the first mobile bike valet business in the country. The company’s motto is “We rack up events!” And since its launch in D.C. in December, Two Wheel Valet has already handled six, including the recent Kingman Island Bluegrass & Folk Festival. (Weidman estimates he and his team checked 400 bikes in and out of their secure perimeter that day.)
"We’re dubious that even a fraction of those spaces will find themselves filled on any given day, once the new school is constructed. Cut out (or print out) this item and save it for 2013 or 2014, when the new school will be up and running. We’ll see how this prediction turns out."
Well, it's 2013 and the school opened this past summer. Does anyone know if it ended up with all that bike parking? Can anyone swing by for a photo on a school day?
Back in 2007, the Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Act (page 11) created a requirement that residential building owners "provide secure bicycle parking spaces for all existing residential buildings with 8 or more units." But in order for that requirement to go into effect, DDOT needed to write regulations to guide that process. They first tried in 2012, but had to make changes to address the concerns of developers. Now they're ready to try again.
The regulations floated Friday, which the D.C. Department of Transportation expects to enact within 30 days, require “secure bicycle parking spaces for the storage of bicycles in operable condition.” Exempted properties include "elderly housing buildings," assisted-living facilities and nursing homes.
In existing buildings, the spaces — one for every three units — must be provided within 30 days after a written request is received from one or more tenants or property owners. The same amount of spaces must be incorporated into all new buildings.
The spaces (racks or lockers) should be inside the building, in a garage, or in another secure, covered space adjacent to the building. Where the bicycle room has solid walls, the entire room must be visible from the entry door and the room must be outfitted with a motion-activated security light, unless it is illuminated enough already.
The regulations set the minimum size for lockers and the minimum width for each space, in addition to a DDOT-led dispute mediation process.
Property owners will have the opportunity to request a waiver to provide fewer spaces, where parking spaces are not “physically practical” or where “undue economic hardship would result from strict compliance with the regulation.” Where there is no waiver, a violation of the rules will be a Class 4 civil infraction that could result in a $100 to $800 fine.
According to the DDOT’s rulemaking, the agency received some comments “that it felt conflicted with the goals” of the original regulations. It left alone, for example, rules that require covered parking, that determine interior parking locations (no lower than the first cellar level or the first complete below-ground parking level), and that allow for developer waivers.
The county Planning Board on Thursday, March 20 will hold a public hearing about comments it will send to the Maryland Transit Administration, the agency in charge of the Purple Line.
The state and federal governments will have final say when it comes to the final design of the estimated $2.37 billion project. On Thursday, the Planning Department showed off a special web page dedicated to what it will tell the MTA in a series of mandatory referrals on the light rail, the Capital Crescent Trail, Silver Spring Green Trail and Bethesda Metro Station South Entrance.
Many comments are small in nature — planners ask the MTA to provide bicycle channels on stairway connections on the Capital Crescent Trail, to widen a planned sidewalks along East-West Highway and to build a Connecticut Avenue traction power substation into the tracks and trail to reduce visual impacts.
Staff also is asking the MTA to accommodate a stair on the north side of the trail at the planned Chevy Chase Lake Purple Line station. That stair would be provided by the developer of the area.
Staff also put together an interactive map that points to parts of the Purple Line design where county planners would like to see changes.
Other ideas from the website (the map really. It's very useful)
In addition to lighting the Capital Crescent Trail under the Lyttonsville Place bridge, provide wall-wash lighting along the bridge abutment walls to enhance pedestrian safety
Widen the proposed 5-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of Lyttonsville Place to at least 7 feet to meet AASHTO recommendations and provide bicycle lanes by removing the “activity lane”.
Provide a larger landing area at the base of the proposed ramp down to the Capital Crescent Trail from Lyttonsville Place. The landing and crossing could be designed to incorporate local historical and cultural enhancements.
Eliminate both rows of parking on the Spring Street bridge. Widen the proposed 5-foot-wide sidewalks to 13 feet wide. Separate the 16-foot-wide shared travel lane into 11-foot-wide thru lanes and 5-foot-wide bike lanes.
SSTC Trail Access - Evaluate whether it is possible to provide direct access to the Purple Line mezzanine from the Capital Crescent Trail to the east of the escalator.
