Bicycling
Is your CaBi station getting full or empty?
With the weather warming up, there have been huge numbers of people riding Capital Bikeshare. How is Alta holding up keeping stations from being full or empty?
Photo by whiteknuckled on Flickr.
People riding CaBi bikes seem to be everywhere, at least in my neighborhood of Dupont. Anytime I am outside I see significant numbers of riders. As the weather warms, usage should continue to grow, which is fantastic.
This new transportation system, which was extremely cheap to build and run compared to most, has been moving many people and demonstrating its value. DDOT has said they hope to expand by 30 more stations soon, while Arlington is adding stations near Rosslyn.
As with any system with a set capacity, success can also bring some challanges. Again speaking about Dupont, at least, the stations do seem to be getting empty or full not infrequently, and not just at rush hours.
This morning, I had a morning meeting near 14th and U, so I went to the nearest station (17th and Corcoran) to get a bike right about 9 am. Unfortunately, as I approached, I saw someone else take out the last bike. I had to walk halfway to another station instead.
Coming back, the two of us both got on CaBi to head back. We got the last 2 bikes at 14th and U. Upon arriving at the Dupont Circle and Massachusetts Avenue station, we filled the last 2 empty docks. We ended up staying around to talk for a while, and several people came by looking for docks during that time. So those folks wouldn't go away frustrated, we took some of the bikes out again.
Capital Bikeshare is a fantastic system, but finding stations full or empty can be very frustrating. It's hard to plan a trip around using it if there's a fairly high probability you won't be able to start or end your trip when you want.
Expanding the system soon is the best answer. DDOT has been getting political pressure to add more stations at the edge of the system, and they should. But they should also add more stations and more docks to existing, busy areas to provide more bikes where demand is high and more, closer alternative stations when one is full or empty.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
by Emily D on Mar 23, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report
by Ryan on Mar 23, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report
For an app look for something called SpotCycle. It's a must have for CaBi users (if you have a smart phone). It even has different color densities to show how empty or full a station is. The problem with screens at the stations is that they take a lot of power, and the stations are off the grid and generate very little via solar power(it's why there relatively cheap to set up)
by Steven Yates on Mar 23, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report
by cminus on Mar 23, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report
by Brian Vargas on Mar 23, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report
by emilytc on Mar 23, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report
I also don't have a smartphone, so I miss out on the app.
by cbishop on Mar 23, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report
Expanding the system and increasing station density in the frequently traveled corridors would make it easier. If the stations were closer together instead of 1/2 mile apart then you wouldn't be talking about a 15 minute delay when a station is full.
by MLD on Mar 23, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report
As Ryan mentions, he doesn't bother even checking the station after 8:45---I wonder how many more people are like him, such that if you add 10 more bikes, that cutoff time will just move to 8:55.
This is the same problem faced by metro, buses, and cars---our city is too monopolar for these systems to work efficiently, and the best thing to do to avoid dissatisfaction with the system is put stations in places without a lot of peaking demand (e.g., within Old Town Alexandria, around the mall, etc.).
by xmal on Mar 23, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report
by DCBird on Mar 23, 2011 1:15 pm • link • report
by Ryan on Mar 23, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report
At any time, there are about 30 bikes East-of-the-River that are never used. Pull them and put them back where people will use them.
I think it is time to start thinking about offering "rewards" to move bikes around. Say $1 off your next year's membership for the next 10 bikes moved from station x to y. Send it out via social media and you'll start to chop costs. Alta may not like it, though.
by charlie on Mar 23, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report
by OX4 on Mar 23, 2011 1:17 pm • link • report
Recently a CaBi newsletter informed members that they're constantly going through the usage data to try and proactively balance the number of bikes at stations but that their trucks get stuck in traffic. Unfortunately there is such a thing as becoming a victim of your own success.
"Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded." -Yogi Berra
by Adam L on Mar 23, 2011 1:22 pm • link • report
http://capitalbikeshare.com/station_map
Click on the station and it will tell you the number of bikes and empty racks.
by Adam L on Mar 23, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report
Feeling pretty stupid, but I never saw any mention of that feature. Thanks
by Ryan on Mar 23, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report
This site shows the data on a computer:
http://oobrien.com/vis/bikes/?city=washingtondc
I got the link from a previous GGW article.
by pinkshirt on Mar 23, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report
Assign points per segment from one station to another. The more in demand the "route" is, the higher the point cost and, inversely, the lower the demand, the lower the point cost. And, much like "performance parking" or "Lexus Lanes", the "cost" could vary with real-time demand.
The points could be incorporated into the current pricing scheme as a given amount when you sign-up or renew and, if you run out, you can purchase more as needed.
by EZ on Mar 23, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
From a systemic standpoint, though, I think the density and/or size of stations in the system's core needs to be increased as a higher priority. I would consider the core to be between 13th and 22nd, from I Street up to Columbia Heights.
If I were the king of CaBi, I'd probably look at a breakdown like this for the next 30 stations.
1. Finally install the Smartbike replacement stations. (With Foggy Bottom and Farragut Square alleviating chokepoints, and the rest improving access in residential and/or commercial neighborhoods).
2. Install an additional 5-6 stations in the Farragut/Dupont area, alleviating the major daytime chokepoint.
3. Install 6-8 stations in the U Street/Adams Morgan/Columbia Heights area, alleviating some of the evening chokepoints.
4. Use 5-6 stations to increase station density within the current "non-core" areas, such as Hill East, Bloomingdale, Wisconsin/Connecticut/Georgia Ave Corridors.
5. Add the final 5-6 stations beyond the range of the existing system, creating new capacity in Takoma, 16th Street Heights, Petworth, Palisades, AU Park, etc.
I would also explore the possibility of increasing the size of some of the stations that are currently among the most-used.
