Let's stimulate with a major bike sharing program

Bicycling

Let's stimulate with a major bike sharing program

by David Alpert • March 6, 2009 10:41 am

Arlington hopes to launch a bike sharing pilot this year. DC plans to expand its 120-bike, 10-station SmartBike program by another ten stations as well. That would be great. But at the recent DDOT oversight hearing, Mount Pleasant ANC Commissioner and bike and pedestrian advocate Phil Lepanto asked, why not 50 new DC stations this year, and another 50 every year? Or more?

SmartBike under construction. Photo by afagen.

To really make bike sharing work for everyone, systems need to have bikes in a wide range of locations. A station at the Reeves Center and one at Dupont is nice and useful for people who work on U Street and live on the Red Line, but to serve everyone, we need stations within a couple blocks of most places people want to go. And as Lepanto pointed out in the hearing, we also need stations where a lot of people live but where there's no Metro. Finally, we ought to have a one-day pricing plan and stations at all the major tourist destinations.

Paris's Vélib has 20,000 bicycles in 1,450 stations, with stations in the city center averaging only 300 meters apart. Now, anyone walking around Paris sees Vélib bikes everywhere. Bike sharing experts say systems should ideally have one bike per 150 residents. That means DC ought to have about 4,000 bikes, and Arlington around 1,400.

Left: Vélib stations in a portion of central Paris. Right: The entire SmartBike system.
(A bug in the official SmartBike map places the stations in the wrong locations at this zoom level.)

The biggest obstacle is startup cost. Systems cost very little to maintain, since subscription fees and ads cover most of the operating and replacement cost. But cities have to build the system in the first place.

Can the stimulus help? The main pots of money don't work for bike sharing, since the stimulus focused on existing, long-established ways of spending transportation dollars. However, there's a $1.5 billion "discretionary grant" program. States and localities can apply for money for programs that improve transportation but aren't otherwise funded. The catch: projects have to cost $20-300 million. Arlington currently has a grant of about $200,000 for their planned pilot, according to an Examiner article last year, though Arlington Commuter Services head Chris Hamilton says they're hoping to find more money to start with a bigger system. A maximal system of 1,400 bikes of the fancier kind DC uses, he said, would cost at most $6 million for capital and operating costs for the first two years.

We could hit the $20 million mark if a group of jurisdictions joined together. If 1,400 Arlington bikes could hit $6 million, a 5,000-bike super-program in DC and Arlington might be able to meet the minimum. Or how about a regional system including Alexandria, Bethesda, Silver Spring, Hyattsville, College Park and more? The total cost would be a lot less than just scaling up Arlington's numbers linearly, because bigger systems achieve greater economies of scale. The region could get a lot more bikes for lower cost with a big system.

We could also team up with other areas. Denver and San Francisco have been talking about setting up their own bike sharing programs. How about a national bike sharing pilot program? All of the regions could use the same technology, getting even more competitive rates from a vendor. And then, perhaps, if you're already a member in one city, that membership could automatically allow you to take out bikes when visiting other cities.

Such a program would yield a lot of sexy headlines and ribbon-cuttings across the nation. Plus, they'd create jobs building, managing, and maintaining the systems. And once we've got large numbers of Americans finding bike sharing as convenient and useful as the Parisians have, existing cities will want to keep expanding and new cities will want to start their own programs, creating jobs and reducing our vehicular emissions, oil dependence, and obesity.

