Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Andrew Malizio Ghost Bike in Gaithersburg | Main | Biking around DC's Streetcars and tracks »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Can a residential (or any) building assess a charge for using a bicycle space?

If it hadn't taken a few thousand days for this to happen (instead of 90), my 2013 8-unit condo building would have been designed with parking for us...

I think they can, but I don't know if any do. Are there some that do that? I can ask Jim Sebastian if so.

Jess, you can now get them to install one bike rack that will park two bikes.

"Can a residential (or any) building assess a charge for using a bicycle space?"

How would it be any different than charging for an automobile parking space? I fully would expect there to be a charge.

I think my residential building does charge a $50 one time fee but I'll have to check.

I currently don't use the garage parking provided because security, in the past, has been an issue and its also less convenient if one uses their bike often.

@Econ
As I read the law an existing building only has to provide spaces to meet demand up to 1 for every 3 units. If the building manager doesn't want to provided spaces they could, theoretically, simply levy a charge so high as to discourage an requests.

Econ, here are some differences.

1. In general the city has shown an interest in making bike parking free. For example, curbside bike parking is free, but car parking often is not. Same is true at DC facilities, except for the Bike Station.

2. It would likely be cost prohibitive to enforce, and would that mean that the property owners would be cutting locks in order to "tow" bikes that haven't paid? Locking them to the rack? For long term parking - like in a bike room - an annual fee would likely work.

3. The city has an interest in seeing more people bike, which would mean they would want people to have free bike parking.

4. JeffB's point about how building managers of existing buildings could reduce demand by charging high fees.

The "operable condition" provision is well intentioned but meaningless. If, as inevitably happens, a significant percentage is used for longterm bike storage with the commensurate flat tires and missing seats, does that mean the owner has to build more, or is excused? It does not appear to say the former, and if it's the latter, then the language adds nothing.

@washcycle Yes, but it gets a little more complicated when "them" is "us", a.k.a. the condo board.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader