In an issue of Planning last Spring an Arlington official was quoted as saying people simply don't want to cross the river on bike. If this comment reflects the true sense of the Arlington Gov't, then any policy that requires multi-jurisdiction coordination is going to fail. Another example of Balkanism on the Potomac.

While the respective agreements might prevent a compatible system from being implemented, such a system might be the best idea. Especially if the bike racks could tell which bikes in VA, for example, belonged to the DC system and could prioritize their release to DC bound bikers. Maybe even discount those bikes to encourage travel to the correct jurisdiction. Moving bikes around at the end of the day sounds inefficient and this might be a more cost-effective way.

by bmv on Jan 13, 2009 12:50 pm • link • report

Arlington is probably worried that their bikes will be stolen in the District ...

by Lance on Jan 13, 2009 1:01 pm • link • report

We need the bikes sharing spots at more than just stations, maybe have some on the edge of neighborhoods just before it you get commerical areas so that instead of people walking, driving, or catching a bus to a station to get the bike it could be closer to residents.

That with more bike locations through out the area could get more people using them, they need to be in more accesable places besides metro stations. Its good to have a bike at the station I could be getting off the station and grab a bike but what if I dont feel like biking back to the station or if there is a closer station where im at.

The bike locations should be able 1/2 to 1 mile apart in high density areas, have them close to other areas it is a mostly residental area put the bikes in a park. If the bikes are just at metrostations whats the point instead of just catching the metrorail.

by kk on Jan 13, 2009 1:07 pm • link • report

Of all of these, the bike transfer system is the best because it doesn't require either jurisdiction to re-code the software that recognizes who took out what bike when. It's simple, and as you said, only adds a couple of minutes. It's therefore guaranteed that the government won't do it.

by rumpole on Jan 13, 2009 1:35 pm • link • report

A transfer station is possible and, I think, has been discussed.

Interchangeable bikes will NOT be possible, because Arlington's system will be much lower tech. Arlington will be using a call-a-bike system, which doesn't use the high-tech stations that DC's systems uses.

by BeyondDC on Jan 13, 2009 1:40 pm • link • report

As a bicyclist, I don't know if I'm happy to see all these additional bicycles entering our roads. I've noticed of late that bicyclists are starting to impinge on motor traffic and pedestrians. As I've said before, because of their nature, bicycles follow their own set of rules ... e.g. not being able to easily come to a complete stop at stop signs, being able to overcome and pass stopped motor traffic at a red light, riding the wrong way down a one way street by riding on the sidewalk, the list goes on and on. The general public (and entraffic) enforcement has generally turned a blind eye ... probably because they recognize the difficulty in operating a bicycle. Now what happens as they increase in number to "a saturarion point"/"tipping point"? When they stopped being viewed as an annoyance to be tolerated because of the "healty/young" aspect it significes and become instead a real bother to be dealt with by "the majority"?

Call me selfish, but I like the fact that if I want to take my bicycle out for a stroll, today I am allowed to "slide" on following the rules that motorists and pedestrians follow ... Encouraging more ridership may change all that and make bicycle riding less a pleasure and more a chore as I find myself forced to come to a full stop at all stop signs. NEVER go the wrong way down a one way street, NEVER use a sidewalk or cross walk. And you all know, that when we get to that tipping point, these same rules currently being followed and enforced against motorists will also start being enforced against bicyclists.

by Lance on Jan 13, 2009 2:07 pm • link • report

these same rules currently being followed and enforced against motorists will also start being enforced against bicyclists.

You're referring to speed limits, I'm sure. Or was it full stops at stop signs?

by tt on Jan 13, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report

It's not about entertainment, Lance. It's about transportation. After walking, cycling is the most efficient and clean means of transportation available.

As for what horrors will befall us if more people bike, look to Europe or Asia. It's not as if the developed world isn't full of cities with extremely heavy bike usage.

by BeyondDC on Jan 13, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report

Lance, your anti-bike encouragement and facility rants keep getting more absurd. I can only hope you are simply playing devil's advocate most times. Even so, I'll bite this time.

