Greater Greater Washington

What's better: More CaBi stations or bigger ones?

Capital Bikeshare has been extremely successful, and the result is that many riders can't find a bike or an empty dock during peak times. In many areas, DDOT has prioritized making existing stations larger. Is this better than adding more, smaller stations?


Photo by Bjorn1101 on Flickr.

New stations cost significantly more than just adding docks to a station, and adding a station also requires finding a suitable site. However, new stations decrease the distance people have to travel to find a bike or station, and increase the convenience of the system as a whole. What's this worth?

There's a big cost difference between expanding versus adding stations. According to Arlington's Capital Bikeshare contract, expanding a station by 12 docks and 6 bikes costs $13,070, plus installation costs, while a new station with 11 docks and 6 bikes costs $36,209 plus installation.

Are 12 docks at a new station somewhere nearby worth about 3 times the value of adding those 12 docks to a "mega-station?" Possibly.

There are two reasons adding additional docks to a high-traffic neighborhood in the form of new stations instead of tacking them on to existing stations might be worth the extra money: increased customer convenience, and the potential to ease rebalancing needs.

Empty or full stations are inevitable at times. The more this happens, though, the more inconvenience it creates for users. If a customer comes to a full station with their bike and has to go another 5 blocks only to retrace their steps and walk another 2 blocks to their end destination, it won't be long before they give up Capital Bikeshare as a primary, reliable mode of transportation.

Of course, spreading docks among more, smaller stations rather than one mega-station doesn't make them less likely to be full. If 30 docks fill up at a single station, 3 clustered stations with 10 docks will probably fill up just as much, and cost more to build.

But having the 3 smaller stations gives members or potential members a shorter walk to the nearest station, making the system more valuable for everyone.

Higher station density and more new stations will undoubtedly attract new users and with them new revenue. At the same time, with strategic planning, closer stations can reduce the frequency and cost of rebalancing bikes throughout the day.

If there are 5 stations within a 3 block radius, a couple stations can be full or empty and as long as the other stations have bikes or docks, the system maintains its usability and convenience for people coming or going from that vicinity.

Currently, if the Dupont Circle station fills up or empties out, Alta has to dispatch someone pretty much immediately to rebalance, since the dearth of other immediately nearby stations will make it a huge inconvenience.

With tight station clusters in activity centers, Bikeshare could more easily monitor "levels of inconvenience" to prioritize rebalancing. If a primary station is full but there are some docks available at nearby stations, that poses only a mild inconvenience and can receive a lower priority for rebalancing.

If the biggest station is full and several of the surrounding stations are too, leaving docks available at only 1 or 2 stations in the area, that would be a medium inconvenience, and should be rebalanced sooner, meaning it might preempt another mild inconvenience situation. If all of the stations in a neighborhood were completely full, that would be a major inconvenience and require rebalancing as soon as possible.


Photo by Mr. T in DC on Flickr.
As the system continues to grow in popularity, adding more stations in activity centers is inevitable. In some of the most popular neighborhoods, it will be virtually impossible for DDOT to build single stations that are large enough that they always have a bike or empty dock available.

It's difficult to measure whether the extra costs of new stations outweigh their benefits. What's more, beyond the cost of the station capital, each new site has to be planned, measured for size and sunlight, vetted with the community, and permitted. This process also has costs.

Eventually, though, DDOT will run into space constraints for these stations anyway, making it impossible to expand any further. While there is significant extra cost to adding new stations versus simply expanding those already in place, in the long run, the system would reap benefits. The ultimate question is whether we should prioritize expansion efforts on increasing density or increasing coverage.

Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone. 

Comments

Add a comment »

a mix of both sounds like the reasonable approach (and too easy of answer). I have the impression that Alta and CaBi have data they are NOT yet capturing nor utilizing to their fullest abaility.

My understanding is they only send vans to rebalance as soon as they see stations empty (and have two hours to do so). With regular commuters, there must be pretty persistent patterns that exist that would encourage stragetic rebalancing and dock placement isntead of responding only when empty.

It must be difficult to calculate since every new dock/station changes the patterns.

by cmc on Dec 20, 2011 12:45 pm • linkreport

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 • linkreport

@cmc

Alta definitely knows where to go during the peak period to take bikes out of docks and refill others. Every morning during the summer they are refilling the 16th & U station at almost the exact same time.

by MLD on Dec 20, 2011 1:01 pm • linkreport

The current system already has enough of a disparity in station distances that there's not a system-wide answer.

