EETP Commute Seattle Final Report FINAL

Produced by In conjunction with
Jamie Cheney, Executive Director Peter Hahn, Director

Jessica Szelag, Program Manager Tracy Krawczyk, Policy & Planning Division Director
Zachary Howard, Bicycle Program Coordinator Ann Sutphin, Project Manager
Published: May 2011
Special thanks to: Office of Mayor Michael McGinn, King County Metro, Seattle Bicycle Advisory
Board, Puget Sound Regional Council, Downtown Seattle Association, Transportation Choices
Coalition, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, SvR Design Company, Seattle Department of
Planning and Development, University of Washington Commuter Services
Acknowledgement: This project is funded in whole or in part by funds made available through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This funding was awarded by the US Department of Energy through the Energy Policy Division of the
Washington State Department of Commerce under Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant No.DE-EE0000849.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither
the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Commute Seattle Center City Bicycle Amenity Inventory – Final Report Page i
Contents
1. Project Purpose and Background........................................................................................................ 1
2. Bike Amenities Assessment Methodology and Inventory Approach ............................................. 2
I. Project Scope and Work Plan ........................................................................................................... 2
II. Counting Bicycle Rack Capacity...................................................................................................... 5
III. Commuter Bicycle Parking Assessment Tool .............................................................................. 7
IV. Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................................................... 9
3. Existing Conditions of Private Bicycle Amenities ............................................................................ 12
I. Buildings ............................................................................................................................................. 12
II. Overall Capacity ............................................................................................................................... 13
III. Distribution of Parking Capacity by Neighborhood .................................................................... 13
IV. Commuter Appropriateness Assessment of Bicycle Parking .................................................. 13
V. Existing Conditions by Criteria ...................................................................................................... 16
4. Gaps in the Existing Conditions of Private Bicycle Amenities ...................................................... 20
I. Buildings without Amenities ............................................................................................................. 20
II. Buildings with Amenities ................................................................................................................. 21
III. Estimating Demand for Amenities ................................................................................................ 23
IV. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 25
5. Property Manager Issues Assessment ............................................................................................. 26
I. Themes and Responses .................................................................................................................. 26
II. Qualitative Assessment of Issues ................................................................................................. 29
III. Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................................... 29
6. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 31
Barriers and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 32
Appendices................................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix A: Resources and Works Cited ........................................................................................ 35
Appendix B: Bicycle Rack Capacity Counting Tool ........................................................................ 38
Appendix C: Data Collection Worksheet .......................................................................................... 39
Appendix D: Rack Types..................................................................................................................... 40
Commute Seattle Center City Bicycle Amenity Inventory – Final Report Page ii
1. Project Purpose and Background
This report documents an assessment of private bicycle amenities conducted between October 2010 and
March 2011 in Seattle’s Center City. The assessment includes a complete inventory of end-of-trip bicycle
facilities (including racks, lockers, showers, and other bicycle commuting amenities) in commercial
buildings as well as a qualitative analysis of potential barriers for property managers to providing bicycle
parking amenities.
The Center City Bicycle Amenity Inventory was conducted in collaboration with Seattle Department of
Transportation and with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act administered through
the Washington State Department of Commerce. The project’s intent was to establish a baseline of
existing conditions that supports development of a bicycle commuter program in Seattle’s Center City.
Commute Seattle is a not-for-profit commuter service organization working to shift drive-alone commuter
trips to other commute modes in an effort to improve access to and through downtown Seattle. The
organization is a partnership of executive leaders from the Downtown Seattle Association, the City of
Seattle, and King County Metro. The organization provides outreach and best practices education for four
commute options: transit, bike, walk and rideshare programming.
Commute Seattle’s mission is to shift 35,000 daily drive-alone commute trips to other modes by 2015. To
support this broad goal, Commute Seattle and its partners have set a goal of increasing the number of
daily downtown bicycle commuters to 6,000 by 2015. This increase also contributes to the citywide goals
and objectives contained in the City of Seattle Bicycle Master Plan.
This assessment investigates whether the existing bicycle commuter amenities in commercial buildings is
sufficient to accommodate planned increases in bicycle commuters. These amenities play a key role in
the strategy for delivering the full range of services needed to support bicycle commuters. Private
amenities leverage public investment in on-street bike facilities and encouragement programs while
strengthening public-private partnerships. The inventory findings inform the level of investment needed in
amenity improvements, education outreach, and encouragement marketing.
Commute Seattle Center City Bicycle Amenity Inventory – Final Report Page 1
2. Bike Amenities Assessment Methodology and Inventory Approach
The purpose of the inventory process was to quantify the Center City’s bicycle storage capacity and
assess the suitability of long-term parking facilities for commuters. The project was divided into six
separate but interrelated tasks:
1. Identify inventory approach and potential delivery partners

2. Develop and scope inventory work plan
3. Hire and train temporary staff
4. Field and complete inventory
5. Analyze findings, solicit input and assess issues
6. Report findings and recommendations
Commute Seattle began the inventory project by researching other bicycle parking inventories and
assessment programs from around the world. These inventories ranged in scale from volunteer user-
generated data using Google Maps to long-form assessment tools that covered nearly every aspect of a
user’s bike parking experience within a building. While maps produced by some municipal organizations
detailed locations for all public bicycle parking facilities, no comprehensive inventories of private
amenities could be found. A complete list of resources and works cited is attached as Appendix A.
Without a template of how to conduct an exhaustive inventory of all Center City properties, Commute
Seattle staff developed its own work plan in-house, designated standards for counting bike rack capacity,
and created a nine-point quantitative assessment tool based on commuters’ needs. The organization then
hired and trained temporary field staff to inventory Center City commercial buildings and collect data for
analysis purposes.
I. Project Scope and Work Plan
The inventory work plan required setting the geographic scope of the project, obtaining geographic data
on buildings and parcels, and reaching out to property managers in anticipation of data collection efforts.
A. Geographic scope and neighborhoods

The inventory project was conceived as a means to survey buildings in Seattle’s Center City, an area
comprised of ten neighborhoods in the downtown core of the city. To expedite data collection and focus
attention on denser commercial areas, Commute Seattle staff updated and simplified the boundaries of
the neighborhoods and modified the outline of the Center City area (see Figure 1 below).
B. Types of parking facilities

The purpose of the inventory was to quantify the amount and type of bicycle parking spaces available to
commuters on commercial properties. For this reason, several distinctions between types of parking and
storage facilities were necessary.
Foremost, the needs of commuters necessitate that parking facilities are appropriate for 6 – 10 hours of
use. Transport Canada, the federal transportation department, defines short-term parking as “simple
outdoor stands or racks with no weather protection and minimal security measures,” contrasted with long-
term parking, which is defined as “partially‐ or fully‐enclosed or indoor bicycle parking offering weather
protection and increased protection against vandalism and theft”.1 To more fully understand the
differences between short-term and long-term parking, Commute Seattle developed a tool for assessing a
bicycle rack’s commuter-readiness (see page 7 below for a full description).
Figure 1. Commute Seattle's revised neighborhood and Center City boundaries streamlined the data collection process.
The inventory distinguished between formal and informal bicycle parking. Formal bicycle parking is
defined as any piece of infrastructure specifically designed for bicycle storage, such as a bicycle rack or
bicycle locker. Informal bicycle parking was defined as any piece of infrastructure that could be used for
bicycle storage though was not designed for such use. Examples of informal bicycle parking include
signposts, railings, and metal pipes. Informal bicycle parking was not counted in the inventory, as it is
generally not adequate for long-term commuter bicycle storage.
Additionally, some property managers allow tenants to bring bicycles into their leased space, or provide a
locked or semi-private area in which to store bicycles (yet without formal bicycle racks). These types of
amenities were included as part of the inventory but only when that information was volunteered by the
property manager.
1
Transport Canada, “Bicycle End-of-Trip Facilities,” April 2010, ix.
The inventory also distinguishes between private parking amenities and public bicycle facilities. The City
of Seattle installs and maintains public bicycle parking facilities in the public right-of-way, such as on
sidewalks within park spaces, or on public lands. Given their location, the vast majority of public racks are
considered short-term bicycle parking. According to the Seattle Department of Transportation’s (SDOT)
inventory of these facilities (Figure 2), there are approximately 2,000 public racks in the project area.
Figure 2.
C. Buildings and geographic data

