Report a Comment

Your mistake, or at least the problem with the headline, is thinking this is an either/or decision, when it is and/and.

Adding docks and bikes has to do with rightsizing stations to demand.

Adding new stations expands the footprint.

They are fundamentally different issues.

The way that blogs grandstand on the issue of expanding the footprint makes it hard for the local provider, in this case DDOT, to put resources into better meeting existing demand, because most of the pr/political and other attention is focused on expansion to unserved areas.

One way to make the decision would be dependent on how many new members you think you can add in the previously underserved areas and whether it costs out.

At the very least, I'd clamor for an expansion program that has both elements--rightsizing to better meet current demand and expansion to improve the reach and breadth of the network.

2. WRT your point about larger stations vs. a grouping of smaller stations, ideally, you'd go with the latter, if you think that by dispersion, you could ward off the need for rebalancing.

Rebalancing is a serious cost that you'd rather not have to bear. It's a sign of asymmetric trip behavior.

But I think the process of what generates rebalancing need in DC is more about the type of trip (replacing longer transit trips with bike trips) and isn't going to be reduced that much by breaking down stations into smaller groups, the issue is more about unbalanced trips (many to work in the morning, with the destination comparatively far from the origin, with few trips in the reverse direction until people leave work).

by Richard Layman on Dec 20, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report