Neighborhoods such as those around Metro Center should prioritize expansion (because you already have 4-5 stations within a few blocks of each other). If you already have two stations that are two blocks away from each other, it's probably not worth 3 times the cost to add a third station between them. Areas with lower station density should prioritize adding new stations to strengthen the network, and create more utility/incentives for people to consider bikeshare as a viable mode in that neighborhood.

The other consideration that might call for different strategies is the question of when a station is used.

It's possible that "net-commuter-import" stations, such as those in Foggy Bottom, Metro Center, or L'Enfant, are best served by expanding existing stations to as large as possible, because the biggest crush is rush hour, in which rebalancing is the toughest. For these areas, it would make far more sense to maximize the number of people that can be delivered to a station before having to rebalance.

In neighborhoods that have more mixed-use destinations (Dupont, Logan Circle to an extent, Penn Quarter), more stations seems like it would be the best approach, creating more opportunities for circulation within the neighborhood, as well as origin and destination points for people arriving/departing to other neighborhoods.

by Jacques on Dec 20, 2011 1:06 pm • linkreport

Building on Layman's point about the political influence on Bikeshare, a new 19-dock station was just added at Anacostia Ave and Benning Rd. instead of a new station in a place that it will be actually utilized, we've added another 3-trips-a-day-at-most station. Just look at other stations of its ilk, e.g. Edgewood and Fairfax Village, and you'll see how political appeasement is a huge drain on Capital Bikeshare.

(Note: this isn't a screed against EOTR bikeshare. The Anacostia and Penn/Minnestota Ave stations are a great asset to the system and I'm sure with better infrastructure so would the Benning/Minnesota cluster)

by Corey on Dec 20, 2011 1:17 pm • linkreport

Corey, in the DC area, this sort of political appeasement is just the "cost of doing business."

by JustMe on Dec 20, 2011 1:36 pm • linkreport

It seems like "more stations" would be a clear answer as it serves the secondary purpose of alleviating demand at more popular stations in the immediate vicinity. Of course eventually it will lead to more demand at all tstations as more people start using the system. This is called induced demand, and it seems to be a very popular topic of discussion here on GGW.

Ultimately, it's basically impossible to compare the cost of adding new stations versus supplementing existing stations without factoring the costs associated with rebalancing existing stations. Who even knows if Alta/CaBi keeps data on this.

by Scoot on Dec 20, 2011 1:43 pm • linkreport

Political appeasement?

The people who live EOTR are residents of the city too, and at the very least deserve the opportunity to participate in Capital Bikeshare. Although the usage EOTR is indeed disproportionately low compared to the rest of the system, there are already disproportionately few stations in Wards 7 and 8 (approx. 10% of the total number of Bikeshare stations across an area that houses 30% of the city's population). That percentage will likely actually drop with the proposed expansions.

Political appeasement would be the reallocation of funds or resources to disproportionately benefit one area or ward. As far as I can tell, DC is making an effort to provide bikesharing to all areas of the city in a manner that is as fair and equitable as possible.

Yes, there are challenges that are going to make it difficult to make bikesharing work in Wards 7 and 8. However, that certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't rise to the challenge.

If anybody's being appeased here, it's certainly not the residents of Wards 7 and 8.

by andrew on Dec 20, 2011 1:53 pm • linkreport

One of the most annoying things can be riding with someone else and either not getting a bike for each person or not finding a dock for each person on the other end. Larger stations make me happy

by Allan on Dec 20, 2011 2:04 pm • linkreport

Political appeasement would be the reallocation of funds or resources to disproportionately benefit one area or ward.

No, that's not what political appeasement is at all. It's paying off interest groups to allay their concerns and ensure they do not interfere with valuable projects, even when the funds paid do not have a worthwhile direct benefit. It's similar to how developers need to make a generous donation to the non-profits of ANC members and other neighborhood organizations to smooth their permitting process. It's just something that's built into the costs of these plans.

by JustMe on Dec 20, 2011 2:12 pm • linkreport

@JustMe, political appeasement is...paying off interest groups to allay their concerns and ensure they do not interfere with valuable projects, even when the funds paid do not have a worthwhile direct benefit.

