According to a March 2010 study of bicycle parking at DC government properties, only 6% of DC government buildings would meet current bike parking requirements.
The study, which was mandated under the Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Act of 2007 (the text of the act can be found in the report), found that the overwhelming majority of the District's 450 owned and leased properties would not meet current zoning regulations regarding bike parking - it they were required to meet them. While current zoning regulations require bike parking equal to 5% of automobile parking at commercial garages, no such requirement applies to office buildings owned and leased by the DC government. Not only would many of them not meet the 5% threshold, 81% of facilities have no bike parking at all. And many of the facilities that do have bike parking, have racks that don't meet current standards.
DC is currently updating its zoning, and under the proposed regulations bike parking will be a function of the type of facility and its size in square feet. Under that standard, DC would need to add a total of 11,326 bike parking spaces. Of those 2802 would be class A spaces, intended for long-term use and 8526 would be class B, intended for short-term use. To meet this standard, the study estimates that the District would need to spend $1,326,000.
Even where parking does meet the minimum standard there are locations where the minimum standard isn't meeting need. For example, I went to the Wilson Building earlier this spring and I had to lock my bike to a street sign that already had a bike locked to it - and I was lucky to find that space. The Wilson building might have a lot of bike parking - including indoor parking - but it still isn't enough.
The District should commit to providing enough bike parking to meet the new zoning regulations and current need. The DC government should be an example to other employers, not a laggard. It is much easier to sell policies that the District has instituted itself. The report makes this same point, and lists other policies that DC should institute to be a model for bike commuting. These policies include transportation subsidies for cyclists, secure indoor storage, shower and changing rooms, workplace bike clubs, parking cash out, bike commuting classes, and free or cheap bikesharing memberships. At the very minimum, DC should offer its employees the Federal bike commuting benefit.
The report also suggests that a follow-up study be performed on commercial buildings in the District. Such a study should probably wait until the zoning rewrite process is complete. In the meantime, the Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Amendment Act of 2010 gave the 2007 act teeth. It requires that there be at least 1 bike parking spot for every 20 car parking spots (until the new zoning regulations come through) and it allows for enforcement of that standard. The fiscal impact statement that was issued with the 2010 law made it clear that there are adequate funds to enforce the law. If you should come across a commercial building in DC that doesn't provide the required amount of parking, you should contact the District's information line at 311 and report it. At this point the system relies almost exclusively on citizen reporting, so if you don't report it, it probably won't change.
Bike Parking at Reeves by Eric Gilliland
Ironically, I am in an "argument" with some DC planners on this very issue.
The new proposed regs. are decent in terms of differentiating between long term and short term parking, are stronger than current regs., demand that both types be provided, and require shower and changing facilities.
(The LEED-ND regs. are a wee bit stronger for multiunit residential and shower requirements, and developers are motivated by the desire to achieve LEED designation. The LEED-ND number is one parking space/res. unit, while the parking regs I think are 0.9 spaces/unit).
Unfortunately, national "best practice" parking guidelines for bicycling are misguided in that they are based, for certain categories, on arbitrary criteria disconnected from "patron load" and so what they recommend is very much mismatched for need, for at least five categories:
retail; restaurants; entertainment; parks; and schools.
E.g., a 5,000 s.f. restaurant can support up to 250 patrons, yet according to the national guidelines, a restaurant of this size wouldn't even require a bike parking space because it is smaller than 10,000 s.f., where 1 space/10,000 s.f. is "mandated" each for short term and long term parking.
The DC proposed regs., in this instance, would require a mandatory minimum of 2 short term and 2 long term spaces, which clearly isn't enough for peak load.
Similarly, 10,000 s.f. (1/4 acre) of park space can support a few hundred people, as does 10,000 s.f. in a club, and 10,000 s.f. in a K-6 school is about 10 classrooms, and the national avg. class size is about 24 students. Etc.
The argument that I make wrt just accepting the arbitrary numbers because they are "best practice" is that if the numbers were so wildly out of kilter for providing parking spaces for motor vehicles, ITE and other accrediting transportation engineering organizations would never stand for it. Why should bicycling, especially in those communities where bicycling has the opportunity to capture a significant number of trips, be treated so cavalierly when accommodations for motor vehicle parking are taken so seriously?
Posted by: Richard Layman | December 28, 2011 at 02:16 PM
Does the 5 percent apply to floor space or number of parking units? A parking garage that holds 300 cars could easily accommodate 15 bikes. Or would it need to eliminate 15 car parking spaces for bikes. That's an awful lot of bike parking for a government agency like mine.
The parking at my former government employer at L'Enfant Plaza was adequate for bike commuters and used only 2 or 3 car spaces. (The garage held at least 300 cars.) The racks, however, were typically stuffed with employees' bikes that were used exclusively for lunch time fitness rides.
The garage bike parking was located right next to the security guards too.
Visitors and contactors were prohibited from using the garage (for security reasons, I'm sure) and had to use a handful of bike parking spaces outside the building.
Also showers were available if you paid a nominal charge to use the building's fitness center.
Some of the need for bike parking at my old office would be eliminated if CaBi put a docking station there.
Posted by: Rootchopper | December 28, 2011 at 03:19 PM
For a 300 car parking garage they just need bike parking for 15 bikes. Unless all 15 spaces are routinely used, then it needs 30.
Posted by: washcycle | December 28, 2011 at 03:32 PM
The other point is that the 5% guideline isn't nuanced enough. In dense areas, where there is greater opportunity to capture trips by biking, the number should be higher.
Specifically in DC and Arlington and conurbations, guidelines of 10% with ability to grow to 20% (for DC at least) trips for biking aren't unreasonable, although a large segment of fed workers tend to live far from work, and many are using transit already.
In 3 parking spaces set up as a cage, using two level racks, you can fit at least 20 bikes, with a wide aisle.
Posted by: Richard Layman | December 28, 2011 at 05:33 PM
In all fairness, Eric Gilliland's photo of bike parking doesn't represent the normal state of bike racks at the Reeves Center. It shows the parking situation after a Tweed Ride, after perhaps a thousand cyclists descended upon 14th and U, locking to extra racks provided by WABA.
Posted by: David R. | December 29, 2011 at 10:03 AM
It's a metaphor.
Posted by: washcycle | December 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM
Count me among those who use the Wilson parking because the National Park Service has no racks at the south side of the White House, at the White House visitor center, or at Pershing Park. I've also seen visitors to the aquarium use the Wilson space. The Ronald Reagan racks fill up too.
Posted by: tour guide | December 29, 2011 at 05:44 PM