To ensure an exhaustive inventory of all buildings in the study area, Commute Seattle obtained parcel
and building footprint data from the City of Seattle. This geospatial data provided staff with a listing and
map of all buildings within the study area. Some information maintained by the city, such as addresses,
was updated throughout the data collection phase to reflect information collected in the field.
D. Property managers and privacy

Commute Seattle’s existing partnerships with property managers allowed for early feedback on the
inventory’s work plan. Partners suggested that property managers would be more amenable to field
observation and data collection if they knew how the information would be used. Specifically, property
managers wanted to protect tenant privacy and review the inventory findings for security reasons.
Commute Seattle staff developed standards to protect the privacy of buildings, and limited the reporting of
inventory findings to aggregate levels that would not identify specific buildings or their amenities.2
Additionally, several influential property managers signed a letter of support for the inventory, which was
mailed to downtown property managers in advance of data collection. Field staff brought copies of this
letter with them on site visits to allay any concerns about how data would be used.
2
For the purposes of analysis and stakeholder outreach, Commute Seattle does store building-level data internally.
II. Counting Bicycle Rack Capacity
Capacity, for the purposes of this inventory, is defined as the number of bikes that can reasonably be
accommodated on a rack in a commercial building. Rack manufacturers state the potential capacity for
each rack they produce, but factors such as quality, installation, and human behavior can greatly impact
the actual capacity from a user standpoint. When given limited options for bicycle parking, users often find
creative means to secure their bicycles.3 For example, the rack in Figure 3 below is designed to hold two
bicycles, while users have found ways to lock six bicycles to it.
Figure 3. Users of this rack have added more bikes than intended by the manufacturer. Photo: Commute Seattle.
In another example, the manufacturer of the rack in Figure 4 states a capacity of 10 bicycles. This
assumes that the rack is located away from a wall, so that bikes may be parked perpendicular to the rack
(as in Figure 5). The stated capacity also assumes that users will not park parallel to the rack, as shown
in Figure 4. If another cyclist were to use the rack’s other side in this way, the capacity would be
effectively decreased to two bikes. Relatedly, the rack, located in a parking garage, is adjacent to a
vehicle parking stall (note the grey line and white parking block). Vehicles parked in this stall would further
complicate the proper usage of this rack, and risk damage to and from parked bicycles.
3
Some users find that locking bicycles to railings, signposts, or other informal infrastructure is sufficient for their
needs. These types of fixtures were not included in the inventory.
Figure 4. Obstructions diminish the capacity of this rack, originally designed to hold 10 bicycles. Photo: Commute Seattle.
Figure 5. While proper usage is important, proper installation plays a large part in determining capacity. Photo: Commute
Seattle.
The goal of the inventory was to capture the number of bicycles that could fit on any one piece of
infrastructure. While siting and installation played a factor in diminishing that capacity, user behavior also
impacts a rack’s actual capacity. However, there is no objective way to predict how users will behave,
and behavior that does diminish capacity is temporary compared to, for example, the wall that obstructs
the back half of the rack in Figures 4 and 5.
Commute Seattle’s research into bicycle racks and their effective capacities found no definitive sources
that accounted for all of the issues that affect rack usability. As such, staff created a field guide to quickly
and objectively measure:
a rack’s capacity based on its design elements, and
the capacity lost due to installation and environment.
Capacity standards were determined by considering manufacturers’ suggestions, standards of the

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and user trends. The resulting guide (Appendix B)
depicts the most common types of bicycle racks, and counting guidelines for racks where capacity is
more difficult to determine objectively.
III. Commuter Bicycle Parking Assessment Tool
A. Background and Research

In addition to the number of bikes a rack can reasonably accommodate, Commute Seattle also quantified
the ability of the current stock of bicycle parking in commercial buildings to meet commuters’ long-term
parking needs. Security and weather protection are among the most important attributes of a commuter-
appropriate bicycle rack. Long-term users look for bicycle racks that are in secure or highly-trafficked
areas to reduce the possibility of theft. They also look for parking that is protected from inclement weather
in order to avoid discomfort and damage to bicycle hardware. Research also suggested that a rack’s
quality should be considered when determining a rack’s appropriateness for long-term storage.
Many of the inventories in other cities make no distinction between rack types in terms of quality, noting
merely their capacity and, in some cases, whether or not the racks are covered or indoors. One exception
is a study of Chicago grocery stores, which assigned each bicycle rack a quality rating of “great,” “good,”
or “poor”. The ratings were based on the “ability to lock at least one wheel on the bike and its frame [and]
the security [the rack] provides.”4
The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) recommends specific rack types based
on the ability of the rack to support an upright bicycle, the ability of a user to lock the frame and one wheel
to the rack with a U-lock, and the thickness and quality of the material to which the bike is locked.5 A bike
which lacks support may be damaged if it tilts or falls, and may cause damage to surrounding bikes in the
process. Furthermore, the quality of the rack has an impact on security – a thin metal bar can be bent or
pried loose by a determined thief, while a thicker steel tube would require cumbersome tools to cut
through.
B. Assessment Tool and Criteria

To determine the appropriateness of a rack for commuter purposes, Commute Seattle designed a 9-point
assessment tool along the criteria of security, weather protection, and quality. The tool was designed to
be used quickly and objectively, and to capture the relationship between security and quality.
Each rack was assigned a point value which was then converted to a letter grade that described the
rack’s appropriateness for commuters. Table 1, below, shows the point conversion and description of
each grade. Grades were developed in order to easily compare racks with similar attributes – the C-grade
does not necessarily connote bad infrastructure, but merely indicates that the rack is inappropriate for
long-term usage by commuters. C-grade racks may be provided by the property manager for short term
usage.
4
Steven Vance, “Bike parking at grocery and convenience stores in Chicago,” 7 Oct 2010,
http://wiki.stevevance.net/bikeparking/grocerystoreschi (accessed 24 Mar 2011).
5
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd ed., 2010, 2-16 – 2-29.
Table 1. Categories of bike parking as determined by the assessment tool.
Points Grade Category Description
8 -9 A Preferred Well-protected from theft, weather, or damage
Reasonably well-protected from theft, weather, or

4–7 B Adequate
damage
1–3 C Inadequate Not well-protected from theft, weather, or damage
1. Weather Protection Assessment