Based on the above, it seems safe to assume that there are roving definitions re: what "political appeasement" is. I believe your definition falls outside of what most people consider it as.

by HogWash on Dec 20, 2011 2:20 pm • linkreport

While more stations is nice, yhey're not worth 3 times the cost of larger stations. To some extent its a tradeoff between convenience (more stations but fewer total bikes/docks) and reliability.

I'll take reliability any day of the week. Bikeshare isn't too useful if you have to have a backup plan in case there are no bikes/docks when you plan to use bikeshare. Whats the point if I have to budget enough time to walk to my destination even if using bikeshare because of unpredictability?

by Falls Church on Dec 20, 2011 2:21 pm • linkreport

Assuming that the dollars available are a constant. I'd suspect that in most cases adding 12 docks and 6 bikes is better than creating a new station with 4 docks and 2 bikes 3 blocks away. That's a better comparison since that is what can be bought with equivalent dollars.

But sometimes the new station is the better choice.

Usually, it's an and/and situation as Richard points out.

by David C on Dec 20, 2011 3:31 pm • linkreport

Also adding more density increases the number of stations that we need to be refilled. That can increase the time between when a station goes empty or near-empty and when it is refilled.

by Cassidy on Dec 20, 2011 4:22 pm • linkreport

Why are new stations so much more expensive than additional docks?

Could you create a station without a kiosk attached, if you guaranteed that there was a station with a kiosk less than 2 blocks away?

by andrew on Dec 20, 2011 5:12 pm • linkreport

I'd suspect that in most cases adding 12 docks and 6 bikes is better than creating a new station with 4 docks and 2 bikes 3 blocks away.

Except that the dollars are probably not constant. I don't have any personal experience building CaBi stations but I suspect that most of the costs of a new station are probably tied up in getting the infrastructure in place for that very first dock to be used. Once that happens, adding X number of docks to the new station probably costs about the same amount of money as adding the same number to an existing station. Maybe it's even a little less costly.

In addition, when new stations are built near existing stations, it probably lowers the operating costs of the existing stations by reducing, at least somewhat, costs associated with rebalancing at those stations.

by Scoot on Dec 20, 2011 5:25 pm • linkreport

I think @andrew answered his question - the kiosk module is more expensive than the expansion modules.  Gotta one for each station, though: it has the solar collector, batteries, keyboard, display, communication unit, credit card reader etc.

by cabi addict on Dec 20, 2011 5:29 pm • linkreport

Right now the closest CaBi is 9 blocks away so I'm not going to use because it's not worth it. So you have to balance the 2.

By the way we were promised a station in out neighborhood at Northeast Library. It was most popular in survey. It was supposed to be done in the fall. No sign of it yet.

by Lou on Dec 20, 2011 6:10 pm • linkreport

JustMe is right about the definition is political appeasement. It's not just inequitable distribution of resources - the purpose of the benefit is what makes it appeasement. It's a payoff.

Political appeasement would be the reallocation of funds or resources to disproportionately benefit one area or ward.

Based on this definition, TANF is political appeasement. So is subsidized housing. That's clearly not correct.

by dcd on Dec 20, 2011 6:39 pm • linkreport

For the record, I'm ok with making some CaBi expansions EOTR to go along with expansions in more highly-used areas and corridors where CaBi is more highly valued. But let's not call this anything other than what it is. Even if EOTR isn't going to use CaBi very much, the program will be opposed and come under threat if it's viewed as a government program that's only for NW yuppies. And who knows? Maybe CaBi will take off, eventually, and gain more political support EOTR, but we won't know unless it's there.

by JustMe on Dec 20, 2011 7:23 pm • linkreport

Scoot, that's kind of my point. That base dock (2 docks and the kiosk) costs about $27,000 and the add-ons (3 docks) cost $3700 a piece. (based on the numbers above). We can get a lot of add-ons with the cost of that kiosk. I have no idea why you think it would be less costly to add more docks to one station over another.

I'm also not sure that adding stations will reduce the cost of rebalanancing. I suspect it will increase it.

by David C on Dec 20, 2011 11:52 pm • linkreport

In addition to the increased upfront cost of the kiosk vs. just more docks, there's also an upfront cost related to siting stations in the first place. The stations need land, obviously, but also sunshine and good access; it's more difficult than it looks to find a good site.