History isn't on your side with this one. Take automobiles for example. Roads used to be narrower, curvier and with less lanes and lower speed limits. With more cars on the road, engineers are now making roads straighter, wider and with more lanes and much higher speed limits. Or something bike-oriented with advent of bike boxes cueing cyclists ahead of auto traffic at intersections to legitimize behavior that already exisited. Or even locally and bike-oriented- The New Hampshire/16th/U St. intersection has experienced a rise in wrong-way biking along New Hampshire. There was a short period of enforcement from a wayward officer, but now Ddot plans to re-engineer the intersection to allow and encourage the behavior.

by jeff on Jan 13, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

All I want it to have SmartBike stations at every metro stop in Washington, DC. As a bicyclist, who does not own a car nor wants to own a car, I have not invested in the SmartBike system because all the stations are in range of where I already ride my bicycle. These bikes are designed & intended for short, quick trips, not long trips, so anyone planning on using these bike sharing programs to commute should consider buying their own bike.

by Nikolas Schiller on Jan 13, 2009 3:05 pm • link • report

Jeff,

Roads became more automobile friendly (and, in at least your estimation, less bike friendly) because a critical mass of motorists was reached in fairly quick fashion once the assembly line made automobiles affordable to all. (A similar situation which we can relate to was how quickly computers became widespread in usage once the personal computer was developed and one didn't have to have a room full of computer banks to harness the power of computing.)

And this was only able to occur because the automobile offered benefits to one and all that far surpassed what had been available before the invention of the automobile. (Again, the anology for us would be how quickly we left behind pens and adding machines and slide rules and all manner of "hard copy" books, devices, and 'tools' for the computer once it became affordable to us ... and not just NASA or other 'deep pockets'.)

Do you really see the benefits offered by bicycling being so great that they would generate a similar critical mass buildup to the point where the public in general would favor seeing roads and sidewalks and storage facilities altered to disfavor cars and pedestrians in favor of bicyclists? (i.e., have a reversal of what occured at the start of the 20th century occur at the start of the 21st?)

I really don't see it happening. If you do, please explain how/why it is you do. Under what scenario do you envision a "critical mass" of people giving up their cars in favor or changing the roads and the rules to favor bicycling vs. motoring ... AND vs. pedestrians given the challenges faced by pedestrians when encountering bicyclists in cross walks and on sidewalks.

by Lance on Jan 13, 2009 4:11 pm • link • report

... Just to clarify ... The critical mass I see being reached is one where the number of bicyclists out and about will be enough to create a backlash against bicyclists ... but fall far short from creating a situation where the physical structure gets changed in favor of the bicyclist ... and at a cost to the motorist or pedestrian ... Especially if we're talking about adding inexperience bikers (i.e., the 'biker' who doesn't use a bike enough to actually own one, but wants to rent one on a "per ride" basis) to the mix.

by Lance on Jan 13, 2009 4:28 pm • link • report

Why would you want to ride a bike to the big box stores of Clarendon?

by Rich on Jan 13, 2009 4:34 pm • link • report

Lance, that critical mass exists in Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and countless other first-world cities with wealthy populations.

As American cities become more urban and less suburban, which they have been doing now for about two decades and are sure to continue doing into the future, cycling will become more and more convenient for a larger number of people.

Cycling infrastructure is already being expanded rapidly in many cities in the United States. It starts with bike lanes, but becomes things like cycle tracks (New York), underpasses (Boulder) and bike boxes (Portland). There is absolutely no reason in the world to think that Washington won't have those things if Washington wants them.

by BeyondDC on Jan 13, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Many of the under-30, no kid, Connecticut avenue progressives on here like 1970's China for many reasons:

1- Egalitarianism- everyone was equal! I mean, the US doesn't even have equality laws, so surely they're less equal than China was. equal! equal! equal! the end all and be all of society!

2- Beijing was saturated by bicyclists. I'm sure it had nothing to do with economic stagnation and had everything to do with environmental concern, the joys of alternative means of transit and general recreation.

