Mixed feelings surround new bike plan: Students and other cyclists respond to UK’s permit fee
April 8, 2009 by News Staff · 26 Comments
Next year, cyclists will have to pay to park. This announcement from UK Parking and Transportation Services left campus divided on whether it supports the new bicycle permit plan.
The new plan designed by Parking and Transportation Services, means beginning in July, students will have to put a permit decal on their bicycles to park at bike racks on campus. These passes cost $15 for lifetime registration, but from July until March 2010, the fee will be waived.
Scott Beckmeyer, the co-coordinator of UK Greenthumb, said the plan has the potential to do a lot of harm because people would see it simply as a way to generate revenue. This gives Parking and Transportation Services a bad reputation, he said.But he said the plan also could do a lot of good, especially if a mandatory bicycle education program was added, which is something he said Parking and Transportation Services is considering.
“Right now, it’s dangerous for cyclists, cars and pedestrians,†Beckmeyer said. “Nobody knows how bikes fit into the picture.â€
Shane Tedder, the founder and coordinator of the Wildcat Wheels Bike Library said he thinks the fee will provide a recurring revenue stream for UK, which will allow the university to have a fixed amount of money to pay for bicycling services, including bike racks. He also said the fee is not too large for bicyclists, because people who drive cars have to pay for different services associated with driving.
“To some degree, it’s fair that cyclists would have to pay for the services they use,†Tedder said.
Chris Blau, an employee of Scheller’s Fitness and Cycling, located on Woodland Avenue, said the new plan would cause more people to ride bikes. The plan would help with tracking stolen bikes and help purchase new bike racks UK needs, he said.
“It will probably triple the amount of bike riding on campus. We’ve been waiting for this for a long time,†Blau said.
D.J. Pressley, a forestry and community and leadership development freshman, said some students who have bicycles also have cars, which means these students would have to pay more money and would be discouraged from cycling.
“Some people already have cars here,†Pressley said. “They might choose between their car and bike, so they’ll drive.â€
But the money is not the issue, said engineering freshman Heath Phillips, although UK should have the money to pay for the services bicyclists need. He said he disagreed with the permits themselves.
“I really don’t want to put a sticker on my bike,†Phillips said. “If I’m buying a new bike, I don’t want to put a sticker on it.â€
“He also said the fee is not too large for bicyclists, because people who drive cars have to pay for different services associated with driving.”
I choose to ride due to the outrageous parking permit fee UK charges, so it is about the money.
““To some degree, it’s fair that cyclists would have to pay for the services they use,†Tedder said.”
If that’s the case, why am I paying a mandatory Johnson Center Membership when I don’t EVER go there? Seems like UK’s logical is only logical when they spin it so that they are profitable.
$15,000-$20,000 is not going to pay for anything. Maybe a couple signs. Painting lines is much more expensive.
What happened to the money from the student fees that are supposed to cover environmental issues?
Areas that need bike lanes are also in dire need of overall infrastructure improvements, which would be provided by grants and other means.
Why would I want my $400 bike damaged with a sticker?
Take responsibility – WRITE DOWN YOUR BIKE’S ID NUMBER!!! Store it in a safe place.
Bike registration is a gimmick. The site the university uses sells your information.
Why was this put through without student input?
Lee Todd promised that parking fees will not increase this coming year. Promise broken.
Offering to grandfather bikes up until March is a scheme to prevent student anger.
Future students will have no say, because current students will have been “payed off.â€
How will visitors and local Lexington people be integrated into this system? The campus is expansive and part of the city.
I already pay a parking fee for my car, which is needed.
Email and call to voice these and other concerns to Todd, Kearns, your college and department heads, your advisors, city council members, and Mayor Newberry. Do we want to continue for Lexington and the university to remain unfriendly to responsible living? Lexington has a bronze rating for bicycling and is trying hard for a silver rating or higher. These kinds of policies are counter-productive to the work being done.
Beth –
Okay so let’s break it down…
Are you really telling me that you think a $15 lifetime fee is really that much? Not only that, but the fee is waived for like 12 months, so get registered for free now. Shwew.
Also, it does make LOGICAL SENSE that bicyclists pay for bicycle facilities. I’ll agree with you on the Johnson Center, but that’s an entirely different issue. I think you’re just complaining that UK isn’t consistent in its illogical decisions, so why be upset when they actually make a logical decision?
