Greater Greater Washington

Posts about Bike Sharing

Bicycling


Who needs Metro? Not (as often) Capital Bikeshare users in central neighborhoods

Regular riders of Capital Bikeshare have cut down on their use of rail and bus transit, a new study shows. This is particularly strong for those in neighborhoods a short bike ride from downtown DC.


CaBi's effect on Metrorail ridership. Images from the study. Click to see the full image.

In these maps, each circle represents one zip code in which researchers Elliot Martin and Susan Shaheen surveyed CaBi users. The number shows how many responses they got in that zip code. Red is the percentage of those people who used that mode of transit less (rail for the map above, bus below). Green is for those who used it more, while yellow is those who didn't change.


CaBi's effect on Metrobus ridership. Images from the study. Click to see the full image.

It's not only transit which riders are using less. CaBi users also have cut down on car trips and probably even replaced some walk trips with bikeshare.

This isn't necessarily bad for transit. The places where this effect are strongest also happen to be the places where transit is most congested. On the busy Metro lines at rush hour, the trains are full into downtown DC; it's just as well if fewer people are hopping onto an already-packed train at, say, Foggy Bottom.

And many of the people who ride Bikeshare still use transit some of the time. They might still ride it in bad weather, but at other times avoid it at its most congested, or at times of poor service, like the very long waits on weekends during track work.

One potential danger, though, is that if there is lower demand for service on weekends (thanks to a bicycle alternative), that could make it less likely local jurisdictions want to pay for more frequent transit service at off times, even though not everyone can substitute a bikeshare trip for a transit trip.

Meanwhile, in Minneapolis (which has much less rail transit), the study found that many people increased their usage of rail, perhaps because the bikeshare system helps them access transit much more easily.

Eric Jaffe writes in Citylab,

Overall, the maps suggest that bike-share, at least in Minneapolis and Washington, is making the entire multimodal transit network more efficient. For short trips in dense settings, bike-share just makes more sense than waiting for the subway—it's "substitutive of public transit," in the words of Martin and Shaheen. For longer trips from the outskirts, bike-share access might act as a nudge out of a car—it's "complementary to public transit."

Honestly, once I started bicycling (first with Capital Bikeshare, and then more and more with my own bike) I personally cut down significantly on using transit. But I live in a downtown-adjacent area where it's a fast bike ride to many destinations; for others, that's not the case, and transit is best for their trips. I also still ride transit some of the time.

Some people in the survey also increased their use of transit. The more transportation options people have, the more they can choose the one that best matches their needs. The road network is already quite comprehensive (though often crowded). We need to offer everyone high-quality transit and bicycling as alternatives so that they can use each when it's the best choice at that time.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Taxis


"Sharing" isn't a good term for services like Uber and Lyft. Is there a better one?

Many of the services that call themselves "sharing," like "ridesharing" (Uber, Lyft), "car sharing" (Zipcar, car2go), bikesharing (Capital Bikeshare), "home sharing" (Airbnb), and others, are not really "sharing" as we typically think of the term. Do we need up with better words to describe these new business models?


Photo by Via Tsuji on Flickr.

The "sharing economy" (early on called "collaborative consumption") is a rapidly-growing sector. Most of its businesses allow people to temporarily use some good for a fee where typically, and formerly, people would own it (like a bike, a car, or an apartment).

But many commentators have pointed out that the term "sharing," at least as we learned it as children, generally means letting people use something you have for free, not renting out something you have, and definitely not a company owning a bunch of things which it rents to people or paying someone to do work on your behalf.

Companies like Uber and Lyft have been dubbing their services "ridesharing." These companies contract with drivers who can make money by offering rides. Jason Pavluchuk from the Association for Commuter Transportation argued that calling these services "rideshare" made it harder to advocate for other models that more aptly deserve the term, like carpool and vanpool services where people actually ride together.

There's also slugging, a longstanding practice where people commuting, such as on I-95 in Virginia, pick up other people at a designated spot who are going to the same destination. (The drivers don't charge for this; they do it to get the right to use the carpool lane.)

Uber and Lyft are really new variants on taxi service. They let people use a car they might already own (though Uber is also offering loans to drivers to get new cars), but they are still doing it as a job. If you use such a service, you're not sharing someone's car; you're paying them to give you a ride.

Other companies like Sidecar have envisioned a model where people already driving from one place to another offer rides to someone who happens to be going the same way. That's a little bit more "sharing" than the app-based taxi-like services.

Services like Zipcar and Capital Bikeshare also could have somewhat more of a claim to the term "sharing." In those cases, at least, there is a pool of vehicles which multiple "members" all use together. They all pay, but basically are pooling money to have a shared resource instead of owning.

