Bicycling
Station expansion and "reverse rider rewards" could address Capital Bikeshare capacity needs
Capital Bikeshare has been so successful, bikes or open docks are getting harder to find at popular stations. But a large round of expansion, discussed at a public meeting last night, and a new "reverse rider rewards" program may soon help keep the system in balance.
Geoff and DCist's Aaron Morrissey place stars on the map. Photo by Jaime Fearer.
At last night's meeting, Councilmember Muriel Bowser praised the program, saying that it "has changed the amount of capacity on the roadways."
According to DDOT Associate Director Scott Kubly, there are now over 13,800 CaBi members, which gives the system more members per bike than any bikesharing system in North America, (and maybe the world). The Living Social promotion brought in 6,000 new members compared to an expected 3,000.
The system is growing by nearly 100 members per week, said Kubly, and the system is now averaging 123,000 trips per month. There is enough money in the current budget to pay for 25 new stations, and the budget that passed the first vote earlier in the day will supply money in FY12 for 35 to 40 more stations.
Today, Capital Bikeshare also launched a new program to reward people for taking trips from "typically full stations" to "typically empty stations."
DDOT placed six large maps around the room showing 60 potential station locations. Each attendee received three small star-shaped stickers to identify their preferences, whether for the 60 proposals or for potential stations not yet on the map.
Electronic vote tallies. Click to enlarge.
DDOT's Ralph Burns discussed station siting. He displayed a map that showed the current stations divided into three "tiers." One tier includes stations that are working "too well" and require expansion because of heavy use. The second tier stations are in "the sweet spot," used just enough to keep them in balance. The third tier stations are "underperforming," or are not being utilized in a balanced way.
Stations in this tier may potentially be moved or made smaller to come more in line with demand. In the end, though, Mr. Burns noted that surveys and face-to-face conversations with users are very important in determining where stations will go next.
Chris Holben explained criteria for stations. The optimal space must be at least a 6-foot by 50-foot level, firm surface. Bike stations cannot be placed in tree boxes, on Metro grates, or over manhole covers. They can be on sidewalks, on grass, or in parking lanes on the street. Since the stations are solar-powered, they require at least 4 hours of direct (not ambient) sunlight per day in order to work properly.
One meeting attendee, Madeline, lives on H Street and finds CaBi to be one of the most convenient ways to get around. She said, "There are problems finding transportation on H Street already, and I have problems picking up a bike in the morning," so she'd be very happy to see more stations in the H Street NE corridor.
There was a large contingent from Gallaudet University lobbying for stations at and around campus, so the chances that Madeline will be able to find an available Capital Bikeshare bicycle in the morning and an open dock in the evening look promising.
The "reverse rider rewards" program, launched today, is in effect each non-holiday weekday from 8-10 am. It identifies 16 "typically full" stations, all in and around downtown, and 17 "typically empty" stations in Glover Park, Columbia Heights, Capitol Hill, U Street and Dupont.
Stations in "Reverse Rider Rewards" program. "Typically full" stations are in black, "typically empty" stations in yellow. Click to enlarge.
Whoever has the most points for a particular month gets a free one-year membership extension, while the next 5 highest get a one-month extension. Everyone else who gets at least some points also enters a drawing for 5 more free one-month extensions. The program starts June 1.
 | Geoff Hatchard is a geographer working for the U.S. Census Bureau. He lives in DC's Trinidad neighborhood. The opinions and views expressed in Geoff's writing on this blog are his, and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer.   |
 | Jaime Fearer worked in the book industry for over 10 years before deciding to formalize her passion for community building and planning by pursuing a Master of Community Planning at UMD. She lived in the Northeast DC neighborhood of Woodridge for 3 years, where she ran the blog stop, blog and roll. Jaime now lives in the Trinidad neighborhood of DC and is a community planner in Greenbelt.  |
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. |
Comments
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Last of K Street's great mansions is threatened
- McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2
- Metro tests secure parking with new "bike and ride"
- Support a growing city and join Pro-DC
Zipcar should do this too BTW. Metro should work with both Zipcar and CaBi to figure out an efficient way to do this.
