TheWashCycle

CaBi expanding by 1/3 in May 2011, 15th Street Bike lanes to open soon

ICYMI

Using money from the federal transportation department's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, Capital Bikeshare will expand by about a third early next year, DDOT announced today.

In D.C., it will add 20 stations and 200 bikes.

Across the river in Arlington, a founding partner of the bikeshare program, "[f]unding has been identified for 16 new stations," said Dennis Leach, the Director of the Arlington Department of Transportation. "The County is interested in partnering with businesses in the corridor to expand this development."

There's more here

DDOT's press release also says that their bicycle counts found that "rush hour bicycle trips increased by 82% between 2007 and 2010 at 20 locations throughout the District."

And here

“I really don’t think we can add stations fast enough to match the demand and incredible enthusiasm for Capital Bikeshare," DDOT Director Gabe Klein said in a statement.

And the 15th street bike lanes are almost open for business.

Signs and white flexible posts separating bike lanes from car lanes were installed along a stretch of 15th Street NW this week. When the work is finished, cyclists will be able to take 15th Street from V Street to Pennsylvania Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue from 15th Street to the Capitol - a total of 2.5 miles - on dedicated bike lanes.The two-way cycle track includes a new bicycle traffic signal at 15th and Pennsylvania.

"We're still working on about six or seven blocks of 15th Street," Jim Sebastian, cycling coordinator for the District Department of Transportation, said Thursday. "My guys are working on the finishing touches. . . . I'm guessing it will all be open by next week."

John Lisle, a spokesman for DDOT, said as many as a dozen mostly metered parking spaces between I Street and Massachusetts Avenue NW were removed for visibility, but some of those spaces were replaced on side streets.

"Bicycling in D.C. has been increasing for many years, but we saw a real boost in the past two," DDOT Director Gabe Klein said in a statement.

Photo by Carol Guzy/Washington Post

CWL 2010 #1 Capital Bikeshare Saturation

The best thing the DC region could do to increase the amount of transportational (and possibly recreational) cycling is to continue expanding Capital Bikeshare (CaBi). In Paris, the introduction of Velib led to an almost instantaneous doubling of cyclists within the city. A study of world bike sharing programs shows that only about 5-10% of bike sharing trips would have been made by bicycle without bike sharing, so with 1000-2000 CaBi trips per day (depending on the weather) that's hundreds of thousands of new trips per year by bicycle already. 

Since the transition from SmartBike to CaBi started, the system usage has already doubled from 1 trip per bike per day (tbd) to 2 tbd. Montreal was getting about 2.2 tbd after opening and Paris and Lyon are up closer to 7 tbd. Clearly adding stations has increased demand. While it may not be that DC has the population density to get to 7 tbd, it's not clear that we've peaked at 2 tbd. In fact adding more stations, as both DC and Arlington plan to do as early as May, should still bring not only additional trips but increased tbd.

It's unfortunate that the region didn't win the TIGER II grant it sought this year that would have added ~2600 bikes to the system and expanded it into Montgomery County, Alexandria, Reston and College Park, but this expansion should continue as money becomes available. And there is room to expand beyond that as well. In fact I can think of several levels of saturation for the system that could be pursued as a reasonable goal.

The region could continue to adds stations until they reach a maximum tbd. At this point adding an additional station might add new members and increase the total number of trips but, because the only choices are to increase redundancy or move into low use areas, it would begin to drop the average tbd. That system would only serve the densest areas though, and so isn't a good goal.

The region could add stations until they reach a maximum number of members per bike. It may be this point has already been passed. CaBi has about 5 members per bike, but SmartBike had 16 members per bike. I'm confident that CaBi membership will continue to grow in the spring but we'll see if it gets as high as 16 members per bike. If it does, they could keep adding stations until they maximize membership per cost, but again, that involves serving only the densest areas.

