Make Way For Bike Parking

by Thomas MacMillan | Aug 17, 2011 7:48 am

(26) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall, Transportation

It appears that developers looking to put up buildings in New Haven will have to be prepared to put up bike racks, too. That’s the upshot of a vote Tueday night by the the Board of Aldermen’s City Services and Environmental Policy Committee. The committee approved new zoning regulations concerning a variety of environmental concerns, including creating accommodations for non-internal-combustion transportation—bikes. The new regulations are now headed to the full board. If approved, they will require developers to meet certain requirements having to do with bicycle parking. They new zoning ordinance amendments will also update requirements for stormwater, car parking, soil erosion, lighting, and reflective heat from paved surfaces. They have already found the approval of the City Plan Commission. On Tuesday evening in the aldermanic chamber, Tom Talbot, deputy director of zoning, laid out the proposed changes for committee members. The new regulations would apply to all private development, but not to state or federal projects, he said. With regard to bike parking, the new regulations would require new buildings to provide two bicycle parking spaces for the first ten car parking spaces to be installed and one additional bike space for each additional ten car spaces. Or a bike space could take the place of each tenth car space for buildings requiring a minimum of 10 car spaces. Bike parking must be within 50 feet of a main entrances and not on public property. The new zoning changes also include requirements for long-term bike parking, which must be within 100 feet of the site, at least half covered, and locked or otherwise secured. Cycling advocates saluted the proposed changes at Tuesday’s meeting. “The city is on a roll,” said Anstress Farwell of the Urban Design League. She suggested a minor change to the wording of the amendments to underscore the city’s desire for “environmental justice,” which alderman adopted. Tom Harned of Elm City Cycling said that surveys found that more bike parking has been a top request of city cyclists. He said his group had an opportunity to provide input as the changes were being drafted. Mark Abraham said he supports the changes and would like to see even stronger requirements in the future. For instance, he said, the proposed regulations don’t say where bike parking has to be located in relation to the building, apart from the maximum distance from entrances. Non-Bike Changes Talbot said the proposed zoning ordinance amendments have been in the works for about two years. While the bike-related portions have received the most attention, the changes cover many other areas. The soil erosion section would be significantly expanded, from two to ten pages, according to a report prepared by the City Plan Department. New sections on stormwater, lighting, and reflective heat would be added. Dixwell Alderman Greg Morehead, a member of the committee, sought to make sure this section does not include any new fees. “That’s a touchy subject for all of us here,” he said of the matter of stormwater, following the contentious debate on the creation of a new stormwater authority earlier this year. Talbot assured Morehead that the regulations include no new fees. The main thrust of the new section is to minimize stormwater runoff, he said. A new section on lighting would seek to minimize light leakage onto other properties. Another would seek to reduce the amount of heat reflected from a new development. Asked by Westville Alderman Greg Dildine where the proposed changes came from, Talbot said much of them are from professional literature. “These are standard standards.” The committee voted unanimously to approve the changes.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: mitchel on August 17, 2011 8:15am Why can’t we just have the good old bike racks with like 25 bars like we did when we rode our bikes to school in the 70’s? Why do they have to be partially covered? are we now going to mandate covered bike tunnels on orange st. also? It’s great that we accomidate those who choose to bike to work, but lets not go crazy with mandates to placate these squeaky wheels while this city starves for real government.

two wheels good four wheels bad? Watch the slipperiness of this slope folks….

posted by: streever Mitchel:

Heaven forbid we spend any time or energy improving a mode of transportation which is cheaper and more readily available to a large number of city residents. I mean, we would hate to divert any of the hundreds of billions we currently subsidize cars with, right? After all, the folks who can’t afford a car are just “choosing” to bike to work, while paying the same taxes that subsidize cars. (Fun Fact: The poor pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rich in CT, in the same tax funds that subsidize cars, but are less likely to have access to a car)

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 17, 2011 9:46am How about motorcycle and moped riders have a rack for there bikes.

