Breezing over the facts about smart growth and bikesharing

Marc Scribnor recently penned a couple of articles critical of bike projects.  He's a limited government advocate and libertarian and so it's no surprise he doesn't love Capital Bikeshare or government funded bicycle programs. That's fine. But he should at least try to make his points without contradicting himself or the facts.

In his first article, he goes after bikesharing - and Capital Bikeshare in particular - and there are some serious misstatements of fact within it.

First, every one of these systems operates at a loss.

That's only true because the systems are so young. Most start-ups don't make money in the first year. But London, Montreal and DC all project they will make a profit on operations in the near future. Montreal expects to make a profit this year, a fact mentioned in one of the articles Scribner links to.

This year, the program's directors are hoping to break even, or even register a slight profit.

And the Bixi company is on track to have an $8 million profit by 2014.  London is on track to be in the green in two to three years. The MWCOG did a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed TIGER grant expansion of CaBi and found the benefit-cost ratio to be 1.74 and a rate of return of 79%. Scribner doesn't bother to do any actual math.

Scribner cites a source that 80% of Velib bikes were stolen or vandalized, without noting that many people think those numbers were overstated as part of a negotiating ploy.

He then claims, about positive externalities

when looking at experiences with similar programs in other cities, the positive externalities argument falls flat.

And follows it by pointing out that, according to one study, only 10% of Bixi trips in Montreal replaced a car trip, thus he concludes:

Even under the most alarmist global warming scenarios, the positive public health and environmental externalities cannot justify this fiscal black hole.

Of course, he never considered the full list of positive externalities, or what the value of replacing 200,000 car trips (as is the case in Montreal) is. How much CO2 is that? How much air pollution? How much water pollution? How much road damage? How much does this reduce congestion? Scribner doesn't know and he doesn't say. He just asks us to trust him on this.

Then there is the stuff he didn't mention at all. 47% of Bixi trips replaced more sedentary trips. What is that worth from a public health standpoint? Scribner doesn't know. One of the most common reasons for using Bixi was that it was faster. What is the value of all that increased efficiency? What about the people who took trips they otherwise would not have? Doesn't that presume some utility? Doesn't that lead to more commerce? What is that worth? Scribner can't be bothered to think of that.

His third point it total nonsense

bike-share programs are administrative nightmares.

I don't know what "nightmare" means in this case, but I don't think that's accurate. Yes, 2 stations out of 114 had some delay due to neighborhood concerns, and there are some legal issues with NPS, but that is hardly a "nightmare." The whole system has gone from "contract signed" to "bikes on the ground" in a matter of months. That's hardly a nightmare. It's a model of efficiency frankly. Compare that to how long it took for Target to open. And none of the problems he cites are unique to bike sharing. Every business in this town deals with these kinds of issues. He should go to an ANC meeting when zoning or alcohol licensing comes up. Scribner's statement is not an argument against bike sharing as much as an argument against doing business ("it's too hard").

He ends with

What I’m opposed to is misguided utopianism and spending taxpayer dollars on programs where there is significant risk of failure. We’ve already had one failed bike-share program in D.C., and it looks like we’re going to have two.

He fails to point out where the significant risk of failure is, or even what failure would be. I asked someone at DDOT what success would be in their mind and they said "a system that covers it's operating costs and gets 3-4 rides per bike per day." Only time will tell if it gets there, but that is not at all unreasonable.

And his claim that the first bike-share program failed is also unfounded. By which standard? At the end Smartbike was operating at full capacity. And it wasn't costing the District a dime. How is that a failure?

Scribner doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

But that doesn't stop him. In a recent op-ed he criticized the whole TIGER program.

Smart Growth “livability” projects generally make auto travel more difficult. ...Congestion is by far the most serious issue facing our transportation system. Livability measures not only fail to address congestion, they make it worse. More congestion means that people spend more time stuck in traffic, which means a lot of wasted time and fuel. As vehicular mobility declines, so does real livability. 

Now, agree with him or not (put me strongly in the "not" category. I'd place roadway safety and the 40,000 dead users as a more serious issue facing our transportation system), he goes on to mention things that will reduce congestion like streetcars and bike trails.

He also claims that "most Americans prefer to drive", but cites no source. Most Americans do drive, but most Americans have no choice. However in places where Americans do have a choice, like DC or New York, they mostly don't drive. So I don't think that shows a preference for driving. All of which ignores the fact that we should provide a transportation system that meets the needs of everyone, not just Scribner's mythical majority that prefers to drive.

He ends by labelling an Arkansas bike trail as the dumbest TIGER II grant.

As wasteful as these projects are, the award for dumbest TIGER II grant goes to the Razorback Regional Greenway in northwest Arkansas. The others are at least somewhat related to Department of Transportation’s core mission of enhancing American mobility. The Razorback, in contrast, is a proposed 36-mile bicycle and pedestrian corridor stretching from Bentonville to Fayetteville.