There are certainly constraints to the system due in part to the topography of DC, and in part to the somewhat monopolar nature of the office-bound crowd in DC, but creating in-fill stations within and outside the core of the system will create more destinations (and starting points), which should hopefully provide a slight balancing effect.
As to redistribution, I think there's merit to charlie's "reward" suggestion. If it's possible to build credits into the system, they can be redeemed either against annual membership or usage charges. Alternatively, it could be built so that credits only work to offset monthly bills/over 30-minute usage charges, and the annual membership stays the same.
by Jacques on Mar 23, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
by cwk on Mar 23, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report
I've noticed that Spotcycle no longer counts out-of-service bikes parked at a station as available bikes. Unfortunately, the reason I've noticed this is because I've begun seeing more out-of-service bikes. I have experienced one out-of-service empty dock but didn't check whether Spotcycle counted it or not as a "available dock."
by Erik Weber on Mar 23, 2011 1:42 pm • link • report
by egk on Mar 23, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report
by cmc on Mar 23, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report
by Erik Weber on Mar 23, 2011 1:48 pm • link • report
by EZ on Mar 23, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report
Imagine that all bikes had some sort of retractable cable attached to them, and that the CaBi stations had a docking port for the cable on them. If all the regular docking stations were taken, you could use the station screen to notify that all the docks were full, and the station would grant access to locking a bike via the docking port. The cable attachment end would be shaped so that each bike could daisy chain off the previous ones. (If you've ever used a submarine EAB manifold you know basically how this might work)
At the same time, a message would go out to Alta to let them know that a station was full and people were starting to use the alternate docking port.
Not only would this help solve the "full station" problem, but it would also help with the "empty station" problem since Alta would be able to increase the population of bikes a little bit.
Unfortunately, it's a hardware change, and that would be expensive, so it's not going to happen. Increasing the density of stations to allow people shorter walks to the next one is probably the most likely solution.
by Michael Perkins on Mar 23, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report
Also the defeatist stance this argument embodies is a dangerous one in terms of encouraging transportation alternatives. A similarly ludicrous argument in the same vein, but about Metro:
The reason it's so crowded on the Orange and Red Lines every morning is because people are taking it to work, so lets solve the problem by making it less appealing for people to use it for that purpose.
by Erik Weber on Mar 23, 2011 1:55 pm • link • report
If the goal of bikeshare is not to increase people commuting to work on bike, then what is the goal? Increase bike commuting seems like it has to be at least part of the goal of the bikeshare program.
by Ryan on Mar 23, 2011 1:55 pm • link • report
I can see all sorts of problem -- at best, you have a 30 minute lag time and it might be more like one and a half hours before they get moved. But for certain low volume stations it might be worth it.
And rather than free minutes or membership credits, offer points for swag. Bikeshare helmet? Bikeshare lock? bikeshare shirt? cherry blossom keychain, anyone?
Next up: my brilliant proposal to hire some hot models to ride around on bikeshare bikes during major events!
by charlie on Mar 23, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report
I would argue that's exactly the point - to encourage daily commuting and to relieve pressure on the bus and metro system. The empty stations occur because there is not enough density. For a succesful program we need stations every few blocks. CaBi is working on it but clearly restricted by it's lack of capital.
Membership fees are incredibly low, especially when compared to the bus/metro.
by cmc on Mar 23, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report
http://socialbicycles.com/
I was initially skeptical of this idea, but I met the founder and saw a presentation of their newest hardware and software versions recently in NYC and was impressed with the modifications they've made. I'll definitely be following how it goes at IU.
by Erik Weber on Mar 23, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report
A good first step would be a software interface that let people enter their credentials at a station specifically to say that they weren't able to use the system.
Maybe nobody would report in that way since they're automatically in a hurry, but if any group of users would participate in this kind of reporting, surely it's CaBi users.
by mark on Mar 23, 2011 2:03 pm • link • report
But why can't it be used for commuting? I don't currently do so but I imagine if the weather got nice that I would try more often. The benefit of having a choice is definitely a plus. Riding your bike to work (or anywhere else for that matter) essentially means you're forced to ride it back home. Charging per-minute fees is a major deterrent to using the system and goes against the whole idea of making it an alternative to other (in some ways) less convenient forms of transportation.
by Adam L on Mar 23, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report
London is having the "commute" problem. Too much of a one way flood.
It is going to take time to really see if the "transit" part works. For me, I've got about 3 station pairs that work really well. But that does take time.
@mark; why restrict it to stations? Just run an app so people can enter it. Not really sure if the data will be all that great -- garbage in, garbage out.
by charlie on Mar 23, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
by Joey on Mar 23, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report
by DCrider on Mar 23, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
Like Erik and Ryan, I don't understand why you would say commuting is not a purpose for CaBi. I particularly don't understand why you would expect CaBi commuters to invest in their own bikes.
I'm not a serious cyclist by any means. I don't go for bike rides just for the heck of it. But I would happily commute to work by bike, since it would cut my walking time in half. It seems like CaBi is aimed directly at people like me who aren't averse to biking, but aren't invested enough in it as a hobby to purchase a bike (and maintaining it and keeping it safe in a very bike-theft-prone city).
