TheWashCycle

Bike sharing helps cities achieve goals; newspaper and researcher reports otherwise

Bike sharing has a lot of benefits. In addition to providing an alternative mode of transport, saving users money and travel time, increasing access, making roads safer and encouraging bicycle ownership; it reduces GHG emissions, is good for public health and reduces congestion. The last three should not be surprising since bike sharing results in a net modal shift from driving. 

The Phase II member survey results show that bikesharing is causing a diverse array of modal shifts within the different cities surveyed.

The survey also found that bikesharing reduced respondents driving by large amounts in all cities. In Montreal and Toronto, 29% and 35% reported driving less. In MinneapolisSaint Paul and Salt Lake City, 53% and 55% reported driving less, and in Mexico City, 53% reported driving less. Very few respondents reported driving more.

And since driving is a significant cause of GHG emissions, bad for public health and a cause of congestion this is exactly the outcome we'd expect.

I'll note that some of these effects are counter-balanced by people who shift from transit and walking.  Those shifts involve more complicated trade-offs, with smaller impacts and are not as consistent as shifts from driving. For example, with walking

More respondents in Mexico City, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Salt Lake City increased walking than decreased it. In Montreal and Toronto, more reported walking less often than more.

Similar complexities are found with transit and biking. But those shifts don't change the fact that bikesharing reduces GHG emissions and improves health.

So it was surprising when the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Times recently had a disturbing headline about bikesharing "Boris bikes don't improve health or reduce pollution." It was also wrong. But there are layers of wrongness built into it. It's like a game of telephone where each person is not only getting the statement wrong due to normal errors, but each is also acting in bad faith. 

The Times was a little wrong

The Times article was basically regurgitating a press release from the Royal Geographic Society about a recent study on bikesharing, so when it was quoting it - which it did often - it was at least getting that right. But even then it got the main things wrong.

They state that the study shows that bike sharing schemes "do not cut carbon dioxide emissions" a claim highlighted, with the most damage, in the title. But that's wrong. The claim from the RGS study is that "Bike share schemes ... are not very effective at ...reducing CO2 emissions" which is not the same thing as doing nothing. I'm not very effective at cleaning dishes, but they aren't as dirty when I finish as when I started (sorry everyone I've ever shared a house with). 

The article goes on to claim that bikesharing bikes "aren't having a positive effect on public health" and that "people on the outskirts [of cities], who are likely to be on lower incomes and in greater need, do not benefit." Each of these statements wrongly represent what the RGS press release says. As the press release says there aren't very effective, not that they're doing nothing. The underlying studies make it clear that they DO have benefits for health and CO2 reduction and that they do benefit people with lower incomes. 

The RGS press release was a little wrong too

As noted, the press release from the Royal Geographic Society "Bike sharing schemes mostly benefit healthy, wealthy, young white men" makes different claims than those in the Times article. Mostly that it exaggerates the claims from doing "little" to doing nothing. 

But even the press release doesn't match the work by Dr. Médard de Chardon. [The press release is about the presentation of a study by Médard de Chardon. It doesn't say which one, but much of the territory is covered in his study on "Bicycle sharing system 'success' determinants" so I'll be using that in this post]

The press release states that 

1. The total amount of carbon produced in London from the rebalancing vans is not offset by the amount saved from use of the bike share scheme.
2. They are not very effective at improving health
3. They are not very effective at lessening road congestion
4. They are not very effective at promoting transport equity

But here again the claims in the release state things with more certainty than they're stated in the paper and they elevate the negative results of outliers without noting that they are the exception. For example on item 1 above, the paper says.

Multiple studies have shown that publicized estimates of carbon dioxide reductions are often overstated as only a small portion of car trips are replaced using Bike sharing systems (BSS) (Ricci, 2015). In the case of London it is estimated that the vehicles rebalancing bicycles within the system may surpass any emission reductions from modal shift (Fishman et al., 2014a).

So the rebalancing vehicles MAY offset emissions, but they may not. Furthermore, of the four cities studied by Fishman, London is the only city where they found that mode shift didn't offset re-balancing, so it seems deceptive to make that the "example." 

The claim that they aren't very effective at improving health is also not backed up by the study. Instead it says:

The shift from sedentary travel modes to cycling has clear health benefits but net quantities are overstated due to the reduction
in walking, which has greater health benefits for a fixed distance traveled.

