kevin and i went to the public comment meeting on the proposed union station bike station.  my impression was that it was a decidedly weird event.  i'll get to my thoughts on that meeting in a minute, but some recent posts and comments set the stage perfectly for how i perceive this situation. 

chris' post from yesterday is a very good one.  it points out the everyday problems that people who wish to get around by bicycles face.  tom posted a very good comment as well.  in response to tom, my general experience is that the actual property owners are not always easy to work with.  my personal opinion is that they perceive they have enough to worry about and don't see cyclists as a large enough constituency to warrant the outlay of money necessary for something like this.  especially now, around the xmas shopping season, when mall rage breaks out because parking is such a premium.  can't you hear it now: "i'm too busy dealing with mall parking rage to help you with this...what did you say it was again....bike parking lot?  yeah, i'll get to it as soon as i survive the parking situation around the holiday season..."

i may be alone here but i see this issue as being very similar to ADA provisions.  the ada mandates that site managers and buildings must make access possible for people with a range of disabilities.  if you talk to the business managers, they will complain about the costs (very real and thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in planning, permits, construction and equipment) to make the necessary modifications.  but i tend to be less sympathetic to their argument because it often boils down to this: "i don't have many handicapped customers now so why should i be required to spend lots on making my business easier for them to use?"  but this is so clearly a chicken and egg situation that you want to slap your forehead. 

the proximal reason that few commercial real estate owners think they need bicycle accomodations is that so few bicyclists show up or ask for accomodations.  but the ultimate reason that so few cyclists show up is that the roads and parking lots around these commercial areas are so dangerous to ride on and that there are no safe and effective places to put your bike while you're there.  if they built accomodations, would more people come there?  i'm not entirely sure.  but i'm certain that if they don't make it possible that it will never happen.

in very general terms, what's probably missing from this overall discussion is a set of standard tools for someone who wishes to pursue something like this.  maybe we need to develop a tool box so that you could go to any specified area and present them with a very professional package of information.  what might be in the toolbox?  it should probably contain some very brief introductory information about cyclists and what they need (not much!) to effectively use this person's resources/business/services.  you could have descriptions of what other businesses have done (with drawings or pictures and contact information for the site managers) as an example of best practices.  you could have a list of federal, state and local agencies that might offer grants or tax breaks or easements for things like this.  and finally, it would be brilliant to have an architectural firm draw up some generic plans for a simple prototype, cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution so you can show the people there, in real terms, what you are talking about.  this would need to include a projected cost-estimate in current dollars.

such a toolbox would need to be customized for each individual application, in the same way that your resume would need to be tailored to each individual job you sought.  it would not be a lot of work but would stress the needs of that particular situation.  what do you guys think?  good idea?  bad idea? 

to address chris's quesiton, I'd be more inclined to suggest that somewhere in the parking garage, spots be allocated.  the garage already has the property of being covered, there's limited pedestrian traffic and there are "guards" down there.  there is also probably a concrete island somewhere that would be suitable.  i generally prefer bike racks that are public and out there and on display.  it helps to communicate the reality that biking is a very good alternative.  but in the case of the mci center, i'm not so sure.

now, on to the union station bike station meeting.  the meeting was initially described here.  kevin and i got there late owing to a really good deal on pints of guinness nearby.  when we got there, it had a very weird vibe.  there were several people presenting but they appeared to be mostly answering questions.  and the questions being asked appeared to mostly come from people who were interested in managing this facility.  many of the questions dealt with costs, overhead, ownership, subsidies, real estate, and regulations.

i'm not entirely sure what was going on so i am going to offer my best guess at what is going on.  i think that some money to build something has come through.  this money is (federal?) pollution abatement money and someone has decided that a bike parking facility is the best way to spend it.  the money will be spent.  and it's very, very probable that it will be spent on this product. 

again, i may be misreading the situation, but that's what i'm getting from it.  the stated purpose of the meeting was to get input.  but they already have plans, technicals, scale art models, traffic flow ideas and what not.  it looks like most of the decisions are made.  what i find troubling is that i think this particular idea is a solution in search of a problem.  when general interest questions were asked, there were really no answers.  what happens if this thing fills up?  there will be more street parking nearby.  what will happen to the existing bike parking?  unclear, it will probably be lost.  is this supposed to be a service for existing commuters or is it meant to be something to convince non-cycling commuters to give it a try?  no answer.  with the prohibition of bikes on marc and metro during rush hour, is union station the best place for this?  no answer.  will there be showers and changing places in the facility?  no, there will be no running water.  so there will be no toilets?  correct.  what happens when the "attendant" needs to go the bathroom?  does she/he just lock the place up and go into union station.  awkward silence.  no answer.  giggles from bikers.

maybe i'm being way to cynical.  i don't think so as i chatted with several others right after the meeting and they had even more and better questions.  but i don't get the feeling that there's much discussion at this point.  which is a shame.

now to tie the whole post together.  some will be saying that i'm not playing consistently.  in the top of the post, i argue that we need to have bike facilities to make it easier for cyclists to get around and seen and fostering the perception that cyclists share the road and bicycles are a real transportation option.  and then in the bottom of the post, after being offered what i want, i'm turning up my nose at it.  fair enough, in a sense.  i think we need accomodations and they need to be visible.  i think the bike station is waaayyyy too much of a good thing in a single place.  it's probably not useful to think about what that money (>$2M) could have funded but i can't help it.  but i think we can come away from this with something valuable.  in place of this, is there something else that would have been better?  and should it be placed all over the city?  and the suburbs?  and the shopping centers? 

i'll start doing some research towards the toolkit and see where it takes me.  any and all help is appreciated.

- - - posted by scott