If you think CaBi is the cause of budget woes, you don't understand the budget.

Deborah Simmons, a Washington Times opinion writer, thinks that Capital Bikeshare should be targeted for budget savings

How’s this for saving money?: Curb spending on the Capital Bikeshare program.

Probably not very effective. Operation of the current system isn't very expensive. The whole thing nearly breaks even and in DC it probably turns a small profit - that's without earning ad revenue that the Mayor has included in the last two budgets and targeted for general spending. What little money could be redirected is CMAQ funding and it can't really be used to fill DC's current budget hole.

Motorists and other taxpayers certainly don’t want to wage war on bicyclists, 

That's good to know, but is she aware that bicyclists are often also motorists and also taxpayers, which means she's saying "people don't want to wage war on themselves"?

even though bikers, including those who do not use Capital Bikeshare, are getting a free ride 

The woman who can't be bothered to do any research is right. Other than the membership fee and overage charges CaBi users pay, they're getting a completely free ride as long as 3% free is considered "complete". Meanwhile drivers, as regular readers know, are covering nearly half of the cost of roads. 

and don’t always follow the rules of the road or the letter of the law.

This is neither relevant nor a way of distinguishing cyclists from drivers or pedestrians.

But let’s be real: Capital Bikeshare is run by the D.C. Department of Transportation, and DDOT provides all of the funding for the program.

OK, let's be real. CaBi is actually run by DDOT and Arlington County. Users pay almost all of the cost of operating the system and much of the capital costs are paid by the federal government. BIDs also pitch in. Very little DC money has gone into the system. 

If that’s a fair deal for non-biking D.C. residents and motorists,

And it is, since they have paid effectively nothing for the benefits of cleaner air, less congestion, more available parking and better public health.

how about giving a break to drivers — who, after all, pay more than their fair share to drive and park in the city.

But drivers don't pay "more than a fair share to drive and park in the city". They pay only half of it. And because the gas tax hasn't been raised in decades, inflation has given them a break every year since The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles was cancelled. If drivers want a break, they can always walk or bike more. 

Comments

[Ross Patterson]

Just posted a link to this at the Simmons' article. You know, where someone who isn't a cycling advocate might see it :-)

[Jack Cochrane]

I tried using the Washington Times to line our guinea pigs' cages but the guineas didn't like it.

[charlie]

"And it is, since they have paid effectively nothing for the benefits of cleaner air, less congestion, more available parking and better public health."

Really?

Again this is why the CMAQ money is a fraud. I don't think there is a way to mesure any of the above. Sure we can see how much CABI is used, some metrics -- but none of that suggests anything for the non-users.

[washcycle]

Yes. Really.

[oboe]

I certainly don't mean to impugn Ms Simmons' capacities as a public thinker, but she sounds like a professional clown, paid to keep the mouth-breathers guffawing.

[oboe]

Oh, yes, and Tea Party Kulturkampf, btw.

[Anon]

Charlie: I'll expand a bit on washcycle's response to you. If even a single person takes a single ride on a bike instead of riding solo in a car, the number of car trips is reduced. That brings all of the benefits listed in washcyle's commentary. Surely you admit that at least some CABI rides would've been solo car rides?

[Jim T]

I assume that the Washington Times needed an anti-bikeshare commentary to keep on the same page as their fellow travelers, and Ms. Simmons took the assignment. There is nothing in her comments that suggests anything other than an attempt to use up a few lines of print on the subject.

The facts are bad enough that the Times is almost obliged to issue a retraction and publish a letter to the editor--the only question is whether it is even worth CaBi staff time to seek the correction.

[Kathy]

A recent survey of CaBi riders showed that 55% of CaBi trips replaced passive transit ones; that is, bus, taxi, metro, and car.

The majority of CaBi trips replaced the first three types of trips; far less so for car which isn't surprising given CaBi's predominance in downtown DC.

The fact that CaBi has replaced so many trips where people would not have been getting any meaningful exercise (with the possible exception of walking) is significant.

In a year of bike commuting, my blood pressure has dropped significantly, my pulse has lowered, my cholesterol levels have improved, and I have more energy. That will save society in the long run and makes me a better employee.

[Michael H.]

You should also point out the enormous societal costs of sedentary lifestyles and bad nutrition. (While cycling doesn't automatically mean that someone will eat better, there is a general correlation between active lifestyles and good nutrition, i.e., people who exercise also tend to eat better.)

People who exercise (which includes cycling) and eat right end up paying enormous subsidies to cover the avoidable health costs that are caused by sedentary lifestyles and bad nutrition. One recent study estimated that the U.S. spends $190 billion a year to treat these avoidable medical problems (Type II diabetes, early onset of heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.). If Ms. Simmons is so concerned about saving money and not paying out subsidies, why isn't she as concerned about the massive healthcare subsidies that are paid out to people who voluntarily live unhealthy lives? (The subsidies come from a combination of higher private health insurance premiums as well as higher taxes for public health programs.)

[TurbineBlade]

I don't think that articles like this are really sincere. It looks to me like most of these are just "complaining" without any attempt to actually understand the issue.

[Ross Patterson]

Hmm ... my comment to the article was not posted, and I didn't receive any negative feedback from Simmons or the paper. I guess they don't want substantive comments, just "I reposted this! Woo hoo!" :-(

[oboe]

I don't think that articles like this are really sincere. It looks to me like most of these are just "complaining" without any attempt to actually understand the issue.

Exactly. Hearst wasn't the first newspaper man to figure out that inflaming the rubes sells papers.

[IMGoph]

Can someone please tell me why Ms. Simmons is paid any attention by anyone anywhere?