22 comments — Share	— tags: Arlington, bike sharing, DC, Paris, stimulus

USDOT's new bike sharing program is a bike (Aug 11, 2009)
Regional plan recommends regional bike sharing but disjointed bus improvements (Jul 13, 2009)
SmartBike: Do it right for the long term (Jun 22, 2009)
For fun: design the ultimate SmartBike system (Mar 7, 2009)
How can we make bike sharing programs compatible? (Jan 13, 2009)

Comments

Sounds good to me. Hopefully we can all move toward more bike-friendly road infrastructure and laws as well as a good bike sharing program. We are one of the best places in the US to implement this program right now IMO.

by Vik on Mar 6, 2009 10:59 am

Where is the requirement that projects seeking the discretionary funds have to cost at least $20 million? I'd like to see that one in writing...

by Froggie on Mar 6, 2009 11:06 am

I would prefer bike infrastructure come before bike-sharing. Really good example: why is there not a bike trail alongside Rock Creek Parkway? On most of it, it really doesn't seem like it would be that hard to build one, and it would be really nice to be able to cross the park in the northern reaches of the city without having to actually go through it, especially at night. Off topic, I know and apologize, but had to get that off my chest, ha.

by Nate on Mar 6, 2009 11:40 am

I'm all for it, but the stimulus money is supposed to be used mainly to stimulate the economy by creating jobs.

The argument in favor needs to explain how this would actually create jobs....and perhaps how many.

And there's also the issue of priorities...

We really, really need a new or renovated fire station at 25th and M. The existing one is falling apart, a health and safety hazard, and unable to hold all the equipment it should have to protect the White House, Marine One, and federal core (which is part of its mission). Until that gets done, I think a lot of other worthy local projects should get in line.

This is not an either/or proposition. We can and should have both...but I think the fire station should come first.

by Mike Silverstein on Mar 6, 2009 12:06 pm

Mike: These particular grants are just for transportation, so there's no way this and the fire station are competing. I agree we should improve our fire stations.

Nate: I'd love to move forward on the infrastructure now, but think that if we wait for one before the other, we'll be waiting forever. The more people bike, the more support there is for bicycle infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the more people bike. This program could give that cycle a shove in the right direction.

by David Alpert on Mar 6, 2009 12:15 pm

first off- throw out the mentally challenged law forbidding cycling on downtown sidewalks- but that allows Sedgways to use them - at least until separated bike tracks are positioned all over downtown. Why have the DC bike planners been so damn wimpish about placing a bikeway right smack down the sides of Pennsylvania Avenue in the heart of the city? They need to get over their irrational fears of the suburbanite commuters & their crybaby opinions and such and take the bull by the horns. The bike tracks in DC are totally lame. It is simply WAY TOO DANGEROUS for most ordinary people- that is- non athletic, nonracers, non youthful males- to cycle anywhere in downtown DC- there is an effective ban on cycling by all but the most risk aversive and foolhardy in their sleek racing superhero costumes that show all genital details, etc. Lets open up downtown DC to regular joes and janes - and not just tourists on sedgways. NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by w on Mar 6, 2009 12:46 pm

This needs to go hand-in-hand with building some real, bicycle-only infrastructure. Biking is still far too dangerous and stigmatized for the average joe in DC to be doing it.

by staypuftman on Mar 6, 2009 1:09 pm

We've already been over why DC and Arlington's bike sharing programs won't be compatible, right?

I just hope Arlington, Fairfax, and Alexandria can work out a NoVa-wide bike sharing program. At this stage, I think that's possible. A multi-state system would be great, but that seems like wishful thinking.

by Scott on Mar 6, 2009 1:51 pm

They won't be compatible because of money. If they were working off a different set of constraints, it would be.

by David Alpert on Mar 6, 2009 1:54 pm

The bikeshare programs should really be run by WMATA. This is a form of public transit, so even if they are contracted out, the system ought to be planned by a regional organization. Having them at every urban station would be easy in terms of securing rights and also extremely efficient. Metro already has relationships with advertising companies for their bus shelters, anyway.

In terms of infrastructure, I'd like to see a bike path built up Glover-Archibold Park from Georgetown to Tenleytown or AU. It passes a lot of transportation-deficient developments that don't have the density for rail and would get people pretty close to Georgetown, K Street, and Rosslyn.

