniable legitimacy and entitlement that motorists enjoy without a second thought. An explicit record of having bought equal consideration can be a good thing.
Erhard
Be careful what you ask for....
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 21:21....i.e. same rights and rules for bikes as the ones for cars.
http://www.toronto.ca/faq/parking.htm#availability
Jest aside: the problems of downtown are much different from the ones in the burbs. Neither I nor my neighbours would have a need for on street bike parking.
The EnigManiac
You speak...
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 11:04...for all your neighbours?
How do you know your neighbours would not make use of on-street bike parking? Perhaps they are simply dealing with not having any bike parking infrastructure and are storing their bikes in their homes, garages or sheds. Perhaps they'd prefer or make use of on-street bike parking if it was available. Just because one does not see any bicycles---particularly in January---does not mean they are not there.
Erhard
This news may cause culture shock....
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:23...- culture shock since my burb is so different from your world. Home owners are expected to park their cars in garages and driveways, as the subdivision was spec'ed out that way, 30 years ago. It usually works since these are single-family dwellings and each house has room for 4 cars. At night, rarely any car is left at the curb. If someone keeps parking on the street, the city's parking enforcement may be called and they'll issue a ticket if the 3-hour-limit has been exceeded. So much for the drivers' perceived right to park on the street - it doesn't exist here. I had hinted at that earlier when I pointed out Toronto's 3 hour parking limit.
With the lots being around 60ft by 150ft, wide driveways and tools sheds, trees, pools etc having found room on the property, few folks would have a need to place their bike on the public portion of the area. But as you point out, I may be mistaken as long as I have not asked around.
There has been a need for parking a few corners away, at the TTC stop on Finch Avenue where no house faces the road. Some folks (2, as far as I can tell) cycle to the bus stop and leave their bikes there. The city has installed two bike rings there, maybe because someone once pulled the application from the city's website and applied for it. Has anyone tried this lately?
The EnigManiac
The Burbs...
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 13:14...are an alien environment in comparison with downtown Toronto, agreed. I lived up in North York and Scarborough for years and biking there was a white-knuckle experience, to say the least. And you're right, parking, of any nature, is rarely a problem, but I recall renting a room in the Steeles / Yonge area where the landlord refused to allow my bike inside or in the garage and I had to lock it to a utility pole, so I would suspect there are still a few folks up there that would love to have proper bike parking facilities even in the car-crazy 'burbs.
As I mentioned earlier, I applied to the city for a ring-post and they sent out two inspectors who flat-out told me they would not approve one and gave me the irrational as well as rational reasons why.
Erhard
So, there is a process in place....
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 20:32...but like all such processes, they may or may not lead to success. I think we'll see these things come up more often in the future as more folks cycle, and we'll see lots of change: The city installing more bike parking, the landlords providing facilities for their tenants, home builders and renovators taking bikes into account, businesses providing for cycling customers and employees, and the bylaws changing to create more workable rules. A lot of work needs to be done....
The EnigManiac
Agreed...
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 20:50Alot of work needs to be done, but we can't just leave it to the politicians to do it. It'll never get done if they don't think anyone wants it or it won't translate into votes. We have to badger, bug, harass and remind them over and over that they're not doing enough and not doing it fast enough. They need to work for our votes and be cognizant of the fact that cyclists vote. If they won't do what we want, we'll find someone who can.
kiwano
Actually there is a need.
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 01:31As things currently stand, there is one passable bicycle parking space on the whole street (locked to a hydro pole's guy wire). This space is squatted pretty aggressively, and there have been minor (i.e. still polite) conflicts over it.
The street consists entirely of infill housing, with lots that are both short and narrow. The semi-detached houses are only 14' wide, with properties that end at the front of the porches (every house has an encroachment agreement in place for its front steps). On top of this, the backyards are about 12' deep before they terminate at a retaining wall that holds in the soil from the backyards on the next street over (i.e. there are no garages or toolsheds), not that this much matters as the walkways between the houses are only about 3' wide in the places where there aren't chimneys, gas meters, downspouts, rain barrels, or other obstacles.