I find it funny and depressing how our parking and transportation services finds ways to make money off people riding their bikes. Rather than support people riding their bikes they want to make it a profit opportunity. During a time when our campus is supporting the “going green” revolution, our parking and transportation service is discouraging people from saving our planet. There isn’t enough parking for everyone on campus to drive their cars so people ride their bike to save money. With this new policy the parking and transportation will only be earning more money and not implement the policy’s they state. With the amount of money they are earning from parking passes and the campus parking lots are still torn up and the lines are faded I have a hard time believing with fifteen dollar bike stickers they will be able to install one new bike rack.
Lee Todd, Jr. 859 257-1701 ltodd@email.uky.edu
Stuart Kearns 859 257-6362 gskear2@email.uky.edu
Mayor Newberry 859 425-2255 mayor@lfucg.com
I really think there are a lot of people throwing a big fit over nothing. Its $15. That’s it. Just $15 and you can ride your stupid bike forever. As much trouble as you people cause around campus by not following directions (Like riding in no bike zones, and not riding in the bike lanes, etc.) I don’t think we are asking much. So cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it!
The problem is that the fees charged for cars don’t come any where close to paying the costs of having cars on campus. Road maintenance, enforcement, parking spots what have you.
What doesn’t make “logical sense” (as opposed to illogical sense I suppose) is to levy a tax on something that you want to encourage. The more students and facilty on bikes, the more parking spots for those who drive.
Maybe the fee could be charged by vehicle weight- that’s the key factor in how much you have to spend on infrastructure to support it. So if a 30 pound bike is $15 the registration fee for a 1500 pound car should $750.
For those of you (Mister Darby) that think we are upset about $15 are incorrect. It’s the principle of having to pay more ridiculous fees. Maybe we shouldn’t be adding pointless directional signs to campus that cost more than they will make off all the bikers combined, and focus on things that matter.
Mr. Kearns
How about:
1. Engaging the UK community in the decision making process
2. Building bike garages instead of car garages to promote biking rather than driving.
3. Generating fees for bicycling expenses from the massive revenues produced from the car parking permitting.
And finally a question:
How many UK bicyclists do you think choose not to ride because they may not find a place to park their bike? My guess is none.
As others have said, it’s not the fee. As a student, $15 isn’t that bad. The bad part is the fact that Lee Todd publicly stated a freeze in parking fees for 2009-2010, at the 2008-2009 cost. Instead, they’re adding on this “fee” for services. Many people that are forced to park in the mile and a half away K-lot bike. So now they will be paying $232+$15 per year minimum. Don’t even get me started about the supposed benefit of grandfathering existing students in…
The previous article that broke this story (http://kykernel.com/2009/04/07/uk-plans-bicycle-permit-parking/) said that only part of the fees would be used to improve the bicycle infrastructure. If bikers are forced to pay for this ridiculous, obviously profit-minded scheme, then all of the money should be used for the bicyclists benefit and not go into the general fund for the university or to build parking structures for the hospital.
In short, PTS should put out a comprehensive plan of where they plan on spending this money, instead of arbitrarily raising fees so they can get a raise.
The only problem that I have with this proposal is that I am afraid a lot of the money would go to just replacing the bike racks now with new ones. All the bike racks I use on campus are perfectly fine and don’t need to be replaced with a fancy new one.
Hey – this idea really angers me.
What about town/gown? Is Parking & Transportation going to confiscate the bikes of Lexington community visitors?
I feel so powerless at UK when the voice of the students is never included in the decisions that impact us. If Parking & Transportation is going to go through with this – they should be mandated by the University to put 100% of revenue back into improvements for cyclists on campus and be accountable in reporting annually where funds go in the Kernel.
Otherwise, this is some shady business!
“If Parking & Transportation is going to go through with this – they should be mandated by the University to put 100% of revenue back into improvements for cyclists on campus”
that is already the plan. Actually, that is a significant reason why the permits will have a cost attached to them beginning next year. Without the revenue stream coming from bicyclists, it’s highly unlikely that any of the necessary bike facility improvements will be made during the current state budget crisis. Without creating this revenue stream, the university would effectively be unable to promote bicycling by providing safe, proper and up-to-date bicycling facilities on campus.
Taylor, that’s BS and you know it. What safe, proper, up-to-date facilities do we need that we don’t already have? Bike racks that work? Check. Roads and pathways to ride bikes on? Check. This whole idea of “upgrading” bike racks or “paying for existing” racks is insane. Do we still owe money on the current old bike racks? Are we still making payments on them? Someone please tell me. This is a tricky, deceptive ploy to get MORE money out of us.
I refuse to pay for a parking pass since I live so close to campus, and now my only free alternative is going to be taxed. UK sure is trying to be a “green” campus all right, and you know exactly what I mean. I urge everyone to write Todd and Newberry and protest this insane proposal. As students we should not put up with this.