Overstated is not a synonym for "ineffective."

On congestion, again the PR gets it wrong. The study calls the claims of congestion reduction "unproven", it does not say that they are proven in effective. 

Finally, on equity, the study does make the claim that bike sharing "members [are] more likely be wealthier, younger, white, male and own a car, compared to the local population" and that it is "one of the most inequitable forms of sustainable transportation infrastructures.” So one out of four isn't bad. Perhaps this is the part he should show as an example. [More on the equity issue below] 

The release also asks whether a bike-share system in which each bike is used less than twice a day (as many are) is the best use of public funding for cycling. That's a great question, but he's not an economist and he, as near as I can tell, he doesn't even try to answer it. 

Then he really goes off the rails. 

“In reality, bike sharing schemes are a false solution. They look sophisticated and are technologically cool, but they don’t create much useful or progressive change.

It’s worrying that we are getting bike share schemes instead of concrete improvements to transport infrastructure.”

A solution to what? His own studies show that they have many small, but real benefits. That seems to indicate that it's at least PART of the solution to some of the problems he brings up. And if it doesn't create much useful progress, the question is compared to what? He's not arguing that bike sharing is a bad thing, only that other things are better. That's always a complicated question and he makes  a poor case that something else is.   

I do agree with him when he says that it's important to more effectively redistribute public space for better cycling infrastructure, and if we have to make a choice between street changes and bike sharing (as they did in London) it's wise to ask which is the better investment. But this press release, and the 2017 study, don't do that.

The study is wrong too, and isn't really a study of 'success determinants'

Again, I'm going to use the 2017 study here and I recognize that he may have a new study out which would make this wrong.

Médard de Chardon's study is really a study of how many Trips each Bike takes per Day (TBD) in various systems (Of the 75 systems studied CaBi is 22nd with 3.0 TBD, 3rd best in the US). In that sense it's useful and interesting.

Where it gets off track is where it tries to push an agenda - namely that because many systems have a low TBD, bike-sharing is a poor use of resources. 

He first claims that "success" for bikesharing is not defined. And for that he cites a paper that states that 

Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Benefits include improved health, increased transport choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These benefits are unequally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution.

But, at least for Capital Bikeshare, that's not true. When the program was starting, MWCOG submitted an application to the US DOT for a TIGER grant. In that they clearly stated what they saw as the benefits/goals.

The benefits they foresaw were user cost savings, user travel time savings, increased access, congestion reduction, emissions reduction, healthcare cost savings and accident reduction. They also saw benefits in getting users to purchase and use their own bikes - something that just doesn't show up in tpbpd. 

Then they calculated the value of each trip at $1.20. So as long as the subsidy is less than that, it would seem the system is a success. I did the calculations after one year and showed that it was. Now if Médard de Chardon wants to reanalyze the MWCOG calculations, update them and/or make them more robust that would be great. But he doesn't.  And I'll note that of the 9 benefits listed here, his paper misses 5 of them. 

He then goes on to state that the benefits for road and public transit congestion, carbon emissions, cycling modal share, health and equity have been shown to be hard to measure, trivial or non-existent. But the studies he cites contradict that. One is quoted above listing all the benefits. Another merely says that "the majority of scheme users are substituting from sustainable modes of transport rather than the car" which is not the same as saying there is no mode shift from cars or even from modes that do less for health. The third, written before CaBi started doesn't even make that claim. But even the most damning of these, by Ricci, which says that "there is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution." (emphasis mine) also notes that nearly 20% of all bikeshare trips were shifted from car. There is no explanation for how hundreds of thousands of trips can be shifted from car to bikeshare without reducing congestion, emissions and pollution.  It seems the word "siginficantly" is doing all the work. Médard de Chardon does cite a study that claims that, in the case of London, the low car-to-bike shift rate combined with much higher than average rebalancing miles, leads to an increase in carbon emissions. It makes the case that in a city where few drive, bike-sharing will do little to reduce driving. 

But one thing Médard de Chardon does is cherry-picks his studies. If one claims that it does little to reduce emissions, but does improve health. He'll cite it when he talks about emissions and use another when he wants to talk about health. For example, he cites one study to make the claim that

Additionally, women using London’s BSS have reduced health benefits, compared to men, owing to increased rates of injury 

Which sounds negative, but that studies conclusion is that

London’s bicycle sharing system has positive health impacts overall, but these benefits are clearer for men than for women and for older users than for younger users.