The entire north half of the street is used for car parking; since the side of the house from the major cross-street adds length to the road (without providing more on-property space that could potentially be used for bike parking), there is room for around 10-11 parked cars on the curbside.
Most houses on the street are further divided into two units (either the top floor or the basement as a seperate apartment from the rest of the house), and therefore accomodate between 4 and 6 residents. With a 14' wide house, and the need to access the front door, parking even two bicycles on the porch leaves it unusable for anything other than unsheltered storage. Bicycle parking in the backyards would overwhelm them almost as quickly, never mind that navigating a bicycle past the obstacles in the walkways is about as easy as carrying it up two flights of stairs (I've done both with an assortment of bicycles).
So basically, the existing configuration of the road tells the residents: "Hey! Do you want to be able to sit on your porch in the summer and chat with your neighbours? Or maybe spend an evening relaxing in your backyard? Well then you'd better not ride a bike. Driving a car is fine though." With a population on the street somewhere between 30 and 50 people (in case you haven't guessed, it's not a high-income strip, so cycling would actually make a lot of sense for these people too), there's plenty of potential demand (hell, there's plenty of existent demand) to fill up an extra 8-10 bicycle parking spaces really quickly.
Finally, my wife operates a natural health practice out of her home. She tries to actively encourage clients to cycle to their appointments. There arepromotions (note item 2 in the newsletter), there is a small assortment of tools available for use (ok, a bit of "duh" there since it's a cyclists' home), there's a little certificate from the city identifying her as a Bicycle Friendly Business. What there isn't is decent bicycle parking within at least a block.
And you know what, I'd be plenty happy to just get an encroachment agreement from the city to install bicycle parking of our own if that's what it comes to. Hell, with an encroachment agreement, we could probabably even score a little bit of shelter for the bikes too.
Svend
No need for an encroachment
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:30No need for an encroachment agreement, just put a bike rack in your front yard. You maintain this portion of city property by shoveling their snow and raking their leaves, they allow you to plant flowers or grass on this section, even fence it in if you want.
Car parking is a hassle, especially in the winter - remind yourself how lucky you are not to be burdened with one.
jamesmallon (not verified)
forged post & ring
Sun, 01/04/2009 - 10:23Regardless of where you have them put, can you work on the city to replace the 2x4 breakable rings, such as in the picture, with fully forged post & rings (one piece)? That the former have been proven weak for several years and have not been replaced is yet one more insult from this city to cyclists, and common sense.
The low hanging fruit of a cycling city are, from most to least essential: policing of careless and aggressive driving, reducing on-street car parking (speeds transit too), and policing of the used bicycle trade. Bike lanes are an irrelevancy if it is in the door zone; I just need somewhere to ride without a car between me and the curb.
Looked at your across Canada tour blog. Very interesting. Something that is on my 'to do' list. Which part was the best, either for scenery or for people?
J (not verified)
This is a bit rediculous...
Sun, 01/04/2009 - 11:41Am i the only one who's rubbed the wrong way by this initiative? We all want secure and safe bicycle parking in this city but the reality is that we have limited funds and must make efficient use of them.
I agree fully with the first comment by chephy. Why don't you try getting bike parking where its needed rather than something that will help you or your wife (and perhaps about 10 other people)?
The EnigManiac
Bike parking isn't needed at
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 07:51Bike parking isn't needed at people's homes? Like most home-owners in the city who have two or three cars per household, many cyclists have multiple bikes too (there are 5 in my household) and finding storage for them all is not always easy. Downtown homes tend to be small, after all and bikes, while having less mass than cars, sure take up a lot of space in an 1100 or 1200sq ft home. Cars are granted public space at residents homes by the city, but you suggest bikes shouldn't? Are bikes not legal vehicles? Are they not an alleged preferred mode of transportation according to the city? They should be granted the same consideration as motor vehicles, if not more. Or perhaps you don't agree. If bike parking should only be, as you say, 'where it's needed,' I presume you mean at office buildings, busy shopping streets, etc. But how will the bike get there if it had no place to start from?