The assessment tool considers weather protection high (3 points) when the infrastructure is completely
covered by solid walls and ceilings, or is far enough away from open walls or fences to avoid wind-blown
precipitation. Medium protection (2 points) refers to parking that is partially covered by a roof or canopy,
or susceptible to wind-blown precipitation, such as through fences or open walls. Low protection (1 point)
refers to parking that has no overhead coverage. A point is still given to uncovered racks, as they become
useful for commuters in warmer months. The assessment tool considers bicycle lockers to have high
weather protection, regardless of their location.
Figure 6. Uncovered racks (left) may be useful in warmer weather, though covered racks (right) are preferred. Partially
covered racks (center) have some exposure to the elements. Photos: Commute Seattle.
2. Security Assessment
High-security (3 points) refers to any parking where general access is restricted, usually by a locked door
or gate, or where the amenity is a variety of storage locker that restricts access to individually assigned
users. Medium-security (2 points) refers to parking that is accessible to anyone, yet located in high-
visibility or high-traffic areas that would deter theft or vandalism. Low-security (0 points) refers to any
parking that is accessible to anyone and located in a low-visibility or low-traffic area. Low-security parking
was considered inappropriate for commuters, and received an automatic C grade.
Figure 7. Low security (left) provided no theft-deterrent or visibility to commuters' parked bicycles. Well-trafficked areas
(center) were considered medium security, while cages, lockers, and any other restricted access area (right) received the
most points. Photos: Commute Seattle.
3. Quality Assessment
Up to three points are awarded for the rack’s quality, with the number depending upon the ability of the
rack type to support an upright U-locked bicycle AND the level of security. Racks that met the APBP’s
level of appropriateness were given a preferred status, while those that did not were given a non-
preferred status. The possible point distributions are outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Points are given to each rack based on the rack type and the security level.
Security (as assessed above)
Quality Example High Medium Low
Preferred 3 3 0
Non-preferred 2 1 0
IV. Data Collection and Analysis
Commute Seattle hired five temporary field staff to collect data. Staff were trained in the use of the
assessment tool and capacity counting standards, as well as the sensitivities of privacy. Staff initially
conducted data collection in pairs for training purposes, but quickly transitioned to individual field work.
Using the parcel and building data from the city, Commute Seattle staff generated daily work plans for the
field staff. These maps (see Figure 8) directed staff on which buildings to visit, and allowed them to track
their daily workload. The maps were updated daily to reflect the field staff’s progress in the inventory.
Staff used additional worksheets to record address information for visited buildings, which was also used
to update information in the building dataset.
Figure 8. Daily workplans provided guidance for field staff so efforts would not be duplicated.
While on-site, field staff completed a data collection form for each building, which captured all necessary
data for a building and its bike amenities. The sheet (see Appendix C) could be used for multiple types
and instances of bicycle racks, and also collected information on showers, lockers, rack location, and
building type (e.g. commercial, residential, etc.).
Data collected in the field was subsequently entered into a database developed specifically for the
inventory project (Figure 9). The database allows Commute Seattle to store and review information
collected during the inventory, including photographs of bicycle parking amenities. The database is
housed on an intranet server hosted by the Downtown Seattle Association, and data can be exported to a
spreadsheet for analysis.
Figure 9. A screenshot of the data entry field from the on-line Bike Inventory database.
Data collection began on October 4th, 2010, with the final field visit to a building conducted in early
December 2010. Data entry was conducted at pace with data collection efforts.
3. Existing Conditions of Private Bicycle Amenities
This section of the report showcases the distribution of amenities by neighborhood, and begins to
examine the attributes of amenities that may play a role in commuters’ decision-making processes.
Following data collection, Commute Seattle assessed the data for the baseline existing conditions of
Center City buildings. The study area contained 2,617 parcels, which contained 1,943 individual buildings
that were inventoried for bicycle commuter amenities. Of these 1,943 buildings, 260 contained bicycle
parking amenities, 892 contained no bicycle parking amenities, and 791 were either primarily residential
or vacant, and not considered relevant to an inventory of commuter-related amenities. The findings
discussed below concern the 1,152 non-residential buildings that can accommodate commuter bicycle
parking.
I. Buildings
Commuter rack and capacity data was collected on a building by building basis. Of the 1,152 buildings
surveyed, 260 (22.6%) have bicycle parking, 111 (9.6%) have showers, and 83 (7.2%) have day-use
lockers. The percent of commercial buildings with commuter racks varies widely by neighborhood, from
3.8% of buildings in Capitol Hill to 43.2% of buildings in the Central Business District. Additionally, 35
buildings (3.0%) provide tire pumps as a commuter amenity.
Table 3. Distribution of buildings with bike racks by neighborhood.

Number of # buildings % bldgs # of bldgs % of bldgs # of bldgs % of bldgs
Neighborhood
buildings w. racks w. racks w. showers w. showers w. lockers w. lockers
Belltown 199 34 17.1% 18 9.0% 10 5.0%
Capitol Hill 104 4 3.8% 1 1.0% 0 0.0%
Central Business Dist 185 80 43.2% 30 16.2% 26 14.1%
Denny Triangle 111 26 23.4% 15 13.5% 8 7.2%
First Hill 87 23 26.4% 5 5.7% 3 3.4%
International District 65 6 9.2% 1 1.5% 2 3.1%
Pioneer Square 132 36 27.3% 18 13.6% 15 11.4%
Queen Anne 101 20 19.8% 7 6.9% 5 5.0%
South Lake Union 168 31 18.5% 16 9.5% 14 8.3%
Center City 1,152 260 22.6% 111 9.6% 83 7.2%
In addition to the 260 buildings with formal bicycle parking, staff discovered an additional 86 buildings
where informal storage in tenant spaces is allowed. As this information was not a primary data point, the
true number of buildings where this practice takes place is unknown.
II. Overall Capacity
By aggregating the capacity of all racks observed during the inventory, Commute Seattle finds that Center
City buildings currently have the infrastructure to accommodate 6,415 bicycles. However, some of these
racks and bike lockers are sited and installed in ways that diminish their potential capacity for parked
bicycles. These conflicts represent 5.9% of the overall capacity, resulting in an actual capacity of 6,035.
Subsequent analysis of parking amenities is based on the actual capacity figure.
Table 4. Capacity of all private racks and the capacity lost due to improper installation.
Center City Bike Parking
Potential parking infrastructure 6,415
Diminished capacity 380 (5.9%)
Actual parking infrastructure 6,035
III. Distribution of Parking Capacity by Neighborhood
The distribution of end-of-trip amenities varied widely from neighborhood to neighborhood. Buildings with
bicycle racks were more prevalent In the Central Business District, Denny Triangle, Pioneer Square, and
South Lake Union.
Bicycle Parking Capacity by neighborhood

(as percentage of total study area)
199 110 97
3% 2% 2%
502
8%
2,133 Central Business District
595 35%
10% South Lake Union
Denny Triangle
Pioneer Square
First Hill
790 Belltown
13%
Queen Anne
Capitol Hill
811
798 International District
14%
13%
Figure 10.
IV. Commuter Appropriateness Assessment of Bicycle Parking
End-of-trip amenities were assessed in terms of their appropriateness for commuters’ long-term needs,
specifically along the criteria of security, quality, and weather protection. The 9-point assessment tool
developed by Commute Seattle was used to weigh these criteria and assign an A, B, or C grade to each
rack in the inventory, representing appropriateness for commuters.
Table 5. Categories of bike parking as determined by the assessment tool.
Grade Category Description
A Preferred Well-protected from theft, weather, or damage
B Adequate Reasonably well-protected from theft, weather, or damage
C Inadequate Not well-protected from theft, weather, or damage
The majority (69.5%) of privately-provided bicycle parking is considered A-grade (preferred) with the
capacity to hold 4,193 bikes. Of the remaining capacity, 1,594 (26.4%) spaces are considered B-grade
(adequate) in that they do not address all of the needs of commuters. An additional 248 (4.1%) are
considered C-grade (inadequate) commuter bike parking.
Table 6. Distribution of Center City capacity by neighborhood and by grade.

Actual
Neighborhood % A-grade % B-grade % C-grade
capacity
Belltown 502 60.8% 35.1% 4.2%

Capitol Hill 110 9.1% 90.9% 0.0%
Central Business District 2,133 72.9% 20.8% 6.3%
Denny Triangle 798 63.4% 34.7% 1.9%
First Hill 595 59.2% 33.8% 7.1%
International District 97 90.7% 9.3% 0.0%
Pioneer Square 790 80.8% 18.2% 1.0%
Queen Anne 199 43.7% 51.8% 4.5%
South Lake Union 811 80.5% 17.3% 2.2%
Center City 6,035 69.5% 26.4% 4.1%
Figure 11, below, showcases the quantity of bicycle parking capacity in each neighborhood, and displays
the proportions of A-, B-, and C-level amenities.
Figure 11. Parcel source data: City of Seattle.
V. Existing Conditions by Criteria
Breaking down the assessment tool to its component criteria provides another look at how amenities
meet the unique needs of commuters.
A. Security
Bicycle parking amenities were assessed for the security criteria based on how the amenities are
accessed by users. High-security refers to any parking where general access is restricted, usually by a
locked door or gate, or where the amenity is a variety of storage locker that restricts access to individually
assigned users. Medium-security refers to parking that is accessible to anyone, yet located in high-
visibility or high-traffic areas that would deter theft or vandalism. Low-security refers to any parking that is
accessible to anyone and located in a low-visibility or low-traffic area.
As indicated in Table 7, the majority of parking in the study area is considered high security, meaning
access to the amenities is limited to tenants or another restricted set of users.
Table 7. Distribution of capacity by security level.