Note: I am not asking for system-wide maps. Just a marker on the local map at the exit of a station.
by Jasper on May 26, 2011 11:44 am
by 80p on May 26, 2011 11:48 am
by TG on May 26, 2011 11:50 am
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 11:50 am
It's a shame 5 stations will be wasted in the ballpark district. Between them, and liberating the 8 EOR stations, you could put 13 more into the rest of DC. So 33 stations, rather than 20.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 11:52 am
by Steve D on May 26, 2011 11:54 am
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 11:55 am
Ideally a lot of civic-minded people could be encouraged to go down and get bikes with free Metro trips down. Maybe a reward of a free Smartcard credit for one trip for each bike brought back up. A lot of people would do it just to help out.
by Tom Coumaris on May 26, 2011 11:56 am
by charlie on May 26, 2011 11:57 am
How about for every 2 bikes you move between key stations your membership is extended 1 day. Every 15 moves gets you two weeks, and 50 moves gets you 6 months, or something like that.
Even time bonuses would be cool. Every bike you move that meets the criteria gets you a free half hour the next time you exceed the free time limit. It could be anything really. The contest aspect just bugs me, though.
by jyindc on May 26, 2011 11:58 am
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 11:59 am
by TGEoA on May 26, 2011 11:59 am
In addition, the rest of her speech made it clear that she was talking about this giving us an increase in roadway capacity, not a decrease.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 12:01 pm
Benning Road Metro
MLK and Alabama
One vote each.
W and MLK
Two votes.
Looks like it is a real popular option. Ms V in the room? I hope she wasn't double dipping.
Looks as if the GWU students weren't invited either.
I'd love to know the racial breakdown of the room.....
by charlie on May 26, 2011 12:07 pm
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 12:11 pm
So you're saying that the only thing that would bring ridership up EOTR, is for EOTR residents to be less black?
Because your constant harping on this subject sounds exactly like that.
I don't comment much, but you are quite frankly offensive on this issue. I thought you'd want to know.
by CJ on May 26, 2011 12:14 pm
I know, I know...online votes by DDOT don't reflect real people. Hell, maybe online forums don't reflect real voters. Next thing I'll be sounding like Lance and suggesting we all use candles and horses.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 12:16 pm
The capacity change was mentioned right after the lede. Considering the context, one might assume (and hope) that CABI would lead to increased capacity, however Bowser is either ignorant or disingenuous if she thinks the delta is quantifiable, much less meaningful.
by TGEoA on May 26, 2011 12:16 pm
You've got a government service that is on the verge of being a hit. You've got resource allocation issues, and you've got 8 stations that aren't being used at all. You have, as of april, about 30 CABI members EOTR, and those stations could be used elsewhere. If you want to make it a black-white issue that says a lot more about you than anything else.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 12:22 pm
If your talking about the list of the electronic vote tally:
MLK & Alabama
W & MLK
W & 15th
Congress Heights Metro
Benning Road
Granted, they didn't do that well but they are on there.
by Steven Yates on May 26, 2011 12:23 pm
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 12:23 pm
W and 15th got 4, so maybe that is a winner.
So, to sum up:
MLK & Alabama: 1
W & MLK: 2
W & 15th: 4
Congress Heights Metro: 2
Benning Road : 1
For a grand total of 10.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 12:30 pm
by Nicoli on May 26, 2011 12:33 pm
Sorry, I get fat fingered on this fingers on this device. I trust you won't have a problem with the abbreviation.
And if Bowser isn't grandstanding on the reduction claim, then ignorance is an apt description.
by TGEoA on May 26, 2011 12:33 pm
I completely agree. I have little incentive to participate because I know someone with a hell of a lot more time on their hands is going to trounce me in the contest.
by OX4 on May 26, 2011 12:38 pm
by Tom Coumaris on May 26, 2011 12:38 pm
I don't believe Bowser was grandstanding. She was simply stating a fact. It might not be a HUGE delta, but I'd argue that there is certainly more capacity for throughput with the bikes than without them.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 12:39 pm
They did not rule such a thing out for the future, just that the computer system doesn't currently allow for such things yet.
by 20001dc on May 26, 2011 12:43 pm
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 26, 2011 12:45 pm
by 20001dc on May 26, 2011 12:45 pm
Actually there might be less total throughput with more bikes on the road. The pretentious folk who self-label themselves as "smart growth" advocates often cite queuing studies that suggest building new roads increases congestion. Without presenting any corroborating evidence and making such claims is hyperbole, which is what you and Bowser are in a sense doing.
-------------------------------
Springfield Shopper Tour Guide: Here at the Springfield Shopper we use a percentage of recycled paper.
Lisa: What percent?
Springfield Shopper Tour Guide: Zero. [pause] What!? Zero's a percent.
by TGEoA on May 26, 2011 1:03 pm
That's impressive! I hadn't thought about it that way. I wonder what a cost/profit comparison between Cabi and ART looks like?
by Catherine on May 26, 2011 1:09 pm
As a resident of a “typically-empty neighborhood,” I greatly appreciate that you are developing a program along these lines!
In my opinion, the goal of a bike redistribution incentive program should be to get bikes moved from where they are overstocked to where they are most needed. Based on the usage data you’ve published, the greatest need for bikes during morning rush hours (by far) is in the uphill residential areas of Mount Pleasant, Columbia Heights, and Petworth.
So my question is... does the program you’ve set up provide incentives for people to move bikes to these areas? In my opinion, the answer to this question tells us if the program is set up correctly or not.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it does...
If I want to earn Reverse Rider Reward points, no matter where I am in the city there are at least six TESs that I can bike to in under half the time it would take me to get to the stations in those uphill residential areas. Even if I know that those stations need bikes, they are all much further away and up a hill!
I can earn the exact same number of Reverse Rider Reward points (one) by biking to one of the closer stations. Since they are TES’s, these closer stations probably aren’t all full and, if they are, they probably won’t be if I hang out for a few minutes.
I can’t imagine a scenario where there wouldn’t be an easier alternative to earn a point than biking all the way up to Mount Pleasant. And even if that were the easiest option, a lot of people who would be willing to bike 10 minutes for a point might not be willing to bike 20 minutes uphill for a point.
(I have no doubt that this program will have a big impact on the station at 17th and Corcoran, which is a 3-minute ride from some of the downtown TFS’s.)
I'm sure you'll get a lot of suggestions about how to solve this problem, but here are my thoughts. You could do something like adjust the number of points earned to be based on:
- The number of bikes at the destination station. Moving a bike to an empty station in Columbia Heights should be worth more than moving a bike to a 75% full station at 16th & U. This would make the program more dynamic as riders’ would respond to the current station conditions!
- The effort required to move the bike. Maybe give people a point per mile, for example.
Thanks again for doing this!
by Mark L on May 26, 2011 1:25 pm
Hard to drill down, but it safe to say it is moving as many people as a small circulator line. Total cost of circulator = 12M. Small line may be 2-3M, although probably less.
I'd say cost is about the same. However, bikeshare scales better.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 1:27 pm
@TGEoA- It seems that a system averaging 123,000 trips per month would indeed be increasing road capacity. Granted not all of those trips are going to be in a motor vehicle, but some will. Is it measurable? Perhaps, perhaps not.
@Charlie- I'll quote you directly from 12:07; "I'd love to know the racial breakdown of the room....." Let's not pretend that when you're talking "EOTR", you're NOT talking about black people....clearly the largest demographic there. Your comments on CaBi EOTR have been quite consistent that way and people like me, with no real horse in the race, are interpreting them in that light. Perhaps we're (I'm) wrong, but perhaps you should be more clear as well.
by thump on May 26, 2011 1:41 pm
If there were more people from EOTR in the room, they would have voted for stations by them. We don't know the in-person results, just the online one, but it clear they are not popular choices.
Here's another one: instead of trying to waste stations EOTR where they aren't being used, concentrate on bringing up membership EOTR and let people use them elsewhere in the city. There are over a 1000 members in Arlington, and most of the R-B corridor doesn't have a station (except for the 4 in Rosslyn). Does that mean the members in Arlington don't use the service? No, they use downtown.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 1:50 pm
by Robert Mandle on May 26, 2011 2:03 pm
Topher and Ken are probably more up on the details of this, but I believe ANC2E has bikeshare locations back on the agenda for next Tuesday's meeting.
by Jacques on May 26, 2011 2:05 pm
by Hill North on May 26, 2011 2:08 pm
It does. Congestion often depends on a small number of extra cars. The number nerds here can even use differential equations to show this is true. A 5-10% change in cars can change a road from free flowing to utterly stuck. Watch it happen Saturday morning before the Bay Bridge.
We can safely assume that some bike trips replace car trips. Hence, less cars are on the road. It is 5-10% yet? No. But it's a start.
Back home, the government is building biking highways between major towns now. These are wide, straight, flat, well-lit bike paths where everybody, including the lycra brigade can bike home over longer distances (10-15 miles). In town, these paths connect up to the neighborhoods to get people home. The government does this because they found that many people don't bike intercity because connections were bad. They hope to get those 5-10% people extra biking, to reduce congestion. The price of a bike highway is considerably lower than that of an extra lane of highway. Furthermore, bikers tend to be healthier, so it's seen as a healthy living things as well.
by Jasper on May 26, 2011 2:09 pm
DDOT has been quite clear that even suggestions for locations might not meet all of the physical criteria for location a station (space, even and hard surface, no manhole covers or utility grates, and a certain level of direct sunlight every day).
by Alex B. on May 26, 2011 2:10 pm
Sorry you are so thin skinned.
by TGEoA on May 26, 2011 2:12 pm
The counterargument is that if the "low-hanging fruit" of Dupont/Logan stations can be effectively redistributed by a number of eager contest participants, the redistribution vans can focus more exclusively on restocking the uphill stations, increasing that capacity.
The other factor at play is that I'm guessing this incentive program is designed more to avoid full stations than empty ones. If a potential user comes upon an empty station, they'll use a different mode of transportation, while being mildly inconvenienced. If they are on a bike, however, and come to a full station, that's a bigger problem, especially while trying to get to work in the morning.
by Jacques on May 26, 2011 2:14 pm
I do think a lot of the biking policy right now is driven by saying, oh, look at what we can do for 100,000K. Or, most egregiously on 15th st, saying bikes can be portable road furniture to slow traffic down. I have to wonder what would policy look like if you took as a goal, say, cutting down gas consumption by 7% over 5 years.
My gut instinct is it wouldn't work in the US; with higher gas taxes in Europe there is more of an incentive to lock in alternative behavior. Since taxes are lower here, gas price is more market controlled, which means when consumption goes down prices go down.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 2:18 pm
EOTR residents may not ride much now, but at least their tax dollars paid for the stations.
by CJ on May 26, 2011 2:25 pm
Arlington has its own separate budget for Cabi expansion. But since this was a DDOT meeting, it wasn't a topic.
So, to be fully clear, all of those 25 + 35 to 40 stations will be in DC.
by BeyondDC on May 26, 2011 2:34 pm
by charlie on May 26, 2011 2:38 pm
I'm not sure of the details, but it's spelled out in the contract with Alta. Probably they do it by stations rather than bikes (just a guess).
by BeyondDC on May 26, 2011 2:43 pm
based upon the dock spots
by TGEoA on May 26, 2011 2:43 pm
What happened to the 6th & H station? Wasn't it part of the original plan?
Also, I wonder if CaBi has given any thought to installing wayfinding signage at the tops of Metro escalators to point to the nearest station, or at the stations themselves to point to the nearest bike-friendly street.
This could be particularly helpful on H St NE, where many riders are apparently unaware of the fact that G and I streets are much nicer/safer to bike along than H itself. (A simple arrow and text saying "I Street Bike Lane 1 Block" would be perfectly adequate. Keep things simple, if not simpler!)
by andrew on May 26, 2011 2:55 pm
So let's recap. Charlie, you maintain that the 1000 riders in Arlington use the system downtown or to get downtown. They have not paid any tax revenue to maintain the downtown CaBi system. In this regard, using your logic, you are a partial free rider. If outlying stations in Arlington are only commuter endpoints, then Arlington's optimal station density (and related costs) is half or less of the total number of stations that those 1000 riders utilize.