J (not verified)
I don't disagree with you at all
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 09:30EnigManiac you make a very good point. Ideally yes, bikes would be equal to cars on all roads, have green p like lots that are secure and easy to use, and showering/changing/maintenance infrastructure in place at locations similar to gas stations.
All it comes down to for me (in this case) is matching the available resources to immediate needs. The squeaky wheel gets the grease even though other spots may be more deserving in the meantime.
David Juliusson (not verified)
We need a standard for bike parking
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 13:14My local Valu Mart recently installed bike parking. That is good. The problem is it is too low for my 27 inch whell and therefore I can''t park there. Good for tying up dogs though.At the local No Frills they have a bike rack that is too narrow for my hybrid tires. It is the type that breaks spokes anyways. I tie up to a parking sign. Nobody uses this rack. The No Frills the second closest to me has good bike parking. It is used.This happens repeatedly all over the city, even at city run facilities. I am sure everyone reading this can cite an example of their own.
The problem is these are the people who are trying. Valu Mart wanted bike parking people could use. They didn't have to put bike parking in. They just don't know what is needed.
This is something the bike community could help with. Perhaps orchestrated through the Bike Union or Dan Egan's office. We need a standard for bike parking. It needs to be written down so it can be accessed when someone like No Frills puts in parking. They don't want to waste their money and I don't want to or can't use their bike parking.
So what sort of parking do we want? I want something I can fit my lock around the body of my bike, through my wheel and attaches to the piece I am locking my bike to. The city rings are good, but I have seen other types that work too.
vic
City's bike parking guidelines
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 13:25The City has their own bike parking guidelines document, available here:
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/bicycle_parking_guide.htm
David Juliusson (not verified)
City's Parking Guideline is a good one, but largely unknown.
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 11:08To Vic
Thanks for posting about the City Parking guideline. I knew about it but most people don't.
How should this information be better known to people when they are trying to install proper bike parking? As I said, my local Valu Mart was really trying. They put in ring posts, spent their money to try and provide proper parking. The just did it wrong.
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/bicycle_parking_guide.htm
kiwano
Ok, I'm going to take off my
Thu, 01/08/2009 - 01:55Ok, I'm going to take off my cyclist hat for a moment, and put on my target shooter hat...
So where can I find you when Mayor Miller starts shooting his mouth off about a handgun ban? I don't know if you've looked at the numbers there, but a lowball estimate of the cost to appropriate all the newly-prohibited handguns should such a ban actually be legislated into effect is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3B (you've got to actually pay for the guns appropriated, pay for administrative costs around maintaining a suitable paper trail from identification in the registry to verified destruction, pay for appraisals to determine fair compensation for the appropriation, pay for lawyers to handle any appeals of the appraised value, etc.)
If that money were to be otherwise distributed for public services roughly proportionally to population, Toronto would be footing about $300M of that bill. Do want to hazard a guess at just how many ring and post stands the city could install for $300M (and if each bike parking space removed a car from the road, do you have any doubt that such an initiative would save more lives in Toronto alone than the ban would save in all of Canada)?
Seriously, what's ridiculous is squabbling over some miniscule fraction of an already pitiful cycling budget, instead of directing your energy to an expanded budget. Oh, and the way that public budgets work is that the more demand/backlog there is for a particular service (e.g. bicycle parking installation), the larger a budget gets allocated to that service.
The EnigManiac
Look at it this way
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 13:26Take a ride along any downtown residential street during the summer and you'll see hundreds and thousands of bicycles locked up to and clogging portches, fences and street sign-posts. If anything is ridiculous, that is. It would seem that the city would recognize that 10 bikes can park in the space of one car and that cyclists are the squeaky wheel, so to speak. There should be appropriate bicycle parking facilities on every residential street and if the sidewalks are too narrow---as most are---then cut-aways that extend into the parking lane (though really they are not parking lanes) should be installed. Motorists can give up 4-6 spots to accomodate 20-30, maybe as many as 50 or 60 bicycles. If they don't like it, too bad. We've had the short end of the stick for too long and the city needs to be convinced to treat us equally or maybe face legal consequences. Being nice hasn't worked. We need to get tough.
Tanya Q (not verified)
Porches are great places to park bicycles!