Most of the CaBi riders I know use it for commuting. If that were not one of its "real" purposes, I have a feeling it would be significantly less popular than it is. Sure, that might result in fewer empty/full stations than we see now, but it also might mean the program wouldn't survive. That's why the CaBi folks are working to solve the kinks in the distribution system, rather than telling people not to use the bikes as they see fit.
by Emily on Mar 23, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
I absolutely agree that is the purpose of the system. I do not want maintain my bike, store it, and also be tied down to it. I love biking to work, then if I am meeting up with friends, walking or metro-ing over to where they are and then biking home. The flexibility, simplicity, and relative price is outstanding.
by Ryan on Mar 23, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report
I know people hate being the subject of an experiment, but it would yield important data, and I can see some scenarios where it would dramatically increase revenues while not affecting ridership (probably at the $.25/1st half hr. level)
by Will on Mar 23, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report
I think it is of course perfectly fine to use CB for commuting, but that clearly can't be the main intent of the system. The system wasn't rolled out at significant expense just to help a few hundred people get a super-cheap, fun alternative to the bus and metro. It's awesome for the folks that can do it, but I never got the impression that the system was designed with commuting in mind. But I would love to be proved wrong.
by jeff gerhard on Mar 23, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report
by mark on Mar 23, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
troll
BTW-there is NOTHING worse than arriving and finding a station full.
by beatbox on Mar 23, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report
As a 2-3 one-ways a week CaBi commuter, I've rarely run into station availability issues (but I also build in extra time, just in case). If I were to try to increase my own commuter usage to 5 roundtrips per week, I'm sure I would run into many more issues, but at the $75 per year cost, I'd have a hard time complaining too loudly.
by Jacques on Mar 23, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
I do make frequent use of my membership for social and spontaneous rides rather than commuting, so I am much less sensitive to empty or full stations. It is perfect for the "I'm running late, so I'll bike the last 10 blocks" type travel. Whenever I do plan on using the system, I check on SpotCycle or online to make sure the stations I'm using still have spaces.
by Park Viewer on Mar 23, 2011 3:10 pm • link • report
In Montréal, though, the stations are much closer together, so the nearest alternative is just over two blocks. As David says, here you have to go halfway to your destination to find the next station. That's a big part of the reason why CaBi needs to increase station density in the core. I sincerely hope that's where the next 30 DC stations are going, not to farther-flung corners of the District.
by Gavin on Mar 23, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report
by Fred on Mar 23, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
No one's arguing that they shouldn't go to all corners of the District, just that they shouldn't go there as a top priority. Adding station density is key to having a robust system that works well for users, ergo the system reliability needs to be addressed first.
by Alex B. on Mar 23, 2011 4:40 pm • link • report
The problem that systems like this have is satisfying political demands and equity vs. operations. Bikes and docks need to be where they are most likely to be used. Stations in areas on the edge are less likely to be used, etc. The thing is to have a phased deployment scheme that doesn't focus on breadth but about depth.
Were I in charge, I'd focus on the center of the city and make sure that the system operates well, has high usage and satisfaction, etc., and then expand outward, but in an intense fashion so that the new areas are similarly successful.
The problem with rebalancing is that it is costly. Ideally you don't have to do it at all, it's done naturally (and yes that's why Velib provides some time incentives for hill climbs to particular stations, etc.).
Providing monetary benefits for user rebalancing is not preferred by the operator, because the cost of membership is already about 1/2 or less of what it should be in terms of covering the system costs. (E.g., the figure in the trade is that it costs $1000-1800 year to support each bike.)
The problem with Michael Perkins' idea about the submarine catcher is that the cable is subject to vandalism. The whole thing about the Bixi system is having a very resilient system that reduces the problem of stolen bikes. That's why you add docks.
So this is how I would do deployment...
Phase 1: initial stations placed in the core of the city, with a greater variability in the size of the stations and the number of bikes
Phase 2: review of experience in temperate months, adding capacity of docks and bikes where needed in the core of the city
Phase 3: staged expansion to other areas of the city, using the same 2 phase process.
Phase 5: further expansion...
The commuting issue is a "problem" because of the imbalance of bike demand between activity centers. I don't really have a solution because there isn't one. Other than having 2x or 3x the number of bikes.
by Richard Layman on Mar 23, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report
I'm a big fan of CaBi and I have frequently used it to commute to work - I don't think that is in and of itself a bad thing.
I do think that using CaBi EVERY DAY TO RIDE FROM A RESIDENTIAL AREA TO WORK DOWNTOWN IN THE MORNING AND BACK HOME IN THE EVENING is making inefficient use of resources, is unsustainable, and should discouraged. It doesn't scale: For the thousands of people who live near each CaBi station there are only a few bikes. People using CaBi EVERY DAY FOR THEIR DAILY COMMUTE can only do so because their neighbors aren't [Dare I point out that these people are not unlike motorists in the 1920s enjoying a quick ride to work, not realizing that if everybody else drove, it would no longer be so quick]
Is it that complicated? (of course if you live downtown and work in a residential area...all bets are off)
And really I was speaking from experience. Since CaBi is free, I used it for three weeks to commute to work because I was too lazy to get my bike fixed. A little fee (25 cents?) would have gotten me to fix the bike sooner and in no way discouraged me at all from using it all the other times I do.
by egk on Mar 23, 2011 5:17 pm • link • report
I'm not sure what the current membership/usage rate is among college students at the moment, but I imagine it's pretty low, at least compared to its potential. One key driver of this is that while there seems to be about 1 station per university (for Howard, AU, Georgetown, at least), there's not much in the way of local destinations.
For example:
- AU has one station on the main campus, but the only destinations within a mile are Tenleytown Metro/Whole Foods, Cactus Cantina/2 Amys, and maybe Glover Park.
- GU has one station at the main gates, and while there are some nearby stations of use, such as the Social Safeway, and Wisconsin and M, the lack of stations at everyday locations such as the Car Barn, Burleith, or even the West side of campus (like Yates Fieldhouse).
- GWU has several nearby stations, but until the Foggy Bottom station goes in, the heart of campus is without a station.
Building up station density around these campuses--or ideally, on different ends of the same campus--would make Bikeshare seem more relevant to students' regular lives, enticing a higher proportion of them to see the value of CaBi, and to join as annual members. Once they are members,
What are the benefits of students as regular users of CaBi?
In addition to the revenue from additional annual memberships, the biggest one is redistribution. Most students would have countercycical (or at least non-monopolar) usage, which could alleviate some of the distribution issues. In fact, they're probably the largest pool of non-commuter users (or at least different commutes, as they head across town to various tutoring, volunteer, and internship opportunities).