Another inflection point they could aim for is maximum income - including possible carbon credits. That's what a business would do. Under such a scenario they would keep adding bikes and stations until the cost of an additional bike is less than the revenue it would add. But Capital Bikeshare is not a for-profit business - even thought there is a private business element to it. Each CaBi trip has some value to the region; because it gets someone out of a car, gets them to take a trip they would not have otherwise or saves the user time and/or money. A better goal than maximizing income is to maximize value.  In this case, the value of each trip taken would be added to the income earned.  So if each trip has a value to the DC region of $0.50 and the new bike would add 1000 trips per year, then they'd include another $500 in their calculation as to whether another bike would add value. It might even be that at maximum value, the system is losing money. This is the point at which they've reached market saturation - and where they should consider whether or not they've maxed it out.

If they wanted to reach true saturation though, they'd go for maximum trips. There is some point at which adding new stations will not add trips. Everyone who wants to ride a CaBi for a trip can and the lack of a docking station in some location or bikes at that docking station is no longer an impediment to using the system. That would probably be far too costly a goal - and a poor use of public money. Adding a docking station that will be used once a year doesn't make a lot of sense.

Regardless, they're a long way from having to worry about saturation, so more stations and more bikes should be the goal.

Photo by pablo.raw (BTW, not to be a grinch, but putting two people on a bike is illegal in DC)

CWL 2010 #2 Parking cash-out

Most people in the DC area still drive to work. When they get there, most of them find a free parking space. Normally that parking space would be considered a fringe benefit and, as a commuting expense, would be taxable. But, there is an exception for employer-provided parking, so that benefit is actually tax free. In 1997, employers were allowed to offer a cash payout for those who chose not to use parking, but employers weren't required to and that money, if given, is taxed.

In 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended the fringe benefit to those who used transit or vanpools. Employers could offer employees free parking tax-free; give them a payout AND allow them to pay for their transit tax-free; or give them a partial payout (including none), and let them use some of their pay to pay for transit with untaxed dollars. This has been a major factor in the rise of transit ridership in the last 12 years.

As part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (a.k.a "The Stimulus") the fringe benefit was extended to bike commuters. Employees who receive a bicycle commuter benefit are allowed to have the first $20 per month tax-free as long as they bike enough days during that month. But it doesn't allow them to set aside some of their pay pre-tax as they can do with transit. Very few employers offer a bicycle commuter benefit.

Since it is unlikely that the federal government is going to remove the exemption for the fringe benefits of parking, transit and biking (which would make it all simpler, level the playing field and fit under a previous item in this list), the next best option is to mandate a parking cash-out.

California mandates a parking cash-out. In California, any employer with 50 or more employees, who provides subsidized parking for them and who operates in an area that doesn't comply to state air quality standards must offer employees a cash pay-out equivalent to the parking subsidy if they chose not to drive and park.  It doesn't apply to employer owned parking.

It was enacted after studies showed cash allowances in lieu of parking encourage employees to find alternate means of commuting to work, such as public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or walking. Parking cash-out offers the opportunity to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion by reducing vehicle trips and emissions.

Unsurprisingly offering people money to not drive and park encourages them to pursue other options. A study done a few years after the law passed of companies that fell under these limited requirements showed that

After cashing out, solo driving to work fell by 17 percent. Carpooling increased by 64 percent. Transit ridership increased by 50 percent. Walking and bicycling increased by 33 percent. Commuter parking demand fell by 11 percent.

If the federal government (or local governments) instituted a similar law here - currently there is a voluntary standard -  there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't have similar effects. Ideally it would not be limited to areas of poor air quality. Because it only applies to companies who are subsidizing parking out-of-pocket, the only increase in cost to the employer is for the employees who currently are not driving and parking or receiving another subsidy. So this would reduce driving, and all the social costs associated with it while inducing more healthy transportation, without costing employers very much.