Which sounds less negative. 

When he notes that the systems have benefits

They provide an alternative mode of transport, increase accessibility, trip resilience and flexibility, lower the barrier to exploring urban cycling, increase the visibility of bicycles, bicycle awareness by drivers and normalizing the image of cyclists in casual clothing

He then attacks those benefits on the grounds that they "do not spread evenly among classes and race," which is a way to minimize them. For that he relies on Melody L. Hoffman's "Bike lanes are white lanes."

There may be lessons to be gleaned from that book, but we should be clear that it's not a "study" of equity, it's not based on such a study and when she writes about bike sharing she's talking entirely about one system - Minneapolis' Nice Ride - and almost exclusively relying on interviews. So her claim that bike sharing is "one of the most inequitable forms of sustainable transportation infrastructure" in the United States; that's her opinion. It's not based on some metric of inequality and a comparison of various "forms of sustainable transportation infrastructure." 

It is true that there's an equity issue in bike sharing, but that is true within biking as a whole, and so if the argument is that we should not invest in bikesharing to instead invest in protected bike lanes, you're not really solving the problem. It's also true that Médard de Chardon's study does a bad job of making the case about equity. And it makes no attempt to show why a system which unevenly spreads benefits among classes and races does not benefit those with lower incomes. It's possible the benefits are uneven and that low income people still benefit. 

Finally, he makes a dubious claim that 1 TBD is a significant threshold since. 

This value is psychologically important as systems below this have some bicycles being unused each day. More worrisome are the 10 systems with ratings below 0.5 TDB, as this means most bicycles are not used on a daily basis

It may be that 1 TBD is so low that the costs exceed the benefits. Or that 0.5 is. But if so, it won't be for psychologically symbolic reasons. And it likely won't be universal. In an un-system like New York's, where the taxpayers pay nothing, who cares how low the TBD is? And as he notes, any attempt to maximize TBD run counter to efforts to increase equity. 

Just to pile on a bit, he also ignores the number of people who are encouraged by bikeshare to buy and ride their own bikes. 

This is the heart of his failure to define bike sharing as a false solution. He has no idea what level of TBD/subsidy is cost-effective. He has defined no set of metrics for defining benefits. He makes to attempt to set a cost on systems. It may be that London's system increases emissions but is still cost-effective. 

It would be fair of him to say that systems need to define goals and metrics for success. That they need to analyze those regularly to see if those goals are being met and to what extent. That they need to try to define those metrics as benefits and compare them to costs. But he's simply not in a position to call bike-sharing a false solution. Certainly not across the board, and not in a city like DC with 3.0 TBD and high car-to-bike mode shifting. 

 

So, I would love to see a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of bike-sharing across a broad spectrum of cities. But this isn't it. And without one I don't see how anyone can claim that they are a "false solution."

From the Archives: Bicycle Back

In addition to "bicycle face" another hidden danger of bicycling identified in the 19th century appears to be "bicycle back" as noted in this June 30, 1880 blurb in the Evening Star

Bicyclists will do well to meditate on the following ominous paragraph in the last London Truth: "it may be noticed that many young men you meet nowadays are prematurely round-shouldered and walk with bent knees and a sort of crab-like movement. This is not the result of over-study or weakness, but the consequence of perpetual wobbling on what is called the 'steel horse.' This peculiar and ungraceful appearance, which is becoming indelibly stamped on many youths, is known as the 'bicycle back.'"

Alas, bicycle back is not covered by Obamacare. 

A pro-cycling magazine "The Wheel World" took a different bent to the issue

The wretched habit of riding with the body inclined forward has 
produced an habitual bent attitude with several riders, and given 
rise to a prejudice against the sport itself, as producing a " bicycle 
back." Nearly all oarsmen have this form of back, and it has not 
proved detrimental ; but it is ungainly, and the methods by which 
it is acquired on a bicycle are entirely unnecessary. Erect riding is 
more graceful, develops the chest, and add ; an exercise to the 
muscles of the throat and chest that rowing d )es not. 

