Why SmartBike didn't fail

Several people seem to have picked up the story line that SmartBike was a failure and that is why DC had to restart with Capital Bikeshare. Though I've only posted the one link here, I know that I've seen and heard that mentioned elsewhere - and certainly that's the gist of this post. And I just want to push back on that a bit.

Chirs Holben was interviewed about CaBi and said:

CaBi is the expansion of the Smartbike DC program. Started 2 years ago, Smartbike was very successful except for its limited size.

And I have to say that I agree. SmartBike was a success.

What those who claim it failed never seem to state is what goals it failed to achieve. I couldn't find any statement about the goals when the contract was signed (it was barely covered by the media), but I do know it was pitched as a pilot program or a demonstration project.

The idea was that ClearChannel would opearte a small, privately-funded bike sharing system that was to serve as a free test-bed for bike sharing, and thus a jumping off point for an expanded government-assisted program. In this sense it was an absolute success, since that is what it did (as well as providing something like 70,000 total trips). All without costing DC anything.

I doubt we'd have CaBi right now if it weren't for SmartBike. I have to wonder if Arlington would have so actively pursued bike sharing had they not seen it in action across the river. So SmartBike led, I think I can argue, to the creation of CaBi. All the hand-wringing (and I may have been a part of that) about how "if the system is too small, no one will use it and it will discredit bike sharing" turned out to be not true. In fact, I don't know if there is an example of that anywhere in the world, and DC's bike sharing system was not uniquely small.

Because of SmartBike, DDOT has the most experienced bike-sharing staff of any DOT in the US. CaBi hired the manager of SmartBike - who is the most experience bike share system manager in the US. When CaBi started, it didn't have to explain what bike sharing was, because people in DC already knew, and many had used it before. When Arlington went shopping for a bike sharing system, they could look at SmartBike, and all of its flaws, and learn what they were looking for. And when DDOT went looking for a replacement to SmartBike they could do the same, which is why they knew that joining with Arlington was a smart play.

When DDOT signed the contract for SmartBike over five years ago, Bixi didn't even exist. Then Arlington went shopping and decided they wanted something better. It was like they went phone shopping after the iPhone came out and so, decided not to buy a Motorola Razor.  DDOT could have chosen to expand SmartBike, which had some serious flaws and would not be compatible with Arlington's program; but I think everyone agrees that that would have been stupid. That does not make SmartBike, the program, a failure. It does mean that ClearChannel failed to create a technology that was robust enough to update easily and so they lost a customer.

But SmartBike acheived it's goals, and that makes it a success. It's just that CaBi is more of a success.

“It’s really proven useful, especially since there is a station right outside of campus,” says Anderson, who lives in McLean Gardens. “Now, instead of waiting for the bus in the morning, I just grab a bike on Wisconsin Ave. and just roll down to the main campus. It’s a win-win – I’m being green, getting a little exercise and lowering the stress of my morning commute.”

Comments

[darren]

I wholeheartedly agree with your premise, but will be "that guy" and nitpick a couple of details...

You characterize Smartbike as "free", stood up "without costing DC anything". Clear Channel operated on a concession arrangement, where they got prime ad space at bus shelters. While there was no cash outlay (that I know of), the government did provide something that had real value, that in an open sale could have resulted in revenue to DC, in return for the system. 'Concession' does not mean 'free', it just means 'cashflow friendly', and we need to be cautious of the distinction as we hear about things like private HOT lanes and NPS tourbusses and VA liquor store sell-offs.

Also, you state that "ClearChannel would operate a small, privately-funded bike sharing system that was to serve as a free test-bed for bike sharing, and thus a jumping off point for an expanded government assisted program." This reads to me like from the start, DDOT intended by design to keep Smartbike limited. While DDOT adjusted mid-course to this strategy, my impression was that at the outset, DDOT intended to pursue expansion of Smartbike into a fuller system like CaBi, using both expanded concession agreements and public/private funding. For a variety of valid reasons, they adjusted their strategy, great that they did, and it shouldn't take away from the formative role played by Smartbike.

[washcycle]

Darren, I thought about your first point. But I just don't know how much DC could have gotten had they asked for some other concession. As I understood it, the bike sharing was a last minute tack on because Dan Tangherlini found out they were eager to introduce the system to America. But that is just a rumor. So, DC might have been able to get something else, but I'm not sure they were planning to ask.

On the second point, I did not mean to say that DDOT planned to keep SmartBike limited. Only that, they planned it introduce a limited system. I think they always planned to expand it if it seemed to work.

[Mike]

The system also had effects in promoting bicycle culture. I purchased my first bicycle in DC as a direct result of the introduction of smartbike- I concluded it would be better financially (for me anyway) to buy my own bike rather than rent.