If the law were expanded to smaller employers, and those who owned their parking spaces, this would drive up costs to employers (though some would save money by having more parking for customers, fewer needs to expand parking and lower parking maintenance costs). This might require some solution to keep from hurting business. Perhaps the cash out could be capped or some kind of tax break could cover it. Or it could just be mandated anyway. Much of this parking wouldn't be too expensive compared to neighborhood rates (in Ballston, I rent out a parking space at $100/month) and it's likely the cost would be amortized into wages anyway.

Short of that allowing the cash-out benefit to be treated like the parking benefit - in the current situation, tax-free - would also help level the playing field.

Cash-out benefits work best where parking isn't cheap and other options exist. Areas like downtowns. Moving to a parking cash-out system can be expected to increase biking and walking to work by 33% if pursued agressively and the DC area is perfectly suited to it.

 

WABA asks cyclists to ride responsibly

In the wake of the recent death of Quan Chu after being hit by a cyclist who then left the scene, WABA is reminding cyclists of their responsibilities on the road, and asking them to pledge to be more responsible. Cyclists are asked to pledge to be responsible, to respect the rights of road users, to better follow the law, to yield to pedestrians, and to help make cycling easier and safer for all. I think this is a great step for cyclists to take. We have to recognize that we play a part in road safety as well, not just for ourselves but for others too. And while I have sometimes been critical when we've been held to a higher standard than other road users, it doesn't hurt to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

As Daniel Hoagland of WABA put it

it's not true that most cyclists are scofflaws, but understands why that's a widely held belief.

"The ones who do break the law are the ones who are most visible and they're certainly the ones who will be most remembered by motorists who are sitting patiently at a red light when a cyclist blows through past them," Hoagland says.

"They're the ones who reflect on the rest of us and we just want cyclists to take that into account when they're deciding what to do at the next intersection."

To further drive ride home the message, WABA will be hosting a New Year's Resolution Ride on Jan 8th.

We at WABA are resolving to ride more responsibly and we want everybody who rides a bike to join us in this effort. Using the road responsibly isn't about laws or lane markings, it's about respecting other road users. We all have the right to use the roads, but with that right comes the responsibility to use them respectfully. Help WABA and your fellow DC area bicyclists make the roads safer and more fun for everybody by riding more responsibly in 2011!

Nobody wants to be that person who hits and injuries someone else with their bike, and besides being the right thing to do, riding responsibly is certainly in your own best interest. Responsible riding, by the way, involves staying on the scene - and rendering assistance if necessary - if you are involved in a collision.

Hope to see you at the ride, and riding responsibly in 2011.

Update: More from the WABA press release:

“WABA is always working in the community and in area schools to provide safety education for cyclists and pedestrians,” says WABA Executive Director Shane Farthing, “but we felt that rather than avoiding the difficult issues raised by the death of a pedestrian due to a cyclist’s failure to yield appropriately, we should address the issue of riding responsibly as an opportunity to better educate WABA's members, other cyclists and our community as a whole.”

CWL 2010 #3 Zoning

A FHWA study on why bicycling and walking are not used more for travel determined that the top reasons why people don't bike commute more are, in order: distance from work, safety concerns and a lack of parking and shower facilities at work. By far the easiest of those to address is the lack of shower and parking facilities. And here in DC it's clearly an issue as well. In a WABA member survey, 78.1% of respondents indicated that access to a shower/changing area would be influential in encouraging them to commute by bicycle. In the same survey 25% of respondents listed the lack of shower/changing facilities as a discouraging factor for bike commuting. So it is safe to say that providing adequate amounts of safe storage, preferably out of the elements, as well as lockers and showers will increase the amount of bike riding and especially bike commuting. Luckily for potential DC bike commuters it is likely that the lack of these facilites in many buildings will soon be addressed.

First of all, with the passage of the Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Amendment Act of 2010, the Mayor is given the power to enforce the original act from 2007. These laws require that bike parking in buildings that offer car parking be doubled from 1 bike space for every 20 car spaces to 1 for every 10. They further require 1 space for every 4 units in a residential building of 8 units or more. This should go a long way toward addressing the lack of parking.

