It was interesting standing in the street talking about the cycle storage with a council officer and seeing the number of people coming up and asking how they could get a key. Apparently there is already a waiting list of places, even though many of the people living in the street don’t even know what the cycle storage are as they have not seen them opened before. I get the distinct feeling there will soon be demand for more!
Just over five years ago (in September 2009) I wrote a blog post “Cycle parking, please can we have more…” in which I talked about the problems with lack of secure bicycle parking in Edinburgh. I flagged up issues the particular problems for tenement dwellers in Edinburgh, where storage is often a very real problem (as it is across most Scottish cities), added to which people living in tenement areas are less likely to own a car.
Three years ago things were looking positive as there where the first glimmerings of hope that something might actually be happening. There had been an announcement that City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) has proposed a Pilot of on-street residential cycle parking. I was one of the first to put in an application and waited with bated breath, well almost. As the closing date for application was December 2011, it seemed reasonable to expect that here might be something on the ground by the summer of 2012. In early May a letter arrived inviting all those who had applied to be a part of the trial parking project to a site meeting to consult on how it might work in practice. So it was that my self and one of my neighbours met with a number of officials, including the CEC’s cycling officer (Chris Brace), a CEC Project Engineer (Scott Mannion), one of the environmental manager (David Doig) and LBP Crime Prevention Officer (Carol Menzies). We had a wide ranging discussion, as we stood in the spring sun shine, covering all aspects of how that cycle parking (and its location) could affect the street, from accessibility to security, from refuse collection to turning space, and more. The meeting ended with a general consensus that the best location for the cycle storage was at the southern end of the street on the west side, on an area of concrete pavement which is currently just dead ground. It felt like something was really about to happen after two years of campaigning and lobbying, finally we were getting what was needed.
For a couple of months nothing happened, no information, nothing. In late July 2012 a letter arrived saying that the council was going to hold a written consultation for all residents in the street. A number of my neighbours came to ask me about this as they wanted to know more about the proposal, everyone I knew who lived in the street was in favour of the idea of having a secure cycle parking facility (even those who owned cars and those who didn’t own a bicycle). The written consultation was than followed with a series door to door interviews, and it was beginning to feel like someone at the Council was doing all they could to find an objector, so that they could stop the scheme (maybe I am being too cynical here).
Following all this consultation things went quite again until late June 2013 when another written consultation arrived, this time with plans showing the proposed location of the cycle storage on the opposite side of the street from that which residents said they wanted in the earlier consultation. I am told that there eleven responses to this consultation, all in favour of having the cycle storage on street and three saying explicitly that it should be on the far side of the street (the other made no comment on the location). One wonders why it is felt necessary to have quite to much “consultation” when they don’t bother to take notice of what the people who are going to live with the infrastructure actually have to say. It strikes me that a large amount of public money is wasted in this way.
Move forward to June 2014 and the City Council break their radio silence again with a letter to say that three different types of secure on street cycle storage across five locations across the city. The three types of storage chosen were the Cyclehoop Fietshangar, Cycle-Works Velo-Box lockers and Cycle-Works Streetstores (the latter a somewhat experimental design to judge by their website where there are several different prototype designs shown). The letter went on to say that the installation would be completed by the end of July 2014.
By this time I was starting to feel I would only believe when I saw it, so you can imagine my surprise and delight when I was told of shiny new Cyclehoop Fietshangars had been sighted in the city!
Then came the news that Cycle-Works Velo-Safe lockers had also been sighted.
This was real progress at last! But wait where were the Cycle-Works Streetstores? There was no sign of them anywhere and again silence from the City Council, after some prompting there was a few vague comments that they were coming soon. July turned to August, the Festival came and went, September, still nothing, then finally in October Streetstores were sighted for the first time!
How does the scheme actually work? Now there’s a question I keep getting asked, well, places in the cycle storage is offered to first to residents living within 100m of the stores. Only two places per flat are allowed per flat (which is rather unfair on students living in Houses in Multiple Occupation or HMOs) and place are allocated on a first come first serve basis. Each person gets a gets an individual contract and must give the details of the bicycle they are intending to store. The contract also states that the storage can only be used to store “a security-tagged bicycle belonging to or in the care of the member”, later in the contract it talks of bicycles with a permit and displaying a permit sticker.
