TheWashCycle

Update, CaBi reduces congestion by 4%, not 2-3%, bringing almost $200M in annual benefits

Back in July, 2015 a report that bike sharing didn't do much for congestion or air quality made some headlines on some more wonky media. But the authors own conclusions undermined that reporting

Ricci found that bike-share users don’t bike instead of driving so much as they bike instead of taking transit or walking. She writes that, “although Dublin bikes users reported considerable behavioral change, the prevailing trend showed a large modal shift (80.2 percent) from sustainable modes of travel to the bicycle, particularly from walking (45.6 percent) and including transfer from bus (25.8 percent) and rail (8.8 percent).” Still, nearly 20 percent of Dublin bikes users say they now drive less. Other European and American cities saw far lower rates of mode shift. In London only 2 percent of users shifted away from cars. In Lyon, France, and Washington, D.C., it’s 7 percent.

It certainly seems there is SOME reduction in driving and that is likely to lead to SOME reduction in congestion. And about a month later a pair of researchers from DC and the University of Richmond did a study showing that having 7% of CaBi users drive less results in about a 2-3% reduction in driving.  They determined this by looking at traffic data over a 2 year period during which bike share docks were being installed and comparing the traffic before and after installation. 

Our empirical results indicate that the average treatment effect of the presence of bikeshare docks is a 2 to 3% reduction in traffic congestion. In addition to these results, we also find evidence of a potential spillover effect, in which docks increase congestion in neighboring locations, perhaps as they lead drivers to find alternative routes to avoid bicycle traffic.

This fall they revised their study, and the news is better 

Estimates from our preferred models indicate a 4% reduction in congestion due to the presence of a bikeshare...This would reduce annual congestion costs for Washington area automobile commuters by approximately $57 per commuter, and total costs by $182 million...[and]...In terms of social benefits, a 4% reduction in traffic congestion for our study area would imply an annual benefit of roughly $1.28 million from reductions in congestion-induced CO2 emissions

This value ignores any benefits from cleaner air (like NOx emissions), private cost-savings from modeswitching and any health benefits that may accrue to bicycle commuters. They also found that congestion mitigation occurs primarily in areas with relatively high congestion and that there was actually almost no spillover effect

Better identification indicates that there is little or no congestion spillover from adjacent treatment.

All good news, and should add to the rapid development of bikesharing in just about every urban area in America and the world. 

Hot take on Five myths about bicycling

Lydia DePillis, who often writes on bicycling matters for the Washington Post, had a column on Friday (yes, April Fool's Day) as part of the Post's "Five Myths..." series. It was more good than bad, but some of the bad is glaring. 

First of all, the myths themselves were a little weak. No one really says that bike share will make roads less safe, for example, at least not anymore. It would have been nice if she had found actual claims from recent, main stream publications (I'm sure the Post has some thanks to Courtland Milloy) and then shot those down.

1. Mandating helmet use is the best way to keep riders safe. - People do advocate for this at times, but I feel like it's more or a larger myth which is that "the most important thing a cyclist can do for safety is wear a helmet." I think helmets, on average, probably improve survivability of crashes and mitigate certain types of head injuries, but I'd say it's less important than a bike in good working order, a sober and confident cyclist and a good pair of bike lights (if riding when those are needed). Still, this myth is in the same vein. And she largely makes the same point, that there are better ways and that helmet laws are likely counter-productive. 

Unfortunately, she kicks it often with the since publication withdrawn claim that "Studies show [that helmets] reduce the risk of cyclist head injury by 85 percent" which I found surprising, but it is a widely repeated claim so I'll let it slide (though she should correct this). 

3. If more people rode bikes, there’d be noticeably less traffic and pollution. I guess she's trying to be balanced here by knocking down a myth of cycling evangelists, but it's not a myth. If more people rode bikes there would be less traffic and pollution - in proper relation to the number "more" we get. No one says that doubling bicyclists will end congestion and pollution, they say that to the extent that you transition rides from cars (and to a lesser extent transit in some case) you see a reduction in congestion and pollution. 

Sure, if everyone gave up their cars tomorrow, the health of our cities and our climate would improve. But this is wishful thinking. Just 1 percent of Americans regularly commute by bicycle. Even if that number doubled, cycling wouldn’t significantly cut smog and congestion.

Actually, it probably would. Both congestion and smog are concentrated in the same areas - cities. Exactly the places where cycling is most prevalent. If bike commuting doubled, DC would go from 3.9% to 7.8%. I'm certain an overnight change like that would be noticeable. A place like Berkeley would get to nearly 20% and San Francisco (#7 in air quality) to 8.8%. I think that would result in a measurable reduction in air pollution. 

Even the posts she linked to make this point. The Streetsblog post is about an actual study.

In a scenario where 14 percent of travel in the world’s cities is by bike or e-bike in 2050, carbon emissions from urban transportation would be 11 percent lower than a scenario where efforts to promote sustainable transportation sidestep bicycling. 

That's doable. That's noticeable. 

On congestion, she misreads the research. She writes that

Studies have shown that congestion increases in cities where there are more bike riders but no new bike lanes.

