Though small, CaBi is something to be excited about

Marc Scribner is back with another poorly-argued post about Capital Bikeshare.

Capital Bikeshare is supposedly revolutionizing transportation in the District, reducing nasty polluting and obesity-causing auto use. I will now explain why this is not the case with some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic, and why Capital Bikeshare should be panned rather than praised.

To a large extent, my post earlier today refutes his thesis but I'll add a little anyway.

His first point is that Capital Bikeshare makes up a very small number of trips.

Even given these very optimistic assumptions, cycling would only represent a little over 1.9 percent of all trips taken in Washington, D.C. (Capital Bikeshare’s mode-share in this scenario: 0.14 percent of all trips.) It would take a pretty twisted view of reality to herald this figure as somehow revolutionizing urban mobility.

But then he follows it up with a study that defies his assertion - a study he's misrepresented before. The Montreal study shows that 67% of Bixi trips replaced something other than a bike trip. That's a pretty revolutionary mode shift. His mistake is to believe that the goal is only to get people out of cars. Getting them off transit (33%) makes them more active and that has health benefits,as well as reducing transit costs. Switching them from walking (25%) saves time and makes them more efficient and effective. And of course, 10% of trips replace driving, which has personal and public health benefits, reduces congestion, noise and pollution and makes for smarter land use.

So clearly, CaBi is "reducing nasty polluting and obesity-causing auto use"; by a 100,000 trips according to Scribner's own source. And I think creating 670,000 new bike trips - in a year when the system didn't even finish rolling out for five months -  for a trivial investment, is pretty revolutionary.

Looking a the actual benefits - something Scribner doesn't bother with - we see that the positive externalities are about $1.5 M in year one. The bikes, Scribner asserts, are a $1000 per bike and will last 6 years. That means DC will make a $9M ($1.5M times 6 years) return on a $1M investment (1000 bikes at $1000 a piece). And reportedly the city is making actual money on the whole thing to boot "the operations and management for Capital Bikeshare is entirely self-sustaining—even profitable for the department." That's not a bad deal, and that's assuming ridership won't go up, even though it surely will.

He also tries to say it's a misuse of funds

If the money was to be spent on “[auto] congestion mitigation” and “air quality improvement,” and assuming the BIXI mode-switching figures broadly hold in D.C., this was a clear misuse of federal funds.

Except he admits that it has had an impact, if even a trivial one, on both. $5M is a trivial amount of money for a transportation program, it's OK for it to have a small impact.And as bike sharing expands in the region and nationwide, it will have an ever-growing impact.

What he never tries to do is to quantify the costs versus the benefits, which I did earlier, and I think it's clear that the benefits exceed the costs (even in the startup year). That's exactly the kind of program the government should fund.

Comments

[Crickey7]

There are benefiits that are not easily quantifiable. In the competition to attract the creative class as residents, the area that has the right mix of factors will win. And BikeShare-type programs is going to be one of those factors from now on, because they make moving around the urban core far easier.

[charlie]

I've been curious about the car replacement numbers. In my case, it sounds about right -- about 1 in 10 trips replaced a car trip. Mostly, they replacing walking and other bike trips. Some transit trips.

100K trips a year; that is about 300 car trips a day.

This is why I don't like bikesharing and CMAQ funds. Benefits are very low. Cost is low as well, but you could do a lot more to reduce air pollution.

There is a lot of reason to support bike sharing. Air quality -- not so much.

[Crickey7]

I'm dubious about the stated benefits, too. I like it, but it's more of an amenity issue for me. Like free concerts in Central Park.

[charlie]

The other metric that I am curious about is weight.

I'd love to say, oh, bikeshare bruned about 1 million calories or whatever. But again, I doubt it. My guess is the mechinical advanatege of a bike is taking away from calories burned while walking. But it might be worthwhile to track a supset of users to see if they lose weight over a year. Or gain some other health increase.

But yes, thinking about bikeshare as a way to attract healthy young people (without children!) is the best way to frame it.

[michael D]

CaBi is kind of like training wheels for grown ups. It helps teach them cycling around DC is easy, quick, fun and cheap. Once people realize these benefits they start riding their own bikes more. These benefits are tough to measure, but they are real and significant.

[Greenbelt]

CaBi is creating critical mass for bike riding as a commuting and utility option. Thus the savings in congestion reduction and car trip replacement go far beyond the actual CaBi rides themselves. I've never ridden a CaBi bike. But the resulting less-hostile-for-bike-riding environment that CaBi's presence has helped foster makes my commute and utility rides possible. I'm up to nearly 5k miles commuting this year, almost all off major roads (and thus reducing car or Metro peak hour congestion).

[contrarian]

I'd like to see his competing plan for increasing the capacity of the city's transportation infrastructure by 1.9% for $5 million.

[Fred]

Agree with Greenbelt - I have never ridden a CaBi, but as a cyclist I benefit from the more bike-friendly environment that it generates.

[Jacques]

I agree with michael D, (as well as Greenbelt and Fred), the biggest benefits are the secondary benefits.

Those could be people like me who started on bikeshare, as a way to test the waters of DC's roads, and eventually graduated to purchasing a bike and riding 40+ miles a week for commuting, as well as other trips.

It could also be the people who use their bikes a fair amount, but use CaBi for trips that a personal bike wouldn't be used for.

And, like Greenbelt said, it's the overall rise in visibility of cycling in the area that makes more people see it as something they can do.

Ultimately, when the next ACS figures come out for DC, I think Bikeshare could contribute directly to increasing the percentage of bike commutes in the area, but I think the (less-quantifiable) indirect benefits will spark a much higher rise in the number of bikes on the road.

[CaBi Lover]

It's hard to quantify secondary effects in a meaningful way, however. Here's a different data point: I have largely retired a personal bike that I used to use extensively, because I have found that a cost-neutral combination of CaBi, Metro, and driving in my personal vehicle is much more convenient. I support CaBi and think it's a great amenity to have. I'd say annual memberships are probably underpriced given its success and system expansion -- it will look like much more of a financial success if they raise the annual membership price to $100 or $120.

[Michael H.]

I have two bikes of my own but I also use CaBi. CaBi is better for running errands (no worries about leaving my own bike locked up outside), one-way trips and commuting.

I agree with others that there are direct and indirect benefits. The system is still young and growing.

The health benefits could be the biggest of them all, especially as bikesharing expands to more and more cities across the country. We spend (waste) hundreds of billions of dollars a year on health costs for "avoidable" problems related to inactivity and poor nutrition. (Smoking too.) While cycling and exercise does not mean people eat better, in my experience, active people tend to eat healthier than inactive people.

Fortunately the people who count don't seem to be listening to this Marc Scribner guy.