Report a Comment

This would be a terrible decision, in my opinion. Charging $1 when most people use bikes would render moot the cost incentive for riding in the first place as compared to other modes. If it's going to go that direction, then it should not work through a subscription fee system.

Also, the quotation noted by @Alex B. is frankly contrary to the laws of supply and demand, and it's unsupported by the examples given (London has more heavily used train stations, etc that are different than here, and perhaps the bigger problem is that they haven't sufficiently expanded - their failure is a failure of implementation, not of idea).

In reality, of course system expansion can improve rebalancing. Imagine a hypothetical situation where docks had unlimited capacity - 100 docks or whatever - that would serve every user (at the cost of a lot of capital investment). The key is to provide sufficient capacity for every user in the station's 'watershed' (cycleshed?). Undercapacity is a sign of either overlarge cyclesheds or underprovision of bikes for a given density. In either case, it seems to make sense that doubling station size for overused stations would hurt nothing and could really help.

For a specific example, consider the station at 21st and I - it's ginormous and is hardly ever blocked even though it's in the middle of everything. Other nearby stations at 21st/M and 19th/L are much smaller and are commonly booked up or empty at rush hour. There may be space constraints but expansion of stations makes sense where feasible, and failing that infill development in high-demand areas is the best solution here. This is an investment in a transit system - and as such it's not unreasonable for the government to shell out for some new stations.

by reader on Jun 6, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report