It was supposed to be a parkway in the 1930s, a symbol of modern times. Why not make it a symbol of our times?

by �ar�chitect on Mar 6, 2009 2:08 pm

w, staypuftman: I totally agree about building bicycle infrastructure, but we can look at it another way, too. If a quarter of the vehicles on the road were bicycles, then it would be safe to ride even with today's roads. In many European cities, where large number of people cycle, it's very safe because the drivers certainly expect to see cyclists. It's safety in numbers.

The best answer is to do both at the same time.

by David Alpert on Mar 6, 2009 2:11 pm

There are many competing demands for the limited space available on our sidewalks, many of which are advocated by GGW. If we were to have the density of bicycle sharing stations as you seem to be requesting, will we also be able to have the density of street trees, sidewalk cafes, outside fruit stands, gourmet vending businesses, street furniture and room for pedestrians, even pedestrians with strollers and carts for groceries, that you also desire?

In other words, what are your priorities for the limited sidewalk space that we have? If we have a large increase in the number of bicycle sharing stations, we will probably have to give up some of these other amenities, or simply not leave sufficient sidewalk space for people to move around.

by Andy on Mar 6, 2009 2:49 pm

What an interesting idea.

Froggie: HERE is the full text of the stimulus bill. The pertinent language is on page 90.

by BeyondDC on Mar 6, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: WMATA and bikes, i agree bikes are transportation. Will we ever get to take bikes on metro trains during rush? How about "all bikes in the last car at all times" -and anyone who wants to ride with bikes/bikers can get in the last car too. i know so many people, myself included, whose commutes would be greatly expedited if we could bike-metro-bike. The bike-share at all stops would help.

by Bianchi on Mar 6, 2009 2:50 pm

@Andy -

Good point. I think a great way to address this issue would be to take away a parking spot and place a kiosk there instead of on the sidewalk. Multiply by 400 or so in order to get 4,000 bikes safely and conveniently placed around the city.

I think we need to stay local. Too many cities have significantly worse budget issues than we do right now, and the discretionary stimulus package grants will be spread throughout the country. Philly would be a great as a bike share city, but they are currently shuttering libraries and closing city pools and rec centers. This is the case in many other metropolitan areas as well, and not many residents are mobile enough to need bike share access for the every other weekend they spend in NYC or wherever, so let's get active in DC first. Just a thought. Great post, David.

I think all of you bike advocates out there need to raise visibility. Check out a smartbike even if it is a total pain in the butt to do so. Hold on to it for 2 hours and 58 minutes; then, return to the kiosk that is always full, call, and ask where the nearest kiosk is. Openly gripe over how far away it is, etc. I am joking, but I do think raising visibility is key. Although I own a good road bike and have no need for the bike share program, I am a subscriber and make an attempt to use it occasionally. Almost every time I've checked it out, I've answered questions from interested passers-by. If every GGW commenter got out and checked out a bike regularly, we'd have an army of more or less intelligent and enthusiastic advocates riding the streets of DC and inadvertantly bumping into curious people who want to know more. What a great way to generate interest!

Just get out, ride the bikes, and have fun! (also, call DDOT!)

by JTS on Mar 6, 2009 3:14 pm

JTS, the Smartbike kiosk at Metro Center did just that (remove a parking space for the kiosk) and we'll see more of that. But in general we'll see underutilized sidewalk space pulled into service such as with the Dupont Circle kiosk.

At this week's BAC meeting, DDOT said they were planning to add 40 more stations with 400 bikes. Stations will stretch from Historic Anacostia to Wisconsin Avenue and as far north as American University according to the map the Office of Planning has put together. They didn't have the map with them though - doh! It actually seems operating costs are the hold-up. I suggested getting a health care company to sponsor it as Sao Paulo, Tulsa and Louisville have done.

by washcycle on Mar 6, 2009 5:59 pm

@washcycle:

Thanks for the info! I understand that there are funding problems related to the budget deficit, but any idea on a timeline to see some of these kiosks installed?