As a DC tax payer, I am shouldering half of your burden, and that will only equalize if and when Arlington increases their station density enough to make it a regular destination for DC riders. More importantly, you seem to think that EOTR residents of DC should pay to increase the station density in your area of Arlington, and should not have any stations if they do not immediately use them to your satisfaction.
I'm getting more and more confused here. What was your reasoning again, for why EOTR residents of DC shouldn't have bike stations? Whether they're using them or not, they did pay for them.
Now, leaving all that aside and returning to the real world, I am a proponent of redistributing bike stations to increase utilization. That does NOT equal ripping them out of an historically under served neighborhood without an effort to make them perform there. There are a good half dozen system changes that might make CaBi perform EOTR, and exactly one of them has been tried to date. Let's try a few of them.
regarding your tone: Your latest posts here are part of a general trend. Statements like, "@ OctaviusIII; so, it is worth spending $400,000 to let black people know they can use bikeshare? That seems like a waste." You can explain away your specific comments all day, and I'm sure you probably will. I'm simply telling you the impression that I, personally, am getting from them. They're distasteful at best, taken as a whole. If you don't care, or prefer to think it's just me, then I hope that gets you through the day.
by CJ on May 26, 2011 2:57 pm
@Charlie-and as I explained, from the outside looking in, it seems your use of EOTR is synonymous with "black". I'm sure I'm wrong, but looking at your past comments, that seemed to be the sentiment to me. It's also disingenuous to castigate someone by saying "If you want to make it a black-white issue that says a lot more about you than anything else." when you had just asked about the racial makeup of the room.
Regarding Arlington's use of CaBi; could it be that residents of Arlington actually have more jobs downtown vs. residents EOTR (I don't know about the various unemployment rates in the metro area or where white collar workers downtown come from)? That could be a reason for the disparity of membership. Do you know what the difference in usage is for Arlington residents vs. EOTR residents (or, does membership=usage)?
by thump on May 26, 2011 3:02 pm
It's not clear how far from the Wilson/Clarendon Boulevard stretch the "R-B corridor" stations will run, but hopefully, they'll touch on some nearby neighborhoods like Cherrydale, Lyon Park, and Lyon Village.
Altogether, we should be seeing 50 new stations, between the DC and Arlington expansions, within the FY2011 fiscal year, which would bring the total number of stations to around 165 or 170.
We can also tentatively expect for FY2012:
- 35-40 new stations in DC
- Undefined number of new stations in Arlington
- A possible 6 station pilot in Alexandria (Old Town/Carlyle, with possible later expansion to Del Ray or Potomac Yards)
- Any additional stations that are paid for not by government funds, but by corporate-sponsored stations, or as part of PUD's.
by Jacques on May 26, 2011 3:02 pm
Taxpayers pay for plenty of things that they, as individuals, don't use. CaBi exists to serve a market of people interested in using bicycles as alternative transportation. Is there much of a pre-existing "bicycle culture" EOTR? If not, I don't see the point in investing resources trying to convince people to use bicycles, any more than we would do that in Palisades. Both places may well regard it as an insulting attempt at trying to force them not to use their cars.
There are a good half dozen system changes that might make CaBi perform EOTR, and exactly one of them has been tried to date. Let's try a few of them.
Examples, please
by JustMe on May 26, 2011 3:13 pm
The biggest take away for me from the meeting was the fact that ddot suggested when siting a potential new station they needed at least 40 ft. of space (this is a station size of 15 bikes). However, in the downtown area they mentioned that on many streets tree boxes were set only 30 ft. apart, thus hinting (they did not state directly) that this was a major hurdle in siting some, obviously not all, downtown stations. I never got to ask: would they site two stations near each other with both having less than 15 bikes, but assuming a downtown location is a high usage area these two stations should perform well together, right?
by Ryan on May 26, 2011 3:15 pm
@Thump; no data that I've seen on comparing EOTR residents usage vs. Arlington usage -- or where they are being used. I suspect you basic point is correct. Throw in 30% unemployment and clearly there are less workers downtown.
