Cycling UK Forum

I saw this outside Prerov station in Czech Rep. There are apparently a few more in other Czech towns/cities.
Someone else has already taken a photo: http://lonelyrider.cz/bike-tower-prerov/

It's called bike tower, and saves space by being tall and automated - space for humans to walk to their bikes is not needed. You wheel your bike to the sliding door, it opens, and an automated system grabs your bike and winches it up into the tower. You get a machine-readable ticket, which enables the automated system to deliver your own bike back to you on presentation of the ticket. The charge for usage at Prerov was a mere 5K per day (less than 20p). There were bikes stored on about 8-10 levels at Prerov, but I guess the tower can be taller.

When that photo was taken, there were no bikes in it. Maybe it was new. When I was there, on a weekday around 6pm in the summer, it was heavily used. You can also park your bike at extensive ranks of normal bike racks. Prerov is the Crewe of the Czech Rep, being an industrial town at a major railway junction on the main railway line, and at a fairly similar distance from Prague that Crewe is from London.

That's an impressively large installation. I've seen video of similar automated bike parking in Japan, but underground.

I notice that according to google translate it takes; "102 bikes and 16 normal children" !!!!

Now that looks like a great idea

102 bikes, 20p per day, but assume that you may get a few more in over the course of a day, lets say it's filled with commuters in the morning then half filled again in the evening, it might be taking in £30 a day, I wonder how much the charge would be if it was in the middle of London or Manchester. How much would people be willing to pay to secure their bike? How many car parking spaces does it take up, 4 maybe? So 102 bikes in the space of 4 cars.


Edit - answering my own question - the prices for the cycle hub in Manchester are here

http://cycling.tfgm.com/Pages/join-a-hu ... tower.aspx

£1 a day if you buy 10days or £100 a year
£200 a year with showers and your own private locker

Doesn't seem too bad.

I think the beauty of the Czech bike tower is it's automated design,you need a ticket/number/token,etc,to get near your bike.That automatically excludes anyone else getting to it,either to steal it or parts of it,that and as Postboxer says it's foot print,is small to facilitate so many people's transport needs.
Of course the Prerov tower is fulfilling a need at an extremely reasonable cost so there's no excuses not to use it,whereas putting my cynical UK cap on,in the UK it'd have to make a profit first and foremost rather than fill a need for parking and reducing theft,so the charges would mostly likely be considerably higher .
Three or four of those towers,or possibly more smaller ones,strategically placed in a city centres such as Manchester would work wonders IMO.In London I can see no reason why they shouldn't be dotted all over the city with bikes chained up to railings etc,outlawed for all but short term parking of say 1 to 2 hours.

The tower also precludes anything non standard...
No tandems, trikes, cargo bikes, 'bents...
No trailers, probably scuppered by hard panniers, saddle bags...


It's a great idea, and caters to the needs of the many - but banning locking up near it is fantasy.

[XAP]Bob wrote:The tower also precludes anything non standard...
No tandems, trikes, cargo bikes, 'bents...
No trailers, probably scuppered by hard panniers, saddle bags...

There's bound to be exceptions,it stands to reason.

It's a great idea, and caters to the needs of the many - but banning locking up near it is fantasy.

Much like the one in Cambridge the likes of trikes,cargo bikes,etc,etc,could be catered for by a covered extension for them,they're likely to be few.

My meaning of outlawing nearby parking would be locking to street furniture where they'd be a hazard if there's perfectly good specific provision.

reohn2 wrote:My meaning of outlawing nearby parking would be locking to street furniture where they'd be a hazard if there's perfectly good specific provision.

That seems rather similar to banning cycling on the carriageway because those bloody cyclists won't choose to use a crap cycle track built alongside. If people won't use it, it's probably not perfectly good.

mjr wrote:

reohn2 wrote:My meaning of outlawing nearby parking would be locking to street furniture where they'd be a hazard if there's perfectly good specific provision.

That seems rather similar to banning cycling on the carriageway because those bloody cyclists won't choose to use a crap cycle track built alongside. If people won't use it, it's probably not perfectly good.

It's nothing of the sort!

If provision to securely park your bike all day at reasonable cost,within reasonable distance in a secure city or large town 'tower' is available,chaining it up to someone's railings for hours on end shouldn't be an option.
In the same way if there's a multi story car park in the same city or town centre you wouldn't be allowed to park your car on nearby streets all day,because they'll all be yellow lined or time restricted.
There are some who want their cake and eat it!

reohn2 wrote:

mjr wrote:That seems rather similar to banning cycling on the carriageway because those bloody cyclists won't choose to use a crap cycle track built alongside. If people won't use it, it's probably not perfectly good.

It's nothing of the sort!