The exposure to out-of-door air, the constant employment of the 
mind by the delight of changing scenery or agreeable companion- 
ship, add their contribution, and make bicycling, to those who have 
tried practically every other sport, the most enjoyable, healthful, 
useful exercise ever known. 

 There was also, it seems, something called "bicycle tongue" but I have no idea what that was. 

How healthy is bike commuting? More than you might think.

An article published in the Washington Post today alerted people - on the cusp of bike to work day - that bike commuting might be more dangerous than they think (how do they know how dangerous I think bike commuting is?). The article, it will shock you to hear, has some problems but first and foremost is the general thrust.

Let's just take all the primary elements to be true. That cyclists die at twice the rate of motorists. That cyclists suffer much higher exposure to air pollution. That despite all this, the physical and mental health benefits mean that regular bike commuters live longer than those who commute by car.  Which of these facts do you think is the most important one? For me it is easily the latter, since it is stated with consideration of the other two, which feed into it. It's the final conclusion of all of it, and it would be the bottom line that most people care about. What are the health implications of my choice? I'm sure that choosing to exercise, in general, increases your chances of accidental death, but the Post would never run a headline than read  "running is less safe than sitting on your couch." [Ok, these days, the Post might] Which is why I would have written the headline above instead.

What Sadie Dingfelder did was the equivalent of the article below

Maryland Schoolteacher his with $50 million tax bill

A Maryland schoolteacher earning $42,000 a day was suddenly hit with a $50 million tax bill yesterday after winning the $340 million Powerball jackpot....

That's all true, but the presentation is somewhat deceptive. The least important fact is left until the end, which is fine for an M. Night Shyamalan movie, but not journalism.

Data doesn't  compare the same types of people

But we shouldn't take the facts stated above to be perfectly true - at least not as interpreted and applied to the question on the relative safety of bike commuting. The Beck study compares the average person biking in the average place to the average motorist, and as such doesn't tease out bike commuting in the city. It doesn't answer the question "What are the safety impacts of switching from driving to biking for my commute."

Comparing the average type or person is flawed, in part, because the population of motorists and cyclists differ so much. Cyclists are overwhelmingly more male and men are fatally injured 122% more often while cycling than motoring. Women on the other hand are only 15% more likely to suffer a fatal injury. This might be because men are more likely to be involved in recreational cycling, riding a road bike on a county highway for long hours when fatigue begins to play a role. And recreational cycling isn't really part of the whole "commuting vs. driving" question.

In addition, there are many cyclists under 16 years old, but very few drivers of those ages. And children are about 4 times more likely to be killed while biking than while driving. And that relates to another issue, the fatality rate for motoring is pulled down by the fact that some motorists are children riding in car seats or booster seats, which makes them significantly safer. But you aren't going to commute to work in a car seat. And many passengers are in the back seats, where you are unlikely to commute, which are safer as well. The data doesn't tease out how safe driving is or even riding in the front passenger seat - which matters if comparing commuting methods.

And the two complications of age and gender mask one another, If we look at the data broken down by gender, the male cyclists might be much younger than the male drivers - in which case more fatalities might be expected because young people take more risks. If we compare by age, then we get a group of cyclists that consists of a higher percentage of men than the drivers do, which again is a more risk taking group. So in each case we're comparing a more risk taking group to a more risk adverse group.

Finally, these groups aren't randomly selected. They're self-selected. I'd expect the group that bikes to be less risk adverse than the group that drives, and thus a higher fatal injury rate among them.

In other words, the data presented here doesn't tell you if YOU personally will be more at risk if you bike than drive. It tells you that the self-selected group of people who choose to bike are more at risk than a self-selected group of motorists. 

As an example of how this skews things, if you divide the total annual injuries reported by NHTSA by the commute rate by car and bike as reported by Census, cyclists are only injured 50% more often than drivers. Meaning if we look more closely at just commuters, the relative risk goes down considerably. 

Exposure is tricky

The exposure is always tricky. The denominator used in this study is trips, but time spent travelling matters too. The tree across from my house has gone on zero trips for zero miles, but it's been involved in two car crashes (that I know of). Exposure time matters. Day long leisure bike trips can throw the whole thing out of whack. 

 

Nor does it account for time of day differences. There is way more bike commuting between 2am and 6am than there is transit commuting, for example. 