As to costs and pricing, the contract states that “during the period of the Scheme the Council will not make a charge for participation in the Scheme. The Council may bring the pilot Scheme to an end on giving 14 days’ notice to the Members, and thereafter charge the Member for continued participation in a new scheme and take a deposit for the access key”. Nowhere, in the contract does it give any indication of how long the pilot Scheme will run for, nor is there any mention of how much the charge might be in the future. Elsewhere, it has been stated that the “cycle parking would be … trialled for around 2 years“. Also “It is expected that there would be a charge of around £5 per month per user for the use of the covered storage options to help cover running costs”. This would mean that it would cost £60 a year to park a bicycle compared with £31.50 to park low emission car in the same permit zone. When you bear in mind that ten bicycles can be accommodated in the space required for one car, this seems rather excessive, no doubt the Council will say that this reflects cost of maintaining the cycle storage, whilst blithe ignoring the costs involved in controlling car parking in the city. If the council are to introduce such a high charge for cycle parking, then it would only be reasonable that all subsidies for car parking be dropped and that the cost of car parking be brought up to a matching level.
Following on from the future of local transport debate the other evening, I would like to propose a simple parking experiment. It would not cost much and should be fairly straight forward to carry out.
I suggest that the council gets four or five Car Bike Ports, puts them in parking bays around the city, and then monitor what happens. If you were to leave them in a single bay for no more than a few months at a time, you would only have to use Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs). Or you could have them moved between bays on the same street every few days, so that you would even need to bother with the TTROs.
As it is purely short term experiment there should be to much planning needed and as the Car Bike Ports were originally commissioned by the London Festival of Architecture, the Street Scape people shouldn’t have a problem. The Car Bike Ports could even be rented to keep the cost down. Although I suspect that by the end of the experiment there would be a clamour from the local trader for keeping them.
So are you wiling to give it a go?
It would be great to see something like this in Edinburgh:
Three years ago I wrote a blog post called Cycle parking, please can we have more…, where I suggested that there was a need for better cycle parking facilities in Edinburgh, and particularly in the tenement areas of the city. A year on, I thought I had found a possible solution (although the Cycledock website suggests there is a problem with the company).
I then found that Spokes were also looking at the problems of cycle parking in Edinburgh and were lobbing on the issue. Moving forward along the time-line, a year ago it was starting to look like all the lobbying and campaigning was about to pay off, as the City of Edinburgh Council proposed a £50,000 pilot on-street residential cycle parking scheme.
I put in an application to be a part of the pilot scheme, as did one of the owners in the next stair. We were delighted when we were told that our street was to be included in the scheme, this was in March (four months after the closing date for application). A site visit was arranged for May, which proved to be very positive. We discussed: problems with cycle storage for our tenemented street, the range of available on-street solutions, security, issues around management and maintenance, even a setting up a ‘Not for Profit’ Locker Management business. It was agreed that secure, covered cycle parking was a must (maybe something similar to this) and that lockers were also an option. Following the meeting, copies of the minutes were circulated (in July), which owed the next steps:
- Produce drawings showing positions and types of facilities.
- Initiate TRO [Traffic Regulation Order] process for removal/relocation of Parking Permit Holder spaces.
- Approach Streetscape with proposals showing locations and types of lockers.
- Investigate security certification.
- Produce ‘final’ design drawings for consultation with all parties.
That all sounds great, but that was the last my neighbour and I have heard.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Edinburgh people are being asked to remove bike lockers from their front gardens. All of which leaves one wondering what is going on at the City of Edinburgh council.
Update 16th Oct 2012 – Received an e-mail today to saying:
Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
We are still considering the points raised during the initial
consultation meetings (and some additional issues that we have become
aware of since), but I hope to have some preliminary designs ready by
the end of this month to discuss with all the applicants.
So it looks like there will be further progress soon.
Earlier this week I wrote up a few thoughts on the Spokes Hustings last week, where I commented on my memory of Cllr Gordon Mackenzie’s replies on the issue of Pay & Display parking in bus lanes and cycle lanes. Since then, Cllr Mackenzie has left a comment on my post to correct my memory and continue the debate. So I thought I would take the opportunity to write a new post.