If provision to securely park your bike all day at reasonable cost,within reasonable distance in a secure city or large town 'tower' is available,chaining it up to someone's railings for hours on end shouldn't be an option.
In the same way if there's a multi story car park in the same city or town centre you wouldn't be allowed to park your car on nearby streets all day,because they'll all be yellow lined or time restricted.
There are some who want their cake and eat it!

And there are some who want to use laws to force people to use crap farcilities!

There are multi story car parks in various towns (including the one nearest me) and yet, you can often park your car on nearby streets, with yellow lines and restrictions only used where there is reason to do so. People use the two multi story car parks mainly due to various encouragements (signs, location, ease of finding a free space quickly, security (perceived and actual), shelter...) which are usually felt to outweigh the cost, not because cars are banned from parking elsewhere.

Equally, it is already possible to prohibit locking bikes to railings where there is reason to do so, but if there's no reason to prohibit it, why stop people? Artificially supporting a failed cycle park isn't a just reason.

I'd probably use such a tower for longer stays if it offered better security, but I'd oppose banning parking elsewhere.

There are sufficient exceptions that I don't trust anyone writing bylaws to think about anything except an opportunity to ban cycles.

I think it's great, there was a similar one in Japan we saw a while ago - although that was underground.

It wouldn't be hard to make something similar that could accommodate all but the largest of vehicles in a few differently sized 'container's (having the 'first floor' for 'odd shapes' allows for a covered area underneath as well)

The door restriction etc is the result of design for the common bicycle - there's no good reason for it to be so limiting.

reohn2 wrote:I think the beauty of the Czech bike tower is it's automated design,you need a ticket/number/token,etc,to get near your bike.That automatically excludes anyone else getting to it,either to steal it or parts of it,that and as Postboxer says it's foot print,is small to facilitate so many people's transport needs.
Of course the Prerov tower is fulfilling a need at an extremely reasonable cost so there's no excuses not to use it,whereas putting my cynical UK cap on,in the UK it'd have to make a profit first and foremost rather than fill a need for parking and reducing theft,so the charges would mostly likely be considerably higher .
Three or four of those towers,or possibly more smaller ones,strategically placed in a city centres such as Manchester would work wonders IMO.In London I can see no reason why they shouldn't be dotted all over the city with bikes chained up to railings etc,outlawed for all but short term parking of say 1 to 2 hours.

I'm pretty sure the Prerov installation is intended to make a profit too, at least in the medium to long term. It's not the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic anymore, you know!

mjr wrote:And there are some who want to use laws to force people to use crap farcilities!

Oh,without a doubt but that's not the subject of this thread,and I'd be the first to fight such laws.
Or are you referring to the Cambridge cycle park?
If it's so bad form a group to boycott it until something's done about it,it shouldn't be to hard to get overwhelming support if it's that bad.

There are multi story car parks in various towns (including the one nearest me) and yet, you can often park your car on nearby streets, with yellow lines and restrictions only used where there is reason to do so. People use the two multi story car parks mainly due to various encouragements (signs, location, ease of finding a free space quickly, security (perceived and actual), shelter...) which are usually felt to outweigh the cost, not because cars are banned from parking elsewhere.

Where you live maybe,in central Manchester, Liverpool or Leigh my local town,such restrictions are in place other than for short term car parking on the street,and which motorists have to pay,usually quite dearly,which I've not complaints about,any city centre on parking street should be discouraged or banned even,other than for certain vehicles,deliveries,disability cars,etc.
On another thread I posted that IMO cars should be banned entirely from city and town centres and replaced with public transport park and ride hubs in outlying areas.

Equally, it is already possible to prohibit locking bikes to railings where there is reason to do so, but if there's no reason to prohibit it, why stop people?

If it doesn't inconvenience people then I've no problem with it,but all too often,as with cars,some people will lock a bike up to any immovable object that suits their needs,irrespective of others inconvenience.

Artificially supporting a failed cycle park isn't a just reason.

How is this tower a failed cycle park,(unless you're harping back to Cambridge again?)do you have evidence it's a failure?
IMO one,or probably two or three strategically placed towers to suit local needs is IMO a very good idea,if only to keep bikes out of the clutches of thieves.

I'd probably use such a tower for longer stays if it offered better security, but I'd oppose banning parking elsewhere

If you read what I posted up thread you'll see I mentioned short term parking elsewhere should be provided.
I will emphasise that illegal and bad car parking should be clamped(sorry)down on as ATM it appears to be at epidemic proportions IME.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There are sufficient exceptions that I don't trust anyone writing bylaws to think about anything except an opportunity to ban cycles.

That's a problem within UK society,in some circles there's an anti cycling attitude.

I think it's great, there was a similar one in Japan we saw a while ago - although that was underground.

It wouldn't be hard to make something similar that could accommodate all but the largest of vehicles in a few differently sized 'container's (having the 'first floor' for 'odd shapes' allows for a covered area underneath as well)

Agreed

The door restriction etc is the result of design for the common bicycle - there's no good reason for it to be so limiting.

Agreed again