I only hope that sooner or later I get to experience this 'great awakening' that New Urbanists have had. How unfortunate that a suburban lemming like me has missed out on this revolutionary wave of thought that our educated elites in DuPont Circle and Adams Morgan have had. Us Fairfax people must be stooopid.

by MPC on Jan 13, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report

The critical mass I see being reached is one where the number of bicyclists out and about will be enough to create a backlash against bicyclists ... but fall far short from creating a situation where the physical structure gets changed in favor of the bicyclist

I think we're there. Record numbers of people started biking this year, and motorist/cyclist conflicts increased enough to get gobs of media attention. Sure, some cities have increased bike lane milage or built multi-use paths, but I'd hardly call that the needed physical infrastructure. Instead cyclists are forced to adapt to roadways designed solely for automobiles.

... and at a cost to the motorist or pedestrian ... I don't see where any of this comes at the cost of pedestrian space. In fact, I'd argue they need more/better space as well. You argue as though the 11th commandment guarantees the right to drive door to door unimpeded with cheap/free parking. This not only creates unpleasant environments, but just isn't feasible in a city the size and density of DC. 50% of DC residents don't drive, yet our transportation prioritization and funding hardly reflects that. Until it even comes close, any of your arguments about the needs of motorists won't hold any water with me.

Especially if we're talking about adding inexperience bikers (i.e., the 'biker' who doesn't use a bike enough to actually own one, but wants to rent one on a "per ride" basis) to the mix. I don't know why inexperienced cyclists would want to hit the streets with so many inexperienced drivers, but I'm sure glad they do! Kidding aside, these people are already getting around somehow, if they are shifting from a car to bike that should be seen as a net positive to those who want to alleviate congestion. One less person overtaxing Metro. etc. We should be building bike infrastructure that is safe and intuitive enough that these new cyclists can use it.

by jeff on Jan 13, 2009 5:05 pm • link • report

MPC, the people in DC who bike do so because it's the easiest way to get around. Easier than driving, even.

I know that's hard to understand, but try.

by BeyondDC on Jan 13, 2009 5:15 pm • link • report

... 'cause no offense, but if you're not capable of understanding that people living in a different sort of neighborhood than you might find a different mode of transportation easier, then yes, you are a stooopid lemming.

by BeyondDC on Jan 13, 2009 5:21 pm • link • report

And so of course you want it but don't want to pay for it. Typical progressive response. Maybe you can lobby O'bama to include tricycle lanes as part of the stimulus package.

And I'm guessing that DC residents don't drive much because they're too poor too. The high per capita GDP masks stark inequality, but the Connecticut Avenue crowd is apparently ok overlooking that as long as they get all the infrastructure they need while they let DC schools crumble.

Bike lanes over children!

by MPC on Jan 13, 2009 5:26 pm • link • report

Who the hell is the Conn Ave crowd? You obviously don't much about the city, as any true progressive lives east of the park!

50% of DC residents commute by means other than a car, and I believe about 30% don't own one. We still pay the same level of income, sales and property taxes regardless- and when we do drive, the same registration fees and gas taxes. Yet I'd be astonished if more than 1% of DC's transportation budget went to cyclist accommodations. Instead we pay for roads for lovely folks such as MPC to use at no cost to them. Instead of honking at the cyclists or aiming for pedestrians, you should be saying 'thank you.'

by jeff on Jan 13, 2009 5:35 pm • link • report

heeheehee I think MPC is tagging me since I gave a ped safety wish list for all around downtown Cleveland Park on Connecticut Avenue. I guess that means I have the morals of a mass murderer. I still claim real progressive cred though since I lived east of the park before the 13th and U metro stop opened (and I didn't move west of the park until I was priced out of that area. Seriously.)

BTW MPC, the most vulnerable bikers and peds out there are children. They comprise a disproportiante number of fatalities from getting hit by a car while biking or walking.

by Bianchi on Jan 13, 2009 5:54 pm • link • report

What I find ignorant about MPC's comment is this: if DC residents buy bicycles and pay taxes, how are they NOT paying for their transportation?

BeyondDC has a good point about DC residents using bikes to get around....parking is an absolute nightmare in most parts of the city, and the parts where it isn't are areas I wouldn't exactly want to leave my car in to begin with...

by Froggie on Jan 13, 2009 6:22 pm • link • report

Going back to the post...