Cllr Gordon Mackenzie wrote:
I didn’t say we couldn’t remove parking but I think the point I was making about local shops depending for some of their income on passing car trade has been covered by the first contributor. I read your comments about they traders in Gorgie but if you pop down to the shops near you on Newington Rd you will find that many recently suffered substantially from the loss of trade during the gas mains works in the area which removed quite a lot of the parking. I’ve no doubt several would go out of business if that became the norm. Similarly if you’ve been to a GP practice, like the one near me on Dalkeith Rd you’d appreciate that while many patients could do with a bit more exercise there are also a substantial number who have impaired mobility and a ban on parking would mean that they’d have to move practice or require more home visits.
However I wasn’t arguing in either scenario that we couldn’t change or improve the situation for cyclists, I was mainly highlighting the fact that it’s not as easy as saying ‘lets remove parking’. There would undoubtedly be significant consequences for many of those involved. Loss of trade could mean a business becoming unprofitable and a loss of jobs. Having to move GP could involve more travel, loss of a key relationship and additional costs to the NHS. These are not insurmountable obstacles but they’re not easy or cost free to remedy. That’s why I’m not sure that a parking restriction is always the best option.
Thanks for your comments, Gordon.
Interesting that you should mention the effects of the recent gas mains works on traders on Newington Rd. As I live nearby, I did go to some of these shops while these works was in progress. It was very noticeable at the time that pedestrian access was also hampered by the work going on. Firstly, all of the temporary traffic signs were placed on the pavement, causing obstructions to pedestrians (including wheelchairs, prams etc.). Also, the pedestrian crossing at Salisbury Place was not available because of the temporary lights which had no provision for pedestrians. There is a Pelican crossing 150m north on Newington Road. However, from experience, using this Pelican crossing was more hazardous when the works were going on, as drivers were choosing to ignore the red light and driving straight through during the pedestrian phase. I had a number of near misses and I know of other people who had similar experiences. Given these difficulties in pedestrian access, it is not surprising that there was a decline in trade during the gas mains works, and it can hardly be attributed to the loss of a few parking spaces alone.
Neither the GP practice nor the dental surgery I use have parking outside, yet both are busy. So, here again, parking is not the key issue that it is often made out to be. You say that a parking ban would impact on patients with “impaired mobility”, but Blue Badge holders are permitted to park on yellow lines, and disabled-only bays could easily be provided (as long as they were enforced). Since July of last year I have had to make regular trips to the Royal Infirmary, all of these I have made by bus, including the initial trip to A&E, to have my broken collarbone diagnosed. I have a friend who broke his leg playing football, he travelled to all of his outpatient appointments by bus, too. The suggestion that access to a car is needed in order to receive medical treatment really is a red herring.
People need to have a choice of transport, but the over-emphasis on making it easy to use a car, as the default, leads to car dependence and a closing-off of opportunities for active travel. International experience has shown that restricting parking is effective at increasing active travel, and quality of life for those living in urban areas. It is very noticeable that places which often are voted as being “the best place to live” are those where walking and cycling are easy and car access is restricted. This doesn’t mean that people living in these places own fewer cars or have less access to cars, just that they use them far less often.
If you are serious about reducing congestion and air pollution in the city, for the benefit of all, then you really do have to grasp the nettle and reduce car parking. Again, looking at international evidence of places where these changes have been applied, they didn’t always have high approval rating when they were first brought in. But after a couple of years when people had experienced the benefits of having more people-friendly streets, they have proved to be highly popular. To quote Jeremy Clarkson (I never thought I would find myself doing this) writing about Copenhagen “The upshot is a city that works. It’s pleasing to look at. It’s astonishingly quiet. It’s safe. And no one wastes half their life looking for a parking space. I’d live there in a heartbeat.” This is the way I would like Edinburgh to be!
With regard to the “Quality Bike Corridor”, there is no reason why drivers have to be able to park on the main road. They could be provided with a small number of short term Pay & Display parking bays in nearby side streets and walk the last few metres. If active travel is to become the default means of transport, it must be made the easier option, with driving being a less attractive option. Current policies are having the opposite effect, this needs to change for the benefit of everyone.