Security
Neighborhood
High Medium Low
639 154 18
South Lake Union
78.8% 19.0% 2.2%
68 29 0
International District
70.1% 29.9% 0.0%
496 286 8
Pioneer Square
62.8% 36.2% 1.0%
492 291 15
Denny Triangle
61.7% 36.5% 1.9%
357 196 42
First Hill
60.0% 32.9% 7.1%
265 216 21
Belltown
52.8% 43.0% 4.2%
948 1050 135
Central Business District
44.4% 49.2% 6.3%
79 111 9
Queen Anne
39.7% 55.8% 4.5%
22 88 0
Capitol Hill
20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
3,366 2,421 248
Center City
55.8% 40.1% 4.1%
B. Weather protection
For long term bicycle storage, protection from inclement weather is an important consideration for siting of
bicycle infrastructure. The assessment tool considers weather protection high when the infrastructure is
completely covered by solid walls and ceilings, or is far enough away from open walls or fences to avoid
wind-blown precipitation. Medium protection refers to parking that is partially covered by a roof or canopy,
or susceptible to wind-blown precipitation, such as through fences or open walls. Low protection refers to
parking that has no overhead coverage. The assessment tool considers bicycle lockers to have high
weather protection, regardless of their location.
The vast majority of parking amenities in the study area are highly protected from the weather. The one
neighborhood-level exception, Capitol Hill, featured a number of parking areas in outdoor courtyards of a
large institution.
Table 8. Distribution of capacity by weather protection

Weather protection
Neighborhood
High Medium Low
88 6 3
90.7% 6.2% 3.1%
179 15 5
Queen Anne
89.9% 7.5% 2.5%
1,872 132 129
87.8% 6.2% 6.0%
686 89 15
Pioneer Square
86.8% 11.3% 1.9%
661 82 68
South Lake Union
81.5% 10.1% 8.4%
651 79 68
Denny Triangle
81.6% 9.9% 8.5%
377 96 29
Belltown
75.1% 19.1% 5.8%
386 73 136
First Hill
64.9% 12.3% 22.9%
16 32 62
Capitol Hill
14.5% 29.1% 56.4%
4916 604 515
Center City
81.5% 10.0% 8.5%
C. Quality and rack type
The quality criterion of the assessment tool is loosely based on the recommendations of rack type put
forth by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). Preferred racks include any
infrastructure that accommodates a standard U-lock affixed around a wheel and the frame of the bicycle,
and keeps the bicycle upright with two points of support to prevent damage from tipping. Table 9 shows
distribution by preferred rack status.
Table 9. Distribution of capacity by preferred rack status

Quality
Neighborhood
Preferred Non-preferred
91 6
93.8% 6.2%
80 30
Capitol Hill
72.7% 27.3%
1,451 682
68.0% 32.0%
540 250
Pioneer Square
68.4% 31.6%
280 222
Belltown
55.8% 44.2%
445 366
South Lake Union
54.9% 45.1%
325 270
First Hill
54.6% 45.4%
325 473
Denny Triangle
40.7% 59.3%
53 146
Queen Anne
26.6% 73.4%
3,590 2,445
Center City
59.5% 40.5%
More information on the racks observed in the inventory, as well as their preferred or non-preferred
status, is in Appendix D.
Rack prevalence by type
Hanger
186 148 95 60
Comb
578
1814
Vertical
623 Other preferred

Wave
Hooks
Staple
Toast
708
Other non-preferred
998
Locker
822
Figure 12. Prevalence of various rack types, with non-preferred styles shaded.
4. Gaps in the Existing Conditions of Private Bicycle Amenities
Commute Seattle’s Existing Conditions Report quantitatively illustrates how bicycle amenities are
distributed throughout Center City’s commercial buildings. The question remains as to whether the
existing amenities can sustain the goal of an increased mode share amongst bike commuters. This
section presents identification and analysis of inefficiencies, or gaps, in the existing conditions. These
gaps will inform the Commute Seattle bike program’s long term strategic plan and approach to marketing
and encouraging bike commuting.
Many of the gaps observed in the bike inventory are a result of decisions made by property managers,
either deliberately or unintentionally. For privacy purposes, this report does not contain any information
that identifies or describes the amenities in any individual building. Commute Seattle does store individual
building information for the purpose of analysis, and to inform the organization’s long-term strategic plan.
I. Buildings without Amenities
As noted in the Existing Conditions section, 22.6% of commercial buildings provide bicycle parking
amenities to their tenants. Conversely, 77.4% of commercial buildings provide no bicycle amenities. A
slim majority of buildings in the Central Business District have bicycle racks, but the majority of buildings
in all other neighborhoods do not. Table 10, below, details the proportion of buildings with a number of
bicycle commuter amenities.
Table 10. Distribution of commercial buildings without bike amenities by neighborhood.

# % bldgs # of bldgs % of bldgs No. of
Number of % of bldgs
Neighborhood buildings w/o w/o w/o bldgs w/o
buildings w/o lockers
w/o racks racks showers showers lockers
Capitol Hill 104 100 96.2% 103 99.0% 104 100.0%
International District 65 59 90.8% 64 98.5% 63 96.9%
Belltown 199 165 82.9% 181 91.0% 189 95.0%
South Lake Union 168 137 81.5% 152 90.5% 154 91.7%
Queen Anne 101 81 80.2% 94 93.1% 96 95.0%
Denny Triangle 111 85 76.6% 96 86.5% 103 92.8%
First Hill 87 64 73.6% 82 94.3% 84 96.6%
Pioneer Square 132 96 72.7% 114 86.4% 117 88.6%
Central Business
185 105 56.8% 155 83.8% 159 85.9%
Dist
Center City 1,152 892 77.4% 1,041 90.4% 1,069 92.8%
II. Buildings with Amenities
While commercial buildings with amenities are a minority in Center City, existing conditions provide an
understanding of how property managers think about bicycle amenities. The inventory process has
helped to identify several environmental and installation-related factors that can diminish the
appropriateness of parking amenities for commuters. The information below, combined with a qualitative
issues assessment addressed later in this report, explores the barriers and issues property managers
face in adding bicycle amenities to their properties.
Capacity loss due to improper installation
Of the buildings with bicycle amenities, 36.9% (96 buildings) have some level of capacity loss. Capacity
loss occurs when parking amenities are improperly installed or sited in such a way that reduces the
number of bicycles that can use the facility. Capacity loss in buildings ranges in severity from a 3.1%
reduction to a 100% reduction, and reduces overall capacity of the study area by 380, or 5.9% of the
potential capacity.
Security constraints
The overall lack of amenities in most buildings is compounded by the fact that many buildings have
bicycle racks with high security levels. Of the 260 buildings with bicycle amenities, 104 (40%) limit access
to their amenities to tenants only. This is a popular attribute of bicycle parking for tenants and property
managers who want added security. However, tenants in buildings with no amenities face a challenge in
finding accessible commuter bicycle parking in other buildings.
Criteria typologies
The assessment tool produces 3 possible grades, 9 possible point totals, and 17 possible combinations of
attributes. The inventory findings can be viewed through these typological differences to identify where
gaps exist.
1. Grades
The grade split is a useful metric for the overall state of amenities, as it highlights the prevalence of
commuter-appropriate amenities in Center City.
Table 11. The grades evaluate overall appropriateness of the private stock of bicycle parking amenities.
Grade Category n %
A Appropriate 4,193 69.5%
B Adequate 1,594 26.4%
C Inappropriate 248 4.1%
While the grade system highlights the overall appropriateness of an amenity, it doesn’t fully identify which
criteria are deficient beyond low security, which is automatically given a C-grade.
2. Points
The distribution of different point totals begins to break down the differences in grade categories, showing
the overall typology of the point distribution. In Table 12 below, gray rows indicate amenities with low
scores on one or more criteria.
Table 12. The typology of all possible point combinations and their prevalence.
Grade Points n % Security Weather Protection Quality
9 2047 33.9% High High Preferred
8 898 14.9% Medium High Preferred