What do you think counts as sharing? Is there a better term for these services?

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Bicycling


Bike sharing means more head injuries, study says? Actually, it's the opposite

The headline on an NPR blog post Friday blared, "Brain Injuries Rose In Cities After Bike-Sharing Rolled Out." It sounded horrible! A tiny graph showed a pretty clear trend, suggesting hard data behind this conclusion. As it turns out, while the authors of the study and news stories sensationalize the issue, the data show the exact opposite.


(Misleading) graph from NPR.

The paper's lead author even said that this supports the conclusion she expected all along. Only it doesn't. Instead, the data seem to show that in cities which launched bike sharing systems, bike-related traumatic injuries decreased, including head injuries.

What's wrong with the analysis

The researchers (Janessa Graves, Barry Pless, Lynne Moore, Avery Nathens, Garth Hunte, and Frederick Rivara) obtained data from trauma center records in cities that implemented public bike sharing programs (PBSPs) and control cities that did not.

The best analysis would compare the number of bike-related head injuries to the total amount of bicycling. That's because if more people bike but bicycling gets safer, you might see more injuries even if every individual cyclist's risk goes down.

If they didn't have that information, it would still be useful to just look at the total numbers of bike-related injuries or bike-related head injuries. Instead, the authors made the odd decision to look at the percentage of bike-related injuries that are head injuries.

This percentage can increase for two reasons:

  1. There are more head injuries
  2. There are fewer non-head injuries (and thus the head injuries make up a larger share)
Clearly, (1) is bad. But (2) is not.

In the paper, the authors get around this limitation by being careful to state their results in an exact fashion:

In this international study, implementation of a PBSP was associated with 14% greater risk of head injury among patients admitted to trauma centers for bicycle-related injuries.
As often happens, news stories shortened this to the very different headline, "Brain Injuries Rose In Cities After Bike-Sharing Rolled Out." But it's not just the media. The authors have also been less careful in public statements since writing the article.

NPR quoted lead author Graves saying, "Public bike-share initiatives are great wellness initiatives. But without providing helmets, we were concerned that we would see an increase in head injuries. And we did."

Only that's not what they really would see if they looked at the data more clearly.

What the numbers seem to really say

I couldn't perform an in-depth analysis similar to the study's because I don't have their dataset. However, the paper includes a table (Table 2) which lists the total numbers of head and non-head injuries in PBSP cities and control cities before and after the bike sharing program began.

That makes it possible to graph just the raw numbers of injuries for these time periods. (I adjusted the numbers for the fact that the paper's pre-implementation period spans two years and the post-implementation period only spans one.)

The overall trend is clear. For the control cities, there isn't much change in total injuries (an increase of 2%) or head injuries (4% decrease). But for the PBSP cities, head injuries decreased by 14% and total injuries decreased by 28%.

Weaknesses in the data

There are plenty of caveats to both the original study and my analysis, many based on limitations in the data.

Since the data on injuries come from emergency room records, the study only captures injuries that involve visits to the ER. The decision to go to an ER could be totally nonrandom for a whole range of injuries, and we could imagine that a large bike share program might affect whether people go or not.

Moreover, the introduction of a bike sharing program is not a discrete event. The authors had to pick a date for each city, and it's unclear how sensitive the analysis is to pushing the dates a bit in either direction. Plus, some of their dates may simply be incorrect. At least in DC, as Darren Buck pointed out, the paper lists bike sharing as starting in May 2010, when it really launched in late September 2010.

Finally, the dataset just doesn't contain a ton of cases. The authors end up with two years pre-implementation and one year post-implementation for each PBSP city, and the same length of time for control cities. They only have 5 PBSP cities and 5 control cities.

Since bike-related injuries are not incredibly common and this isn't a very long time period, it's going to be hard to identify gradual trends in the data. Bike advocates tend to focus on the need to change culture over the long term, with bike sharing as one element of that. One year after the introduction of bike sharing simply may not be long enough to see much of an effect.

Finally, the dataset suffers from the problem that it's not actually experimental data. The authors make a nice effort to deal with this by finding a matched control city for each PBSP city, but there are plenty of other differences between the paired cities other than the presence of bike sharing.

For example, the PBSP cities already had a lower incidence of total bike-related injuries before they implemented bike sharing, so it's hard to argue that they're identical to the control cities. The drop in injuries could be due to some other change in PBSP cities at the same time (DC built its first cycletracks in the same year it launched Capital Bikeshare, for example).