But that ties into both my points. EOTR usage suffers from network design --an isolated network. Arlington, and to a larger degree the proposed Alexndria stations suffer the same problem. There are other systemic reasons why it isn't working. You'll see I've been very careful NOT to go there, but clearly people like CJ are worried about articulating them.
My conclusion isn't based on those factors, just that more stations are needed in downtown/dupont and you have 8 extremely underutilized stations. I"m sympathetic to the point that "ripping them out" hurts the 30 or so users EOTR. Needs of the many....
Larger point: is running a bike share system about social justice and trying to remedy years of underinvestment EOTR? And trust me, you don't want to get me started on transport rights for say, disabled people, and how that is destroying WMATA...
by charlie on May 26, 2011 3:24 pm
CaBi exists to serve a market of people interested in using bicycles as alternative transportation.
Well, no, actually. CaBi exists to create a demand as much as it does to service one. You might just as well have argued in 1976 that the Metro rail system was created to serve a market of people who had a fetish for mass transit. That's part of the story, but certainly not all of it.
by oboe on May 26, 2011 3:24 pm
I think having EOTR stations, regardless of useage, is a necessary good-will gesture and an investment in the future, that's relatively cheap, and whose impact is not particularly detrimental to the overall health of the system.
You can't take the politics out of politics.
by oboe on May 26, 2011 3:29 pm
I have a feeling that you can't win either way with CaBi EOTR: you start putting the stations EOTR, and people start saying, "they're trying to take away our cars and wasting money and stuff we don't even use!" You don't put CaBi stations EOTR, and people complain, "EOTR is being ignored while all this money on CaBi is spent elsewhere!"
by JustMe on May 26, 2011 3:45 pm
The first section of dock (kiosk, map, 3 docks, solar panel) costs about $24K, the remainder of the 3 sections of 4 docks (3*4+3=15) is the remainder of the approx $50K price tag.
Your solution would likely work, but might cost considerably more (but may be worth it), and more little stations are way better than none.
Additionally, the contract specifies a maintenance fee per station, which may or may not increase costs.
One more note, it sounded to me like a "station" consists of 15 docks. Larger stations are larger at the expense of smaller station. The contract isn't set up to simply buy additional docks. (This was my understanding, but there was a rather rude lady that kept interrupting the DDOT guy)
I also agree that I would have liked a larger presentation that could have answered common questions (expansion, advertising, NPS, EOTR, strategy, etc.), but I actually got a lot more interaction this way and I was able to simply walk to another small group when one group got taken over by those who like to hijack the group argue little details)
I also learned that one government agency is setting up a corporate membership for its employees. This may put additional pressure on NPS and the Architect of the Capitol.
(I also learned that the there is a policy against any vending on the Capitol complex, so they need special permits in order to set up a kiosk [which accepts credit cards].
As for NPS, they are still waiting on NPS and are billing the system as a "transit" system, not a bike rental.
As for EOTR, they want to wait a year before removing any stations. They are working with WABA and trying to figure out how to make it successful.
by 20001dc on May 26, 2011 3:47 pm
8 out of 45 station is a goodly amount, but the larger point is that a DC bikeshare, with partners, slightly highly membership fees, continued tourist usage, and sponsorship-advertising could actually be self-sustianing.
Wasting $400,000 on good will -- as well as close to $100K a year in operating expenses -- seems very pricey.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 3:48 pm
by Tone loco on May 26, 2011 3:54 pm
Since Cabi will forever expand, is it disadvantageous to think about adding Cabi in more areas EOTR when we've experienced more demand/development?
IMO, Charlie is both right and wrong. He's right that Cabi should be introduced to areas to serve a current need. I think where he ruffles feathers is presenting his argument as "black people EOTR" vs. (I assume) "we whites WOTR." In fact, there are black people both East and WestOTR and I would imagine those WOTR use Cabi more than us EOTR. What this sentiment buys into is the notion that this is for you people - not us.
by HogWash on May 26, 2011 3:56 pm
by Tom Coumaris on May 26, 2011 3:59 pm
by MLD on May 26, 2011 4:04 pm
Ryan - I have mixed feelings about the meeting format, but prefer the small group breakout. In the big meeting format, you're lucky if you get to ask one question, and - for some reason - it always gets taken over by crazy people. I'm not sure why this is, but it is true. Also, DDOT has learned that in small groups there is less showboating "I'm on the ANC transportation committee and I had to hear about this meeting from my neighbor..." and less general anger. People will yell at a suit at the front of the room, but they're cordial to a person standing next to them. DDOT employees, for some reason, do not like to be yelled at by strangers at the end of the work day. The one thing I miss out on is hearing questions I wouldn't think to ask, but want to know the answer to. I can still get that in the small group setting though.