posted by: robn on August 17, 2011 9:47am MITCHEL, The good news is that, just like the good old days of the 70’s, cars now weight an average of 4000 pounds…so you don’t really have to worry about bikes…just roll over them. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2007_fcvt_fotw475.html

posted by: Lincoln Robertson on August 17, 2011 9:52am I think its great to have bike racks all over town. I think it would be even greater if they all had parking meters charging till midnight. Cars and bikes use the streets, so why shouldn’t cyclists pay their fair share when it comes to parking. They don’t have to pay registration fees. How about economic justice as well as environmental justice. This is just another subsidy to people who vote for DeStefano.

posted by: Mitchel on August 17, 2011 10:07am **Super Duper Fun Fact** I know we poor folk pay a much higher percentage of taxes, i took the long bus to school, and i read warren buffet’s remarks, and i don’t derive much of an income from my very modest investments.

...

posted by: Stephen Harris on August 17, 2011 10:10am Nice to see the sustainable/enviro regs inch their way forward too.

posted by: streever Mitchel

If you saw my tax return, you’d realize that calling me elitist is a bit of a joke on a good day. I can’t afford a car. I spent a few months homeless when I was young. I lived without electricity or running water for 6 months. Sorry, but I’m sick of the ... repeated “you’re an elitist” comment.

posted by: Walt on August 17, 2011 10:21am To be fair shouldn’thave bike-racks designed like female’s as well as well as male’s bikes? Is it necessary thanyway the racks be anatonically correct as is illustrated. No matter what is done New Haven can’t (I hope) outdo Hamden which is currently installing a $3 million tunnel under Skiff St. so the bikists and runners wont have to push a button and wait a few seconds for a traffic light to signal them to proceed. What a boondoggle, especially for bikists who customarily ignore traffic signals anyway

posted by: Mike Slattery on August 17, 2011 10:30am This is good news from good work. Worst case for non-riders, having racks helps to keep bikes from being chained up all over the place, which is a bonus. Re; meters - Cyclists and other two wheelers would pay metered parking for lockers. I would anyway! I’m glad that runoff, heat and lighting are being addressed too. I’d be interested to see by how much construction costs rise with these, and if there are incentives at state and federal levels that defray any added costs.

posted by: anon on August 17, 2011 11:02am Streever, if most of our taxes were not regressive (and CT is among the most regressive), we wouldn’t have as many rich people. Wouldn’t that be a problem?

posted by: New Developements? on August 17, 2011 12:00pm This is assuming there are in fact any new developments in the city. Maybe that co-op at the foot of 360 State, but lets be for real, I have no problem with bikes… but those of you talking like this is aimed to help out the working poor must be bonkers. This is to encourage rich people to start biking, not to help out people who can’t afford a car.

posted by: anon on August 17, 2011 12:24pm Most bicycle commuters low income, middle class, study says http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/04/most_bicycle_commuters_low_inc.html

posted by: streever New Developments?

Bike parking for employees at 360 wouldn’t help out folks who can’t afford cars? What is the starting salary for a cashier? I imagine that, if I can’t afford a car on my salary (Which is better than minimum wage), many people who work service/retail jobs can’t afford cars either. How is it not an issue of equality and economic justice when we enable folks who can’t afford cars to get around and enjoy our city too?

posted by: streever Anon

Where would the rich people go? They work in Fairfield county and NY and live here because taxes are lower on the rich in CT than in NY.

posted by: David Elkin-Ginnetti on August 17, 2011 1:51pm @Lincoln Robertson- Bikes are run entirely on human power. They are not polluting our planet the way that automobiles and other gas powered vehicles are. I think it’s good that the BOA (not DeStefano, really) is subsidising sustainable transport. Cyclists don’t have it as easy as you think. They have to compete for respect from anxious drivers. I think it’s balancing the playing field, as far as meters go. There should be more subsidies for bikes, if anything.