We have no way of knowing with this sort of analysis. And since I don't have the full dataset, I can't drill down to individual cities. But the overall trend is pretty dramatic: control cities had virtually unchanged injury rates, while PBSP cities had large drops in total bike-related injuries as well as smaller drops in head injury rates.

Conclusions

Graves has said that the authors started the study expecting to find that because bikeshare riders often don't use helmets as often as other cyclists, bikesharing systems put people at greater risk of head injuries. If we take their data at face value, instead we have evidence that bikesharing may instead decrease serious bike-related injuries, including head injuries.

That would be a big deal, because many people expected that perhaps injuries would increase, but the numbers of cyclists would increase faster, meaning bicycling got safer. The paper's data might not be correct, but if it is, then it's even better news for bike sharing: cycling went up, injuries per cyclist went down, but on top of that, total injuries went down, too.

Even if it's too soon to draw that conclusion given all the caveats listed above, it's clear that the study's authors have not shown a strong and direct relationship between new bike sharing systems and increases in bike-related head injuries. It's too bad that they have trumpeted an incorrect interpretation of their data, and that press reports have spread a false and sensationalized conclusion far and wide.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Bicycling


Baltimore starts building a real bicycle network

Baltimore transportation officials have proposed a "network of bicycle infrastructure," including the city's first-ever cycletrack. It's a big leap beyond today's incongruent sharrows and paint.


The proposed Downtown Bicycle Network. Image from Baltimore DOT.

The cycletrack will stretch 2.6 miles along Maryland Avenue and Cathedral Street, from Johns Hopkins University in the north to the convention center near the harbor. It will be installed this fall. For the city's bicycle advocates, the network represents a hope that Baltimore may start to build bicycle infrastructure on par with Washington and catapult bicycling forward in the central business district.

Will the Downtown Bicycle Network actually serve downtown?

While its name is the "Downtown Bicycle Network," the projects are mostly actually in Mt. Vernon, a neighborhood north of the central business district. The cycletrack will get a bicyclist downtown, but for now that is where the network ends.

A Pratt Street cycletrack could provide an east/west complement to the north/south Maryland Avenue cycletrack.

Pratt Street is the main artery of the business district. Because of its width and concentration of businesses, hotels, tourist attractions, facilities like the convention center, institutions like the University of Maryland, it remains the grand prize for a cycletrack. Bikemore, Baltimore's bicycle advocacy organization, is pushing this idea.


Image: Pratt Street in Baltimore. The south lane (on left) is a bus/bike lane. Photo by the author.

Officially, Baltimore's bike map lists bus/bike lanes on Pratt Street. However, these lanes are not often enforced and not comfortable for many bicyclists.

Some maps and officials also consider the Inner Harbor Promenade and the Jones Falls Trail adjacent to Pratt Street as bike facilities. But in summer, they are often packed with tourists, strollers, pedestrians, and are often impassable for bicyclists.

If not for Bixi's financial troubles, it is likely Baltimore would have a bikeshare system by this summer. Hopefully, Baltimore can use the delayed launch to continue to build a better network to support cycling. The better the infrastructure, the better bikeshare will work when it eventually launches.


Proposed bikeshare stations. Image from Baltimore DOT.

Baltimore can learn from DC and Pittsburgh

Washington is not the only nearby city for Baltimore to seek inspiration. Pittsburgh has integrated quality bike facilities along its waterfront and made connections to nearby neighborhoods. In a Pittsburgh Magazine article about the steel city's revitalized riverfront, Lisa Schroeder, president and CEO of Riverlife, likens the increased traffic along the riverfront to the growth of the regional trail network.

"The more trail that was created, the higher the number of users," she said. "We hit that momentum point along the rivers this year. People realized, 'Aha—this is a network, and I can go in all directions.'" Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh's new bicycle-friendly mayor wants his city to be in Bicycle magazine top ten US cities, despite its hilly contours.

Will the Maryland Avenue cycletrack be the first of a series of complementary projects, extensions, and improvements to Baltimore's bicycle network? The fast growth of DC's and Pittsburgh's networks make us optimistic that the Charm City will soon catch the momentum too.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Bicycling


Here are America's largest bikesharing systems in 2013

American bikesharing boomed in 2013 like never before. Led by huge new systems in New York and Chicago, the total number of bikesharing stations in the US more than doubled, from 835 at the end of 2012 to 1,925 in 2013.

After three straight years at the top of the chart, Washington's Capital Bikeshare slipped to second place. CaBi's 305 stations barely edge out Chicago's 300, but are behind New York's 330. Those three cities make up a clear first tier nationwide, with no other systems cracking 200 stations.

