Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The "War on Christmas" War Con... | Erica's Head is Going to Explo... »

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Meanwhile, In the War on Cars

posted by on December 19 at 16:56 PM

Portland is replacing some on-street car parking with parking for bikes, allowing more people to park in the limited available space. Here’s a picture of the BikeOasis, designed for Hawthorne Boulevard by architects Browning-Shono:


Confidential to the Cascade Bike Alliance: Can you get on this?

RSS icon Comments


OMFG - Bike Shelters! We NEED those!

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 19, 2006 5:04 PM

Yeah, let's wait until we cure cancer, lift every last person out of poverty, educate every child, and eliminate racism before we work on getting cars off the streets.

Getting rid of parking spaces in lieu of bike parking is great.

Posted by Yes | December 19, 2006 5:53 PM

Portland simple cleans our clock when it comes to good transportation decision-making.

We're so pathetic here I'd settle for more loop bicycle racks, particularly replacing the rediculous cutsy bicycle shaped "racks" that have popped up on Broadway and the ave. They can only fit one bike, and with all the sharp edges always scrape up my frame.

Posted by golob | December 19, 2006 6:10 PM

Every where we build a transit center (park and ride, whatever) it should be a requirement that 1% of the cost or something like that go for alternative parking arrangements- like bike racks, storage bins for bikes (yep, those are around too) and so on. It can be like funding for the arts.

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 19, 2006 6:14 PM

And yet (who knows if any of it is true. in fact, indictment of Seattle that such a page even needs to exist but I thought I'd share)

Posted by j | December 19, 2006 6:44 PM

You can't lock your bike anywhere in town because there aren't any parking meters just those solar droids.
BTW I don't remember the old parking meters sucking a lot of petro chemicals. Sheesh

Posted by ahura | December 19, 2006 7:34 PM

omg social engineering!!!1!

Posted by gfish | December 19, 2006 8:30 PM

More like War on 100 Years of Cultural Development.

Keep your head in the sand.

Posted by Gomez | December 19, 2006 11:19 PM

The negative attitude in some of these comments is highly representative of one of the reasons I'm considering moving to the bay area, where they've managed to make transit and biking work. If Nickels ever lives up to his talk, Seattle might have a chance of getting me back in the future.

Posted by Noink | December 20, 2006 12:51 AM

Oh thank GOD, another one of you idiots are theteatening to move.

Damn shame we are well aware of the idle threats of the looney left.

Posted by Please move | December 20, 2006 6:56 AM

Oh thank GOD, another one of you idiots are thrteatening to move.

Damn shame we are well aware of the idle threats of the looney left.

Posted by Please move | December 20, 2006 6:56 AM

Sweet, I can put an add up for a bassist for my jam band and sell some gorp on that bulliten board. Killer.

Posted by dannygutters | December 20, 2006 8:49 AM

Some asshole stole my bike light last week when it was parked in front of Pacific Place. If one these mass parking shelters existed, I doubt bikes/bike gear would be ripped off as often, due to the extra eyes of the concentrated rider traffic.

Posted by DOUG. | December 20, 2006 8:58 AM

is this going to be like a spinal tap thing where we get dozens of bike shelters to the scale of the wooden doll?

Posted by Charles | December 20, 2006 9:04 AM

SDOT may be calling for these in some locations via the Bike Master Plan, but we don't know because the plan won't be out until around the end of the year. They are currently accepting suggestions, though, so if you want the oasis' (oases?) go to the city's BMP site, read it, then scroll down to send them an email.

Posted by Patrick McGrath | December 20, 2006 9:48 AM

Oh, and I better not see one of those lame little scooters parked in my bike shelter!

Posted by DOUG. | December 20, 2006 10:43 AM


Have fun paying $2100 for a 200 sq foot apartment with no amenities.

Posted by Gomez | December 20, 2006 10:47 AM


It's a nice sentiment, but the data on that page you linked to is out of date. Like, 16 years out of date. Portland's made big investments since then and it's paying off (mostly about bikes but there is a total mode split graph on the last slide). There's still a lot we can learn from Portland.

Posted by Patrick McGrath | December 20, 2006 11:45 AM

Why didn't you use the bike lockup INSIDE the Pacific Place garage, Doug (@13)?