Adding this user base doesn't replace the need to increase density in the core, but given that college students represent something like 50,000 potential users, they're a population base that could offset some of the commuter-driven distribution issues we see now. (And the added system revenue could drive further expansion of downtown stations).
by Jacques on Mar 23, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report
It's a simple concept, but it is one of the reasons bikes need to be rebalanced.
Most commercial/business centers are located at the lowest part of a city. It is one of the reasons bike commuting on personal bikes is a challenge. Sure, GGW readers may look forward to a climb up to Mt. Pleasant after a full day of work, but most would rather take the metro.
However, lot's of those people would like the downhill ride in the AM.
by beatbox on Mar 23, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report
I still think you are a troll, but I will bite. So what is wrong if everyone uses it to commute? I agree it is probably not reliable, so many people wouldn't.
However, the end result of charging more would not be people buying their own bikes, it would be people using metro, or driving.
Taking a CaBI to work does NOT = bicycle commuting. Commuting with your own bike has a whole separate bunch of hassles/responsibilities that many people don't want to take on.
by beatbox on Mar 23, 2011 5:38 pm • link • report
COngestion pricing - Having said that, I think if the system continues to be too popular, they need to increase prices. The system can probably only handle so many members before reliability becomes an issue. By increasing prices they can increase revenue for more hardware and more rebalancing labor making the system better. I think most people would pay $5 more a month for better service. Because what we really need are more bikes and more stations.
egk, Most people are complaining that they can't find a bike when they want one for their commute. So if people stopped commuting, yes that will "solve" the problem. Just as if everyone decided not to go to the Mall for the 4th of July they wouldn't have to deal with crowds. But that kind of misses the point.
Dare I point out that these people are not unlike motorists in the 1920s enjoying a quick ride to work, not realizing that if everybody else drove, it would no longer be so quick
Point it out, but it is incorrect. If we added more bike and more stations then everyone would still get to work very quickly. Perhaps more so, because there would be fewer cars, and more room on trains.
by David C on Mar 23, 2011 6:21 pm • link • report
I don't think people necessarily plan to commute by CaBi (it's too unreliable to depend on). I suspect people are walking past, see a free bike, and decide to ride instead of waiting for the bus. As others have noted, it doesn't scale well, because when the bike is gone, that's it for that morning's commute. I doubt many bikes are used more than once per morning.
One other thing: empty and full racks are definitely a big problem for me.
by renegade09 on Mar 23, 2011 6:52 pm • link • report
Look, ALL bikeshare systems have problems with bike balencing. Charging more will NOT solve that. It is the nature of it that people like to use it for one way trips.
Second, the "free" half hour is what you pay your $75 for. Another $5 a month raises the price another $60 a year. That is a joke and Cabi would suffer from lost subscriptions.
The basic rules of supply and demand will win out. If the system becomes lopsided, then people will not use it as much.
by beatbox on Mar 23, 2011 7:07 pm • link • report
Now it would be possible to implement changes that would "discourage" regular commuting use. One way that I could imagine would be a small charge (say $1) for use of a bike during rush hours. One could even fine tune it so that the charge is only applied when leaving or arriving at certain stations with certain time periods.
But one of the beauties of CaBi is it's simplicity. I don't want to have to think about if I use a bike what's it going to cost me. It starts to smack of Metro's "peak of peak" pricing debacle!
On the other hand we could just flood the residential areas with bikes and stations as a PUBLIC GOOD. People using CaBi represent transportation demand just like people driving, riding the bus or Metro. Maybe satisfying some of that demand with extra bikes and stations would be a good thing!
by JeffB on Mar 23, 2011 7:28 pm • link • report
I think that part of the reason Vélib is so successful is the density of stations: no two stations are more than 300 meters apart, and the stations are everywhere: it's a blanket system throughout most of Paris, out to the ring road (and sometimes slightly beyond). Stations interact with the Metro and RER systems, so there is a seamless synergy to the system.
The Bixi and Barclays systems (Montréal and London, respectively) are also dense systems, which allow easily found alternate parking places. Again, density is a benefit, and both systems have stations all over their respective metro areas.
CaBi is still a bit too diffuse to work well for bike distribution. I think that, given the warming temperatures (at least after this current cold spell), CaBi will finally have a better test of its popularity and the kinks in the system will be more plainly laid out. Yes, there need to be more stations along the periphery of DC (especially in Wards 5, 7 and 8), in Arlington, Alexandria, and nearby PG and Montgomery Counties), but they will only work well if the entire system is made more dense, with more popular stations (e.g. Dupont, Union Station) having more docking stations available. The Vélib model of a station every 300 meters makes perfect sense and would work to alleviate the dispersal of equipment.
Unfortunately, this kind of density requires serious funding. In London, they have Barclays Bank as an underwriter, which helped them roll out a dense system rapidly. CaBi isn't blessed in this way, so perhaps it's time for DDOT and the neighboring jurisdictions to court advertisers to help foot the bill.
And should CaBi be a regular commuter's alternative? Absolutely. That's part and parcel of the success of Vélib: getting all kinds of users on the bikes, from commuters to leisure riders, natives to tourists (at least those tourists with chip+PIN charge cards, which leaves most U.S. citizens out of the loop).
by Rudi on Mar 23, 2011 8:05 pm • link • report
AU already has its own campus-based bike sharing program, so unless AU works something out with DDOT vis-a-vis CaBi, nothing will change in that corner of the city.
by Andrew on Mar 23, 2011 8:32 pm • link • report
by B Pate on Mar 23, 2011 8:33 pm • link • report
beatbox: I don't think there should be a $75 annual fee. I think everybody in the city should be encouraged sign up for a CaBi key, and we should all pay for what we ride on a per minute basis. That way CaBi can benefit the widest possible range of people, people pay their fair share, there is a growing revenue stream as the system gets used more, and daily users are gently nudged to buy a bike (or maybe not so gently, as per Richard Layman's suggestion).