Overall, 13 new bikesharing systems opened nationwide, bringing the total to 40. In addition to New York and Chicago, other noteworthy additions include San Francisco, Fort Worth, and Columbus.

At this point, it's fair to say we're no longer in the pioneering period. Any city that still doesn't have bikesharing is beginning to fall behind.

It's not just the big coastal cities where bikesharing is becoming popular. There are some unexpected hotspots, where groups of nearby cities have independently launched small systems. Four Texas cities have bikesharing, plus two more in Oklahoma. Small systems are also popular in the Southeast, with 6 systems in close proximity in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Oddly, the only area of the country that seems particularly underrepresented is the West Coast. San Francisco's Bay Area Bikeshare finally became the first large West Coast system this year, but it's still the only one. Portland, Seattle, and Los Angeles continue to lag.

Here's the complete list. New systems in 2013 are in bold. Previous years are available for comparison.

RankCity2012 Stations2013 Stations
1New York0330
2Washington (regional)191305
3Chicago0300
4Minneapolis (regional)145170
5Boston (regional)105132
6Miami Beach8497
7Denver5381
8San Francisco (regional)067
9San Antonio3051
10Fort Worth034
11Chattanooga3033
12Madison2432
13Columbus030
14Houston329
15Ft Lauderdale (regional)2525
16(t)Boulder2222
16(t)Nashville2022
18Charlotte2021
19Long Beach, NY1213
20(t)Kansas City1212
20(t)Aspen012
20(t)Salt Lake City012
23Austin011
24(t)Washington State Univ (Pullman, WA)99
24(t)Georgia Tech Univ (Atlanta, Ga)99
26Omaha58
27(t)Oklahoma City77
27(t)George Mason Univ (Fairfax, VA)47
29(t)Greenville, SC66
29(t)Des Moines46
31(t)California Univ - Irvine (Irvine, CA)44
31(t)Tulsa44
31(t)Spartanburg, SC24
31(t)Univ of Buffalo (Buffalo, NY)04
31(t)Lansing04
36(t)Louisville33
36(t)Stony Brook Univ (Stony Brook, NY)03
38(t)Kailua, HI22
38(t)Roseburg VA Hospital (Roseburg, OR)02
?Hailey, ID02
(approx.)

Notes: Systems covering multiple jurisdictions are counted either together or separately depending on how they choose to represent themselves. Thus Bay Area Bikeshare is counted as a single system, while Denver B-Cycle and Boulder B-Cycle are counted separately.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Bicycling


U-Md. Baltimore County embraces bikeshare

Since it opened in the 1960s, the University of Maryland Baltimore County in Catonsville has been known as a commuter school. But university officials are giving students alternatives to driving to campus, starting with a new bikeshare program.


Photo by AOK Library & Gallery, UMBC on Flickr.

Sitting at the intersection of interstate highways 695, 195, and 95, UMBC's campus just outside Baltimore was designed for drivers. A loop of heavy vehicular traffic encircles the campus, and most students live elsewhere. As a UMBC student, I frequently became frustrated by the amount of traffic, poor planning, and lack of parking on campus.

Recently, the university has made significant strides in becoming more sustainable. Its shuttle system now reaches nearby MARC and light rail stations, and officials have added carpool-designated parking, Zipcar services, and charging stations for electric cars. In late October, UMBC launched its first-ever on campus bikeshare program.

The bikeshare program is a partnership between UMBC's assistant athletic director, Mike D'Archangelo, and Scott Westcoat of C'Ville Bikes and The Hub in Catonsville. Any UMBC student can rent a bike free of charge with their student identification card. Students will be able to take out a bike for anywhere from a couple of hours to a week or more. This program is a little different from traditional bikesharing programs like Capital Bikeshare, which are intended for very short-term rentals.

Other area universities have expressed interest in giving their students alternatives to driving, citing the expense and harm to the environment. Towson University launched its first bikeshare program last spring, and runs shuttles to a nearby light rail station.

UMBC's future campus planning calls for additional bicycle and pedestrian paths to neighboring communities and nearby attractions, making it easier for students to travel to and from campus and explore the wider region. In 2012, Baltimore County announced plans to construct two new bike routes from UMBC to the Halethorpe MARC Station and Frederick Road in Catonsville's business district.

The UMBC bikeshare program will greatly enhance the transit opportunities available to students. The program will not only offer a free method of transport, but will also greatly improve connections to Catonsville and Arbutus. This interconnection will support the local economy in a sustainable way, and will encourage the thought process for advanced alternative modes of transportation for UMBC and southwestern Baltimore County in the long term.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Support Us