Fix Bike “Clutter” — Put a Bike Corral on Every Block


Dockless bike-share companies added 44,000 bikes to the streets in American cities in 2017, nearly doubling the size of the national bike-share fleet. One side effect, chronicled ad nauseam in the press, is the sidewalk clutter of bikes parked in the pedestrian right of way.

It shouldn’t be a tough nut to crack: Just put more bike parking in the curb lane. Now Washington, DC, is considering something along those lines.

David Whitehead at Greater Greater Washington reports that some local officials want to beef up bike parking in a big way in the District in conjunction with the city’s dockless bike-share pilot.

In a letter to City Council transportation chair Mary Cheh, Council Member David Grosso said there should be a bike rack at every corner:

We should have at least one bike rack at every one of our 7,700 intersections in the city. No one should ever have to walk several blocks from a rack to their destination.

Grosso estimates that the cost of implementing this bike parking would come to $2-$3 million, and he suggests raises the funds from licensing fees on dockless bike-share companies.

The section of the curb lane approaching the crosswalk is the perfect place for a bike corral, notes GGW’s David Cranor. By keeping that zone clear of parked cars, bike parking will effectively “daylight” the intersection, improving visibility and safety for everyone. Win-win!

27 thoughts on Fix Bike “Clutter” — Put a Bike Corral on Every Block

  1. Cool idea. Only $2-3 million. And would encourage people to ride more. Sounds like a win-win.

  2. I love the idea, but there’s no way this will cost $3m.
    A bike lane is a bucket of paint and a brush, but those always end up costing hundreds of thousands.

  3. I like the idea!

    I’m somewhat skeptical of the cost, though anything local govt does tends to costs a lot. I also wonder about space, particularly for bus stops. However, i’m sure it would work fine in many areas.

  4. Great idea. Need a corresponding policy to remove abandoned bikes in a timely manner.

  5. Great idea but even at the high end of the estimate, that only comes out to $389.61 per corral. I’d estimate it would be at least 10x that.

  6. It is less than $389. They are just covering the red zone on the curb by the crosswalk with white.

  7. Imroving visibility…what a joke…this is obscuring the visibility between walkers waiting to cross the street and car drivers. The red zone is necessary. Could you get cyclist safety without stealing it from walkers…maybe.

  8. “No one should ever have to walk several blocks from a rack to their destination.” Walkers walk several blocks every day. “The section of the curb lane approaching the crosswalk is the perfect place for a bike corral, notes GGW’s David Cranor. By keeping that zone clear of parked cars, bike parking will effectively “daylight” the intersection, improving visibility and safety for everyone. Win-win!” That zone is free of cars now and for good reason. “Coralling bikes” there obliterates visibility between cars and walkers. Win for cyclists, lose for walkers and drivers.

  9. Bikes are a fraction of the size of cars (or even worse, trucks and vans). There will be minimal impact on visibility and with improved bike parking, more people walking will probably ride a bike instead anyway.

  10. Wrong. The cars cannot see the walker behind the bikes. Ever hear of wheelchairs…Why is it you assume that all walkers are athletic…Additionally, a blind walker cannot be seen when they have their cane in the crosswalk indicating they want to cross. This is a terrible idea. Those red zones are necessary for the safety of walkers. The rest you are just fabricating. No vehicles should be there, at all. It will force walkers farther out into the street and then we are in more danger from cyclists. You guys just do not care about the safety of walkers.

  11. I would imagine that most cars can’t see anything, but the drivers of the cars usually have no problem seeing people behind bikes since bikes are far easier to see through and aren’t as big as cars. Anyone who can’t see the cane of a visually impaired person in a crosswalk probably shouldn’t be driving. And again, most people walking actually can ride a bike. That includes people who have significant physical impairment that perhaps limits their mobility on foot in the first place. Furthermore, people biking and walking are able to get along just fine. People riding bikes have no desire to hit people walking as they are likely to suffer the same level of injury as the person they hit.

  12. Sure. So you should also advocate pushing the bike parking up street to have both red zone and bike zone in the curb car parking lane approach to the intersection for the best of all pedestrian worlds, yes?

  13. Ah. I didn’t realize this was a proposal specific to Washington DC. I thought it was a NYC discussion. In NYC (where I expect there’s FAR more interesections) there would have to be signs moved at every corner.

    Also, regardless of where this is, I assumed it included the manufacture and mounting of bike racks as that’s what’s shown in the photo. That would drive the cost up past $389 per intersection, even if the rack was a single piece that was bolted down in 4 corners it’s gonna cost quite a bit more than $389 to manufacture, deliver and secure.

    I suppose you could have no bike rack — just a bunch of dockless share bikes parked there but that’s going to lead to a chaotic mess. Not to mention it wouldn’t be useful parking for all the people who own bikes.

  14. Wrong. Corrals don’t present the same sight triangle limitations as a car you can’t see through or around. Cities have shown reduced crashes by using corrals to daylight the intersection. It is similar to using a curb extension, which even with some vegetation still provides clear sight distance.

  15. Wrong. See above response to your repeated whining that lacks a factual basis.

  16. So much nonsense. Why would it be easier to see through twenty bikes than a car….The blind cane is the same height as the bikes. Now, the truncated for the blind will be useless. It is just cyclist woo woo that the walker will be as injured as the cyclist when hit. Totally ridiculous. Now, go back to abusing the walkers, dismissing, calling whiners, ridiculing negating. etc.

  17. No, I do not have to follow your moral dictates. I can care about my own safety as a walker. I do not advocate for cars or bikes.

  18. Carzzzzz. are not an excuse. Cyclists are a big issue for walkers. EsPecially since cyclists dismiss us. Cars do not. No way a blind walker can navigate this. It would render the truncated cones useless. And force walkers out farther into the street to be seen. But, Please do continue to dismiss us because it illustrates well the attitude that walkers are dealing with cyclists. And no, you cannot see a wheelchair around a bunch of bikes. They aren’t magic.

  19. No. You just do not get it. There were two cyclists on the sidewalk blocking the crosswalk for me a few days ago at a difficult intersection. I couldn’t see around them and the motorists were straining to see me. I had to make eye contact with all three cars coming from the three other directions. Cyclists tried to talk to me while I am trying to see around them. All the cars waited for. They couldn’t see me with the bikes in the way and they were being extra careful of my safety. Motorists have mostly internalized a sense of duty to us, which cyclists have not. No motorist has ever called a whiner because I wanted to be safe when crossing the street.

  20. Or the dockless bikes could follow the law and not leave their vehicles in a red zone, thereby endangering the walkers. You are not getting what you want by mistreating walkers. The results are exactly what you do not want.

  21. Cynara2 has a pathological hatred of bicyclists, so is deliberately ignoring the fact that Angie’s quote about daylighting the intersection is clearly referring to the idea of replacing a parking space with a bike corral, not replacing an empty red zone.

    This is someone who regularly claims that drivers aren’t a threat to pedestrians. Reason is not going to work here.

  22. Anyone who takes that seriously is an idiot. That is a crosswalk. You are not gaining any honor here. Slander does not make you morally elevated. Reasonable to diagnose someone you have never met and even though you are not qualified, that’s laughable. And, it is objectively obvious that cyclists are derogatory to walkers. Thank you for more evidence of that, it assists in getting the message out that walkers are endangered by cyclists.

  23. ok, so daylight the intersection with a red zone and then put a bike corral in the first car parking spot. Would that make you happy?

    The truth is that the status quo is cars parked all the way to the corner and no existing daylighting. Replacing that last car with a bike corral is better than allowing a car to park there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *