Bike corrals, they're happening
@ Erok- actually, the first corral on a city street would have to go through the art commission, so Peduto’s strategy is legit.
@ejwme- art commission is involved in any project that occurs in the city owned public right-of-way and differs from City standards. It’s not so much a group that determines aesthetics (although to a point).
Whole Foods would actually be a good candidate for putting bike corals in their own parking lot.
Right now they have two spaces taken up with the horribly low green ones. I still have no idea how bikes stand upright in those things
Stephen, so you’re saying that all parking for motor vehicles on public property went through the Art Commission? If parking meters, lots, and garages all had to go through Art Commission, then fine. But I’ve never heard of a parking solution being tied up in the Art Commission review, maybe they just don’t talk about it.
So not just Peduto’s corral has to go through the Art Commission, but the mayor’s one as well? Perhaps it’s already been through the Art Commission?
I hate imprecise, incomplete journalism – entertainment is no way to spread information.
currently, there’s no city, county, state, or federal standard for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of bike corrals within the public right-of-way. hence the handwringing by PennDOT for the OTB corral and the Art Commission bureaucracy for corrals on city-owned and maintained streets.
the one in the southside is on a penndot (state) owned road, so i’m guessing that’s why it didn’t have to go to the art commission.
The city did have to get a “highway occupancy permit” from penndot in order to install on e carson.
hunh. I’ve never actually found parking on E. Carson, but I’m betting you don’t have to feed a highway occupancy permit to the meters. Maybe the city already did that for the parking meters, but in that case, why wouldn’t the converted spot already have a permit to be occupied?
So the Art Commission is since there’s no standard… Hopefully they’ll be able to produce a standard, and all future bike corrals will be a snap to get in place, maybe that’s what’s projected to take so long? That actually makes sense.
@ejwme – installing a permanent, or attached item like a bike rack or corrall or whatever is a very different proposition than just parking a car. Parking meters are not in the street, wheras the corrals would be. I’m sure those are the two critical factors that make the difference.
It doesn’t even need to be permanent. You would need a HOP if you wanted to park a dumpster there, traffic cones, whatever. Anything that is not a vehicle, in the vehicle zone.
I suppose technically chairs need a HOP.
“That actually makes sense.”
This is still the government we’re talking about. If it makes sense to create a standard, then that is most certainly NOT what they are doing. It’s probably just the usual bureaucratic rigmarole dragging things out needlessly.
Process is a valuable curb. It is process that enables public input. It is process that shines light on proposed projects that run counter to the public good.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Don’t let your frustration with the pace of the process blind you to the value of the process.
Does the art commission count as public input?
@rsprake – not sure what you are saying.
Is this some example of soem thing the art commicsion could do? Or has done?
Mick, I was just pointing out that they don’t have to wait a month to meet to approve a design.
That’s awesome Erok!
That’s great. If there’s anyplace that will show how heavily this thing will get used, and high visibility, this is it. Will they be usable by lunch?
I just find it strange that the Parking Authority can collect revenue for people to leave their vehicles on the road (without art commission approval or a permit?) and yet the council/mayor needs art commission approval/permit to use the same space for bike parking. What if the Parking Authority wanted to charge for it, would it be easier?
I understand the corral is a permanent structure, and as such its installation affects road maintenance and repair differently than a car you can tow, but not too much differently. Just unbolt them and move them over, you don’t need a tow truck, just a (specialized?) power tool. (Or am I misunderstanding how they are fixed to the street? The pics look like they’re not at all, but they may not be done).
I’m not against A process, but the process and system I’m witnessing (from my limited vantage point) seems to be set up so that car parking is the easy default, and reasonable bike parking is such a monumental effort that if they’re NOT putting an easier system in place, it’s not likely to happen again.
A clear-cut, decently speedy process is overdue, which irks me. If ‘they’re’ working on it, good for them.
Also, they could actually create bike parking affixed to the curb like parking meters, cantilevered over the street, which you could flip over (like those rods they can fold down for maintenance truck access but are usually locked upright). No permanent structure in the street. No permit, no committee inertia. Just bike parking. I can think of a few different ways to do it, even a couple that would default to a clear street (“no motor vehicle parking or stopping” should fix cars from abusing the space).
I just find it strange that the Parking Authority can collect revenue for people to leave their vehicles on the road (without art commission approval or a permit?) and yet the council/mayor needs art commission approval/permit to use the same space for bike parking
this is why:
The art commission probably did have to sign off on how the parking meters and pay stations look. That’s the equivalent of the racks themselves.
Scott, if that’s the case, then my ire is completely misplaced, and I apologize for venting it.
I just can’t stand it when people/institutions treat bicycle (or pedestrian) infrastructure as this special freakish beast unrelated to anything anybody has ever done, akin to alien spaceships landing in our midst.
It’s necessary infrastructure for a vehicle. Nothing more, nothing less. That allowing for it isn’t already de rigueur is a mistake they have the opportunity to correct, not compound. It just always feels like they’re compounding it instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m super happy these are going in, and it WILL mean I’ll head those two places more often (by default, ’cause I would never drive there and lack of bike parking there was a deterrent). I apologize if that didn’t come across. There were some words in the articles that triggered some irritation, not the corrals themselves.
That’s cool. Just know that anything that goes into a city owned right of way, be it a street or sidewalk, needs to go through the art commission first.
We should create some parking chair styled bike corrals. I would LOVE to lock my bike to a bolted down steel chair in the road.
using the bike corral today was great. a fella’ at the resturant next door ran outside and gleefully shouted ‘you’re the second person to park there!’ and it felt good. hooray for something decent happening in southside!
> This needs to be done.
I think you mean “This needs done.”
Quick update, the city art commission approved a design for city-owned streets:
They should replace those pylons with steel ones sunk into a concrete base. Given what horrible parallel parking I’ve seen around here, I don’t see the plastic ones lasting too long…
cool! looks like they could have fit 6 in there though – isn’t that what OTB has?
I still want concrete flower boxes on each end, but I guess that’s just ‘too artsy’ for the art commission. Sheesh…
I’m curious to know why the art commission is involved in the approval process? Were the corrals designed by an artist? Is arts funding going towards this? Nothing against the art commission here, it just doesn’t make sense.
Sounds like the Art Commission pretty much has to approve any new structure (or park, or bridge, etc.). I guess it makes sense that someone has to vote “this thing you are going to install in public view on city land will not make people’s eyes bleed and embarrass the city forever” before they can install something totally new. From their website: The Art Commission is mandated to review the urban design and architectural and landscape features of structures which are erected on or above land owned by the City; which are within the public realm under its control, including parks and bridges; and in which City funds are invested.
I guess that’s how you make sure you don’t get trolled by an architect and end up with something like a giant rainbow penis defining your city’s landscape
exactly. it’s not so much “art” per se. I think the commission has been around a long time and it’s more of an aesthetic thing.
as for the flower box ones. they can still happen, but they too need to go thru the art commission. the bike/ped coordinator wanted to establish a standard, no frills one that can go in easy, without worrying about who’s going to water and take care of the flowers, which is a wise decision.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.