The trail in question will connect "the cities of Bentonville, Rogers, Lowell, Springdale, Johnson and Fayetteville. The trail will connect Lake Bella Vista with south Fayetteville and will pass many significant destinations and attractions along the way" which sounds to me like an enhancement of American mobility.

The point that few people bike commute in the area is irrelevant. One purpose of the trail is to increase the number of people who take part in active transportation. The trail will help to reduce congestion by transitioning people to biking, walking, running, skating etc...to work, and as we all learned above "congestion is by far the most serious issue facing our transportation system." He's contradicting himself

As for "a small and vocal segment of the public"

All six Mayors provided support letters. Additionally, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Mark Pryor, Congressman John Boozman, numerous State legislators, area business, education, and health care leaders provided letters of support for the project.

Scribner's definition of small segment is different than mine.

Update: T4A replies to Scribner as well.

Comments

[Read Scott Martin]

Great dissection. Those looking for shorthand to describe the libertarian critic need look no further than "every one of these projects loses money." It is a justification for doing nothing that can be used to describe the vast majority of publicly funded transit projects.

[Wayne Phyillaier]

@ Read Scott Martin, to expand on his observation on "every one of these projects loses money" as a libertarian's justification to do nothing - it also applies to publicly funded roads and highways, schools, parks, sewer and stormwater systems, fire services, police services, etc.

So why do libertarians single out bikeshare?

[Early Man]

I rode a CaBi down to the Science and Engineering fair this weekend and saw a number of tourists and locals also riding the bikes. None of them looked to be 'cogheads,' although a lycra clad biker on Penn Ave. asked about the bike. The one thing in common--they all had huge smiles. But as Marc will quickly remind you, you can't put smiles in the bank.

[freewheel]

+1 read scott martin - great dissection of Scribnor's flawed arguments.

[Daniel]

@Wayne Phyillaier: Indeed the "loses money" is the libertarian argument against everything (I lose money by having a daughter, so libertarians would argue against family? I lose money on the public park and street cleaning. On the public hauling of trash). Even if the bike share lost every penny that went into it, it's still chump change compared to some big losers in the libertarian eye (NASA is a favorite).

So why go after bike sharing? Because it is new and different and in the news. At best, this turns out to be way to get an article read (current event). At worst, it is a conservative argument in libertarian clothing: a dapper argument standing on its front porch and shaking a cane at those meddlesome bikers changing the transit culture.

What really baffles me is that bike share ought to be a libertarian poster-child. Here you have (relatively) inexpensive public transit investment with a strong private component that eventually pays for itself. Unless you are a libertarian extremist, this ought to appeal to you.

[wil]

This guy's office is at 19th & L, which is a wonderful place to drive to and from at rush hour.

I'd chip in a few dollars with my fellow readers to get him a monthly membership to CaBi if he promised to use it at least 5 times a week. But then again, as a libertarian, I doubt he'd accept the subsidy. ;-)

[charlie]

Umm, just to correct a few things:

1. Yes, BIXI (the company) expects to make a profit. They are making it by projecting they will sell replacement bikes to DC, London and Toronto at vastly inflated profits. Not exactly the best argument..

2. London isn't going to make a profit. They are projecting that in three months of opening, they will be covering their operating expenses. That is before the big bills for bike replacement and what not come into play - and not the mention repaying initial capital costs.

3. I'd argue the best case for bikesharing is as a subsidy for people who don't own cars. Those people tend to be young, single and no children. As taxpayers, they bring a lot and don't cost a lot (healthcare and education). Getting them into cities brings financial health to cities -- they are very desirable.

I am enjoying cbshare, but it is an open case whether it is sustainable.

[washcycle]

charlie, I think you're wrong about London. From the article

"TfL expect it will cover its operating costs within two to three years and will then be able to contribute to its implementation costs. Charlie Lloyd from the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) said:

'It is very likely they will make some kind of profit on this...'"

And in Montreal, I don't know how you can separate the bike-sharing component from the technical component. Without Montreal's investment, this business would be elsewhere. That is a financial win.

But if you want to, the analysis in the link shows the operations alone turning a profit by 2012.

[Steve]

Good dissection, Dan. The criticism of the TIGER grants is hilarious. It sort of rings hollow in the ears of people who live on the ground when a project that enjoys massive local support gets funded in the TIGER program. Makes this guy just sound like a whining DC think tank talking head who has no idea, and people in these communities certainly won't be taking him very seriously.

Interesting thing he notes in other columns is that he lives and works in DC and takes transit and rides his bike pretty much everywhere. Talk about some cognitive dissonance.

The best part of the TIGER criticism? Apparently sometime in 1990 smart growthers took over the federal government and DOT have been running things every since. I had no idea. I mean, that sounds totally like reality, right? Because we've funded nothing but "smart growth" since the early 90's at the federal level, right? High comedy.

[Brendan]

I bet you not many people drove their new fangled automobiles from Bentonville to Fayetteville until someone paved them a road.