As many of you know, Ian recently asked your assistance in identifying the location of public bike racks downtown. Many of you responded, and a great map was generated.
Many of those racks are located in parking garages operated by the Pittsburgh Parking Authority. Almost without exception, the number, location and security of these bike racks could use improvement.
The City is now in discussions concerning the future of parking in downtown Pittsburgh. That includes everything from parking rates to operating structure to ownership/lease details.
What I have not seen, or heard discussed, is the question of bike parking. This seems like a wonderful opportunity to remind the City that cyclists need parking too. Personally, I'd like to see some accommodation for motorcycles as well, but that discussion would require a long and loud rant from me.
There are multiple public hearings coming up this week, but the newspapers say that they will not accept public comment at these meetings (huh?). They suggest calling the City. So if you believe that Pittsburgh would be wise to consider the need for bike parking as they discuss the long term future of public parking in downtown, pick up the phone and call your councilperson, or call the Mayors Service Center at 311 with that request. This is the time for such action......
If you want to attend a public meeting, here are the details:
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
6:30 P.M. - Public Hearing - Plan for Leasing Pittsburgh Parking Assets. Location: Southside – Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers Headquarters, 10 S. 19th Street – at the river.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
6:30 P.M. - Public Hearing - Plan for Leasing Pittsburgh Parking Assets. Location: Oakland - Pittsburgh Board of Education Headquarters, 341 S. Bellefield Avenue, Second Floor.
Monday, August 2, 2010
6:30 P.M. - Public Hearing - Plan for Leasing Pittsburgh Parking Assets. Location: Northside – Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Cafeteria, 50 Montgomery Street - enter by the loading dock.
Any recommendations for those of us who are not city residents? I made my views known to Port Authority loudly and clearly in favor of vastly expanded bike parking.
I'm thinking Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
But who/how at the city?
[EDIT: Since this thread is essentially a duplicate, I am duplicating this post in the other one.]
After listening to all the comments from the public meetings the mayor has just releases his revised parking lease proposal this afternoon. One of the notable revisions is the leaseholder will be required to provide bicycle parking on every block that has parking meters.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10223/1079259-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml
Your membership dollars at work 
Nice! At least we will get something out of this deal.
Yes, good job BP.
Incidentally, (@Sarah) I was noticing today that there is a lot of potential parking in the Forbes garage even if the rack is full -- there's plenty of railing right next to it. I'll bet there is a lot of railing space in spots in many other garages as well. The only thing needed is to get the parking authority to officially sanction it.
$451.7 MILLION
wowza.
Will the new bike parking (on every block with meters) be free of charge?
erok? I missed something? 451.7 for what?
that was the highest bid for the leasing of the city's parking garages and meters.
Oi. They'll do anything to avoid raising the rates and getting blamed for it. Has Chicago's lesson not been learned yet?
Seeing as how it's the same company that won the Chicago contract, I'd say no.
ejwme They'll do anything to avoid raising the rates and getting blamed for it.
As near as I understand this story, it is this: a Republican legislature has outlawed the ability of the City of Pittsburgh to raise parking fees - unless the collection of those fees was done by leasing the garages to a corporation that will make a profit out of it.
After all, government collecting revenues?
Socialistic.
Out-of-state corporations that paid big bucks to lobbyists making huge profits?
"Basic economic Freedoms"
So, instead of the parking fees going to the city of Pittsburgh, they go to whoever is the highest bidder.
I'm not sure how much the parking revenues are expected to be, but you can bet that if a company whose only function in life is to return a profit is willing to pay $451 mill for those revenues, there will additional revenues of a few hundred million, or perhaps a billion that will NOT be going to the cash-starved city.
How I look at it is this - the legislature doesn't want to make those folks that live outside the city (who use the city services, and tax-free universities, hospitals, and museums) to have to pay any taxes to the city.
I finally read an article in a paper this morning about it - and aside from the paper's horrid reporting and grammar - I found it absolutely hilarious that the ONLY objection the reporter/editor could manage to get into print was "if parking is too expensive, it will push shoppers to the suburbs".