And really, how many of you would care? Not theoretically care, but care, like "oh that is going to cost me 25/75/95 cents, I'll walk" - really? (We only have first-half-hour-free because Velib did and they did because they didn't have the technology to bill by the minute exactly).
I'm amazed at how much this has started to look like a "don't you take away my free street parking" thread. Look in the mirror people.
by egk on Mar 23, 2011 8:53 pm • link • report
by egk on Mar 23, 2011 9:00 pm • link • report
Again, why discorage use? So what if there are empty/full racks during rush hour. Encurage more use and put in more racks. If people get tired of teh empty racks, they will not use it as much.
There is always a balance problem with bikeshare programs. You need to put the money in to redistribution infrastructure.
Cabi needs to reach something nearing an economies of scale to be succesfull.
by beatbox on Mar 23, 2011 10:20 pm • link • report
By concentrating the bikes in the downtown in the morning, CaBi is only a useful transportation tool for the first lucky people to get to the bike rack.
That's not true. CaBi moves some bikes back out of downtown. Some bikes get moved back out organically. And even when bikes are concentrated downtown, that's OK because that's where people are concentrated. Now those bikes are available for people going to lunch, on errands or on other rides. And then of course they're all available for people to commute back home.
I don't think people necessarily plan to commute by CaBi (it's too unreliable to depend on).
That's not been my experience. I think a lot of people rely on CaBi to commute. Maybe not from DuPont, but from other neighborhoods it can easily be counted on. My station is almost never empty.
@beatbox,
Such a typical GGW response.
Thank you. I did think it made sense.
"It is too popular, so let's charge more money for it to decrease its value!"
That doesn't make any sense. By charging more for it, you increase its value, because you increase the likelihood that a bike will be available when and where you need it. How does value go down?
The basic rules of supply and demand will win out. If the system becomes lopsided, then people will not use it as much.
Huh? People will use it so much that bikes will consolidate downtown faster than they can be redistributed. The demand will outstrip supply or become congested - same as our roads and parking spaces. What will happen is that the people who use it will be those who value money more than time. So they will get up early. They will walk to farther away stations. They will wait at a station for bikes. The resource being spent will be time. But if you raise the price, the system will be used by those who value time over money. Those people aren't any better than the first group, but the difference is that instead of time being spent (and wasted) money will be spent - and captured by CaBi, which can invest it in more stations, more bikes and more people to redistribute bikes. That's better for everyone.
Also, having people not use it as much is exactly what we do not want.
@Rudi,
I think that part of the reason Vélib is so successful is the density of stations: no two stations are more than 300 meters apart, and the stations are everywhere:
So there are two things you've mentioned, stations are closer together and there are a lot more of them. I don't know how you can separate the two of them. It is possible that one or both or neither is responsible for the success in Paris, but we don't know which. 300 meters is what Paris uses and it works. Does that mean 350 meters wouldn't work better? We don't know? How about 250 meters? Besides you have to define the goal and there could be many different goals (maximizing income, maximizing ridership/bike, maximizing total ridership, etc...). Each goal would lead to a different strategy. So we need to know what you think the goal is to decide what is success.
If DC built its system so that stations were 300 meters apart that would mean a square 3 km on each side - or a box in downtown between 23rd and 3rd, and constitution and P. Do you think that box would serve more people and more trips?
Density is good, but it's kind of a luxury in my opinion. Diffuseness is good too, and is better in the beginning. First, you want to make sure that most people are in walking distance of one station, then you go back in and fill the latticework.
The Vélib model of a station every 300 meters makes perfect sense and would work to alleviate the dispersal of equipment.
Perfect is a pretty high standard. Until they try 250 meters, 350 meters, etc... I'm not convinced 300 is perfect. In fact, I'd be stunned if they hit the bullseye on the first try - or if the bullseye in one city is the same as in another.
@Egk
if EVERYBODY commuted using CaBi, would that work?
Not now. There aren't enough bikes yet. But, theoretically, if everyone of the 8 million people in the DC area joined CaBi and CaBi bought enough bikes (3 million maybe), then yes - it could work. There are about 1 million people who work in DC if I'm correct. We can easily store that many bikes there if no one is driving in.
But we don't need everybody to commute by CaBi. If even just 2000 people (and that is totally doable I think) commute by CaBi that is a little dent in the number of people driving and taking metro, which takes pressure off of those system - which are also bursting at the gill. The morning and afternoon commute are the times when congestion is highest, so it is the time when you most want people using CaBi.
by David C on Mar 23, 2011 10:41 pm • link • report
If the system is set up so that each bike is only used two or three times a day (as CaBi reports), each user effectively has to pay for a third of a bike a day for the system to cover its costs. And, as @Richard Layman points out, that's more like $400 a year than $75. Adding bikes doesn't change the math.
If we continue to use CaBi the way we use it now it will lose money and cannot thrive and grow. That is why I argue for fees related to amount of use. An alternative would be to increase the annual fee. But this presents economic barriers to joining CaBi, particularly for lower income people.
My hope is that CaBi is able to grow, making biking a convenient transportation option for more people.
by egk on Mar 24, 2011 12:28 am • link • report
by Anon on Mar 24, 2011 1:24 am • link • report
You don't need signs that use a lot of power. You can use LCD signs that use very little power. Or E-Ink signs that use zero power (except to change the content).
by David desJardins on Mar 24, 2011 1:47 am • link • report
by aaa on Mar 24, 2011 7:48 am • link • report
Does anyone know what the legal problem is with DC allowing sponsorship (as Arlington has the possibility already in place, if few takers)?
by Jacques on Mar 24, 2011 8:22 am • link • report
Call-a-Bike serves a vastly different purpose. Unlike CaBi, it is a bike sharing system that is not intended for all trips including commuting. In a country where nearly every person owns a bike and the bike-commuting share is already astronomically high, this makes sense. The system began to provide travelers with bikes in cities other than their own. Why do you think it's run by Deutsche Bahn? I should also point out that in the significant time I've spent in Munich and Berlin, I've never seen anywhere near as many people riding Call-a-Bike as I've seen on CaBi bikes in its first 7 months. That's just anecdotal but I'd be curious to see ridership comparisons.
