Three years ago, the city of Portland, Oregon implemented bicycle parking requirements for new residential buildings. Last week, the city's Planning Commission voted to recommend rolling back key provisions of the mandate.
The campaign that led up to the vote included allegations by members of "community associations" that bike parking spaces come at the expense of low-income housing. That, of course, is a classic "divide and conquer" strategy: pitting two vulnerable groups of people (the cyclists because of their relatively small numbers, low-income people because of their lack of resources) against each other by creating a false equivalency.
As pointed out by more than one person who objected to the roll-back--which would include decreasing the number of bike parking spaces per housing unit--would increase the number of new apartments (or other housing units) by a tiny number, and the number of units available to low-income people by even less.
Another objection to bike parking spaces is cost. But, as Bike Portland's "Todd/Boulanger" explains, bike parking spaces and facilities end up costing more than they should because it's usually the last item on a project, which increases implementation costs not only because the cost of everything related to a project tends to increase over the lifespan of the project, but also because the installation of racks and other facilities, which should be simple, often has to be worked around other things, such as HVAC systems, that have already been done.
To me, both arguments sound like variations of the " take "You take up too much space!" complaint drivers who are the sole occupants of their SUVs make when they have to share the road with a cyclist.