As if the roads and traffic didn't do that 40 years ago. I'm ashamed to admit most of the time that I live in the 'burbs. But when someone claims that people FROM the 'burbs, or other areas of the city (which I used to be one of those city slickers), are going down town to shop and would be deterred from such an experience by PARKING fees - that is beyond hilarious. Nobody from the 'burbs goes to the city to shop. The people in the city who are shopping are either there for other reasons (like work), or can't get to a shopping district closer to them via mass transit. This is ensured by the entire downtown area shuttering doors at 6PM and consisting of less variety of shops than any other business district in the city.
Now I remember why I stopped reading the news. I really need to remember to bring a novel for the corporate shuttle - even a bodice ripper will have more fact and intelligence behind the words. Another bike ride around town will go a long way towards improving my attitude and convincing me that the city is not as stupid as the people reporting about it claim it is (or are themselves).
bump!
If the lease deal goes down, someone who enjoys pestering people should insert themselves in the process described herein:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10278/1092798-100.stm
If they are really going to tear down and rebuild all those garages, they could incorporate bike parking facilities.
Tearing down and rebuilding parking garages? We can't even get the city to hire someone to draw a line on a road. My heart aches.
Im just going to throw out there that every parking lot in the city is supposed to have a landscaping plan as part of it according to city code---so if they are going to privatize lots, they should include bringing them up to code:
1 tree for every 5 spaces, 25sq feet of landscaping for every single space
is what code says every parking lot should have.
the more you know!
Only if the Code specified those requirements when those garages were built. Generally existing conditions are not required to meet code - they are governed by the Code requirements in effect at the time of construction.
I'm guessing parking ramps would be exempt from such regulations? It would be pretty sweet on the top level to have every other space a rooftop garden plot 
dwillen - screw every other space, there should be a green roof on every parking garage with no parking on it. Nobody likes to park at the top anyway, your car gets rained on, sun shines on it, birds poop on it, snow piles on it. Good for the motor vehicles, good for the people, good for water runoff and mother nature in general.
THAT would make me completely ok with probably most of this parking nonsense. Include 100% green roofs with limited runoff from a decent sized storm and carpetbaggers might deserve a little red carpet treatment.
those codes were in place when new lots were built all over the city. there was no one to enforce them at the time.
as for garages, i am not sure of the rules.
Those code requirements were added in in 1998, and would be enforced by the Bureau of Building Inspection. Garages have somewhat more robust requirements than surface lots, and there are also differences based on number of spaces and in what zoning districts the lots or garages are located.
can you tell me where i can see the code for garages? or give me the number, i can look it up.
do you work in city planning?
My business partner used to. I'll get some more information for you.
Relevant sections of the City Code (courtesy of my business partner):
914.09.D
918.01.B.1
918.01.B.2
918.02.B
918.02.C
922.04.E.j
Wouldn't the new zoning requirement for bike parking apply?
Only to structures built after it went into effect.
Found this stuff on the city's site. this language was in the request for proposal that the companies made to give their bid. it's not exactly what we recommended (a little weaker and not as specific), but i can say fairly confidently that it wouldn't have been in there had we not gotte a conversation going.
While making sure that there is one bike rack per block may be sufficient in many places (and look really cool), i think that it won't be enough in other places (craig st, carson st, downtown for instance). Also, it doesn't have a time frame. the racks should be installed the same day they remove meters, but the agreement doesn't give a time frame. 1 day...1 month...6 months?
I'm glad the public notice language got in there. i really didn't want to see what happened in Philly when they were cutting the heads off of meters with bikes still attached.
2.4 Public Notice
The Concessionaire must provide notification to the public when the current metering
device will be replaced by a Pay Station. The notification format must be pre-approved by
the Authority and must be affixed to the current meter device. The Concessionaire must
provide the meter notification no later than five (5) business days prior to the conversion.
This will allow cyclists to move their bike to a secure location.