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 16:15You're right next to the door of where you are going (whether its your home or somewhere you are visiting), it feels secure (since you can look out the window and see your bike), and its partially covered. Given the choice between porch parking and street parking in a residential street I'm sure (exception being really steep stairs) most cyclists would pick porch anytime.
However I do agree that in high demand parking areas (such as Spadina) where sidewalk parking cannot meet demand, street parking spaces could be converted with bollards to a bike parking area.
The EnigManiac
I enjoy sitting on my porch
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 17:53When my friends visit---and I own a very small 100 year-old home---during the spring, summer and fall, we enjoy sitting on the porch or the rear deck, sipping a beer or wine, talking, enjoying one anothers company. Even when I'm alone, I love spending time on my porch with my laptop or whatever. It's not so enjoyable when there are 1, 2, 3 or more bikes and, quite frankly, I can't lift my grocery-getter cruiser-trike up on the porch anyway, so what do I do with it? And in the winter, they don't plow the rear alleyway, so the trike must be out front if I want to use it to go grocery shopping or for the various jobs I have where I need to haul equipment.
But even if I didn't use my porch for entertaining or even personal enjoyment, I resent that the city tells me that I have to secure my vehicle on or in my property when my motorist neighbours are not so confined. Most of my neighbours own multiple vehicles and use their garage as well as 2 or 3 PUBLIC spaces on the road. Except that those spaces are not really public, are they. I am not allowed to use them, even though the spaces are not specifically designated for specific residents (unless they are in disabled spots---most of whom have such signage and stickers without merit). If the city told motorists they had to park their cars and trucks on their porch or in their garage only, first of all they'd reduce the number of vehicles they have and second, they'd scream bloody murder. But at least the playing field would be even. It doesn't matter that a bicycle can fit onto a porch and a car can't: it's not fair nor equal, yet when I get my tax bill every year, it's the same as my neighbours. So, I am expected to pay the same property tax rates, but will not be delivered the same priveleges or rights. I am supposed to accept such inequality? Such discrimination? I have a powerful sense of right and wrong and don't accept such blatant unfairness easily. I want and demand the same rights and priveleges as my neighbours...or I want a lower tax rate.
Svend
EnigManiac, you have an
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 19:05EnigManiac, you have an advantage over cars, you can park your trike on the front lawn, even a whole row of them! Put in your own iron U posts embedded in concrete wherever you want, even if it's on the city's street allowance - they're not going to care. If you have to deal with a landlord, show them the benefit of you not taking up a parking space - maybe buy them a case of beer and offer to put in the post on your own. It will add to their property if done nicely, maybe even give other people the same idea.
The EnigManiac
Dealing with it is not the point
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:18Of course I CAN park anywhere. That is one of the advantages of a bicycle, I know. But that isn't the point. The city telling me they will not grant me or you or any of us the same right and privelege, the same convenience and consideration as they afford to some fat, lazy slob who thinks he's superior because he has four wheels under his lard butt is the point. It's wrong and they should be held accountable. We can deal with not having ring-posts on residential streets, obviously, because we have been doing it since cars began to take over, but being told I have to park my bike on my property when motorist neighbours don't have to is blatantly unfair. It is two standards for two different people. Why should I not be able to enjoy my porch or my lawn, but my neighbour can? Is he special or something? Besides, I have a postage stamp sized front yard that I just put a new lawn on and have had to lose half of it to the monster garbage bins because they don't fit down my sliver of a walkway between my house and the next one over.
The city suggested I install my own ring-post on the city right-of-way, but I am hesitant to install my property on city property. Whether the city will care or not is arguable; they could---at any time---remove my ring-post at their discretion and when I raised that concern, they said they couldn't guarantee they would allow it to stay. And it comes down to the matter of fairness. Did my motoring neighbours have to pave the road in front of their home for their car? No. So, why should I have to install my own infrastructure when they provided the infrastructure for my motoring neighbours? It's simply not fair. It's valuing the car over the bike and that is not consistent with the city's message that they want more folks on bikes. They need to be expedient and serious about encourage cycling, not spouting empty words.