A
8 80 1.3% High Medium Preferred
8 1168 19.4% High High Non-preferred
7 257 4.3% Medium Medium Preferred
7 67 1.1% High Medium Non-preferred
6 219 3.6% Medium Low Preferred
B 6 6 0.1% High Low Non- preferred
6 747 12.4% Medium High Non- preferred
5 172 2.9% Medium Medium Non- preferred
4 123 2.0% Medium Low Non- preferred
3 14 0.2% Low High Preferred
3 37 0.6% Low High Non- preferred
2 22 0.4% Low Medium Preferred

C
2 8 0.1% Low Medium Non- preferred
1 53 0.9% Low Low Preferred
1 114 1.9% Low Low Non- preferred
3. Criteria-based gaps and their effect on amenity stock

The following table sums up the gaps identified by the point system and the capacity affected.
Table 13. The overall stock is affected by individual criteria of the assessment.
Affected Percentage
Gap
capacity of stock
Improper installation 380 5.9%
Inadequate security 248 3.8%
No weather protection 348 5.4%
6
Non-preferred rack type 2,154 33.5%
Total affected capacity 3,130 48.7%
Several key factors compromise the capacity and quality of commuter bicycle parking. These include
poor installation, placement or location, and rack type installed. Incremental improvements to existing
racks would increase the stock of preferred and adequate bicycle parking.
6
Non-preferred rack types can still meet the requirements for commuter-preferred parking.
III. Estimating Demand for Amenities
Employment as proxy for demand
With the majority of commercial buildings having no commuter bicycle amenities, the question arises as to
which areas of the city are the most underserved. While neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill and Lower
Queen Anne have low overall capacity compared to other neighborhoods, their ratio of residential to
commercial buildings is comparatively higher. As the inventory is most interested in commuter bicycle
amenities, one of the primary indicators of demand is employment.
Employment data for 2009 from Seattle’s Department of Transportation’s transportation demand model
was used. The model allocated this employment to smaller geographies known as Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZs). The inventory data was also assigned by TAZs. By aggregating the supply of
bicycle parking in buildings within each TAZ, Commute Seattle staff is able to compare the overall supply
to an employment-based level of demand.
Commute Seattle’s long-term goal is to increase the bicycle commute mode split from the 2000 baseline
of 1.2% to 2.2% by 2015. By multiplying the employment figures in each TAZ by the 2015 bicycle mode
share goal of 2.2%, Commute Seattle staff developed a proxy for the amount of bike parking necessary to
meet the level of demand represented by the 2015 goal.7
Figure 13, below, subtracts the estimated 2015 demand from the existing supply of each TAZ. The colors
represent the resulting shortage (red) or surplus (blue) of bicycle parking amenities. Though the map
understates the match between riders and amenities – much of the bike parking is behind locked doors,
accessible only to tenants – it clearly demonstrates that areas of Denny Triangle, Central Business
District, First Hill, the International District and Lower Queen Anne are undersupplied. The map
demonstrates that the distribution of secure, covered, and high-quality bicycle parking is uneven, and
highlights the areas with the greatest need.
7
Note that employment figures are estimated from 2009 data. Estimations for 2015 were unavailable at time of
publication.
Figure 13.
IV. Conclusions
Analysis of the 1,152 commercial buildings inventoried in Center City demonstrates that the current
supply and distribution of amenities does not support long-term bicycle mode split growth goals.
A review of existing conditions of bicycle amenities in Center City finds a significant gap, in that more than
three-quarters of all commercial buildings have no racks, lockers, or showers. Of those buildings that do
provide bike parking, 40% provide amenities to tenants only, meaning commuters working in buildings
with no bike amenities have little if any access to appropriate bicycle parking. There is a distributional
gap, in that there is short supply of bicycle parking in some areas of concentrated employment.
Furthermore, while the majority of bicycle parking is commuter appropriate, there is room for improvement
in how the parking infrastructure is installed, what types of racks are used, and where parking is located
with regards to its security and weather protection.
In addition to these quantitative gaps, qualitative assessment was necessary to understand other factors
that influence the supply of Center City bicycle amenities in commercial buildings.
5. Property Manager Issues Assessment
The analysis conducted in the existing conditions and gap analysis sections of the study focuses on the
objective and quantitative findings of the bike inventory. While these figures provide a snapshot of the
current conditions and distribution of amenities, they do not capture the motivations of property managers
who provide these amenities to their tenants. In order to more fully understand the process by which
bicycle amenities are procured and valued amongst commercial property owners, Commute Seattle staff
conducted an assessment of the attitudes, barriers, and financial concerns of property management
firms.
Through a series of formal and informal interviews, Commute Seattle staff presented property managers
with information on their own buildings – bicycle parking capacity, grade, and notes on potential issues
facing commuters. Property managers were also asked to react to certain high-level findings of the
inventory process, such as the presence or absence of bike parking in downtown buildings, gaps
associated with improper installation, and the assessment tool criteria. Property managers were also
asked to discuss their experience with and attitudes toward providing bike amenities for commuters.
To protect their privacy, this report does not identify the property management firms, staff, or tenants by
name. Table 14 lists the attributes of the buildings overseen by property managers interviewed in this
process.
Table 14. Property managers interviewed as part of the issues assessment.
Building size Has bicycle Allows bikes in