2.5 Bike Parking
The Concessionaire must provide a place on each block face for cyclists to secure their
bikes to. In the event that the Concessionaire converts the current metering device to Pay
Stations, the Concessionaire must provide either (a) a minimum of one existing on-street
meter pole with the non-functioning meter head on each block face or (b) leave a
minimum of one existing meter pole per block face and affix a circular “hitch” to the pole
or (c) install a minimum of one bike rack per block face for cyclists to use to secure their
bike. This ensures that the City of Pittsburgh remains a cyclists friendly City.
also, the RFP is located here for further investigation:
http://www.pittsburghpa.gov/mayor/parking/resources.htm
one per block is pretty crappy. hopefully it doesn't preclude the city and/or business owners from installing more.
I thought I heard something about "tear down and rebuild". Usually, new building codes would apply in that case. New building codes also apply to substantial renovations, and sometimes so do zoning rules. There are some dodges around zoning law, for instance, if you preserve some element of the original structure. But I'm not convinced that the zoning law would not apply just because the new structure has the same purpose as the old one.
Also. One parking meter per block face? I don't think that's adequate anywhere.
the building code is different. we worked to get the bike parking ordinance in place that sets the requirements for bike parking for buildings. new buildings and change in use is what triggers it.
this isn't really related to buildings. this is simply the removal of meters in place of new pay stations, which the company said they would be doing in the first 90 days.
we recommended 30% of meters be replaced with bike parking. now we have to work out the details in case this thing does happen
"Also. One parking meter per block face? I don't think that's adequate anywhere. "
This is true, but on places like Smithfield St, and liberty Downtown, I'd kill for one per block, specifically on the bus lane side of smithfield.
For a parking garage, though, I agree 100% - you definitely need more.
The 1-rack thing is only for blocks with metered parking. Right now those blocks have a lock-friendly pole every 20 feet, masquerading as a parking meter. Any way you look at it, there will be a net loss of places to lock your bike, not a gain. They aren't mandated to put in racks along the bus lane, because there aren't any metered spots there.
yeah, i know. these are the details that we need to work out with the company (assuming this goes thru).
i agree, one rack per block isn't enough.
What I'd like to know is, if the new Federal Street library can score getting SIX bike racks, why the Smithfield Street library can't get any, and not from lack of trying. The head of the library is willing, and spoke with the building owner, who is also willing. The problem apparently is at the city level.
Losing the 500-pound flowerpots outside the place would be a start. Or at least move them to where they run interference for the library's doors, which open directly into the faces of pedestrian traffic.
The 500 pound flowerpots are to prevent truck bombs.
*shrug. Maybe somebody should propose integrated truck-bomb prevention and bicycle parking and sell it to the DHS.
@erok, thanks for the explanation.
@dwillen, well, we'll always have street signs.
@Lyle,you need to file a patent on that, asap. That is a brilliant idea, if I'm picturing the size of the pots right I think you could get 3 even 4 bikes per pot.
I would guess that one sticking point is that once you allow people to park bicycles in your obstruction, you open the path for bicycle bombs. To protect against that, you start needing something that's the scale of one of the existing planters with the parking built on the side of it. I'm no expert, though.
i havent been able to focus on this but question:
is there a way to word the code that for every XX car spaces there will be YY bike spaces? Or is it like that already (didnt read-so busy!)
are you talking about the potentially planned removal of parking meters for the newer pay stations? or the bike parking at new and change-in-use building ordinance?
Not many people would consider me a "minority" in any sense, but whenever I hear people getting so worked up about parking lot rates, I just can't relate.
Perhaps I am a member of a minority group after all.
That's cool, but I'd prefer a convertible
On a serious note, don't you think that those bikes on the roadway side are in serious danger of being flattened by one of our local motorists? I'd like to see three big bollards at the edge, if only to make sure that the driver doesn't cream a few thousand dollars worth of bikes and drive away unscathed.
Lyle and I were thinking exactly the same. I'd push the rack all the way to the street, give up half the bike parking, and put a bench on the sidewalk side for a nice place to sit.
