My feeling has been for a while that if and when gas prices decline, the tax should be increased by 10% of the decline amount.

Example: Current price is $4.00, declines to $3.00 -> $1.00 decrease, 10% of that is $0.10. Gas tax increase of 10 cents. So the price instead of declining from $4.00 to $3.00, it would decline to something between $3.00 and $3.10 (gas tax impact is shared between consumer and supplier).

by Michael Perkins on Apr 14, 2011 9:04 am  

Well there was the idea of indexing the gas price by dollar instead of pro rata. If I remember, if was the transit people complaining about that.

How is the gax tax shared between consumer and supplier?

The Bikeshare article had a few interesting tidbits:

1. Penalties for Alta if the station is full/empty for 3 hours.

2. They are just using the computer to look at full stations.

3. What are relations between ALTA and BIXI?

I'm sure some computer nerd can come up with a better prediction program for shifting bikes.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 9:12 am  

From the WTOP homelessness piece:

The number of homeless people in D.C. has not changed significantly from 2010 to 2011. In January 2011, the city had 6,546 homeless people.

Prince William County saw the greatest percentage change in the number of homeless people -- 38 percent. In 2011, Prince William County had 675 people using shelters and transitional housing, compared with 488 in 2010.

Given that we're in the middle (tail) of the worst recession since the 30s, the fact that the DC homeless population has held steady is actually pretty good news for the District. The less that the problem of homelessness (and poverty in general) remains a purely urban phenomenon, the greater the chances the greater society will pour resources into tackling it.

In America, we take care of our own. As long as programs can be characterized as going to The Other, they'll never receive adequate funding.

by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 9:14 am  

@Michael Perkins

Taxes are never shared between the consumer and the sellers of goods and services. Those costs are always passed on to the users that purchase those goods and services.

by Sand Box John on Apr 14, 2011 9:17 am  

From the bikeshare piece:

“If you know that every day your rack is empty at 9:30, maybe at 9:15, there are two bikes,” he says. “It’s Bikeshare. You’re not guaranteed a bike.”

This really is about managing expectations. Folks don't declare suburban Metro a failure because the parking lots are full by 9am. They look at it as a mark of success, and users adapt.

by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 9:21 am  

@oboe; yes, but the snapshot right now isn't great. Lots of empty station and lots of full ones. Waiting isn't an option, and getting there 15 minutes early isn't always an option either.

Rush hour is not bikeshare's finest moment. And in some ways that by design.

Offering incentives to users to move bikes during rushhour would be cheaper than the van.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 9:30 am  

I really liked the idea someone here came up with recently whereby a system could be created to reward users who rebalance the bikes simply by moving them themselves. It could be a points system somewhat like the winter warrior contest. Give more points for moving bikes from a full station to an empty one. Look how many (basically pointless) trips the top contestants of the WW program took. We should harvest that energy for the betterment of the system. Giving out a few free memberships to people with the time and willingness to rebalance the system would definitely make sense.

by TM on Apr 14, 2011 9:32 am  

How often does your station run out of bikes or docks, and when it happens how long does it last?

Yesterday's availability was pretty good.

by cabi addict on Apr 14, 2011 9:36 am  

@charlie:

I think that's a great idea. As TM says, judging by the numbers posted during the Winter Warrior contest, it's clear there are a lot of folks out there with lots of time on their hands.

But the strength of CaBi is that it's an *option*. This isn't like ZipCar where you need to get to Thurmont, MD tomorrow at 8am, you don't have a car, and when you show up at the car-share space, there's no vehicle. In that situation you're well and truly screwed.

With bike-sharing, I check the iPhone app to see if there are bikes where I am, and where I'm going. If there are, great, it's a mitzvah. If not, I check NextBus. If the next bus is 87 minutes away, maybe I grab a cab.

I don't see "it's not dependable" as being a fatal flaw to the system, though I'm willing to concede that maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong.

by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 9:38 am  

How often does your station run out of bikes or docks, and when it happens how long does it last?

Yesterday's availability was pretty good.

(oops - fixed link)

by cabi addict on Apr 14, 2011 9:39 am  

Nice detailed characterization of why bikeshare is so badly suited to the daily residential-downtown commute. These daily commuters are clearly creating lots of extra costs (that cannot be recovered since their trips are all FREE).

by egk on Apr 14, 2011 9:44 am  

Re: CaBi

This is a great article. This is really good timing to put out a piece that details how the operations work and that we as CaBi members need to understand it's a work in progress. It can't be a perfect system, but it will improve, given they increase staff and stations. Again, a great article. Thank you for putting this out there.

by PCouto on Apr 14, 2011 9:54 am  

I agree with oboe, I don't think that for $75 (or for $50 or $37), I can reasonably expect to have a bike available everyday as my primary commute option.

by Jacques on Apr 14, 2011 9:56 am  

All in all it sounds like CABI has a number of problems that its probably thankful to have. Overall its a good thing that people recognize the circulation because that means that a lot of skeptics who may not have been sold on the idea initally now recognize that CABI benefits from a high density of stations and that expansion inside the established service area will make it even more successful.