Installing my own ring-post solves the problem of parking---assuming the city never removes the ring-post or fines me for it or whatever---but that let's the city off the hook. They'd love for me to install my own and leave the matter at that, but I don't think they should get away with an obvious discriminatory and unfair practice and policy. I might be able to park my bike, but I would still be a second-class citizen paying a first-class citizen's taxes.
And what about all the other cyclists on my street and the next one over and the next one to that and so on and so on? What about their rights and their needs? Should they just roll over and take it, as you suggest? Suck it up and accept that they are not equal? No way, I say. Not only am I, as a cyclist, not a second-class citizen, but I am a benefit to the city, to the neighbourhood and should be given the respect that my efforts and sacrifices deserve.
Svend
Good points, but...
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 21:37Why are you hesitant to install something on your front yard?
The city won't care if you install a fountain, a flagpole, a statue or bike rack - but they'll come down hard on your neighbour who puts in a parking pad without getting a permit.
I realize that you pay taxes to subsidize him but try to look at him as the victim, enslaved to a ton of depreciating metal that he doesn't have room for.
I believe that street parking should be eliminated, or at least only made available at a high cost. It's ridiculous that anyone can park for about $10 per month on a residential street, imagine if it cost 20 times that. You'd see a lot of people rethink the need for a car then.
The EnigManiac
Welllll....
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 23:43When the city says they can't guarantee any permanent fixture will not be removed by city crews---at my expense---I become hesitant. Call me funny that way. ;)
As much as car-owners are enslaved by their metal boxes, they don't see themselves as slaves, for the most part. In fact, many of them are in love with their Masters.
I fully endorse the elimination of street parking. It is public space, after all, not private parking. I think the city should be discouraging driving at every turn: reducing on-street parking, charging outrageous fees for what parking they do retain, installing bike lanes on every major thoroughfare and creating car-free streets and zones. But they also have to ensure there are adequate and reasonable alternatives. Not everyone can ride a bike.
David (not verified)
Couple of points
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 15:09EnigMatic, I'm presuming you're not trolling, so I hope I'm not wasting my time addressing a couple of your points. I too currently lock my bike (and my wife's bike) on my porch, and am tired of them being there. In the winter this is less an issue, as I don't want to hang out there.
Those neighbours that are filling their garages, and the street may be paying for the privilege, up to a cost of ~$450 per year (for the street parking). Additionally, they are paying annually for the garage, in the form of higher property taxes, which are based on assessments, which include some value for garages.
Personally, I would be glad to be able to park my car on my front lawn, but am not permitted to do so, I expect this is the case of your neighbours too.
I don't blame you for not wanting to install your own rack on the city property.
I would suggest you consider locking your bike to the nearest stop sign or parking sign, to your house. This will free up your porch for your wine and cheese. You may have to walk some distance to and from your bike, just like most on-street parkers, especially those in areas which attract lots of non-residents (like a place I used to live, which was close to a subway station). I used to do this when I lived in an apartment.. You get "used" to the feeling of knowing your bike is somewhat more vulnerable (though I would suspect in my case, this would be more secure than locking my bike to my porch).
You may want to consider reducing your bike collection, or store the bikes you're not actively using somewhere else. Actually, forget I suggested the former- nobody should be forced to part with a bike. Maybe you should add a folding bike to your collection instead.
One last thing: have you ever seen these:
http://www.frontyardcompany.co.uk/products/plantlock.html
It's a large planter that acts as a bike lock. You might be able to roll your own, and place it on city property; it could be moved if needed, but would act as a deterrent for theft.
David
The EnigManiac
Treating the symptom, not curing the disease.
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 23:27Thanks David for your comments. They are well-received. First, I am a long-time member here, certainly not a troll.
Locking my bike(s) to sign posts or a planter in the front yard are, indeed, solutions, but they merely treat the symptom; they don't cure the disease. The rules still remain blatantly unfair and discriminatory.
