Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Act of 2007

A few weeks ago Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells introduced the Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Act of 2007. The legislation would greatly improve bike parking through the city including residential buildings and new construction. The measure would also double the current bike parking requirement at commercial buildings with car parking, and require a detailed study of bike parking and bike access to DC government office buildings.

Sounds like a good, environmentally progressive things to do, right? Well, as Washington City Paper recently asked, why is the council's champion of environmental policy opposing it? 

Mendelson has a particular soft spot for tree-hugger causes—the guy did, after all, push through the Urban Forest Preservation Act. So the Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Act, one would think, would be right in Mendelson’s enviro-lefty sweet spot.

Mendelson cites personal experience when explaining his reservations. In his home in McLean Gardens, where he has long owned a condo, the 725-unit complex would require more than 180 bike spaces under Wells’ proposed one-bike-space-for-every-four-units formula. But the bike racks already in place, he says, are mostly empty.

City Paper goes on to ponder possible influence of Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington (AOBA), who opposes the legislation, and who's chief DC lobbyist Nicola Whtieman is a former Mendelson staffer.

Based on Mendelson's previous track record on environmental and bike-related issues, I don't think there is a wider conspiracy here. His point about residential parking spaces is a valid one, but I'm a firm believer in the 'if you build it they will come' nature of bicycle facilities.

WABA is asking for DC residents to contact the city council to urge them to support this. Go here to show your support, or do as I did and email Councilmember Mendelson directly.

Comments

This is such a double-standard. Do we fret about unused auto parking, even when it takes up half the suburbs? No, we don't worry, we just build it, and that's why cars are mainstream. But you propose to build bike parking in the city and somehow it's a huge waste if it might not get used with today's infrastructure. However I strongly belive that we won't be seeing the really large masses of cyclists until automotive lanes (and car parking lanes) are getting replaced with wide divided cyclepaths on-street, bike parking on-street, and bike-geared traffic-signals witha green wave for the cyclists. I'm fine with riding on the street with cars, but those are the people who are already riding. Recruiting more cyclists will require building more facilites to support them first.

The damage done by mandatory car parking requirements won't be undone until those car parking spaces are removed. It's hard for people to consider cycling as mainstream when gov't refuses to build infrastructure on a scale that would support convenient mainstream use of bikes for all the short trips that the average american makes, in place of using a car for those same trips. When you see it that way eliminating car infrastructure makes sense because you're really just upgrading it with a more efficient mode of use.

Just as parking lots at wall-mart are built for the maximum number of shoppers that might ever go there, similarly city bike facilities should be built for the maximum number of cyclists who might be convinced to use those roads in the future. Why? Because since city roads can't be expanded, it is the efficiency with which the roads and parking are used that is the constraining factor to the growth of the city. Without this, most of the growth is diverted out to the suburbs to create more sprawl, rather than rich dense vibrant cities.

[washcycle]

Any frequent reader knows that I LOVE facilities, but I don't think that's what will drive real change. There is a chicken and egg element to it - as with this case - "Why build cyclopaths when only 3% of people bike commute?" they'll ask. I think policy changes like congestion zone charging or a bicycle commuter act are more likely to create large numbers of bike commuters. Shower facility requirements and bicycle sharing programs (both of which could be considered facilities) are other things I think will have that desired effect. But I'm not against on-road facilities too.

[me]

Whoever wrote the above comments should be recruited in the bicycle advocacy world...

There is much that is implicit in those comments that illuminates a much deeper practical and theoretical understanding of the issues of social space, social ecology, transportation, etc..