You're right, it's unfortunate that the two couldn't agree on one system. What's needed is an open source system so each jurisdiction can choose it's own system and it would play well with the others. That may be a long way off.

Those are all good ideas.

1 and 2 are being pursued.

I don't know much about reciprocity, but I know it's been discussed.

There is, I've been told, a general agreement between DDOT and Arlington that there will be a "transfer" station on the Virginia side of the Key Bridge. Riders can drop off one bike and pick up the other kind. It will take a couple of minutes, but it's the best lemonade they can make. The other bridges are tougher because it involves NPS land.

It's not the complexity that kills the compatibility of the bikes, it's the proprietary nature of the systems themselves. These are competitors and they don't want to work nice

by washcycle on Jan 13, 2009 7:42 pm • link • report

Who says I don't want to pay for it? MPC clearly has an agenda to push and cares little for facts.

by BeyondDC on Jan 13, 2009 9:38 pm • link • report

Dave and GGW readers –

I appreciate the thoughtful post and comments. We in Arlington agree with much of what you’ve said. We’d love to have a compatible system and if because of budget, technology or operator issues we can’t, we’ll figure out ways to make the systems as reciprocal as possible. Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) http://www.commuterpage.com/ACCS/index.htm has pioneered many innovative programs and believes that bikesharing will add to the mix of transportation options that make it so easy to get around Arlington without a car. Our public officials and ACCS program are very committed to regionalism, especially across the river, as we realize that people who live, work and play in Arlington come from and go to places throughout the region. Check out our web sites and services for examples. We are fortunate to have “world bikesharing expert” Paul DeMio on our team as a consultant http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/. With Paul’s help, Arlington is putting out an RFP for a bikesharing operator and system in the next few weeks. While we have some ideas of what we’d like and what we can afford, the fact is we won’t know what the possibilities are until we get some market reaction to our RFP. We remain open to many different options. We hope this process provides us with a service that everyone will find useful. We’ll keep folks informed of our progress at www.commuterpageblog.com and we appreciate any ideas you have. And please help us spread the word regarding our RFP.

Thanks,

Chris Hamilton

Commuter Services Chief

Arlington DES Transportation

by Chris Hamilton on Jan 13, 2009 10:46 pm • link • report

I think bike sharing in Arlington is a great idea...since there aren't many bike sharing companies I assume the contract would more than likely be awarded to Mr. DeMio's company, Metrobike?

by John Dunn on Jan 14, 2009 7:57 am • link • report

John -

On behalf of ACCS, Paul will oversee whatever company provides us the service. So no, his company will not be awarded the bikesharing contract. We need a company that can run the day-to-day operations, such as moving and repairing the bikes, trouble-shooting with customers etc. He's set up more to do consulting not operations. ACCS http://www.commuterpage.com/ACCS/index.htm is in a position to offer the use of its own call center to fulfill memberships and do customer call/email intake. So the selected company wouldn't necessarily need to set up that function from scratch. We will also offer to do marketing - something we're also set up to do. However, we need a company, whether that is a local bike shop, Clear Channel, or someone else to come in, help us select a system, purchase it and then implement it on a day to day basis under our (Paul’s) guidance. Hope that answers your question.

Chris

by Chris Hamilton on Jan 14, 2009 9:11 am • link • report

At the risk of feeding the trolls--

Gee whiz--I'm over thirty-five, live in the district, don't live on Conn. Ave, and bike to work every day that I can (rain and really cold days excepted). The reason I do it is (1) it's great exercise, which is tough to get on a regular basis with 2 kids; (2) it's as fast as the train, and faster than a car.

No one, I think, is saying anything about anyone's decision to live in fairfax, moco, or anywhere else. "Stoopid" is not living in fairfax. "Stoopid" is drawing conclusions based on a logical fallacy that an eighth-grader could spot. (e.g., some communists ride bicycles, therefore all bicycling advocates are communists).

I think I was too kind. Make that fourth grade.

by rumpole on Jan 14, 2009 4:03 pm • link • report