Rode by Union Station today and saw that construction has resumed on the hub, so that's exciting...

by JTS on Mar 6, 2009 6:41 pm

I was of the impression that DC's and Arlington's bike sharing can't be compatible since DC's is run by an outdoor advertising company, and Arlington doesn't allow outdoor advertising. And because the technology that will be used is different. Sure, on some level it's about money -- with all the money in the world, Arlington's system could be more high-tech(?) and DC wouldn't need the sponsorship of an ad company -- but practically speaking, those problems seem pretty fundamental. If I'm wrong, do tell.

But I don't think it's so far-fetched for Alexandria and Fairfax County to go to Arlington now and ask, "How can we work with you so that this program can eventually spread to our jurisdictions as well?" And I'd hate to see that not happen because we're busy fantasizing about something that's more or less impossible.

Full disclosure: nearly all my own travel is within these three jurisdictions.

by Scott on Mar 7, 2009 1:21 am

Scott - Arlington has an RFP out on the street now for a vendor. We do not know what system we'll eventually have. If the people that run DC's system will do Arlington's for pay instead of ads we'll consider them for sure. The bike planners from DC and Alexandria are sitting on our selection panel. At this point we're open to anything. And if David's idea for Stimulus money comes through we'd have a lot more options. Thanks to everyone for the good thoughts and ideas. We at Arlington are taking them all in. If you've got more please post em here or feel free to contact me directly. Thanks!

Chris

by Chris Hamilton on Mar 8, 2009 1:26 pm

Lyon, France also has a fantastic bike share with stations all over the city, as far as I could tell. Guadalajara, Mexico shuts down one of its main roads every Sunday so residents can bike, rollerblade, walk, learn to ride a bike, etc. I agree that it still can be dangerous to bike in DC (and Baltimore) because drivers aren't used to sharing the road, even with dedicated bike lanes. A mix of favorable policies, increased use of dedicated lanes for cyclists and organizing strategies to build a coalition of new and existing advocates could change our culture of road usage.

by TODchampion on Mar 9, 2009 9:06 am

Though I have never experienced a part of the bike sharing program personally, it appears to me that it brings about a positive attitude to a new wave of dealing with transportation systems, as it reduces the dependency of cars and at once eases congestion in metropolitan areas. The Parisians were first to try this, and they have as a result of the experiment experienced less congestion in their city, but only to the expense of the vandalism and the thefts that have occurred in relation to the program. You mention in your post that Washington being the first state to try this project has not experienced the negative spillovers such as the ones mentioned above. Thus, I am curious whether you think that a similar project could be employed in Los Angeles, being that the urban planning is somewhat different and the distances are greater than what a regular bike route is considered by normal standard. Furthermore, as you are optimistic about the bike sharing programs bringing about an improvement of the infrastructure (friendlier bike transit) like a chain reaction, assuming that the more bikes we have, the better infrastructure. I am a little skeptical whether that is sufficient reason to invest in such a project, being that a bike is relatively just a small cost and very accessible to the average consumer. On the other hand, the infrastructure is the main concern and I would like to know is you don�t think that just having enough stalls and friendlier bicycle lanes is itself more important and sufficient than a bike sharing program, as it will boost the economy as people buy their own bikes (I know it�s a far stretch, but just an example).

by eimanmaleki on Mar 10, 2009 1:18 pm

Are any localities in Maryland planning bike-share programs? I�m surprised that Bethesda hasn�t looked into a program, especially with the Capital Crescent trail nearby.

One interesting proposal for bike-sharing programs would be to relax the parking requirements for developers that agree to put a bike-sharing facility on their property, as we have with Zipcar. I wanted the planned Giant on Wisconsin Avenue to have a SmartBike terminal. Similarly, has anyone looked into the degree which a car-sharing system and a bike-sharing system compliment each other. Someone who doesn�t own a car and utilizes Zipcar would be far more likely to use SmartBike as well.

by Ben on Mar 10, 2009 2:58 pm