The way that the Alta rebalancing contract works also favors fewer and larger stations; they get penalized when a station is full or empty. In Paris, the contract specifies that a station can remain full/empty as long as other stations very near it are balanced -- although their stations are also very close to one another. That makes it easier to place more stations near one another, since the rebalancing work doesn't grow arithmetically with the station count.

That said, CaBi recently expanded the two stations on either side of my apartment, and sometimes I wish they'd dropped a new station in the middle instead.

by Payton on Dec 21, 2011 1:20 am • linkreport

@David C -- I'm also not sure that adding stations will reduce the cost of rebalanancing. I suspect it will increase it.

The idea is that by having more station density (as opposed to station breadth), there are more criss-cross type trips, so more rebalancing is done naturally--by the users, rather than by the operator.

E.g. in Montreal there are more stations, sited more closely together, and they are larger too, so I bet they have fewer rebalancing teams than in DC.

Note that the industry standard is that the ideal footprint is 28 stations per square mile. (About 1 station every 300 meters, which strictly speaking is more like 27 stations/square mile.) When you miss this number significantly, you're going to have a lot more asymmetric trip behavior.

by Richard Layman on Dec 21, 2011 6:10 am • linkreport

The balancing problem is worst during rush hours, when daily commuters mostly going one way greatly exacerbate the problem. This particular issue will never be solved as long as commuting by Cabi is vastly cheaper than any other mode of transport.

A rush hour, directional surcharge of, say, a dollar per ride to go downtown in the morning, would help mitigate things (and encourage daily commuters to buy their own bikes). Likewise, financial incentives could be implemented to encourage people going the opposite of rush hour flow.

by Cabi User on Dec 21, 2011 7:19 am • linkreport

How much does this program cost the DC Government and how much is paid for by Fed. monies? When will it run as a profit and not a deficit in the budget? Which stations make the most money? It is a business and should be treated like a business not some idealistic vision. The answers to the questions should dictate where and how it expands.

by Sally on Dec 21, 2011 8:24 am • linkreport

@Sally:

It is a business and should be treated like a business not some idealistic vision.

Great. Let me know when DC's surface streets start to turn a profit. Which street makes more money, M Street or North Capitol Street?

What's that? Providing transportation options to District taxpayers is one of the essential roles of government?

Good point.

by oboe on Dec 21, 2011 8:58 am • linkreport

the idea is that by having more station density (as opposed to station breadth), there are more criss-cross type trips, so more rebalancing is done naturally--by the users, rather than by the operator.

Is that the idea? I thought the idea was that by putting them close together you reduced the overshoot needed when a rider comes to a full/empty station. Which means that there are still many stations empty or full.

E.g. in Montreal there are more stations, sited more closely together, and they are larger too, so I bet they have fewer rebalancing teams than in DC.

I thought we were larger, but nonetheless I'm not sure they do less rebalancing. And their system, being denser than ours, is different. It likely replaces more walking trips than CaBi does. I'm not sure that is the trade-off we're looking for. Not that replacing a walking trip with a faster biking trip isn't good, but it's just not our goal.

Note that the industry standard is that the ideal footprint is 28 stations per square mile.

I know people like to say this, but I'm not sure exactly who is defining the "industry standard". I'm not sure that it is, in fact, best practice. And I'm skeptical that it is best practice for every system in every system or for every set of goals. There is a trade-off, so it's better at improving reliability, and it may get more trips but it may not replace more transit and car trips. So I find it highly unlikely that every city would be best served with the same density regardless of topography, population density and goals.

by David C on Dec 21, 2011 9:07 am • linkreport

Also, station spacing doesn't address the natural peak patterns of flows - into downtown and out of downtown. That's the predominant reason for empty/full docks in my experience, not station spacing.

by Alex B. on Dec 21, 2011 9:17 am • linkreport

How much does this program cost the DC Government

A few million to set up, and then not much to run. In fact DC actually made more money then it cost them in operating costs. There is a post about that on this blog (that I wrote, not to brag).

and how much is paid for by Fed. monies?

I think 80% of the set-up was paid for by the Fed. govt. And they may have received a waiver to use Fed money for operating for the first three years, if I recall correctly. But soon that will go to zero if true.

When will it run as a profit and not a deficit in the budget?