 

Where matters too

And, as the article points out, where you bike matters a lot. Cities are likely safer for cyclists than county roads due to lower speeds. But on the flip side, highways are safer than other roads for drivers. So if you live in the city, the risk of cycling will be much different than if you life in a rural area.  And even then, as the article points out, not every city is the same. This difference in the types of facilities on which people drive and on which they bike is another limitation in the data. It means it doesn't tell me if I ride route A in stead of driving it if I will be safer. 

 

 

My thoughts

 

 

My personal feeling based on years of reading and writing about this is that bicycling is somewhat more "dangerous" than driving. Which makes some sense, since, unlike a car, a bike is inherently unstable at low speeds. And it is really hard to add safety features like seat belts and air bags. Which means that

 

1. While cyclists are less likely to be in crashes with other road users than motorists are, they suffer more "incidents" due to single-bike crashes. Drivers never (Or at least rarely)  fall out of their car, and they don't often lose control if they hit a bad pothole, etc... As a result there are a lot of broken collar-bones and wrists and a lot of abrasions that drivers don't deal with.
2. Cyclists who are involved in crashes have a lower survivability rate than both motorists and pedestrians. Not only are they without any real protection, but they are also up higher (giving them farther to fall), inherently unstable, moving at higher speed than pedestrians and further compromised by the unique geometry of riding (things like clipless pedals and the teeth of the gears). Getting in slightly fewer crashes isn't enough to compensate for the higher likelihood that crashes result in injury or death. 

 

Together  it means that if a person replaces a car ride with a bike ride, I suspect they are something like 5-20% more likely to be injured or killed, depending on where and when they ride. A grade separated bike path during the day might even be safer than driving, but a county highway at night is certainly much more dangerous.

 

But that risk is certainly more than compensated for by the added health benefits of cycling. It's a higher risk, larger reward scenario. But if safety is your main concern, then by all means the bus or rail (or even better, the elevator) is your best option.

Some nits to pick

As it turns out, bikes are the most dangerous way to get around with the exception of motorcycles.

Actually, the cited study also shows "other vehicles" defined as "large truck, motor home, taxi, limousine, hotel/airport shuttle, etc..." as more dangerous than biking. Being 3rd most dangerous out of 6 options isn't exactly "call the neighbors and wake the kids" territory. 

Bike commuters inhale about three times as much air pollution as drivers

On identical routes. If your bike ride takes you on the Captal Crescent or Mount Vernon Trails, that is almost surely untrue - as long as you aren't adding a lot of miles. 

“We think bikers are choosing a healthier option, but it turns out bikers on long, crowded roads are getting exposed to air pollution,” he says.

Bikers are choosing a healthier option AND they are getting exposed to air pollution.

 

Thursday Morning Commute - Parity

Good morning

• The Commuter Parity Act of 2013 would, among other things, increase the fringe benefit for bicycle commuting from $20 a month to $35 a month, specifically allow beneficiaries to use it to pay for bicycle sharing and allow employees to claim it AND/OR the transit benefit (currently it is either/or). It would also automatically adjust for inflation each year.  
• Proposal to close a gap in the East Coast Greenway near Baltimore. 
• Filibuster training: "An avid runner and cyclist, Davis was in good shape for the physical challenge of standing and talking for nearly half a day."
• The Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program Report is now available. This program provided $25 million to four communities to create a non-motorized transportation network. "The four pilot programs saw an average increase of 49 percent in the number of bicyclists ... between 2007 and 2010." This outpaced the national average from 2001 to 2008. Despite the increase in cycling, cycling fatalities did not go up. "the count increases over these 4 years came primarily from increased utilitarian bicycling and walking trips in each of the four communities." The health benefits alone were estimated to be about $7M per city. 

Thursday Morning Commute - Zebra

Good morning

• DDOT will submit a proposal to the CFA for protective devices for the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes called the Zebra. "If CFA is open to the Zebras, DDOT will probably install them on a test block of Pennsylvania Avenue as a trial before putting them elsewhere."
• Green Lane Blog post on the M Street cycle-track
• Washington is the second best city for fitness in America. 
• Baltimore has a bike party too. 

Tuesday Morning Commute - Today's Special

I hope that bike has a chain guard...I mean that's a nice suit.