Capital Bikeshare was implemented by DDOT because they want to encourage cycling as a legitimate mode of travel, for every kind of trip. To say that someone should take a trip with a bike so that that bike will be there for someone else to make a trip is downright stupid because the logical extension of this argument is that no one should take a CaBi bike to ensure the next person can use the bike.
While density plays a large role in the success of Velib in Paris, the city's demographics also help because it is nowhere near as monocentric as Washington. A large number of Paris neighborhoods have a relative balance of residential, retail, employment and leisure uses.
I think it's wrong to say that recirculation will become a major problem as stations expand more into residential neighborhoods. The definition of such a neighborhood is that most of its denizens are away, at work or school, during the day, so if a station sits empty or nearly empty from 10 am to 4pm that shouldn't be a huge concern since there generally won't be anybody leaving from there.
by Erik Weber on Mar 24, 2011 10:21 am • link • report
Nor do I see how raising the price will have more rides per bike. You could end up with the same number, but not more.
Right now the system is averaging 2 rides per bike per day. Montreal is at 3.5. Paris is at 7 and Barcelona is at 10. But DC just went through the 6 months when ridership will be lowest. I don't think it'll be 2 a day later in the year.
Jacues, As I understand it, ClearChannel is arguing that their bus shelter contract signed in 2005 gave them exclusive rights to street-furniture related advertising and that allowing ads on CaBi undermines their rights. That needs to be settled, but then - I've heard - they have many advertisers who are interested in becoming sponsors.
by David C on Mar 24, 2011 10:30 am • link • report
But such neighborhoods require a greater number of bikes then otherwise. For example:
If I have a residential neighborhood with 100 members who ALL leave for downtown then I need 100 bikes for them.
But if I have a neighborhood with 100 members who ALL leave for downtown BUT 50 other members come in from another neighborhood I only need 50 bikes.
I think recirculation will be a major issue come this Summer and as CaBi pushes stations farther away from the major employment centers.
by JeffB on Mar 24, 2011 11:50 am • link • report
Some key metric to look at going forward:
1. Usage per day of bikes. In particular weekdays. Are they being used 2-3 times a day, or the 8-10? I'm sure on weekends it is a very different pattern.
2. Membership growth
3. Station usage -- I think the problem may be certain stations need to get larger, or double up. 17th and corc is a great example, but there are others.
And again, we have 30-40 bikes and 5 station sitting EOTR doing nothing. I say pull them and put them into use this spring.
by charlie on Mar 24, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 24, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report
I think Charlie, EZ, and Erik came closest to suggesting a better workable solution. Create incentives for people who might be able/willing to go a little out of their way to help in the rebalancing effort. I think the “Winter Weather Warrior” contest was good evidence that people will do a lot just for the recognition and competition, even if there is little (or no) monetary reward.
So create a monthly competition to help rebalance the bikes. Work out a system of points for both bringing bikes to empty or nearly-empty stations and taking bikes from full or nearly-full stations. (Say, 3 points for brining a bike to an empty station, 2 points if there’s one bike already there, 1 point if the station has 2 bikes; 3 points if you take a bike from a full station, etc.) Give the winner each month a little recognition in the newsletter (and maybe a coupon to something).
Disincentives for commuters ultimately hurt everyone in the entire system. While greater density of stations is an ultimate goal of CaBi, unfortunately that requires a lot more money (and still wouldn’t completely solve the “mono-polarity” of the DC region). Let’s focus on creative incentives that encourage non-commuters to help in the rebalancing effort.
by Charles on Mar 24, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report
Umm..not to be bitchy, but, who takes 15 minutes to bike 1/2 mile? I can WALK 1/2 a mile in 10.
If a station is full, then bike to the next station. I understand in the case of areas with less stations (the Ken Cen example), but I think 1/2 a mile is a more than reasonable distance for bike stations.
by LuvDusty on Mar 24, 2011 2:46 pm • link • report
As it is now, if you take CaBi to work every day for a year (500 "free" trips). You are effectively paying about 15 cents a trip. If I take CaBi about twice a week I pay about 75 cents a trip. My friend who only rides once or twice a month is paying $3 a ride. Why is that fair? Especially when 15 cents is likely WELL BELOW what you would be willing to pay for your daily CaBi commute ride.
[And since home-to-work rides are the most likely (in DC) to give rise to unequal distribution and therefore to extra costs associated with moving bikes around, there is an added inequity.]
If you want to take CaBi to work every day, fine. Do it. But pay the true cost. (Which is not onerous - $1 a day, maybe.) If everybody pays the true cost and the true cost is below what we are willing to spend (both of which I think are true in DC) the system will grow all by itself - no need to hang on the teat of either an advertiser or the taxpayer.
[CaBi - with its key and fixed sations - is in many ways more convenient to use than Call-A-Bike. But Call-A-Bike's pay-per-use pricing has one great advantage: It doesn't penalize occasional users. As I've noted before, about 85% of the 30,000 Berlin Call-A-Bike users ride less frequently than once a week (but these riders account for a third of the rides).]
So that is where we get more rides per bike: tens of thousands of people who would use CaBi sometimes but are priced out of the current system.
by egk on Mar 24, 2011 4:19 pm • link • report
It is an example of a creativity and innovation not quite rewarded in the marketplace.
by egk on Mar 24, 2011 4:33 pm • link • report
@DavidC -- thanks for the clarification on ads in DC. I figured ClearChannel was likely involved but wasn't clear on the specifics.