...and put a car-shaped thing on the street side of the rack. A, it will dissuade drivers from diving into what they think is a parking space. B, it will protect parked bikes from splash from passing traffic and snowplows.
I love that rack, but I agree on ditching the street side parking in favor of the sidewalk side parking only.
chattanooga just installed this:
Love the back-in diagonal parking too. Wish we could get that here, but instead we mandate unsafe head-in parking because the local bluehairs can't help running over parking meters if they do it the other way.
I'd love to see a permanent sign that said something like "Each bicycle you see here lowers the cost of maintaining your city streets by a $[x]/mile. LOVE your neighborhood cyclists."
has anyone been following the fake twitter account for alan lazowski, A not real account for the singularly eyebrowed CEO of LAZ Parking, who is about to rob Pittsburgh blind.
https://twitter.com/#!/AlanLazowski
Speaking of signage, I was somewhere over the summer (DC maybe?) where they had a sign that said "Traffic lights timed for 25 mph."
I have to hope that it would minimize the rapid accelerations and speeding that you get on so many roads. Lights on Fifth Avenue in Oakland (and elsewhere) are probably timed for 20-25 mph, but so many times, cars race from Craig Street only to get caught at the red light at Dithridge for a few moments.
There is some similar signage on Rt 8 north of Sharpsburg. It seems to work pretty well.
The other thing that would be interesting is a digital display that says "the average speed over the next mile is XX MPH." I think that would make drivers a little less impatient if they're following someone who is moving along at XX + 3 mph. And on the Parkway, it would help avoid stop-and-go standing waves, if just a few motorists could be trained to observe it.
I can make every single light on 5th or Forbes if no cars get in my way. I can't imagine I'm that fast, so 20-25 mph sounds right It also happens to be my preferred route through Oakland since I rarely have to stop except for those pesky cars.
You're faster than me, then. I can only make all the lights if I'm drafting something, which of course, I never do.
I thought 5th in oakland (past dithridge or bellefield) was pretty well-known to be synced - I always thought it was 17mph.
Yea, I'm talking about the one-way parts of 5th and Forbes. I often make it from Morewood to Birmingham bridge with only one red light--at the bridge itself. I'd probably hit that one on green if I slowed down going down the hill.
From McKee down Forbes, I hit them all on green until about CMU or so.. sometimes the one at Craig street is red.. I don't think that one is very synchronized with the rest.
A link to this video was sent to me by a colleague in Indiana (PA). I certainly hope that Pittsburgh is a little more on top of things if/when the parking meter provisions of the Parking Plan are implemented.
http://bnb.poseur.com/philadelphias-new-bike-racks-a-thiefs-best-fr
^ Ouch! I hope we do it better than Philly.
damn, that was at 22,000 views yesterday
that philly bike rack would make a sweet medallion - a bonnet ornament, if you will.
I know i have seen someone around town who has the creativity to reverently display such ornamentation... though his name is escaping me.
@sloaps - in the comments that follow the Philadelphia video there is a comment by the author about how well suited the bike rack elements (the rings) would be for wall hangings (in his home, for example). There are two versions of the video, one slightly longer than the other. I am not sure if the comment followed the version I posted here or not.
I was in Albuquerque last week and they have similar bike racks everywhere, painted blue. I was worried you could just unbolt the sides, although the nuts are completely round (no idea how they tightened them), and some of them were a different one-piece design. I didn't even consider lifting them off the poles!
I went looking for a picture, but all I found was similar racks, apparently in Boulder, CO. Ugh.
yeah they're fairly common, but i think they were originally intended to be installed with a meter head still attached. therefore, you can use a cable lock or chain without fear of someone lifting the bike off.
not sure if they were designed with no meter head in mind. there's probably a version out there, but the philly ones definitely don't seem to be that one.
for instance, here's toronto's version
fortunately we're a dealer of this company, Dero, and they make a version for use without the meter head.
http://www.dero.com/products/meter_hitch/
article about LA: http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/06/24/ladot-converts-former-meters-into-bike-racks-in-hollywood/