It could probably do that now if it were the goal. But that isn't a goal, and so the answer is never.

Let me put it this way, imagine that DC has calculated that one trip per day is worth $1 to them because of improved health, reduced congestion, cleaner mobility etc...Then it makes sense to them to subsidize trips up to 99 cents. So even if they can make a profit with a smaller system, they're better off plowing that money in to expansion as long as they can get at least one more trip per day. So the smart call is to spend down the whole profit AND spend some extra money until the marginal cost of each daily trip gets up to a dollar.

Which stations make the most money?

You can find the busiest stations on their website, but that doesn't tell you how much they're rebalanced. You want a station with high use (especially by daily members) and low rebalancing. The answer is I don't know and likely no one does.

It is a business and should be treated like a business not some idealistic vision.

That's a common misperception. But CaBi is owned by DDOT and Arlington. It is not a business. It is a public transit system like Metro. It's no more of a business than the Coast Guard is.

The answers to the questions should dictate where and how it expands.

That is one opinion. But it isn't DDOT's. They're a transportation department. Their goal is mobility. And they want to provide it as cheaply and cleanly as possible. Further, there is a tourism and health element to it. More specifically, DDOT wants to see as many people riding bikes for transportation as want to. The only reason for not riding a bike they want to hear is "I don't want to." So these questions are really relevant to that.

by David C on Dec 21, 2011 9:23 am • linkreport

The balancing problem is worst during rush hours, when daily commuters mostly going one way greatly exacerbate the problem.

True, balancing is worst for rush hour commute stations but that's not even what has the biggest user impact. Usually, for commuting type situations, there are other convenient options other than bikeshare (that is, I doubt anyone lives some place where bikeshare is their only viable transportation option to work).

On the other hand, where I really think the balancing issue most impacts users is an H ST type situation. Let's say you plan to go to H ST after work some day for dinner/drinks. You check spotcycle before you leave work and there are docks around H ST. When you finally get to H ST, you find that every dock within a mile is taken. Then, you're screwed. Or, even worse, after hanging out on H ST, you're ready to go home and there are no bikes. Once again, you're screwed because most people have few good transpo options between H ST and home late at night when the X2 doesn't run frequently.

So, basically, this is to say that the reliability of knowing you'll have a bike/dock (even if you have to walk farther) is more important than the convenience of having more stations (and needing to walk less).

by Falls Church on Dec 21, 2011 10:07 am • linkreport

@Cabi User: when daily commuters mostly going one way greatly exacerbate the problem. This particular issue will never be solved as long as commuting by Cabi is vastly cheaper than any other mode of transport.

Exactly right. And the problem is likely to worsen when the federal transit subsidy drops at the end of the month.

A rush hour, directional surcharge of, say, a dollar per ride to go downtown in the morning, would help mitigate things

Good idea, assuming there's a good way to define the zone/directionality. What I wouldn't want to see is a flat rush hour surcharge across the entire system that would discourage people from taking non-commuting CaBi trips during rush hour. And it would probably make sense to apply the surcharge only to monthly/annual members, to avoid complicating the pricing system any further for tourists.

by Arl Fan on Dec 21, 2011 10:50 am • linkreport

I don't know what the solution is, but this morning, 12/21, every dock at two stations -- 19th and E, and 19th and Constitution -- was full at 9:30 am. I had to ride back to where I started (19th and Penn) and walk to work. PITA!

by LN on Dec 21, 2011 2:44 pm • linkreport

1. surcharge idea is interesting. I think you would do it based on what end point station is being used, maybe like how WMATA considered a surcharge during rush to exit (and maybe enter) the highest use stations.

2. Haven't kept up but I thought Montreal has 400 stations and 5,000 bikes. It will be the largest system in North Am. until NYC is deployed and likely it will always be the second largest, depending on what Chicago does.

3. wrt density, I think having less density than 27 stations/mile probably isn't a good thing, although it's dependent on overall density and activity stations.

Montreal is 3x the population of DC, but they don't have Bixi throughout the city (Montreal is actually comprised of subsidiary borough governments, and not all participate in the Bixi system), and farther out boroughs that do have stations only have a few, unlike how the system is set up in Ville Marie and Plateau-Mont Royal, with high station density along commercial thoroughfares (which abut the residential districts). With plexes being the dominant housing type in these areas, they have the equivalent of 5 housing units (4-6 apartments in the equivalent of 2 DC rowhouses).