@ Andrew -- good point on the American U bike lending program, although I'm not sure the free reservation-based system they have would really detract from the appeal of the point-to-point nature of CaBi to potential members. (Allowing students to register for CaBi and have it billed to their student accounts would really be huge for building student interest, but I'm sure it would require some negotiating between CaBi/Alta and the various universities, in terms of how the >30 minute usage charges and the $1,000 liability would be handled).
by Jacques on Mar 24, 2011 4:34 pm • link • report
I disagree with your definition of "financially sustainable system". I think you can have a financially stable system without user fees covering 100% of operating costs. The additional amount could be covered with advertising revenue. Or it could be covered (as is true for driving, transit, walking and pretty much every other form of transportation) with a subsidy.
Why is that fair?
Because you have the same opportunity as the person who bikes twice a day. You can bike twice a day but choose not to. These are the terms you agreed to! You agreed to pay $75 a year for unlimited rides under 30 minutes. You did not get any type of assurance that noone would pay less per trip than you. You got exactly what you paid for. What is more fair than that?
Do you think Netflix is unfair? Because that's the same model. So are libraries for that matter (except the annual fee is $0). And gyms. And about 100 other things.
But pay the true cost.
How do you know $0.15 isn't the true cost? The only way to determine the true user fee is by mile, and there is no GPS system on them. Do we need to add a GPS system so that we can make things "fair"? And how much does it cost to ride a CaBi per mile?
If everybody pays the true cost and the true cost is below what we are willing to spend (both of which I think are true in DC) the system will grow all by itself - no need to hang on the teat of either an advertiser or the taxpayer.
Will it? A daily commuter will now pay $500 a year instead of $75. Surely that will reduce the number of users, no? And with fewer users, you'll have to raise prices, which will mean fewer users....death spiral.
Capital Bikeshare is not really a business. Its goal is not to make money, or even to break even. It's goal is to get more people to bike. And the way to do that is to keep the price as low as you can. What is lower than free at the margins? That's why the annual membership is a great way to price it.
There might be some advantage to allowing people to buy a single ride membership (as opposed to a one-day membership) but I have no idea what CaBi would have to charge to make that work. It may not be much less than the $5 one-day fee.
by David C on Mar 24, 2011 4:52 pm • link • report
If a station is full, then bike to the next station. I understand in the case of areas with less stations (the Ken Cen example), but I think 1/2 a mile is a more than reasonable distance for bike stations.
As someone else deduced, I was talking about the entire delay involved. You're right, it only takes 5 minutes to bike to the next station. But then I have to walk 10 minutes back to wherever I was going to go. It's not too bad if the place I'm going is in between the two stations. But if it's past the station that was full, or out of the way, then it makes the trip even worse.
by MLD on Mar 24, 2011 5:03 pm • link • report
Is the goal of CaBi really "to get more people to bike"? I thought the goal was to provide an additional option to the public transportation mix?
Anyway, I think it's clear, from personal experience of regularly finding full and empty racks as well as the data that each bike is only being used twice a day, that CaBi has a big circulation problem. It's still early days, and it might be fix-able, but I doubt it. I suspect that the pattern of station distribution and the unipolar employment centers in DC will continue to make circulation a major challenge. However, I don't think that it's worth messing with the model (30mins free) to try to fix it. It would be better to do a major expansion of the system. With substantially more stations, there might be better circulation, and the problem of full/empty racks would be less of an issue. Major expansion isn't going to happen though, so I expect CaBi will remain a niche transportation mechanism.
@charlie
Please stop campaigning to rip out the Anacostia stations. The political value of those bikes is worth far more than having an extra 30-40 bikes in the core. Also, they allow you to CaBi to Kennilworth Aquatic Gardens, which represent a unique park environment that is well worth a visit.
by renegade09 on Mar 24, 2011 6:28 pm • link • report
There's a generic problem of automatic systems being unable to capture unmet demand. There's simply no interface for telling the system that the bike/space you needed wasn't available.
There's a cell phone number on each kiosk. I make a point of calling whenever I encounter an empty/full station.
by oboe on Mar 24, 2011 6:46 pm • link • report
Seriously? You think it would be a success, if it provides an "additional option" that no one actually uses? I think it's obvious that it's only successful and worthwhile if people actually use the bikes.
Anyway, I think it's clear, from personal experience of regularly finding full and empty racks as well as the data that each bike is only being used twice a day, that CaBi has a big circulation problem.
Using every bike twice per day seems pretty successful, to me. I'm not convinced you have to do better than that.
Most cars that are used to commute in the city are only used twice per day.
by David desJardins on Mar 24, 2011 7:41 pm • link • report
It's a good question what defines success for CaBi. Different commenters clearly have their own interpretation of what CaBi is 'for'. Is it for commuting? Is it to reduce the number of cars on the road, or 'get more people on bikes'? I don't think DDOT made any commitment to any particular goal: they've just put it out there, as 'an additional option'.
Nonetheless, the metrics we use to define success of the system might influence future expansion or consolidation of the system. If the goal is just to have the greatest number of members possible, then it makes sense to keep putting more stations into ever more distant suburbs, because people are more likely to sign up if they walk past a shiny bike rack every morning. However, those users might quickly find that the racks get empty very quickly in the mornings, and even when they do get a bike, the rack is full at their destination. That's definitely a problem at present. I think it would be better to increase density of stations in the current area, which might have a more incremental effect on membership but make the system work better for existing members by increasing bike circulation possibilities and adding redundancy. That might increase the number of times each bike is used per day. The present figure of two uses per day compares pretty dismally to other cities. A critic could argue that two uses per day equals failure, and the funds could be better applied to more proven forms of transit, or just fixing up sidewalks.
