LexRides

[selfpropelled]

UK PTS contact info:
Director Don Thornton dathor1@email.uky.edu
Associate Director: Stuart Kearns gskear2@email.uky.edu
website: http://www.uky.edu/Parking/

[brokebike]

As I stated earlier, I do support this plan, but my main concern is this: Since there is obviously no way to really enforce, or impose the registration on everyone who rides a bike on campus, doesn't that essentially make it a voluntary program? How does the department plan on getting the word out to encourage students to take part in it without seeming either too heavy-handed or too passive? Say, if I'm a student who doesn't really care about helping the cause of bikes on campus, and I really just want to get to class on my bike... if the thought of having to pay for the registration AND take part in some sort of test or lecture about bike education is the last thing I would want to do, especially if I don't necessarily HAVE to do it, what is going to be my incentive to take part in the program? How will those types of folks be reached?

I agree with Shane and others that education is the key component to this, but I also see other benefits even if no education component is included (although if that ends up being the case, I really think the fee should be lowered to $10). I think having some sort of database of bikes/owners would really help alleviate the strains of impounded bikes (unless Wildcat Wheels takes care of that), and it could not only deter theft of bikes around campus, but would come in handy if a stolen bike is found. And of course, additional funding for bike facilities and signage is a BIG plus too... any registered bike cited for breaking the rules = instant revenue for the program. We just have to trust that the money goes where it is supposed to go, but understandably, for a lot of folks that's a big leap of faith.
_________________
------------[] O

[elzie5000]

[themanmachine]

What about people who have way too many bikes, are we going to have to register them all? That could get expensive.
_________________
"AK'll light up your chest like ET."
-E40

[sailorjames]

[caine1975]

read this yesterday .... have to say i think its a good idea...as long as they are putting the $, or a majority of it toward improvements to bike safety on campus, im down
3 pages of replies...thats hot
_________________
'chicks caint hold dey smoke!'

[jkizzle]

Personally, I dont agree with this program.

UK is constantly trying to provide community outreach through lecture series and symposiums, and for the Historic Preservation Symposium a month ago, there were at least 3 people who cycled to the program which were not UK students.

Those people (who at least one of which is a donor to the program) would probably not enjoy having to walk home after PTS was closed.

Secondly, UK PTS IS more or less a Gestapo. They gouge for prices, and impose so many regulations and meticulously watch meters and loading zones. A parking fine for a car on campus is like $20 I think now. Why would they do it any differently for bikes?

Third, as said before, what about those of us with multiple bikes? I have 4, and in the past month have ridden each to campus at least once due to weather conditions, leaving for rides from class, etc. Maybe the passes will be free for multiple bikes too, who knows.

Then there is the issue of putting the sticker on the bikes. They are not tastefully designed, and will likely be a foil peel sticker that is not easy to remove. Why cant they be a plastic ID tag or something similar?

I dont have a problem with bike registration and education programs, I have a problem with the UK Parking office. I simply dont trust them, a similar feeling among most students.[/i][/u]

[elzie5000]

[sailorjames]

[brokebike]

[sailorjames]

[jkizzle]

Well, I understand following the rules, and all that, bad point on my part. I guess I just don't like the idea of one more person having influence over my means of transportation. The foot and bicycle are really all we have left that isn't regulated entirely. You cant even have skateboards in many places anymore. Whats next, regulations on footwear? I know that's outlandish, but get my drift? In certain cases regulation and taxation are great, in others, it causes serious problems and draws question of motive.

I also have serious doubts that the bike infrastructure will really be improved much (more or less just a means of generating more income in a depressed budget). The "improved services" mentioned below include the replacing of worn signs on the ground, and adding a bike line as part of a project to create hundreds more parking spots which generate thousands of dollars in permit fees. After seeing tuition raised 4 or 5 times in 5 years, but still seeing President Todd make over a million dollars in salary and incentives and reject several green energy policies and initiatives, and see thousands of dollars in landscaping replaced every week when longer blooming and annual plants could be used instead, I am just a little wary of the way UK plans to spend any new income.

