I was just reading an article in Momentum Magazine about how cycling
advocates in Chicago, Oakland, and New York were caught "with their
pants down" when those cities went to "pay and display" car parking
and removed the parking meters. This resulted in huge losses in bike
parking.
I then had a little 2 second panic when I realized that Eugene is
considering free car parking downtown, and thus may also be
considering removing the parking meters.
I just wanted to send a request out to our intrepid advocates to make
sure that the City considers leaving the parking meters in place for
bikes to use. (If they haven't already.) It is silly to spend money
to remove meters and then spend money to install bike parking. City
departments should not work against each other :) I suppose this
would be a job for the BPAC?
That article, which is a very good read, can be found here:
http://www.momentumplanet.com/columns/messenger-momentum-43
In related links, NYC had a bike rack design contest for the re-
purposed meters. http://nycityracks.wordpress.com/
and some interesting numbers: http://www.good.is/post/new-york-turns-parking-meters-into-bike-racks
We can't let NYC show up Eugene, can we? Money talks, and this saves
money. :)
Free parking is the wrong way to go if we see the car as the chief
competitor to the bike.
Which all relates to the concept espoused in the Portland Bike Strategic
Plan for 2030: The car is the major competitor to the bike. We must make
using a bike preferable to using a car. We don't have that now in
Eugene, and our ped/bike strategic plan does not include this. But it
could in the revision. For example, the Mayor proposed signal priority
for bikes like EmX two bike/ped summits ago. We have it near me for
seniors at Cascade Manor who cross 29th (signal priority for Seniors).
Push the button and all cars stop in 20 seconds.
Jim
Marc Schlossberg wrote:
> Free parking may eventually be the wrong way to go, but if we can�t
> get a thriving urban core, then sustainability is out the window. Once
> we get a thriving core, free parking won�t make anyone�s car journey
> easier and quicker. In fact the busier it would get, with free parking
> or not, the easier it will be to get around by foot, bike, or transit.
> I think free car parking for now is probably wise. That or start
> charfging for parking at all the shopping districts outside of the
> urban core, but that won�t / can�t happen.
>
> Regarding parking in general, though, I think we should eliminate any
> minimum car parking requirements, but require better bike parking.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> - Marc
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Marc Schlossberg, PhD
> 2009-10 Fulbright Scholar
> Town and Regional Planning
> University of Sheffield
> United Kingdom
>
> /on loan from...
>
> /
> *_University of Oregon
> _*
> /_Associate Professor
> _/ Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management (PPPM)
> /_Co-Director
> _/ Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI)
> /_Associate Director
> _/ Oregon Transportation Research & Education Consortium (OTREC)
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GEARs" group.
To post to this group, send email to Greater-Eugen...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Greater-Eugene-Area...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Greater-Eugene-Area-Riders?hl=en.
Instead of free parking downtown, why not tax the parking spaces at
really large parking lots, such as at Walmart. The small stores
downtown would not have to pay the tax.
--Milton Takei
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [GEARs] free car parking downtown = less parking meters =
less bike parking?
From: "Jim Wilcox" <jimw...@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, March 1, 2010 9:13 am
To: "Marc Schlossberg" <schl...@uoregon.edu>
Cc: dre...@gmail.com
"GEARs" <Greater-Eugen...@googlegroups.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the concept of elimination of minimum car parking
requirements, but that won't happen. Portland allows for 25% offset for
installation of bike parking. That is obviously doable. And it's an
example of a bike friendly community by the League standards. One way to
work toward Platinum.
Which all relates to the concept espoused in the Portland Bike Strategic
Plan for 2030: The car is the major competitor to the bike. We must make
using a bike preferable to using a car. We don't have that now in
Eugene, and our ped/bike strategic plan does not include this. But it
could in the revision. For example, the Mayor proposed signal priority
for bikes like EmX two bike/ped summits ago. We have it near me for
seniors at Cascade Manor who cross 29th (signal priority for Seniors).
Push the button and all cars stop in 20 seconds.
Jim
Marc Schlossberg wrote:
> Free parking may eventually be the wrong way to go, but if we can�t
> get a thriving urban core, then sustainability is out the window. Once
> we get a thriving core, free parking won�t make anyone�s car journey
> easier and quicker. In fact the busier it would get, with free parking
> or not, the easier it will be to get around by foot, bike, or transit.
> I think free car parking for now is probably wise. That or start
> charfging for parking at all the shopping districts outside of the
> urban core, but that won�t / can�t happen.
>
> Regarding parking in general, though, I think we should eliminate any
> minimum car parking requirements, but require better bike parking.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> - Marc
>
>
> On 3/1/10 3:57 PM, "jimw...@comcast.net" <jimw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I understand the city is not going to remove the "meters". But
> they may
> mean polls. Someone from BPAC can check on this.
>
> Free parking is the wrong way to go if we see the car as the chief
> competitor to the bike.
>