With finite resources available for CaBi system expansion/transit in general, maybe we need to ask more carefully what CaBi is 'for' and how we measure its success.
by renegade09 on Mar 24, 2011 8:31 pm • link • report
However, I think we *should* incentivize redistribution (after all, it saves CaBi money on staff and vans). However, instead of confusing rules (i.e. certain stations at certain times) I would stick with CaBi-inspired simplicity: you get a nickel back every time you either:
1. Take a bike from a full station; or
2. Add a bike to an empty one
by Steven H on Mar 24, 2011 10:06 pm • link • report
With finite resources available for road system expansion/infrastructure in general, maybe we need to ask more carefully what roads are 'for' and how we measure their success.
Or maybe it's just like every other government program, different people are going to have different ideas of its utility and different conclusions about its value, and there's nothing we can do (or should do) about that.
by David desJardins on Mar 24, 2011 10:27 pm • link • report
Is the goal of CaBi really "to get more people to bike"?
Of course. In the DDOT action agenda the bike sharing system is listed as a policy to "make biking the mode of choice for trips of less than three miles". And it's part of their goal to increase the bicycle mode share to 5% by 2012. In the mwcog proposal for the expanded system the needs listed (congestion, environmental issues, transit shed limits) are all to be addressed by getting people to bike.
I think it's clear, from personal experience of regularly finding full and empty racks as well as the data that each bike is only being used twice a day, that CaBi has a big circulation problem.
I almost never find full/empties. I think there are a few stations that often have this issue. Those stations are the most popular ones. So people have the perception that this is a large problem system-wide. But I don't think that's correct. 2 tpbpd means it is winter and some bikes at popular stations are being used very often, and other bikes are not being touched. I don't know how common the full/empty issue is but a look at the map during this evening's rush hour showed 3 stations out of 109 with this problem. It would be pretty easy to determine in fact.
I don't think DDOT made any commitment to any particular goal
Here
The District Department of Transportation's vision is more detailed than keeping a few cars off the street during rush hour. The overarching goal of the program, Holben said, is to "expand biking in the city."
"But the sub goal is to get people out of their cars and offer a healthier form of transportation, a green form of transportation and a cheap form of transportation," he said.
. The present figure of two uses per day compares pretty dismally to other cities.
Yes, well, it has been open for the 6 worst weather months of the year. And 5 stations in the middle of the city haven't opened because of negotiations with the previous system owner. Let's check back in October. I'm sure there are going to more trips in the next 6 months than there were in the last six (250,000).
by David C on Mar 24, 2011 10:39 pm • link • report
by egk on Mar 25, 2011 10:07 am • link • report
In Paris, Velib has also had very high levels of vandalism and theft, right? Seems like there is some connection there.
by David desJardins on Mar 25, 2011 11:18 am • link • report
In terms of social justice, the limiting factor for Cabi would be more the requirement for a credit/debit card -- and then the $100 hold placed on the card.
I forget how Velib worked. I know my US credit card did NOT work - needed some chip to authenticate. Barcelona also was somewhat restrictive.
by charlie on Mar 25, 2011 11:27 am • link • report
by David C on Mar 25, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report
by Jacques on Mar 25, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report
We have wrote several letters and made telephone
calls to get a rack in my community!
We would Love to have one in the Kingman Park Community! ANC 7D01 Right near Benning Road NE and Oklahoma Ave. NE!
I have a membership and can not even use it my community!
I have to use it while I am at work!
CaBi please share the Love in Kingman Park Community!
(Kingman Park - SMD 7D01 is Benning Rd to C street, 19TH street to Oklahoma Ave)
by Lisa on Mar 25, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report
I like your nickel idea and it would be small price to pay to incentivize users to help balance, especially college students who often don't have strict 9-5 regimens. One would have to move a bike 1500 times to recoup their membership.
Concerning density, I was in Barcelona in January where there was a station every couple of blocks or so. It was amazing to see so many riders all hoping from one location to another. It just seemed so easy.
by cmc on Mar 25, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
@cmc; bicing is limited to bareclona residents, so tourists can't use it. typical catalans.
by charlie on Mar 25, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report
Thanks for digging out that quote about CaBi goals. I think it will be hard to quantify to what extent CaBi contributes to the share of trips taken by bike (especially the proportion of trips that replace car), but it's a worthy goal. As for the number of rides per bike per day, I agree that it's worth checking back at CaBi's first birthday.
My personal experience is that full/empty stations is a problem at present. We'll see how the company deals with it. I've been impressed with their commitment to customer service so far.
by renegade09 on Mar 25, 2011 5:34 pm • link • report
One comparison might be Zipcar. It probably works great for occasional users, but is too pricey for daily commutes (I assume).
Also in terms of charging more to commuters, Metro already does this in the form of rush-hour fares.
Why not just tack on a minor surcharge when using a bike during certain times (or for users who use it more than X times per month/week/whatever), and direct that additional revenue towards more resources to balances the bike supply at stations? I guess they have real-time updates of where the bikes are and aren't, so solving the balance problem may just be a matter of devoting more resources to it.
by Justin on Mar 25, 2011 6:26 pm • link • report
Steven H - love the full/empty rack incentive. Straightforward, demand responsive, and heck, if I were walking by a full rack I might think to help out by moving a bike.
by Payton on Mar 28, 2011 12:38 am • link • report
Imagine putting all 100 stations within 5 feet of another station. That would be really dense, but get probably 0 rides.
Imagine putting 100 stations no closer than 50 miles apart. That would be very spread out, but also get 0 rides.
If you plot trips versus density, you get a bell curve with some peak in between the two I've described above. If you know at what density that peak occurs - and you can prove it, you can make a lot of money as a consultant (or at least get a paper published).
by David C on Mar 28, 2011 10:17 am • link • report
by Steve O on Mar 28, 2011 11:18 pm • link • report
Add a Comment