But that isn't what the study shows. It shows that on some roads, if bicycle use goes up, travel times goes up too. Mostly those are the uphill segments of narrow roads where drivers can't pass cyclists - and it's worse if there are buses too. It does not translate citywide and they don't even study what happens to the whole city. Other studies meanwhile, show that - on average - a bicycle causes about 28% as much congestion as a car, and that goes down as there are more bike facilities added. But 28% is the maximum. 

This was by far the worst myth on the list. It was a complete strawman, and not even supported by her own facts. 

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Study of Capital Bikeshare concludes that it reduces congestion by 2-3%

From a recent study of Capital Bikeshare:

Our empirical results indicate that the average treatment effect of the presence of bikeshare docks is a 2 to 3% reduction in traffic congestion. In addition to these results, we also find evidence of a potential spillover effect, in which docks increase congestion in neighboring locations, perhaps as they lead drivers to find alternative routes to avoid bicycle traffic. The magnitude of this impact is substantial relative to the effect in which docks offer transportation alternatives and reduce traffic congestion.

Standard Responses #3: Response to "Cyclists cause congestion"

Periodically, someone will try to make the claim that cyclists, due to their slower speeds, cause traffic congestion.

Bikes ... slow traffic, which creates more pollution.

Or that the introduction of bike lanes causes significant congestion.

removing auto lanes or narrowing them to accommodate dedicated cycling infrastructure tends to have a traffic calming effect, which often significantly increases traffic congestion.

There is, of course, a large amount of evidence to the contrary.

In one study, "Research On Bicycle Conversion Factors,” bikes were calculated to cause as much congestion as 0.28 passenger cars (less on trails, more when turning left).

In an AASHTO study, it was calculated that the passenger car equivalent for a bicycle depended on the width of the lane, but can be as low as 0.

“Opposed” means that a bicycle encounters interference from other road users, such as when making a left turn.

A third study, by Heru Sutomo, places the PCE for bikes in developing urban areas at 0.19.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute translated this into a per vehicle mile cost. They calculated the cost of bicycle-induced congestion as 0.2 cents per vehicle mile. Passenger cars are more than ten times as high at 3.5 cents per mile. Even taking into account the 1.6 passengers per car and assuming one passenger per bike (probably a little low)  they per passenger cost becomes 0.2 cents per passenger mile for bikes and 2.2 cents per mile for cars - 11 times larger.

As for bike lanes, even when they result in closing whole roads, they might - by themselves - reduce congestion. And at an 11 time improvement, you don't have to induce many people to bike to cut down on congestion. Bikes don't cause congestion, they reduce it.

Cars are another issue.

Tour de Links - Murmur

Maillot Jaune: Apple applied for a patent that describes Apple's vision for using the iPhone, iPod, or other electronic device as an interface for a multi-feature bicycle computer.

Podium - Someone bought an $8000 bike that once belonged to Floyd Landis for $5. It had been found on the side of the interstate in Kentucky.

Podium - Levi Leipheimer won the race that Lance Armstrong pulled out of. He won, despite crashing, and beat Lance's record. Next goal for Levi: Eight straight Tour de France victories.

Maillot Vert: A cyclist going too fast down a bridge ATL in Clearwater, FL, with a passenger on the handlebar -  at night - hit and killed a pedestrian.

Maillot a Pois Rouge: Our mayoral candidates are better than Toronto's. One candidate said of cyclists that in the end he feels that it is "their fault" for being hit. And slgihtly related another round of Transportation recissions are coming and these may hit bike/ped funding especially hard.

Maillot Blanc: A town in England turned off it's traffic lights, and the intersections became faster and safer. Cyclists don't cause traffic, traffic lights do.

Lanterne Rouge: Even the conservative Denver Post thinks Dan Maes of "bike sharing is a U.N. Conspiracy" is crazy. "This man must not be governor." they write.

And even though I'm out of entries: The railroad trestle featured on the cover of the R.E.M. album* "Murmur" might become part of a rails to trails project - if it can be saved.

*For the young out there, albums were like CDs** except that they were bigger, would break and/or scratch if you looked at them funny, and had to flipped half way.

** For the very young, CDs were like DVDs but they only had music on them.

Cars Cause Congestion

From a very good Wired article

Komanoff found that every car entering the CBD causes an average of 3.23 person-hours of delays. Multiply that by $39.53—a weighted average of vehicles’ time value within and outside the CBD—and it turns out that the average weekday vehicle journey costs other New Yorkers $128 in lost time. 

He translates all traffic impacts—delays, collisions, injuries, air pollution—into dollars and cents; that way, it’s easy for users to compare the benefits and costs of different plans. He has even come up with a plan of his own that would, according to his calculations, collect $1.3 billion in motorist tolls per year—all of which would be spent on improving public transit—and save $2.5 billion in time costs by reducing delays. To that, add $190 million from decreased mortality as a result of making streets more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly, $83 million in collision damage reduction, and $34 million in lower CO₂ emissions.

he produced a detailed statistical analysis of pedestrian and cyclist deaths—it showed that casualties are not random, unpredictable accidents but the foreseeable result of given traffic conditions.