The city states our sidewalks are too narrow and they want to avoid cluttering them up with ring-posts or impede sidewalk clearing plows. I couldn't agree more. The sidewalks are narrow and are frequently impeded by thick wooden utility poles. Some of my neighbours have hedges or fences that border the sidewalk and allow less than two feet across when near a utility pole. Pedestrians must walk in single-file to get through. Aside from the fact that sidewalk plow blades are too wide for our downtown sidewalks as it is, parking my bike against one of these poles would completely block the sidewalk, particularly if I parked my cruiser trike, and would require a massive chain lock. It's ironic that I would be allowed to chain up to a utility pole and take up twice the amount of space as I would if I were to lock up to a ring-post, but ring-posts aren't allowed because they take up too much space.
My front yard is marginally larger than a postage stamp and is now ruined with all the various garbage and recycling containers we must use. There's no room for a planter nor my bikes.
I also have a garage and am taxed the same as my neighbours who store one of their vehicles in their garages. Most of my bikes are in the garage, but without a driveway, I can only access my garage through the alley-way. The entrance is a full block up the street and is never plowed, making it impossible to navigate with all the snow and ice. If I want to ride my regular bike (a semi-recumbent) or my trike (used frequently year-round), they need to be parked in front of my home. As I mentioned before, the trike is simply too big and heavy to lug up the stairs to my porch so, right now it blocks my stairs, being locked to my railing.
The only difference, as you point out, is that my neighbours pay a fee to park on the road, except for the many who (without merit, as they are not disabled) have disabled spots that are designated specifically for them directly outside their homes. I even offered to pay a small fee to the city if they would install a cut-away with 1 or 2 ring-posts (the double kind that can't be defeated). They refused.
No matter what solution I come up with, the fact remains that I am denied the same rights, priveleges and conveniences as my polluting neighbours and that simply is not right or fair.
AnnieD
On-street bike parking
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 09:22I'm in a similar situation to EnigManiac, with no garage to boot (and no space between the houses for a bike to pass - how's that for narrow?). It would be nice if a couple of on-street parking spots on each block were reserved for bicycles, with ring-posts right up against the sidewalk (maybe a tiny cut-out in the sidewalk so that they wouldn't interfere with plowing?). Residents could then pay for a parking permit to use these on-street bike parking spots with the cost = cost for a car divided by the number of bike parking spots in one car parking spot. Dreamin'
Kevin Love
Park in the street
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 23:07EnigMatic wrote:
"parking my bike against one of these poles would completely block the sidewalk"
Kevin's comment:
My advice is to chain your bike to the pole and park it on the other side, in the street. You have a legal right to park your bike in the street. My suggestion would be to get a massive case-hardened chain that is long enough to chain all your bikes to at once. Leave this chain on the pole all the time. If you don't care how much they weigh, it is possible to get chains and locks that are extremely difficult for thieves to defeat. For all your statements about being a second-class citizen, you have just as much right to park your bikes in the street as your neighbour has to park his car.
With one exception - he has to pay a fee for parking his car, but you can park your bikes for free. So who is the second-class citizen here?
The EnigManiac
I have thought of doing just that...
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 23:35...and even tested it last October. I ran one of my cable locks around the post outside my home and attached another to my trike and then used several locks to link all my bikes together. I will be doing so again in the spring and will send pictures to my councillor, lwetting him know what I am doing and why and reminding him that there are no laws against it. The only thing is, I risk pissing off my neighbours who use the space and even though they are hideous, evil, acid-drooling monsters who drive cars (LOL), they are still nice people. Still, someone may vandalize the bikes in protest and my issue is not with my neighbours so much as it is with discriminatory policies of the city. But it would be no different from having a cut-away in front of or near my home that would deprive residents of a parking space anyway and that's really the best solution.
Kevin Love
That happened to me once
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 15:30EnigMatic wrote:
"someone may vandalize the bikes in protest"
One of the drivers of the type that you mentioned once said to me that he "feared" my bike parked in the street would be vandalized. My response was to say something along the lines of "Yes, those vandals can be terrible. It wouldn't surprise me that if anything were to happen to my bike, the very next night the same vandal would slash all four of your tires."
Needless to say, nothing ever happened to my bike.
The EnigManiac
Something to consider...
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:21I also like the idea of a sign warning that the area is under video surveillance.