But wait, there's more. The proposed DC zoning rules require two types of bicycle parking in ALL buildings (whether they have car parking or not) above a certain size. For most residential buildings that have more than 10 units and non-residential buildings of more than 4000 sq. ft. some type of either long term and/or short term parking is required. I say most because antennas and transportation infrastructure have no requirement. And since the minimum amount of parking required is 2 spaces, it means that it's a bit front loaded.

In addition, non-residential buildings with 25,000 sq. ft in gross floor area will be required to supply 2 showers wiht 2 more for every additional 50,000 sq. ft up to 6 showers. They will also be required to supply 6 lockers for every 10 long term parking spaces. 

These new zoning regulations, if approved, will apply to new and significantly renovated buildings.

But lest you think you can sit back and wait for all the awesomeness to happen to you, WABA has a few tweaks they'd like to see before these rules are accepted.

• The requirement of 3 bicycle parking spaces to 4 units is too low. There are 0.86 bikes per household according to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, so 0.75 space per residences will not meet current need. And WABA thinks that because each residence has more than two residences per unit, there should be two bike parking spaces per unit. But what they'd really like is a more emperical analysis of how many spaces are actually needed.
• WABA believes the allowing a building to be excused from their requirements because few people will bike to that building fails to consider the neighborhood's needs. The building that is being remodelled may not have many people biking to it, but maybe the one next door (which isn't meeting current standards) is. So a holistic approach would more rapidly address neighborhood and District-wide needs. They further want to see the exception process defined and the public space process made clear.

Unfortunately, you've missed your chance to comment on them in this round as comments were due on Monday (sorry).  But there may be an opportunities to comment in the future.

I'm sorry to say that I don't know much about zoning requirements for parking, showers or lockers in the other jurisdictions, but it would be of further value if Arlington, Alexandria, Montgomery County etc...made sure that they were following best practices in regards to these items.

It does help that many areas are pushing LEED certification, and LEED certification gives points for these types of facilities.

Photo of the EPA bike storage room in the Reagan Building by BikePortland.org

Giant pile of ...(dirt? asphalt?) that blocks view of mural from Metro passengers

IMAG0423, originally uploaded by volcrano.

Mural along the Met Branch Trail

IMAG0422, originally uploaded by volcrano.

Columbia Pike Parallel Bike Route

Arlington County's Transportation Planning Bureau has an interactive Bike Network planning map available to gather public input on possible parallel bike routes in the Columbia Pike corridor. Visit and make your opinion known.

CWL 2010 #4 Pricing Driving

I've been dreading writing this one because I fear it will be viewed as some sort of "War on Drivers" kind of thing. I'm frequently a driver these days, so I certainly don't want to declare war on myself. But, to be frank, if we're going to get more cyclists we're going to have to have fewer of something else (or more total trips - it is true that bike sharing systems create trips where people would have just stayed at home, but that is really a niche). The best place, from a social cost standpoint to get cyclists from is the current pool of drivers. One way to do that, without it being some sort of "war on drivers," is to properly price the cost of driving, which would encourage some fence sitters to save money by biking, walking, taking metro, etc...There are several ways we subsidize driving that could be addressed.

The gas tax: The federal gas tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. With inflation that means we've been cutting the tax every year. The Federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets ~2/3rds of its revenue from the gas tax, has recently been running at a deficit, and our roads have billions of dollars of deferred maintenance. Just indexing the current tax to inflation would go a long way toward solving the problem, but if we want the gas tax to continue to fill the gap in the FHTF, it will probably need to be increased. On the one hand, 81% of people say they'd pay more taxes to repair and upgrade our infrastructure, but almost the same percentage said they'd oppose an increase to the gas tax. So that's a mixed message.

Furthermore, you could make a case that the tax should be increased to cover the environmental costs of mining, shipping, refining and burning gasoline. Some have even argued that the gas tax is a fair way to pay for the Iraq war. An analysis done in 1998 showed that to capture the full cost of gasoline, the tax would need to be raised by several dollars per gallon. That is probably too extreme for most people.