posted by: New Haven Urbanism This vote isn’t pro-bike, anti-car. As a proportion of investment it is 9:1 in favor of cars. If any investment in cycling, no matter how small, is seen as a take-over of driving then how can we make multi-modal transportation possible in the city? Or is the point that people would like us to continue car centric planning that forces us to demolish our tax base in order to build car infrastructure that primarily serve people who don’t pay local taxes (local property taxes, car taxes, and most of the revenue for national chains leave the local economy so buying dunkin donuts does not help New Haven)? Or better yet we can continue to compromise good development projects like 360 State and the Residences at Ninth Square with obscene minimum residential parking requirements because we lack the infrastructure to adequately encourage cycling (bike lanes, cycle tracks, and bike racks), walking (wide roads, dead or small street trees, fast travel speeds, suburban-style buildings with parking lots in front or no active street frontage), and transit use (no bus only lanes) throughout the city. I like the provision that allows a bike parking space to replace a car parking space because it saves developers money and may act as a bit of an incentive to build.

The thing that I’m apprehensive about is what effect the individual mandate of bike parking will look like on streets. I worry that the racks will be built and haphazardly with little regard for sidewalk continuity and actually contribute to the existing signage and post blight that exists on many streets. I would prefer to see both car and bike parking handled more comprehensively, perhaps through the city. Parking should be strategically placed so that different uses share lots and garages during different times of the day and people can walk short distances from the garages in any direction and get to jobs or shops in the city. It seems to me that bike parking should be handled at corners, which could be accomplished effectively if the city undertook a project to begin bumping out curbs throughout the city. The corner of Elm and Howe is a good example of bike parking put on a curb bump out.

posted by: Raymond Luxury-Yacht on August 17, 2011 2:19pm Why must the bike racks be covered?

Exposure to the elements? Weather? Isn’t that how one uses a bicycle anyway?

posted by: anon on August 17, 2011 3:15pm I’ve noticed there are anti-bike people who engage in discussion of bicycle issues regularly in new haven and i think the bike advocates are not being careful enough about them. By giving them credence, they are slipping unwittingly into a scenario where eventually bicyclists are going to be willing to pony up money in rediculous ways. You don’t realize it, but they are positioning the bicyclists for this eventuality, in order to make it an eventuality. standing outside the debate they foster, one can see how absurd and irrational it is, but don’t reply to these points as if they are legitimate. That gives them power. Before you know it, you are paying for bicycle parking at bicycle meters. Seriously, be careful. This is crazy stuff. Do you want your 10-year-old paying a meter to bicycle?

....

posted by: Icarus on August 17, 2011 3:40pm Every small ordinance or issue enacted or even discussed in New Haven immediately turns into class warfare, generalizations, and conspiracy theories. Too bad, this city along with many others would be better off if people worked together instead of sought to divide each other.

posted by: William Kurtz on August 17, 2011 8:19pm What a great step. This is awesome to see.

posted by: anon on August 17, 2011 8:52pm What the? “bicycle parking at bicycle meters. Seriously, be careful. This is crazy stuff. Do you want your 10-year-old paying a meter to bicycle?

....” See those four dots? i don’t remember what I wrote. I thought that was the end of my post. did paul put in four “edited it out” dots at the end of my post, as if he edited something out? either that or he edited out something innocuous. I think I would have remembered if I had written anything improper. Should I take this personally? People will think I wrote something foul, or maybe it happens to everyone else too, and so they won’t think anything. [Editor: Not to worry. You’re anonymous, so no one has any idea who you are anyway. :)]

posted by: anon on August 17, 2011 8:55pm Icarus—my favorite! And so apropos—- unsignificantly

off the coast

there was a splash quite unnoticed

this was

Icarus drowning

posted by: Newhavenerrr on August 18, 2011 3:29am BIKE RACKS AND BIKE LANES BRING GOOD PEOPLE TO THE CITY. MORE BIKES = BETTER DEMOGRAPHIC OF PEOPLE.

posted by: Michael Cohen Bravo, with all the bike theft going on, it is important to provide bike parking in protected areas.