Michael – are you really willing to make the argument that our roads are safe to ride a bike on? Some roads are barely wide enough for two cars going in opposite directions to fit on, much less accommodate the potential of two cyclists going in opposite directions at the same time. That doesn’t even account for the multitude of pot holes, broken glass, gravel and tree debris left in the middle of roads that make bicycling an adventure every day. If you’d really prefer that UK never stripe another bike lane on campus again, you’re certainly welcome to that preference – but you’d be in the minority of cyclists who believe that.
As for racks, the study done in the fall of 2008 showed that bicycle infrastructure is badly needed on campus, both in the form of lanes and racks. Not all racks need to be replaced, but some areas of campus generate heavy bike traffic but have either insufficient or a complete absence of proper bike parking (e.g., the Med school).
Is this really a trick? A deception just to get money? The permits are FREE for you. You can get as many as you want for FREE. You will have a computerized system which can be used to your advantage should your bike be stolen, for FREE. Please, drop the conspiracy theories and feigned outrage and keep riding your bike. It won’t cost you any more than it already does…
Taylor, a few thousand dollars isn’t going to widen roads. Sorry.
I don’t care if the permits are free, I still refuse to get one on principle alone. Braving the roads, even in their imagined terrible condition, is still a hell of a lot better than forking the dough for a parking pass.
For spots with insufficient bike parking: idea. Let’s sacrifice one of those dumb signs and fork up the $5000 for a few extra bike racks. I understand that expensive, ornate signs are indeed a priority, but I think we can do it if we all pull together!
Get real, man. $15 isn’t a big deal but the principle of it is. You and I both know that you’re exaggerating how awful it is for bikers here; the conditions are more than sufficient for me to get from my house to campus without a car. Whatever else you encounter along the way is the result of discontent. Biking is the one option we have left that is free, that does not cost us even more money that we don’t have, and now we’re being stripped of it. It’s a slippery slope, my friend. Where will it end?
I’m still interested in knowing:
Is Parking & Transportation going to confiscate the bikes of Lexington community visitors? Cut bike chains that will have to be replaced and impound fees too no doubt? “Tickets” for unregistered bikes?
Giving Tree – NO. The only way cyclists will have their bikes impounded is if they are already in violation of a policy that would warrant their bike getting impounded. If their lock gets cut and they don’t have a permit, their penalty will be increased. But bikes will not be impounded or ticketed simply for not having a permit. Anyone that says otherwise is feeding nonsense in an attempt to create hysteria.
Michael – you’re right, a few thousand dollars won’t widen the roads. But all money has to come from somewhere, so as the permit fees accumulate money over the coming years, there will certainly be enough to start striping bike lanes on streets that don’t already have them. The streets with bike lanes or that feed onto streets with bike lanes get well over double the bike traffic of every other entry point on campus – and the campus bike study backs that up. Also, I fail to see how the principle of registering bikes as a theft deterrent and opportunity for education, while simultaneously paying for bike facilities, is a big deal (in the negative sense). And while it’s not about the price, why continue to evoke the notion that UK is trying to ‘take away the one option that is free’? You’re arguing against yourself there.
Try telling the ridiculously large number of students, faculty and staff who have been hit by cars or have been doored on the UK campus due to a combination of insufficient facilities, road hazards and crazy drivers that the conditions aren’t bad. My partner has been hit twice on her bicycle within the confines on the UK campus. If you like being treated as if bicycling isn’t a viable form of transportation, be my guest – but we’ll go ahead and be joining the likes of University of Wisconsin as one of the country’s best campuses for bicycling.
”If it moves, tax it.” … The Man
Taylor – Do you work for PTS? Are you just trying not to see the student’s side of the arguement?
If the bikes are not getting impounded without a permit, then why have the permit at all? It makes more sense to just ignore PTS and park without it.
The roads around campus (the ones UK has power over), all seem to be pretty good about having decent bike lanes. The roads that don’t have them don’t have the space unless we want cars rolling right next to buildings. I don’t know if I’m willing to sacrifice green space and sidewalks just to have more blacktop. I’m sorry that your partner got hit while riding the bicycle, but having more bicycle lanes on different streets isn’t going to change that. The only thing that will change that is an positive attitude adjustment toward bicyclists on the part of the drivers, and a bit of patience in our immediate gratification world.
The university doesn’t need to be our guardian. If our bikes get stolen, the university already having our registration numbers isn’t going to help getting the bike back. If we (students) aren’t responsible enough to write down our own number instead of having Big Brother look after us, then maybe life might be tough when our bike gets stolen, but it won’t happen again. UK is supposed to help facilitate our transition to adulthood, and being a money-grubbing, illogically thinking, and ignorantly leading institution will instead show us how not to behave.