It's free.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 20, 2006 11:51 AM

Golob, Ahura:
Those horrid sharp bicycle-icon racks that have been popping up, are the modified stems of the OLD PARKING METERS. Excellent idea, and we need more of 'em; Unfortunately sharp and scrapey in practice though. =(

More bike shelters, yes! Replace car parking to do it, yes! Thanks for the link Patrick.

But why the f* don't more buildings and stores have REAL, RAIN-PREVENTING AWNINGS over their bike racks? Or even effective awnings at all.
Check the Fremont PCC, the bike rack appears covered under their awning, but no, the awning is poorly designed and splashes rain all over the bicycles. SToooPID! jesus bad design drives me crazy~!

Posted by treacle | December 20, 2006 11:52 AM

There's a bike rack inside the Pacific Place garage? I've never been down in there.

Posted by DOUG. | December 20, 2006 12:14 PM

I hate to break it to you Patrick, but doubling bicycle mode share from 2 to 4% over 10 years with that level of investement simply increases the number of trips from statistically meaningless to statistically insignificant.

Bikes are great, but it's extremely unlikely that they will ever comprise a significant portion of work trips - either in Portland or Seattle.

Posted by Mr. X | December 20, 2006 12:38 PM

So, let's do nothing. That's your mantra, right, Mr. X?

Getting rid of parking will bring about the downfall of Western civilization!

Posted by keshmeshi | December 20, 2006 12:56 PM

Mr X,
Gotta go through 4% to get to 30%. And don't worry, I won't be holding my breath for any help from you in getting there.

Posted by Patrick McGrath | December 20, 2006 1:30 PM

Dream on, fella - we'll never even get close to 10% citywide, mark my words...

Posted by Mr. X | December 20, 2006 2:59 PM

Mr X:
Okay, let's check back in 20 years and see how things are going.

Posted by Patrick McGrath | December 20, 2006 3:22 PM

Well, if the last 10 years are any indication, you'll be eating your words with a fork and spoon.

When the Seattle Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994, one primary goal was that bicycles' mode share of work trips should increase from 3% in 1990 to 5% in 2000. During the 10-year Complan review of 2004, the City was forced to acknowledge that bicycles share of work trips had remained unchanged at 3%.

Similarly, walking was supposed to increase from 7% to 8% of work trips between 1990 and 2000, but instead remained at 7%. Transit use was supposed to go from 16% to 20%, but in fact fell short and only increased to 18%. SOV use was supposed to fall from 59% to 51%, but instead went down to 56% (a fine thing, mind you, but that's far more trips than concurrency under the GMA would permit if the City were being honest about the demand for parking and cars that even high density development creates). Carpool use actually fell from 12% to 11% (City planners had assumed it would remain constant). The only measure by which there was a significant shift to a non SOV mode was that the number of people working at home rose from 3% in 1990 to 5% in 2000, exceeding the City's goal of increasing it to 4%.

Notwithstanding the construction of thousands of new units downtown and within the City during this time period, fully 67% of Seattleites still drive to work (and 56% of them do it alone).

How did the City deal with the failure of their assumptions to materialize regarding new density and mode shifts? They simply changed the way they count trips, and now lump all non-SOV trips into one catagory. If that isn't a tacit admission of abject failure, I'm not sure what is.

Most transportation planners doing long-range planning have stated that implementing a full range of bicycle facilities will result in, at best, a doubling of bicycle mode share.

7 hills and hundreds of rain days annually - not to mention the wider and wider dispersion of employment throughout the region - serve to fundamentally limit the effectiveness of bikes as a primary work transportation mode for the vast majority of people. Moreover, the earliest converts to bicycle use are the "low hanging fruit" who more easily make the shift, and subsequent growth in bicycle use will occur much more slowly than it does in the initial period after improvements are made.

As I said, this is little more than going from statistically meaningless to statistically irrelevent, and may or may not be worth the level of public investment given the bang you get for that buck.

Posted by Mr. X | December 20, 2006 3:57 PM

BTW - interesting link, J. I've seen similar stats elsewhere, as well.

Posted by Mr. X | December 20, 2006 4:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).