Relocate the stormwater management facility proposed on the remnant of 1110 Bonifant Street to an offsite location. After completion of the Purple Line, the County should be given first right of refusal for use of the remnants of this parcel for the Silver Spring Bicycle Parking Facility.
Manchester Place Station Bicycle Access -Continue to explore ways for cyclists traveling on Wayne Avenue to cross the Purple Line tracks at a 60 to 90 degree angle.
Extend the Piney Branch Road culvert at Long Branch to permit future construction of a 10-foot wide sidewalk.
Construct cycle tracks (or buffered bike lanes) on University Boulevard where right-of-way is available, and transition from the cycle tracks (or buffered bike lanes) to bicycle lanes where the right-of-way is constrained. However, if there is not agreement to construct cycle tracks, provide 8-foot-shared use paths along both sides of University Boulevard where right-of-way is available or property acquisitions occur as recommended in the Long Branch Sector Plan and Takoma/ Langley Crossroads Sector Plan. Where sufficient space is not available, the shared use path should transition into a sidewalk.
The City Paper's answers issue has a question about bike parking at a condo. The board decided to ban bike parking from the garage and put in a bike room. But there isn't enough space for all the building's bikes and so the question is can the building do this. City Paper's Ally Schweitzer says yes.
I say maybe not.
In short, the 2007 bike parking law required residential building owners to "provide secure bicycle parking spaces for all existing residential buildings with 8 or more units." The 2010 amendment to that law obligated the Mayor to define how many spaces that should be. In 2012, DDOT did that and made a rule that they need to have 1 space for every 3 units. [This is the same as the zoning update that I don't think has passed yet, plus another short term parking space for every 20 units]. So the question is, what is the ratio of spaces in the bike room to units in the building?
I thought the zoning regs also made it illegal to charge for bike parking and had a rule about when the parking was inadequate the building had to provide more. But, maybe that got cut before the end.
Anyway, it may be that the bike room is not in compliance either. The room has to have racks, a secruity light and a window on the door (so that people can see in before entering and getting jumped) and provide a certain amount of space per bike. I'm betting they didn't do that.
Tuesday, November 12 on car and bike parking, the most talked-about part of the update. This hearing is actually full, but there is an overflow night on Tuesday, November 19 where you can speak.
Even if you don't speak, I predict a high level of entertaining crazy. But from a policy standpoint, this is the once a generation change that will do a great deal to improve bike parking and commuting in DC. The most common excuse I hear for not bike commuting is lack of a shower, among other things this will require more showers and changing rooms for bike commuters.
The District first adopted bicycle parking requirements in the Zoning Regulations in 1984 (Title 11 DCMR,
§ 2119). The zoning requirements are fairly minimal, in that they:
Only apply to office, retail, and service uses, and do not apply to residential buildings;
Are directly linked to a percentage of required automobile parking spaces (and thus have little
to no effect where little or no automobile parking is required);
Even where automobile parking is required, set a low standard (5% of required car spaces);
Make no distinctions between bike parking for short-term vs. long-term visitors (by implication,
the standards are oriented toward long-term users such as employees);
Have minimal standards for security, accessibility, and usability; and
Have unclear provisions regarding relief or exemptions from the requirements
In response to these gaps/deficiencies, OP (assisted by its consultant, Nelson\Nygaard) proposed more
robust standards as part of the Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR). Initial recommendations were
published in OP reports developed through the ZRR Parking Working Group in 2008, and were
subsequently refined and published as draft regulations to be adopted as part of the new zoning code.
The Zoning Commission took “final action” on the proposed bike parking regulations (published as Title
11, Subtitle B, Chapter 16) on April 25, 2011, in ZC Order 08-06-C. However, since the new zoning code is
still a work in progress and many issues remain to be resolved, the order has not taken effect. In order
to be fully effective, the adopted bike parking chapter will need some minor revisions as the new zoning
code is completed. OP proposed one adjustment (to the requirement for residential uses) in an updated
chapter that was included in a complete draft of the new code, delivered to the Zoning Commission in
In addition, OP has proposed a new provision to require mitigation for vehicle parking that is provided
significantly in excess of the minimum parking requirement. If a project provides more than 150% of the
required number of parking spaces, the developer must mitigate the impacts of that over-parking
through Transportation Demand Management measures. Qualifying measures could include bike
parking spaces in excess of the minimum number required, and the provision of new Capital Bikeshare
stations on- or off-site.