UK might be 144 years old but it acts like a teenager quite a bit.
How much of the money made through revenue of permits would go into bike racks realistically, and how much would go into paying the personnel required to patrol the racks looking for bikes without stickers? Sure there aren’t nearly enough racks around campus. Find another alternative rather than taxing the students once again. Don’t plant so many damn flowers that only stay in bloom a week next year. Don’t hire so many grounds people to drive around doing close to nothing. It is naive to think UK will add bike lanes with the money generated from this proposal. It is also naive to think, as Scott says in the article, that classes would be required for people to aqcuire the permit. These things just won’t happen because they aren’t cost effective means of running a business, which is what UK is first and foremost (maybe third or fourth is it an educational institution). Why else would Lee Tood be the president? An ex- GE businessman and a non-phD/ academic. Look UK. We are sick of paying you to cheat us and belittle us. I’m leaving. This is the final straw.
Scott – glad you asked. I don’t work for PTS, but I did coordinate the bicycle cordon count and bicycle parking study last Fall, and I know Stuart Kearns quite well (he was my boss at the time). The enforcement issues certainly pose a problem in this situation, which everyone involved is aware of – but because the intent of the permits is to license bicycles as form of transportation (As opposed to toys, which most people think of them as) so as to legitimate them, rather than tax students, the enforcement isn’t the most important thing in this situation.
Also, I’m not quite sure there is a “student’s side” to this argument – there is the side of those cyclists who have been working long and hard to get this campus to take bicycles seriously, and see how this policy works to legitimate bicycling as the most viable means of transportation to and from campus, and then there are those (cyclists or not) who flew off the handle at the first sign of (not really) paying $15 to make this campus a better place. Most things in life aren’t free – whether it means you have to work for it or fork over a few bucks – and this is no exception.
I’ll be the first to tell you that students shouldn’t be forced to pay for bicycling improvements or sustainability initiatives (my other area of expertise and heavy involvement over the past three years). My dream world would be one in which this university could take initiative on something positive without having to have students lead the way or pay for these projects. But that comes down to the way our state government has set priorities over the years. If you want to be outraged, be outraged that our state has an incredibly regressive tax structure which has left us bankrupt after poorly thought out tax breaks to corporations that don’t deliver. Be upset that our politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are totally incompetent. Don’t be upset that for the first time in our university’s history, there will be a revenue stream, generated from minimal individual inputs, that will be explicitly devoted to bicycling infrastructure improvements.
And by the way, I very much agree with your sentiment that UK often doesn’t quite know what it’s doing (go back and look at the things I’ve written as a Kernel columnist previously) – but this is one of the few cases in which UK is doing EXACTLY the right thing for everyone involved.
Taylor is a”Tool” of the parking nazis’. Dump the picture sport!
Chris- you really know how to make productive comments, don’t you? Besides, the picture shows up automatically because of some other settings I have on my blogging account. Find something useful to say!
Until PTS shows us a fairly detailed plan for the money that comes from this plan, how can you say that this will go only to bicycle improvements? They haven’t publicly released a detailed budget in quite a while. All they issue is number of permits sold, and percentage of budget used on particular areas (See http://www.uky.edu/Parking/about-reports-2007-2008-p4.html for more). If they really were honest and open, they would release hard, numeric data. As the track record for an open and responsible PTS is poor in the past, I only see this continuing in the future.
As I have already said, $15 won’t hurt us much. It’s the nickel and diming that is the problem. We pay a fee to use the Johnson Center, we pay a fee to take college specific classes, and we are paying a fee to increase the universities budget while only increasing the maximum allowed percentage a year.
It’s not the $15 here. It’s the $15 here, $50 there, and $3.75 there. As you have said, the small amount on each person isn’t a burden, but the resulting cash flow allows specialized programs. It’s not the individual fees. It’s all the fees added together, and this is just the latest in the stream of fees that resemble airline prices. Sure it’s only $150 to Miami, but then you add the $50 for bags over 50 lbs, $15 for a carry on, $5 for a 4 oz bag of peanuts, and you’re up to way over the original price.
The University of Kentucky is committed to becoming an autocratic school by whatever means necessary, and this includes passing random fees with little interaction from the school or community. If something isn’t controlled, someone will find a way to make it controlled. PTS was merely the first department to claim the money stream from bicycles. I don’t believe this will help the UK students, staff or community one iota unless a detailed plan is released, and it will not happen.
I just think Taylor and Chris need to settle this matter man style