Some time ago I wrote a post called Cycle parking, please can we have more… in which I flagged up issue surrounding cycle parking in Edinburgh and the particular problems for tenement dwellers. Finally things are starting to change, as a result of lobbying by Spokes the City of Edinburgh Council has proposed a Pilot of on-street residential cycle parking. They say:
“The City of Edinburgh Council is committed to increasing the percentage of all journeys in the city by bike to 10% by 2020. One of the biggest barriers to cycling in the city is a lack of suitable cycle parking for residents in tenement areas. In recognition of this, the Council is considering providing on-street cycle parking in areas with tenement residences. This will initially be done on a trial basis at a small number of locations. We are planning to trial:
- covered cycle racks;
- individual lockers; and
- uncovered cycle racks.
However, it should be noted: “Applications are subject to being selected on the basis of suitability and feasibility. We cannot guarantee that locations that are selected will be installed. Should you require any further information please contact firstname.lastname@example.org”
I hope to see this project going ahead, but the “suitability and feasibility” clause does worry me that the Council is not fully committed to “increasing the percentage of all journeys in the city by bike to 10% by 2020”. As I have seen existing cycle infrastructure around the city quietly disappearing, such as well used Sheffield stands being removed and not replaced when pavements are relaid, and cycle lanes being converted into on street car parking. Still this initiative does give me hope for the future!
After last night’s Spokes meeting on tackling bike storage, I found myself thinking in the middle of the night (as you do) about on-street cycle parking. By the morning I had come up with this:
It would be great fun to carry out a guerilla action, which could go legit later. First apply for a residents parking permit, then get a Car Bike Rack from Cyclehoop, slap the parking permit on it and park it in a residents’ parking bay, then every few days move to a new parking space along the street.
OK, not everyone who wants to leave their bike outside in the open over night, so there is the Copenhagen urban camouflage solution for covered parking (I am not suggesting using those colour schemes), but I am sure you could get one modelled on a large SUV, if you live in the New Town and want to fit in. Should the City ever get around to Pay-as-you-pollute parking permits for Edinburgh, you could even get a rebate on your parking permit, for being green.
On a more serious note, I understand that Edinburgh Council is now considering on-street residents’ cycle parking. So who knows, some of these options could yet become available. If that comes off, then what would be next? Maybe a few of the more progressive cafés and shops in Edinburgh could be persuaded to get Car Bike Racks from Cyclehoop and put them outside their premises. That would be such a refreshing change, as well as good business sense, after all do you want one customer who arrives by car or ten who arrive by bike?
In the mean time, can I have one of these for Christmas?
With an everlasting battery, please…
Just over a year ago I wrote a post on cycle parking (Cycle parking, please can we have more…), since then I have been thinking about it a lot, basically every time I have to lug one of my bikes up the stairs to my flat, I wish we had the cycle storage at ground level. I keep looking round trying find a solution and I think I may just have found one: the Cycledock. This is just the sort of thing I had in mind a year ago when I wrote the first post, all I need to do now is find a way of getting City of Edinburgh Council to put one in my street! So Councillor Mackenzie, cycle parking, please can we have some in your ward?
Cycling is a good thing. It is increasingly recognised that cycling should be encouraged, as it helps to achieve so many policy objectives: it is clean, it is green, it reduces congestion in towns and cities, it is healthy (regular cyclists live longer), and people who cycle to work are more productive. Of course, those who cycle regularly know that one of the best reasons for cycling is simply because it is so much more fun than other means of transport.
So what is stopping the likes of me from using the bike more? Well, one reason is problems with lack of secure bicycle parking and it is not just me, around 30% of car users say they would cycle more if there was better cycle parking. This is ironic, as one of the reasons why cycling is more convenient than driving, for short journeys in town, is that parking a bike is generally easier than parking a car. However finding secure cycle parking is not always as easy as it should be. For instance, the City of Edinburgh only has 1,697 public cycle parking spaces. Compare this to the 27,608 on-street car parking spaces, plus 4,562 spaces in council owned car parks, plus 207 Limited Waiting Bays. Added to this, there are numerous commercially owned free car parks attached to shopping centres and supermarkets.