Personally I'd like to see us move to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax to cover the costs of roads and infrastructure, with a multiplier for car weight; and a gas tax to cover some clean air, clean water and alternative fuel initiatives. But that is probably not going to happen.

Carbon tax/cap - This might seem like the same thing as a gas tax, but it would also put a price - though to a far lesser extent - on driving an electric car, since much of our electricity is from coal. CO2 is a major cause of global warming, burning fossil fuels is a major cause of CO2, and driving is a major source of burned fossil fuels. Drivers are not asked to pay for the economic impact of this process, making them a free rider. It is not unfair to ask them to cover this cost. Unfortunately, the best chance for pricing carbon in the near future probably died with the Democratic supermajority and so I'd be surprised if there were a tax on CO2 production anytime in the two years.  There is some hope though.  Matt Yglesias recently wrote that instituting a carbon tax would be very similar to a proposed VAT tax, but with the advantage of combating global warming. Maybe that will happen if the tax code gets dramatically rewritten to deal with the deficit. Either way, putting a price on carbon would further price the social costs of driving, and in so doing incentivize more people to bike.

Congestion pricing - The number one cause of congestion, I like to say, is too many people driving. London instituted a congestion charge zone in 2003. While it's clear cycling increased in London during the period of congestion charging, it also increased everywhere else in the world. So how much the congestion charge contributed is hard to say.  But some of the money raised by the congestion charge was invested in cycling infrastructure and it stands to reason that if driving into downtown were made more expensive, then biking would be more appealing. And the hope is that the total savings in time, pollution, safety etc..for people in the area in general would compensate for the reduction in convenience for those who decided not to pay to enter the zone. The London system has been effective in reducing pollution and collisions, improving the flow of traffic and raising money for transit, walking and biking. There is every reason to think it would do the same in DC.

Parking - The final way that we underprice driving is with nearly free parking. My parking permit cost me $15. For that I can park on a District-owned road in front of my house every single day. That is a bargain. My neighbors rent a space to zipcar for several hundred dollars a year. Metro charges $200 to rent a bike locker - and I can park almost anywhere within my ward for free. There is already a proposal to double the cost of a residential parking permit, which seems like a pretty reasonable step. And I like Topher Matthews' idea to charge even more for second, third, etc... cars. We should also pursues goals that reduce the amount of free parking that is created by instituting more performance parking programs, better zoning with respect to parking (no minimums and more reasonable rules), or even ending the practice of treating parking at work as an untaxed fringe benefit.

None of these ideas are meant to pick on drivers. These are not attempts to throw barriers up and punish anyone. The goal is only to accurately price the cost of driving. In fact, the congestion charge and performance parking should make driving better - even as it becomes more expensive. In other words, drivers will get something for their money.

Finally there are those who will make a fairness argument. That cyclists should also pay for the roads and parking that they use. I'd first note that we already do. But if somehow gasoline/VMT taxes were raised to fully cover all the costs associated with driving and that were no longer true, I'd still argue that we don't need, or even want, things to be fair. We want fewer people to drive. VMT reduction is a goal of almost every government body in America. We want more people to walk and bike for health reasons. We want fewer people to drive for safety reasons. We want to burn less gasoline for national security, environmental and economic reasons. So with all of these reasons to favor biking over driving, it's OK that things be "unfair." In fact, making things fair is in exact contradiction to our goals. We charge people a great deal to partake in the hobby of smoking. More than we do for the hobby of running. Is that unfair? Most people don't think so, because we want fewer people to smoke. We also want people to drive less, so it's OK - reasonable even - to tax that activity more.

Raising the cost of driving would certainly do a great deal to increase the number of miles bicycled - while achieving larger goals as well. Some increases are absolutely necessary and others would make sense.

photo by Will Cheyney

Coffee Themed Parking at Filter Coffee

CIMG0386, originally uploaded by Washington Area Bicyclist Association.

WABA has more on their blog.