Patrick Sims wrote a pretty good editorial on the cost-benefit of the program in the Kernels editorial section the day after the announcement was, though it did ignore the grace period. The racks on campus always offer an open spot and are not a terrible design for 99% of bikes. As far as covered bike parking, there are several racks on campus under cover, plus, the majority of the time it rains few other commuters are locking up I have noticed.

Either way, the dissenters won, for the most part. No more fees in the program. Here is the email we received:

UK Parking and Transportation Services (PTS) has been a strong advocate for the use of bicycles as a viable form of alternative transportation on campus and a component of the campus sustainability efforts. Over the past several years, PTS has been instrumental in expanding the campus bicycle network through the addition of bicycle lanes on University Drive and the establishment of shared use paths in the campus core.

As a logical extension to these efforts, PTS has proposed a bicycle registration program to allow the University to better serve the bicycle community. A component of this plan included the implementation of a nominal onetime fee which would provide a dedicated funding stream to support further bicycle initiatives. While this fee was not planned to go into effect until March of 2010, the University has decided to implement the registration program with no fee. Unfortunately, the fee component of the bicycle registration plan diverted the attention away from the positive aspects of the program. As a result, PTS will continue to advocate for additional bicycle facilities and services, but will support these efforts through established revenue structures.

After extensive research and more than 130 contacts made with other college campuses and organizations, PTS is committed to a viable bicycle registration program, which will provide many benefits for the campus community. These benefits include:

* Similar programs on other campuses have decreased bicycle thefts and assisted in bicycle theft recovery.
* Campus bicycle registration provides valuable data on campus bicycle usage that will assist in future campus bicycle planning initiatives.
* Bicycle registration reduces costs to cyclists by allowing PTS to contact owners of illegally parked or abandoned bikes rather than the cutting locks and impounding bicycles.
* Registration allows PTS to target bicycle user groups with bicycle-related safety education, news, and services.

Finally, the bicycle registration program has benefits for those who choose not to bicycle as well. As more members of the UK community turn to cycling, the demand for parking will be reduced. When that happens everyone wins - our campus, our community and our environment.

[taylor]

I'm wary of the way that UK spends their money, too - but when a revenue stream designed to go to a single purpose was being created, why be opposed? It's now highly likely that bicycle facility improvements won't be made at UK in the next few years. And while that goes back to the total mismanagement of our state's budget by legislators, this was a real opportunity to create funding for bicycles and bicycles only, which no longer exists.

Also, citing Patrick Sims, the president of UK College Republicans, probably isn't the best strategy for making a coherent argument. Besides, the UK bike study showed that some areas of campus (the med school, if I remember correctly) have no proper bicycle parking whatsoever, despite a substantial number of people who ride their bikes there every day. Anywhere interior to the main arterial roads around campus just begs for people to ride their bikes to their destination, despite being completely devoid of actual bike parking.

but thanks for the misplaced outrage, it squandered a pretty great opportunity for the bike community...

[brokebike]

[sailorjames]

Patrick Sims' write-up was a joke. I think he cited bikes from the cordon count to get his initial income figures; and while I'm sure that's the best piece of data we have as far as bicycle traffic on campus goes, we also know that does not take into account repeat counts. After starting with an inflated figure he then cited only ONE possible expenditure for the money, and basically said the rest would just sit there? That money could have gone to far more future cycling related amenities. Maybe if enough money had been generated you could start an automated cycling rental program? Maybe put up a concrete divider between traffic and cycling lanes in certain high risk areas? How about reflectors along with the painted stripes on bike lanes, or "bike boxes" for left turns like those in Portland? None of this was mentioned. All he did was incite the whiners.

Regrettably, the proactive cycling community on campus doesn't outnumber the f*cking freeloaders. PTS had a chance to make strides in this area, but released the idea horribly and alienated a future generation of potential cyclists that could put a small amount of money towards shaping a campus that is truly commited to cycling, and possibly have brought the city that much further with it. Once the infrastructure was there, maybe then campus cyclists could have looked back on it and felt accomplished to have contributed to a bike-friendly campus, but now you have another reason to bitch when there is no money to enhance your infrastructure. Shame, f*cking shameful.