BTW, Arlington is having a similar meeting sometime next month to discuss THEIR expansion. I expect it to be entirely white, male and between the ages of 22-26, as is all of Arlington.
by David C on May 26, 2011 4:13 pm
1. More stations
2. Change the locations of the current stations
3. EOTR specific promotion. (living social may not have been the best vehicle for promoting membership EOTR, but I'll bet there's a marketing firm in DC that can run a campaign specific to those demographics)
4. Ridership driven advocacy. CaBi just implemented a program to address over utilized stations. Why not a program to target underutilized stations? Lower fees for joining from those zips. Points in the existing incentive program for use of those stations.
5. Time. Why is this projected to be a failure just because it hasn't had the lightening strike success of the rest of the system?
This isn't brain surgery, and with the possible exception of the first item, it's not an expenditure of vast sums of money.
Now to your first point. There has been little or no discussion of CaBi as a solution to existing demand for bike share. Most if not all of the political rhetoric surrounding the program and the one preceding it, was one of inducing demand. If that's the case, we should be expending MORE effort in the areas where the bike program has been slow to catch on. We are currently expending resources to convince people all over the city to ride bikes. We have been less successful EOTR, but we might be more so with a little effort.
by CJ on May 26, 2011 4:14 pm
- biking full speed up 14th Street (in 1st gear, for the most cardio impact), dead-lifting a 40 lb. bike 10 times, and sprinting downhill to start your next set.
With the right marketing, someone could make some money!
by Jacques on May 26, 2011 4:14 pm
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 26, 2011 4:18 pm
Those are issues I can agree with. Some local advocacy and advice would probably go a long way with the EOTR issue.
It might be that the demographics for CaBi usage are totally different (but not absent) EOTR. There may not be a vast population of younger fit city center employees looking for commuting alternatives. Maybe the commuting workforce is in need of lateral movement within the area. Maybe CaBi would be better used by single or no car households with sub-optimal transport solutions for the second occupant. CaBi might need a child seat option, or a better basket option for those users.
And yes, it very well may be that this is a solution that is either too soon, or not needed at all for this area. My point is that you don't stop trying on the first try, or stop during a time of rapid expansion, or stop because you think your first guess at what other people wanted was incorrect.
by CJ on May 26, 2011 4:21 pm
> Charlie, you maintain that the 1000 riders in Arlington use the system downtown or to get downtown.
Here is a map showing how many trips are made between any two Cabi stations. As you can see, most of the trips made using the Crystal City bikes are between two stations in Crystal City. There are people who go into DC using those bikes, but it's not most of the trips and certainly isn't all of them.
The four stations in Rosslyn (not shown on that map, which is old) are probably a little more dependent on DC, but they won't be for long.
> I expect it to be entirely white, male and between the ages of 22-26, as is all of Arlington.
Arlington demographic profile says: 19% of Arlington's population is Hispanic, 9% is Black, and 9% is Asian. That's almost 40% in the "not white" category. More white than the District, sure, but certainly not completely pale.
by BeyondDC on May 26, 2011 4:24 pm
There are underlying issues to why ridership is low. My dear friend @charlie can tell you that I'm a huge advocate.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 26, 2011 4:28 pm
by David C on May 26, 2011 4:28 pm
In the interest of disclosure, I commute from U street to Roselyn, and i regularly use the system for lunch time trips up Wilson Blvd for better food options.
by CJ on May 26, 2011 4:30 pm
@Hogwash; if you offered $100,000 -- which is the operating cost of the various bikes EOTR -- to local ANCs, where would they spend that money? Or $500,000, which is what we have spent on capital and continuing expenses.