There more of the trips displace transit trips, but that's ok because the Metro system there is very crowded--it serves more people than the DC system and the cars are smaller and not air conditioned. So Bixi trips help make the transit system a little more comfortable.

4. WRT "the business" of bike sharing, it's about reducing automobile trips, adding to the quality of life values, making reaching destinations by transit more convenient and comfortable, etc., and not all of those benefits are quantifiable in $. But it is unreasonable to hold bikesharing (or transit) to higher standards on return on investment than automobile usage.

by Richard Layman on Dec 21, 2011 3:17 pm • linkreport

Surely they need not be any bigger OR take up a more auto parking spaces just yet. At some point, can someone define 'wildly successful'? What % of residents in Arlington and DC use it? Can it be self-sustaining without taxpayer subsidy? Are the comfortable and the disadvantaged financially able to use the system equally? Who will upgrade the system and the bikes and at what cost in the future?

by Pelham1861 on Dec 22, 2011 4:02 pm • linkreport

At some point, can someone define 'wildly successful'?

Exceeding preliminary expectations (which it has doubled). 200% year over year growth in ridership. Total benefits exceeding total costs such that there is the equivalent of $1.8M in benefits above costs. How's that?

What % of residents in Arlington and DC use it?

They have had over 1 million unique users. Which is more people than live in DC and Arlington combined.

Can it be self-sustaining without taxpayer subsidy?

Yes. See link above. But that probably isn't the best play. Better to keep it cheap and drive up usage because of all the positive externalities.

Are the comfortable and the disadvantaged financially able to use the system equally?

Yes. They give out free and discounted memberships and now have a way for the unbanked to buy a membership. Annual costs are far less than any other transportation mode except for walking.

Who will upgrade the system and the bikes and at what cost in the future?

DDOT and Arlington, with their current partners probably will. In fact the new bikes could be considered an upgrade. It's difficult to know future costs, but it's probably in the range of current costs, which are trivial compared to the benefits.

Now, can you answer the same questions about on-street parking in DC?

by David C on Dec 22, 2011 4:20 pm • linkreport

@David C

How could CaBi have 1 million unique users if there are only 1.2 million trips total taken?

I looked at the CaBi data; through October 79% of the trips were taken by annual members.

I think it has been successful beyond DDOT's wildest dreams! 17,000 annual members! Nearly 100K 24-hour passes. Amazing.

by MLD on Dec 22, 2011 5:20 pm • linkreport

MLD,

It's very simple. I misread the numbers and added an extra zero. It's actually 100,000. I suppose you'll blame me instead of the tricky numbering system.

by David C on Dec 22, 2011 8:29 pm • linkreport

Ahh cool, I was just wondering if maybe DDOT had said that somewhere.

Do you know if their count of 24 hour passes on the dashboard counts all of the passes separately or if they only count credit cards who have bought a pass multiple times once?

by MLD on Dec 23, 2011 8:10 am • linkreport

I don't. I suppose it's possible that some of those represent the same people using the system over and over. But I seem to recall from a BAC meeting that most 1 day members were out of state.

by David C on Dec 23, 2011 10:22 am • linkreport

To answer the question, someone has to collect and analyze the usage data and conduct surveys of users and potential users.

I think that bike sharing is most useful in neighborhoods such as Spring Valley where bus service is less frequent.

by The Civic Center on Dec 23, 2011 6:27 pm • linkreport

Not seeking the Libertarian Free Market Solutions Badge with this comment, but has there been any examples of "congestion" pricing? I could see myself quite willing to go a few more blocks to pick up a bike if it was cheaper (due, I suppose because that station was nearing "full" status) or dropping a bike off at a specific dock either near my destination or en route in exchange for a discount. I suspect you would have to attempt to put a value on the known direct costs (rebalancing) along with the assumed externalities (pos: fewer cars, cleaner transportation, etc; neg: more complex pricing [may require additional technology at each station], etc.).

by Sid Burgess on Dec 24, 2011 10:59 pm • linkreport

I know many people who won't use CaBi because the availability for a bike on demand just isn't there. They insist on using their own bikes.

I have to say that I DO see many more people commuting on their own bikes than on Cabi.

by Tom A. on Dec 27, 2011 12:01 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or