Interview Class8 Neighborhood
(in ft2) parking? tenant spaces?
1 A CBD 900,000 Yes No
2 A Denny Triangle 300,000 Yes Yes
3 A CBD 1,100,000 Yes No
4 A Pioneer Square 325,000 Yes No
5 B+ CBD 88,000 No Yes
6 C Pioneer Square Unknown Yes Yes
7 C Pioneer Square 25,000 No No
I. Themes and Responses
Theme 1: Bicycle parking as a competitive advantage
Most property managers were unsurprised to learn that just 22.6% of buildings provide bicycle parking,
based on their knowledge of building stock in downtown. One cautioned against treating all commercial
buildings the same, suggesting that some simply would never be appropriate places for bicycle parking
8
Metropolitan building class, as defined by the Building Owners and Managers Association, are a subjective rating of
buildings’ competitive ability to attract similar tenants. Buildings are classified as A (most prestigious), B (average), or
C (functional).
based on their location, size, or design around specific uses (such as a car dealership). Another saw a
competitive value in the 22.6% figure, as it placed her building among the top in terms of amenities. She
suggested that Class A and Class B property managers would be interested in knowing how many other
buildings of the same class have amenities, as this could translate to a competitive advantage.
Property managers do not have a thorough understanding of what amenities peer properties provide to
tenants. There is currently no way to compare their own amenities to those provided in other buildings.
Theme 2: The true costs and benefits of providing more bicycle parking
Many of the property managers spoke to the challenge between providing a valuable tenant amenity such
as bicycle parking and the associated opportunity costs or revenue loss. Adding amenities may cost less
in newer construction, as existing buildings usually have allotted uses to all available space.
Compounding this, many property managers prefer to site bicycle parking in garage spaces, which can
impact revenue-generating vehicle parking.
A property manager who had converted a vehicle parking space to a bicycle parking area indicated that
were they ever to sell the building, the firm would likely convert the space back to a vehicle stall. This
would present prospective buyers with a revenue-maximized layout of the building, though it would
amount to just a 0.1% increase of existing vehicle parking. Another property manager stated that the
vehicle parking revenue would definitely decrease if she were to provide additional bicycle parking in the
garage.
One property manager is considering off-setting the cost of additional bike parking by renting it to the
public for a nominal fee. Other property managers felt that this type of system would not be possible for
new or existing bike parking, saying current tenant demand levels would not sustain it, it would be difficult
to manage politically, or that they lack interest in managing the rental system.
Currently many of the real or perceived costs and benefits of adding amenities are discussed in terms of
opportunity costs and revenue loss. No specific metric exists to calculate the true return on investment of
additional bike amenities.
Theme 3: The perception of demand for bicycle amenities from new and existing tenants
Demand from existing tenants appeared to be one of the key determinants of when to improve or add
bicycle parking. Some property managers said that amenities in their building had been expanded as a
result of survey responses or other feedback mechanisms. One property manager added amenities such
as showers and lockers as part of a leasing agreement for a new large tenant, but said that for smaller
tenants, the trade-offs would have to be examined more closely to ensure the bottom line is not affected.
Nonetheless, some property managers said increased tenant demand was insufficient, on its own, to
leverage additional amenities. One suggested that tenants do not make leasing decisions based on bike
amenities, and that commuter amenities that address additional demand should be thought of as a public
good. A manager of several smaller, older buildings firmly believed that tenants acclimate themselves to
the transportation amenities their buildings provide, rather than asking for more.
Two property managers found that providing a higher level of amenities lead to an increased demand for
these amenities. They now look for ways to manage existing demand without necessarily adding supply
or improving amenities further. Furthermore, where vocal demand is present, property managers that
increase supply quickly find it maximized, leaving tenants facing a shortage.
Many property managers lack a consistent forum for input on bicycle amenities, making demand difficult
to assess. Latent demand for bicycle amenities – i.e. “If you build it, they will ride” – may not be captured
by surveys and other feedback mechanisms.
Theme 4: Allowing bicycles in tenant spaces
Generally speaking, Class A property managers were reluctant to let bicycles into lobbies or tenant office
spaces in their buildings. The reasons cited included the potential for damage to walls and flooring, and
potential for injury to other tenants and visitors. The Class A property managers who were interviewed all
provided bicycle parking, which they asserted was sufficient for the demand in their building. One
suggested that if an executive-level tenant had an emergency situation and needed temporary bicycle
storage, she might provide an exemption to the policy that prohibits bicycles in tenant spaces.
Buildings in other classes were more accommodating of bicycles in tenant spaces, even when formal
bicycle parking was provided. One property manager suggested that tenants were attracted to his
building’s rougher, less polished interiors, and any additional wear and tear caused by bikes was minimal.
Others said that they were happy to allow bikes in buildings primarily because they did not have the room
to provide racks.
Property managers of all types share a desire to provide some level of accommodation for bicycle
storage, but struggle with the separation of uses of finite space. Additionally, property managers may
have difficulty enforcing policies in some buildings where no formal amenities exist.
Theme 5: Attitudes toward assessing quality and appropriateness of bike amenities
Property managers at larger buildings were generally more receptive to the idea of having their amenities
assessed by a third party. One of these property managers saw value in making sure her bicycle
amenities were installed properly with an eye towards usability; another was interested in the technical
information that could be provided by an external consultant. Several property managers were interested
in seeing lists of preferred vendors or hardware before making improvements to their amenities.
Property managers were also interested in how an assessment could lead to a competitive advantage
over peer properties; this was especially true in Class A buildings. A certification or rating system, as one
property manager suggested, would give property managers a means of marketing their bicycle amenities
to tenants. Additionally, certification would incentivize property managers to improve their amenities in
order to stay competitive.
Currently, there are no formal means of recognizing the overall quality of a building’s bike amenities.
Building owners do not compare amenities amongst themselves, and assessing tenant demand for these
amenities can be difficult. Property managers could benefit from technical, procurement, and quality
assessment of existing and prospective bicycle amenities.
II. Qualitative Assessment of Issues
Many of the issues and attitudes expressed during the property manager interviews are shared across
firms and property types. Other issues appear to be specific to the property, such as the types of tenants
occupying the space, or the size of the building. Ultimately, many of the issues point to a need for a set of
guidelines and best practices that property managers can rely on for a true assessment of the benefits,
costs, and quality of bike amenities.
Bike amenities were often mentioned in terms of tenant retention and competitive advantage, especially
when comparing office space of the same class type. Conversely, most property managers see bicycle
parking as something they would need to locate in a garage or other rentable building space, leading to
lost revenue or other opportunity costs. One property manager suggested that the public sector arguably
has a greater responsibility to provide bicycle commuter parking than the private sector.
While tenant demand seems to be the strongest incentive for improvements, it is tempered by concerns
over how to manage the cyclical trend of demand. No other incentives were mentioned, though one
property manager mentioned using the city’s municipal code to determine the appropriate level of supply
as part of the building’s development. Property managers lack a consistent source of information
regarding the level and quality of amenities to supply.
Apart from the financial bottom line, property managers cited space limitations – including fire and seismic
code requirements – as one of the major disincentives for not providing more bicycle parking. Some
expressed value in learning more about space efficient racks and hardware that maximized capacity.
There are few resources for property managers that address the technical concerns of siting and
installing bicycle amenities from a user perspective.
There is a mix of attitudes towards bringing bicycles into tenant spaces. The smaller, non-Class-A spaces
seemed more inclined to allow the practice, while property managers at larger buildings appeared less
tolerant. Formal, visible bicycle parking amenities may drive latent demand for cycling as a commuter
mode; property managers may need assistance in finding creative ways to site and market their bike
amenities to existing and prospective tenants.
III. Regulatory Context
In addition to operating within financial and competitive constraints, property managers must also adhere
to regulatory standards and policies put in place by the City of Seattle.
Municipal zoning regulation influences the existing and future supply of bicycle parking. Seattle’s
Municipal Code, sections 23.49.019.E and 23.54.015.K provides bicycle parking requirements for new
and redeveloped buildings in the Center City area. These sections describe how bicycle parking should
be provided in a safe, accessible and convenient location, allowing adequate clearance for bicycles and
their riders, and providing directional signage. Additionally, covered bicycle parking is required whenever
covered parking for automobiles is required, and must be separated from automobile parking by a barrier
or painted lines. The majority of the buildings observed in the inventory were built prior to 2006, when this
section of the code went into effect. It is therefore not surprising that many of the buildings do not adhere
to these guidelines. Nonetheless, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center recommends using
current bicycle parking rate requirements as a means to retrofit older buildings with adequate supply.9
Seattle’s Bicycle Master Plan, adopted in 2007, calls for additional policies to increase bicycling’s mode
share. Among other recommendations, the plan suggests strengthening the development requirements
for showers and lockers in new or redeveloped buildings, increase the amount of bicycle parking provided
at public buildings, and consider installing secure, covered bicycle parking in the public realm.
Additionally, the plan recommends developing incentives for adding secure, high-quality bicycle parking
to privately-run automobile parking facilities.
Transportation Management Programs (TMPs) are another important regulatory tool used by the city to
promote improved bicycle amenities in buildings. Buildings with TMPs can provide a variety of amenities,
programs, or other resources that encourage building tenants to seek alternatives to drive-alone
commuting. SDOT reports that 98% of buildings with TMP’s have secure bicycle parking. SDOT inspects
TMP-conditioned sites regularly to ensure compliance with the code requirements of safe, adequate, and
weather protected amenities. There are approximately 44 buildings in the inventory study area with
TMPs.
9
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, “Bicycle Parking,” http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/
parking.cfm (accessed April 22, 2011).
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The primary goal of Commute Seattle’s bicycle program is to increase bicycle commute trips to 6,000
daily riders. While the inventory of Center City bicycle amenities indicates that there is sufficient gross
overall capacity for more than 6,000 bicycles, further analysis demonstrates that existing amenities
cannot accommodate the total level of cyclists desired. Commute Seattle has found three significant gaps
between existing bicycle parking amenities and its modal commuting goal:
1. Amenities are absent in a majority of commercial buildings.