Except I still want to see rosslyn-ballston bikeshare completed fairly quickly because that seems like a no-brainer.

by Canaan on Apr 14, 2011 9:58 am  

@oboe; once again we are agreeing. I think the hardest thing cabi has to sell us as users is what bikesharing is good for. Getting to work - not good. Lunch hour, errands, getting to gym -- excellent.

It's not a metro replacement, it is not a car replacement. My best trips are short taxi rides replacements.

I read on the oobrian blog that london is getting the same patterns. Weekday commuter use is dropping, weekend use is sky-high.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 10:02 am  

@Sand Box

That's not true as a broad statement- the burden of tax is shared between producers and consumers of the taxed good depending on the relative price-elasticities of demand and supply. If, for example, a price hike would cause a catastrophic drop in demand but have little impact on supply, then the tax would be paid almost entirely by profit maximizing producers.

At least in the short term, though, gas demand is pretty inelastic. (I suspect that is true even in DC where there are other options to get around, because those other options are pretty much already at capacity.) That means that a gas tax will fall mostly on consumers, at least at first.

by DRF on Apr 14, 2011 10:05 am  

@cabi addict

I think your site is missing the dock in Adams Morgan at 18th & Columbia.

by MLD on Apr 14, 2011 10:08 am  

Housing downtown - Have the feds build housing available for purchase by federal employees.

by Redline SOS on Apr 14, 2011 10:15 am  

@charlie, @Sandboxjohn: depending on the price elasticity of demand and supply, the burden of taxes can fall either entirely on the supplier, entirely on the purchaser, or some combination of the two.

Imagine a tax that falls only on Coke and not Pepsi, and that customers are indifferent between the two. If Coke keeps the same pre-tax price, the price with tax would make Coke more expensive than Pepsi, and customers would always select Pepsi (remember, they're indifferent). So Coke must cut their price so that the post-tax price is the same as Pepsi. Therefore, the tax burden falls completely on Coke, the supplier.

Next imagine a good that is easy to export across a very porous border, and a tax is applied only on one side of the border. The supplier is indifferent between selling the product in country A, which has the tax, and country B, which does not have the tax. The price in country A will be higher by the amount of the tax, since if the price were any lower, the good would fetch a higher after-tax price in country B and the supplier would only sell product in country B. Therefore, the consumer in country A must pay all the tax (or import from country B, which is a different story.

In reality, products are rarely perfectly price elastic or price inelastic, and the burden of tax is shared between the consumer and supplier according to how price sensitive each is.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 14, 2011 10:22 am  

For what it's worth, I use Cabi fairly frequently on the weekends and haven't been seriously inconvenienced by an empty/full station since last fall.

by Phil on Apr 14, 2011 10:24 am  

@MLD

"I think your site is missing the dock in Adams Morgan at 18th & Columbia."

That would be station no. 18.  It's not missing - it was skipped because it didn't ever report as empty or full when checked.

by cabi addict on Apr 14, 2011 10:27 am  

@Michael Perkins:

Well said. Of course, this is more an article of faith--part of the modern Republican creed--than an argument that's susceptible to reason.

The belief that taxes are always fully passed on to consumers is a bit like the belief that "job creation" is something business does as a public service, as opposed to being an unavoidable by-product of profit-generation--like nuclear waste.

by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 10:29 am  

I am a CaBi user, but don't use it for work commuting. So, I have rarely seen a dock that was full or empty especially since I use the app to check before I go.

That said- am I the only one that restocks their home station? There is only one station in Edgewood and if I see its low I will often walk or metro to my destination and ride a bike home from a fuller station to restock my homebase.

by Sally on Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am  

Part of the CaBi imbalance problem has been the fact that tourists just ride them around the mall for hours at a time, therefore making it impossible to redistribute bikes accordingly throughout the city. I think it boils down to the fact that apart from Capital Bikeshare riders, it's not well known that the service is meant to be for station-station short trips rather than just for all-day fun.

by Phil on Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am  

@oboe: I'm not sure it's an article of faith, I actually said a bunch of stuff that didn't say anything. All I said was that the tax either falls on the consumer, the producer, or some on each. Which is basically the whole range of possibilities.

I guess the whole point was that taxes don't always fall completely on the final purchaser, and it depends.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 14, 2011 10:47 am  

@Phil

At least CaBi's making up the money with the usage fees! I seem to recall that an Alta spokesperson said they have not rolled out the full fleet of bikes yet. If more bikes are being checked out for extended periods, maybe it's time to put more bikes into service so that they are available.

