Tuesday Afternoon Commute - Primary is over

Good afternoon

• A rehash of recent bike-infrastructure good news.

In additon, an analysis of Capital Bikeshare data shows that a neighborhood's age and race demographics as well as the retail and transit options are some of the key factors in determining how often its CaBi stations are used. Another key factor is how close it is to the core of the system. 

The study calls for moving more of the stations in an annual redistributions and questions the viability of stations in the suburbs as well as the prudence of distributing them to every ward/neighborhood.

I would agree that arbitrary political boundaries like wards shouldn't be considered, but I'm glad that stations were placed EOTR and in neighborhoods that are deemed low on suitability. It may even be that they make as much revenue as more popular stations. There is surely some relationship between revenue and how much a station is used, but getting stations near people is also a driver for revenue. A member who rides 4 blocks every day is actually more expensive than one who takes one 4 block ride every week, since they both pay the same membership but the former needs more maintainance. But the study is right to question whether or not we have over-invested in low suitability areas. 

The study's author notes that "ridership maximization should not be the ultimate goal of any transportation investment" but recognizes that is a measure we cannot ignore.  

The study does echo a point I often try to make when people try to mention how Velib is distributed which is that "Bicycle share planning should be highly customized to a specific geography."

There is one thing I'd add. While the author calculated the system's center weighted by ridership and shows it roughly on a map, I wish they would have called out exactly where that was - it's irrelevant, but satisfying in a nerdy way. 

Comments

[charlie]

I think you make a good distinction -- which wasn't apparent in GGW post -- between using a model to predict demand and where to place stations.

The "heat-map" DDOT and Arlington have been using isn't very good. This is at least a step up.

If anything, makes the argument for larger stations in high density areas. Would it be insane to CABI on every other block downtown -- no.

[Richard Layman]

re your point that bicycle sharing planning should be highly customized, the reality is that isn't how it's done.

Basically the rule is based on (1) the Paris experience of stations about 300 meters apart, so about 28 stations per square mile and (2) a set of factors common to higher use, "using a raster based GIS analysis"

- http://trb.metapress.com/content/18877j0146643041/

2. WRT Charlie's comment, NYC is breaking up the service area into 1000x1000 sq. foot grids, identifying major activity points, transit stations, obstacles, and working to have one station per.

[Kathy]

One of the prime reasons for major vandalism in the Paris bike share system is disenfranchisement of a major segment of the population from the system. The bike stations were located only in the inner core of the city and not in the outer rings where poor(er) people live. As a result, those on the outskirts view the bikes as "rich people's toys" and destroy them to make a statement/have fun. They have no investment in the bike system therefore see no reason to not destroy it. Vandalism of the bike system there is a huge problem and we are very lucky not to have that problem much at all.

[UGG Bailey Button]

viser i detalj utformingen på sinnet, Produkttype UGG færre og noen sko, sluttet ull å bygge, men å tilbringe i sålen bit land, en sterk stil av UGG.