Only 22.6% of commercial buildings provide bicycle amenities to their tenants. A significant
portion of commuters lack secure, covered, and high-quality bicycle parking.
2. Amenities are often sited, installed, or procured at levels lower than optimal commuter
standards.
When bicycle parking amenities are provided, they are generally more than adequate for
commuters needs. However, as shown in Table 15 below, there is room for qualitative
improvement to the installation, security, weather protection, and rack quality of existing bicycle
parking amenities.
Table 15. Incremental improvements to location and installation of bike racks would benefit the stock of amenities.
Affected Percentage
Gap
capacity of stock
Improper installation 380 5.9%
Inadequate security 248 3.8%
No weather protection 348 5.4%
10
Non-preferred rack type 2,154 33.5%
Total affected capacity 3,130 48.7%
3. Property managers cannot adequately assess tenant demand for bicycle amenities.
While there are many advocacy groups that promote the benefits of bicycle commuting to the
general population, bicycle commuting tenants comprise a smaller, more diffuse group that
cannot easily make their needs known to property managers. Property managers do not have
formal or consistent means to assess tenant demand for bicycle amenities, which may result in
under-supplied amenities, inadequate amenities, or both.
A common element of the three gaps is that property managers lack financial incentives to add or
improve bicycle amenities. While the City of Seattle requires new and redeveloped properties to provide
parking amenities, these requirements have developed over time, leaving many buildings below today’s
standards or with no amenities at all. There is no mechanism to spur property managers to bring their
older buildings in line with municipal code requirements for new and redeveloped buildings. From the
property manager viewpoint, such investments come with opportunity costs for the space they will
occupy, and must be considered in light of other uses, some of which – such as vehicle parking – can
produce more direct revenue. Without a financial return on their bottom line, property managers are
unlikely to make capital improvements that address the gaps.
10
Non-preferred rack types can still meet the requirements for commuter-preferred parking.
Barriers and Recommendations
The study suggests that achieving the goal of 6,000 daily riders requires solutions which address property
managers’ incentives and attitudes toward end-of-trip bicycle amenities. The largest barriers and
recommendations to address them are as follows:
Barrier #1: Lack of incentives.

Property managers lack market-based incentives to improve or add bicycle amenities. This results in the
lack of bike facilities in all but a small minority of commercial buildings.
Recommendation: One of the strongest incentives for investment in amenities is competitive advantage.
However, property management firms have no means to compare their bicycle amenities with peer
buildings. There is an opportunity to introduce competition amongst buildings by developing quality
standards for levels of service – baseline combinations of amenities and access – that property managers
can market to prospective tenants and each other.
Barrier #2: Distributional imbalance in older buildings.

Because most buildings in the Center City were developed prior to the current bicycle parking regulations,
many buildings fall short of providing sufficient bicycle parking facilities. Current standards will increase
supply in new and redeveloped buildings, but may not directly affect all the qualitative aspects necessary
for quality commuter bicycle parking.
Recommendation: Regulatory mechanisms should be considered that would compel existing buildings
to pursue a baseline level of service. Additionally, while the code updates will lead to an increase in the
supply of bicycle parking, they lack detailed qualitative standards on installation, security, weather
protection, and rack type. Consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan, bicycle parking requirements should
be complemented by guidelines that help ensure maximum effectiveness of new amenities. The role of a
transportation management association (TMA) in developing these guidelines and assessing their
application should also be considered.
Barrier #3: Lack of market-specific best practices.

Property managers lack information on bike amenities that speaks to commuter preferences. Additionally,
property managers are constrained by limited space and consideration of fire and safety codes.
Recommendation: When deciding which amenities to purchase and where to locate them, property
managers need to be aware of how commuters will use these amenities. There is a need in the
marketplace for a list of preferred vendors, rack types, and other facilities. Additionally, more technical
information could assist property managers in decisions on siting and installing racks and other facilities
in locations that are appropriate for commuters. Finally, more direct and consistent communication
between property managers and commuters can lead to more efficient investments that meet the needs
of tenants.
Barrier #4: Unclear costs and benefits.

Property managers struggle with the trade-offs between providing tenant amenities to secure competitive
advantage while managing opportunity costs from using otherwise rentable space for a use that does not
produce income.
Recommendation: Property managers need a clearer understanding of the costs and benefits of adding
bike amenities. There is a market potential for providing costing tools that aggregate information from
preferred vendors, and provide a cost-benefit analysis of amenity improvements.
Barrier #5: Unclear demand for amenities.

Property managers lack adequate information to fully understand bicycle parking demand at their
buildings. They do not have access to tools nor do they have existing processes for assessing their
tenants’ demand for bicycle amenities. While regulatory guidelines suggest a baseline of bicycle parking
capacity, each building’s unique mix of tenants calls for a more fine-tuned mechanism for assessing what
level of amenities to supply.
Recommendation: Building transportation audits and formal surveys can provide more accurate tools for
pinpointing tenant demand for bicycle-related amenities. Property managers should reach out to tenants
or work with independent transportation professionals to determine where to set their supply of amenities.
Barrier #6: Lack of policy resources.

Property managers balance their desire to provide an amenity to their tenants with keeping common
areas clean and safe. Commuters may struggle with the lack of explicit policies on bike storage or from a
lack of information on where bicycle parking is located and how it can be accessed.
Recommendation: Some properties may benefit from basic marketing and communications tools that
are customized to a building’s unique amenities.
Commute Seattle’s recommendations address the barriers faced by commuters, employers, and property
managers. There are additional opportunities to influence the public sector’s support of end-of-trip
amenities that increase bicycle commuting’s mode share. Commute Seattle will continue its work with
property managers, the City of Seattle, and other partners to develop long-term strategies and programs
that follow these recommendations.
Appendices
Appendix A: Resources and Works Cited
While devising the methodology for the Center City Bicycle Amenities Inventory, Commute Seattle
researched a number of assessment tools, on-line maps, and other resources. It is worth noting that none
of the resources below represent comprehensive inventories of privately-provided bicycle parking. In this
way, the Commute Seattle study is believed to be the first of its kind.
All URLs were accurate as of April 27th, 2011.
Assessments
Bicycle Victoria (AUS), “Bike Parking Assessments,” 2010.

Two surveys – one for riders, one for property managers or transportation coordinators – collect
detailed assessments of a building’s bicycle parking.
http://www.bv.com.au/general/ride-to-work/91543/
Capital Bike and Walk (Victoria, Canada), “Bicycle Parking: Levels of Service,” April 2008.
This presentation outlines a prototype rating system for bicycle parking, assigning up to 100 points and
a corresponding grade. This rating system does not appear to have been put into practice or finalized.
http://www.capitalbikeandwalk.org/docs/ite%20bike%20parking%20april%202008.ppt
John Luton, “Bicycle Parking 101,” Flickr Pool, updated April 2007.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/sets/72157594577122134/
Steven Vance, “Bike Parking: Examples of Good Bike Parking,” Flickr Pool, updated July 2010.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/sets/72157623284239326/
–––, “Bike Parking: Examples of Bad Bike Parking,” Flickr Pool, updated October 2010.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/sets/72157607516620380/
–––, “Bike Parking at Grocery and Convenience Stores in Chicago,” updated April 2011.
Vance developed a rating system to determine the overall level of service of bicycle parking, which
includes consideration for distance to store entrance, rack type, and weather protection.
http://wiki.stevevance.net/bikeparking/grocerystoreschi
Transport Canada, “Bicycle End-of-Trip Facilities,” April 2010.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/programs/betf.pdf
On-line Bicycle Parking Maps
Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, “Downtown Ann Arbor Bicyclist Guide,” 2010.
http://a2dda.org/downloads/Maps/DDAbikemap_04052010.pdf
City of Boston
http://www.cityofboston.gov/bikes/parking.asp
City of Minneapolis
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/bikeparking-rackinventory.asp
City of Montpelier (last updated Nov. 12, 2008)
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108743199690270756663.
000459da27b3d2febbf75&t=h&z=14
City of Portland, Ore.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34813&a=312468 (pdf)
City of Seattle Department of Transportation, “Downtown Seattle Bike Racks,” 2010

http://data.seattle.gov/Transportation/Downtown-Seattle-Bike-Racks/55n4-ddnu
City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation, “Bicycle Parking – Downtown and Capitol Grounds”
http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentView.asp?DID=3272 (pdf)
“Kirkland (Wash.) Bicycle Racks” (last updated Mar 7, 2011).