Going along with that, I don't understand why the two vans play this cat-and-mouse game with the bikes. Why not just station teams in certain geographic areas? Keep extra bikes on hand and redistribute as necessary. If there is a need to rebalance the bikes by zone then maybe one truck can go around to drop off or pick up loads of bikes at a time.

by Adam L on Apr 14, 2011 10:49 am  

@DRF and Michael Perkins

You can spin it any way you like. The fact is only individuals pay taxes. In the end all taxes are payed by the end users that purchase those goods or services.

by Sand Box John on Apr 14, 2011 10:53 am  

@mperkins; the tax does get paid by the final consumer.

However, the price is going to vary, although everyone makes too big a deal about. Doubling or tripling the federal tax isn't going to change gasoline consumption much. How much gasoline is being used today vs. six months ago?

@AdamL; very good question on the two vans.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 10:56 am  

@oboe - understanding tax incidence is not an issue of faith/reason or republican/democrat, but rather understanding of basic (or mid-level) understanding of economics versus none.

by ah on Apr 14, 2011 10:58 am  

@David/Erik/et al

Shouldn't "aren't straining local governments" instead be "are straining local governments"?

by Froggie on Apr 14, 2011 11:07 am  

@oboe -OT, I'm not a rabbi but pretty sure if a bike is there when you want it, its just good luck, not a mitzvah. However if you voluntarily rebalance the bikes yourself (as another commenter suggested), that would be a mitzvah.

by Tina on Apr 14, 2011 11:09 am  

@Sand Box John - That's still wrong. If the tax burden falls on the seller/company, then its owners (whether a sole proprietor or shareholders) bear that burden. They are consumers, but not just of the company's product.

by ah on Apr 14, 2011 11:19 am  

@Tina,

Just goes to show that being invited to a Seder every year is no substitute for Yeshiva. :)

by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 11:22 am  

@ ah; so, is the gas tax collected like a VAT or sales tax? My understanding is it is like a sales tax --you collect and pay per gallon sold.

A VAT style tax for gasoline sales would be interesting, because there you have some chance to capture revenue that otherwise goes missing.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 11:32 am  

@Charlie - perhaps you're conflating who collects the tax with who bears the burden of the tax.

Sales tax is collected by the business (other than the extremely few people who pay the "use" tax directly to the government on out-of-state purchases).

But collection is not the same as the burden. As Michael Perkins explained, sometimes a company can pass along a tax (or tax increase) fully to its customers. Sometimes it cannot, because customers are not willing to pay the full amount of the price increase that the tax represents. If it's the latter, then the buyer and seller split the burden of the tax in some way--if it's a 10% meal tax then the customer may pay 5% of that and the seller may pay 5% of that.

To put a more direct point on it, people who eat at food trucks have alternatives. One is to eat less food (e.g., don't buy the chips or whoopie pie)--that limits how much the vendor can increase prices. Second, they could go to another restaurant, which may have lower prices (although also the tax is paid). Third, they could bring their own lunch, in which case they're paying the grocery tax instead. All of those alternatives keep the food truck from raising prices the full amount of the tax. Indeed, if they did not do that, food trucks could raise their prices now by 10% and not lose any sales. But they haven't because they know that there's competition in these various forms and they would lose sales and profits if they increased prices.

by ah on Apr 14, 2011 11:47 am  

Ok, this City Paper article pretty much settles it for me. The LS deal was a great idea for CaBi. I was on the fence before, but now that I think about it, look what has happened since the deal. In the last week, I have read about the system on GGW, Prince of Petworth, DCist, CP, and I'm sure other places as well. All of this press that the LS created acted as advertising for them as well. I bet you a lot of people didn't know much about the system before but do now.

by Eric on Apr 14, 2011 4:53 pm  

@ah

No owner or chef executive of an enterprise with any brains is going eat a tax increase to hold the price of his good or services down and stay in business very long. Commercial enterprise are in business to make a profit. If they chose the eat that tax and pass the burden to the owner and or share holders those individuals, there's that word individual again, will pay the tax.

by Sand Box John on Apr 14, 2011 10:01 pm  

Capitol Bike Share/alta bicycles denies health insurance to employees who ride bikes for the job.

THIS ONLY HAPPENED TO EMPLOYEES WHO RIDE BIKES FOR THE JOB!!!.

i quit my job today and i am so happy not to be working for a bunch of incompetent people anymore. when i was hired in november i was a full time employee with benefits and an option to have health insurance after a set amount of time. starting feb. Alta bikes, who is the mother company of Capitol Bike Share, changed thier policy and made me and all of the people in my position a part time employee with out benefits. i/we was also denied any buy in on the health plan they ues for full time employees. then a week or so later, they gave back everything TO ONLY THREE of the 8 people effected and called them managers. the rest were paid the amount of PTO they were alotted for the year (i had around 27 hours) and no longer allowed to work a 40 hour week capping out at 32hrs.
THIS ONLY HAPPENED TO EMPLOYEES WHO RIDE BIKES FOR THE JOB!!!. the employees who drive vans (rebalancing the system), and station technitions were NOT affected by this change in policy. they all still have a full timer with insurance and benefits.

by bradley on Apr 17, 2011 5:52 pm