• "As my oncologist spoke, I thought of the commuting bike, purchased two months before my diagnosis, gathering dust under the basement steps. There was virtually nothing I could control about the nightmare of my cancer, I thought. But give me one thing that I can take charge of, that I can do — that I love to do — and I’m going to ride as if my life depends on it."
• "According to the District Department of Transportation's Monica Hernandez, there'll be new bike lanes on Illinois between Randolph Street and Grant Circle and shared lanes (with "sharrows") between Grant and Sherman circles. DDOT is hoping to have the lanes installed by next month."
• Montgomery Preservation Inc., has changed its mind and will now submit plans for the Met Branch Trail near the historic train station to the Maryland Historic Trust. This is not the finish line, but it gets things closer. [BTW, I like the idea of opening the station itself as a trail-side cafe. Win-win]
• US DOT is now accepting applications for TIGER 2013 the 5th round of TIGER funding. There's $474 million on the line. In the past MWCOG has unsuccessfully sought TIGER money for expandingbike sharing across the region or improving access to Metro stations - including for cyclists. More recently, DC and Maryland won a grant to finish the Ancostia Riverwalk Trails. No word on what applications local bodies might submit this time. 

New Street Smart Poster shows dangers of driving

Hat top to duffmanrb

Sunday Video: Driving Fast and Riding Slow

Thursday Afternoon Commute - Lettuce

Capital Bikeshare is opening on Columbia Pike next Thursday (the first of 30+ new stations coming to Arlington this spring). There will be a ribbon cutting at 9:00am at the Walter Reed Community Center.

• "The police department sent 76 special assignments to enforce pedestrian and driver compliance last year, according to Innocenti. During those operations, 1,100 pedestrians were issued citations for various offenses, such as not crossing in a crosswalk or starting to cross after the solid red hand has begun blinking, and those citations often come with fines. There were 38 vehicle citations during as well, Innocenti said." So there are 28 pedestrian violations for every driver violation? That sounds off to me. 
• The east gate to the Navy Yard Promenade will be closed until the end of April for 11th Street Bridge construction. 
• WABA walks readers through the basics of Bike to Work Day. No word yet as to whether the lettuce bikini girls will show up again. 
• Sure, you could watch college basketball all night, OR you could go to the Public Meeting regarding the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update for some real madness.
• "In Mississippi's healthiest county, many residents have easy access to bicycle paths and walking trails. In the least healthy county, there are few places to exercise"...."if someone wants to walk or ride their bike and they can't do it safely near their homes, "I haven't done my job," Mayor Chip Johnson said.
• Rep. Blumenauer "not interested" in being Secretary of Transportation. That's too bad. 
• Bike battles (between cities competing to be the best, not between cyclists and drivers) is named one of the top trends of 2013 by Planetizen.

Thursday Morning Commute - Memorial Trends

Good morning

• DDOT presented new information on the South Capitol Street Bridge to the BAC and PAC. The alignment would change to be parallel to the existing bridge. The ovals will stay, but "some sort of bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections will be included in the ovals."
  • DDOT is planning 16-foot bike/ped pathways on both sides, with horizontal separation of markings or signage to show that one portion is primarily for pedestrians and one is primarily for bicyclists.
  • There is not a change of elevation from the walking portion to the biking portion, allowing for flexible space to handle peak traffic of either bike or pedestrian during busy periods, like ballpark events or morning commutes.
  • Most importantly, that 16-foot bike/ped pathway will be present around the western oval, with eight feet marked for bicycle use
• The NCPC has released the revised version of the Comprehensive Plan's Visitors & Commemoration Element. NCPC is seeking public comment on this updated element through March 15, 2013. "NCPC will host a public forum on the draft element on Wednesday, February 20 from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Come learn about the element, NCPC’s recent Memorial Trends and Practice in Washington, DC report, and provide us your feedback." There isn't anything in the Memorial Trends document about cycling, but the Visitors and Commemoration Element has a section on transportation that does mention bike sharing. 
• Tomorrow, WABA is partnering with Dr. Ted Eytan, a full-time promoter of active transportation within Kaiser Permanente’s Center for Total Health, to lead a public meeting on how to make bicycling a part of your everyday life, and how decisions like these lead to a healthier life. 
• Another report on the Green Mile meeting with SHA. 
• Bicycle Action Day in Richmond. And more here. 
• Freeairpump.com