So you can see that cyclists are very badly served, compared with drivers. Most non cyclists would probably take the attitude that cyclists don’t need the provision of secure parking, as bikes can be left anywhere. Is this really true? Well no, while there is often street furniture around to lock your bike to, this is not always available, added to which it is not always secure. Also, It is a little known fact that “where there are existing waiting and loading restrictions in force, cycles, like other vehicles, may not be parked on the carriageway or the footway of a road.” Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Most people who drive to work or to the shops do so because there is a free, secure, parking space when they arrive. How many would be quite so keen to drive if they knew their expensive car was likely to be stolen, vandalised, or taken away by police? The same can not be said for cycle commuters and shoppers, for whom the risk of having their expensive bike stolen or vandalised is widely ignored by employers, supermarket chains and urban planners.
Contrary to the widespread belief among not-cyclists, bicycles are not cheap. Just take a look through any bike shop window, a mid range cycle costs anything from £500 to £1000 (I am talking about real bikes here not Bike Shaped Objects), and top end bikes cost considerably more, so they need to be secured. For cyclists, theft and vandalism can be serious problems. In the last year for which figures are available for Scotland (2006), there were 10,382 motor vehicle thefts, compared with 22,211 bicycle thefts. While there is no figure for bicycle vandalism, the extent of cycle thefts suggests that it would be proportionately higher than the 167,608 motor vehicles vandalised. I am just thankful that I don’t live in England, where a bike is stolen every 71 seconds!!, with the hotspots for cycle thefts being: central London, Kingston-upon-Thames in south west London, Cambridge and Bristol.
Having established that there is a need for secure bicycle parking, what should we do about it? First off, let’s look at the space available in the cityscape. Currently, most cyclists are forced to use any street furniture that is available, in a city like Edinburgh this often involves lamp posts, street signs, railings and down pipes. The use of railings and down pipes is often not popular with the owners, as they are worried about damage to their property. In England there is draft legislation to allow the council contractors to be given the authority to remove bikes not parked in proper bike stands. It is a typically retrograde step which tries to deal with the symptoms but ignores the source of the problem.
Scots law is, of course, different: While there isn’t yet any direct case law to draw on, there maybe help form an unexpected source, the motoring lobby. The case of Black v. Carmichael (1992) concerned the clamping of cars by private companies on private land. The court used an interpretation of the existing laws on theft. The case centred on the fact that the clamping company was depriving the owner of the vehicle of the use of their own property, even though that may have only been intended to be temporary, and decided that this constituted theft. Now it doesn’t take too much imagination to see how this can be used as a precedent in a case involving the removal of a bike from railings. If said bike was to be taken inside the property, or moved to another location and re-locked, this would not be possible with the original lock, as presumably, this would have been cut to remove the bike in the first place (and this in itself could constitute criminal damage).
The real solution would be to provide secure cycle parking, at its most simple this would be Sheffield Stands or something similar. As observed above there is a lot of space provided for the parking of cars. Now given that cars spend 95 percent of their time parked, this adds up to a lot of space already in use. It takes an average area of 12m2 to park one car and 1.1 m2 to park a bike, so you can get 10 bikes into the parking space required for 1 car. Therefore, a relatively small number of car parking spaces can easily be converted into a substantial number of cycle parking spaces, with minimal impact.
Although this solution, just using Sheffield Stands, would still leave the bikes vulnerable to vandalism. In areas where long term parking is required, this needs to be enclosed. There are a few useful ideas from other countries, such as the underground “Bicycle Parking Tower” from Tokyo, the Biceberg from Spain, or Toronto style cycle cages and lockers. For those of us who live in tenement flats, secure cycle parking at street level would be very welcome, as carrying a bike up to the third floor is a real pain. Why couldn’t one or two of the residents only car parking spaces be converted to secure cycle parking? OK, so a Residents Parking Permit inwith Edinburgh’s Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) costs £80 a year, and the Council made £1,716,203 in 2007/2008 from Residents Parking Permits, so I wouldn’t expect it to be free. However, I would be prepared to pay, say £20 a year, for such cycle parking in my street. Remember, 10 bikes can be parked in the space need for one car, this could yield a far higher income for the Council, from the same space.