@DavidC; hmm. I didn't realize GGW demographics matched Arlington so well.
by charlie on May 26, 2011 4:33 pm
I don't know if the software is up to it, but I think the contest should be based on the contestants "net" activity.
by Tom on May 26, 2011 4:42 pm
The great thing for me about CaBi is that it is a perfect case study for observation for how to do bikeshare better. Since I am part of a start up business which in part sells bike sharing too, it's awesome to see how CaBi does stuff, so we can do it better--not that it will help people here, unless we try to do consulting with suburban jurisdictions to help them do a better rollout.
E.g., as I have said before, the first priority for expansion should be to fix the problems with the current service footprint by adding docks and bikes to the high use areas.
If you require 40 feet, then start using street spaces instead of taking away from the pedestrian!
Only when you start getting intense service footprints do you begin to eliminate the rebalancing problem which is a spatial issue that for the most part will be resistant to incentives. (Velib adds an incentive for uphill stations which makes sense for me, but it's a different issue entirely.)
A recent mention in City Paper or somewhere heralded Cabi's addition of another rebalancing team. Hey, that is a sign of failure, not success.
I know that when we write our next proposal, we will definitely use last night's meeting as an example of how not to plan for expansion of a system. The point of the data and the opportunity (heat maps) mapping of the areas with great potential should be to use that data "for good" rather than to be manipulated by online campaigning.
E.g., while I am all for service in Ward 4 a station at GA and Upshur, the way the ward is organized in terms of density makes bikeshare difficult to pull off successfully. But hey, it isn't my system.
WRT Charlie's ongoing complaints about the stations EOTR, he is right and the other people who disagree with him are right too. The issue is to deal with the lack of use both through more stations, and kick butt social marketing. Again, I know our next proposals will deal with the social equity issue better than our first one, because of the observation of the EOTR experience in Cabi.
by Richard Layman on May 26, 2011 4:57 pm
To me, it seems all three are logical but if you think EOTR, most residents likely work WOTR so some of the desired benefits become totally null when there options are already available through other means. This alone could add to both confusion about the system and why they should "want" it. It's similar to the whole EOTR streetcar debate in Anacostia. I've yet to be satisfied with a good answer "why."
@Charlie, I don't know what the ANC's would do w/the money. Not sure of your point here.
by HogWash on May 26, 2011 5:06 pm
by Mark L on May 26, 2011 5:18 pm
by andrew on May 26, 2011 5:21 pm
Although, in high use transit cities like Paris, London, and Montreal, there is some intent to divert trips from transit to bike in order to improve transit capacity and comfort, given the high use and crush loads on the system.
People riding the bikes from their neighborhood to work destinations for a complete commuting trip create an unbalanced trip, because within the downtown core, unless you're traveling more than a block or two (which most people don't do during the day while at work), there isn't much opportunity to naturally rebalance.
by Richard Layman on May 26, 2011 5:21 pm
1. Have more trips done by bike
2. Cover operating costs by year 3
So my thought is they're going to do what they can to maximize 1, while holding to 2.
by David C on May 26, 2011 5:27 pm
- http://www.cityryde.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Urbikes_ints-01.jpg
by Richard Layman on May 26, 2011 5:58 pm
How is your company's system powered? One of the great things about Bixi, and the thing that makes it so flexible, is that stations are self-powering using a solar panel and therefore do not have to be plugged into the grid. The stations can simply be plopped anywhere there's room. All you have to do is pick them up and put them somewhere, literally.
by BeyondDC on May 26, 2011 9:12 pm
We can also have hardwire, which we might need for certain indoor applications.
It will also allow for electric bikes, although I am not enamored with that aspect. They believe electric bikes can be integrated into a system if there is an additional per trip charge for using an electric bike. I still think that if there are only two trips/day/bike, it's too hard to pay off. But we don't know yet what the price will be for electric bikes.
In any case, we have a target market application for the electric bike systems, but as elements of a municipal vehicle fleet, which we are likely to market separately anyway.
by Richard Layman on May 26, 2011 10:10 pm
Add a Comment