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&msa=0&msid=218079676590984267339.
00049198f63e8dd9b376a&ll=47.687579,-122.193375&spn=0.110704,0.219727&z=12&source=embed
Lloyd District Transportation Management Association (Portland, Ore.)

http://www.lloydtma.org/bike-parking-map
Missoula (Mont.) Downtown Association

http://www.missouladowntown.com/parking/bike-parking/
New York City Department of Transportation, “NYCDOT Sheltered Bicycle Parking Locations,” last
updated Dec 31, 2008.
000459b6e13ccb3ead2ff&t=h&z=10
San Antonio Downtown Alliance

http://downtownsanantonio.org/park/parking
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Bicycle Parking Map

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Parking/bike_map.pdf
“Seattle Public Bike Parking – Central Business District” (last updated Mar 4, 2011).
000481894fb664265445e&ll=47.607956,-122.334239&spn=0.016637,0.026082&source=embed
Other Inventories of Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, “Bicycle Parking: Key to a Green Philadelphia,” 2004.
http://www.bicyclecoalition.org/files/Final%20Bicycle%20Parking%20Key%20to%20a%20Green%
20Philadelphia.pdf
Community Planning Workshop, “Analysis of the City of Eugene Bicycle Parking Standards,” Sept 2005,
Eugene, Ore.
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/10606/Eugene_Bicycleparking_Review
_Final.pdf
Experience Downtown Denver
Interactive map of vehicle parking, transportation services and various businesses – bicycle storage is
an optional selection, but currently provides no information.
http://www.experiencedowntowndenver.com/splashmap/tdm_splash_map/bin/tdm_splash_map.html
Puget Sound Regional Council, Vehicle Parking Inventory, multiple years.

http://psrc.org/data/transportation/parking-inventory/
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, “San Francisco Garage Bicycle-Parking Compliance,
July 2004”
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Parking/All_Garage_Compliance_Report_07_19_
04(1).pdf
Counting Bicycle Rack Capacity

City of Palo Alto, Bicycle Transportation Plan, Appendix I, May 2003.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7293
Appendix B: Bicycle Rack Capacity Counting Tool
Appendix C: Data Collection Worksheet
Appendix D: Rack Types
Non-preferred rack types
Comb
Wave
Hooks
Other
Toast
Preferred
Hanger
Vertical
Locker
Other
Staple
Table 16. Distribution of non-preferred racks by type
Other- Total
Neighborhood Comb Hooks Toast Wave
Non-preferred Non-preferred
International District 0 3 0 3 0 6
Capitol Hill 12 0 0 18 0 30
Central Business District 303 164 85 97 27 651
Pioneer Square 80 122 22 26 0 250
Belltown 147 31 4 36 4 222
South Lake Union 73 101 6 182 4 366
First Hill 114 28 22 64 42 270
Denny Triangle 238 116 5 99 18 476
Queen Anne 31 13 4 98 0 146
Center City 998 578 148 623 95 2,442
Table 17. Distribution of preferred racks by type
Other-
Neighborhood Hanger Locker Staple Vertical Total Preferred
Preferred
International District 77 0 0 0 14 91
Capitol Hill 70 10 0 0 0 80
Central Business District 855 20 50 293 233 1,431
Pioneer Square 260 8 18 86 168 540
Belltown 172 4 15 58 24 273
South Lake Union 56 0 17 171 201 445
First Hill 205 5 57 4 54 325
Denny Triangle 98 13 29 192 0 332
Queen Anne 21 0 0 18 14 53
Center City 1,814 60 186 822 708 3,590
The APBP considers a vertical hanging rack insufficient as bicycles do not rest with both tires flat on the
ground and may prove difficult to operate for certain users. For the purposes of this inventory, however,
vertical racks are given preferred status, as they allow for efficient use of space in a dense urban
environment. Our use of this categorization is not a blanket endorsement of vertical or any other rack
type, as the needs and resources of tenants will vary from location to location.

EETP Commute Seattle Final Report FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EETP Commute Seattle Final Report FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Produced by In conjunction with

Jamie Cheney, Executive Director Peter Hahn, Director

Published: May 2011

1. Identify inventory approach and potential delivery partners

I. Project Scope and Work Plan

A. Geographic scope and neighborhoods

B. Types of parking facilities

C. Buildings and geographic data

D. Property managers and privacy

Capacity standards were determined by considering manufacturers’ suggestions, standards of the

III. Commuter Bicycle Parking Assessment Tool

A. Background and Research

B. Assessment Tool and Criteria

Points Grade Category Description

8 -9 A Preferred Well-protected from theft, weather, or damage

Reasonably well-protected from theft, weather, or

1–3 C Inadequate Not well-protected from theft, weather, or damage

1. Weather Protection Assessment

IV. Data Collection and Analysis

Table 3. Distribution of buildings with bike racks by neighborhood.

III. Distribution of Parking Capacity by Neighborhood

Bicycle Parking Capacity by neighborhood

IV. Commuter Appropriateness Assessment of Bicycle Parking

A Preferred Well-protected from theft, weather, or damage

B Adequate Reasonably well-protected from theft, weather, or damage

C Inadequate Not well-protected from theft, weather, or damage

Table 6. Distribution of Center City capacity by neighborhood and by grade.

Belltown 502 60.8% 35.1% 4.2%

Table 7. Distribution of capacity by security level.

Table 8. Distribution of capacity by weather protection

Table 9. Distribution of capacity by preferred rack status

623 Other preferred

I. Buildings without Amenities

Table 10. Distribution of commercial buildings without bike amenities by neighborhood.

Capitol Hill 104 100 96.2% 103 99.0% 104 100.0%

International District 65 59 90.8% 64 98.5% 63 96.9%

Belltown 199 165 82.9% 181 91.0% 189 95.0%

Queen Anne 101 81 80.2% 94 93.1% 96 95.0%

Denny Triangle 111 85 76.6% 96 86.5% 103 92.8%

First Hill 87 64 73.6% 82 94.3% 84 96.6%

Pioneer Square 132 96 72.7% 114 86.4% 117 88.6%

Center City 1,152 892 77.4% 1,041 90.4% 1,069 92.8%

Capacity loss due to improper installation

A Appropriate 4,193 69.5%

B Adequate 1,594 26.4%

C Inappropriate 248 4.1%

9 2047 33.9% High High Preferred

8 898 14.9% Medium High Preferred

8 1168 19.4% High High Non-preferred

7 257 4.3% Medium Medium Preferred

7 67 1.1% High Medium Non-preferred

6 219 3.6% Medium Low Preferred

B 6 6 0.1% High Low Non- preferred

6 747 12.4% Medium High Non- preferred

5 172 2.9% Medium Medium Non- preferred

4 123 2.0% Medium Low Non- preferred

3 14 0.2% Low High Preferred

3 37 0.6% Low High Non- preferred

2 22 0.4% Low Medium Preferred

1 53 0.9% Low Low Preferred

1 114 1.9% Low Low Non- preferred

3. Criteria-based gaps and their effect on amenity stock

Employment as proxy for demand