"You don’t start a transit system with one bus."

This could be a pretty exciting year for DC area biking: Bike Valet at Nationals Park, Wilson Bridge bike lane in May(ish), construction starting on the Union Station Bicycle Transit Center and the first modern bike sharing program in the Americas. The bike sharing blog points us to an article in the Continental Airlines magazine about the coming program includes a quote from occasional contributor Jeff Peel.

This spring sees the launch of SmartBike D.C., a new bike-sharing initiative from the outdoor advertising giant Clear Channel Adshel, and a potential model for similar programs nationwide. By joining the program, registered participants in the nation’s capital can access 120 “smart bikes” at 10 locations throughout the downtown area. They will be able to pedal the four-speed, one-size-fits-all bikes anywhere for up to three hours, provided they return their bike to a SmartBike kiosk.

“It’s going to be a great addition to a multimodal transportation system in D.C. and will go a long way to enhance our public transit system,” says Jeff Peel, SmartBike D.C.’s project manager. “You can get almost anywhere by Metro train or bus, but it may not always be the most convenient method. A bike-sharing program adds another layer to the transit network and helps alleviate congestion.”

Clearly, there are obstacles. On a national scale, liability is much more onerous in the United States. Helmets, though recommended, aren’t provided in the D.C. program. And many cities considering bike-share programs, such as Seattle, require helmets by law. As with most proposed programs, D.C. users must sign up in advance, paying a $40 initiation fee. In return, they get a SmartBike card that releases the bikes from a locking kiosk. If a bike is lost or stolen, the user must pay for it.

SmartBike D.C. is starting with a small number of bikes and kiosk locations, compared with programs in Europe. But the key to a thriving bike-share program, say Clarke and others, is to make the bikes ubiquitous. Clear Channel supplied Barcelona with 6,000 bikes, and advertiser JCDecaux provided more than 20,600 in Paris. The D.C. program, by comparison, will have 120 bikes initially. “The reason Barcelona and Paris are such success stories is because they were bold,” says DeMaio. “You don’t start a transit system with one bus.”

Jim Sebastian of D.C.’s Department of Transportation is optimistic that bike sharing will succeed. But he says starting with a larger program would be risky. “We want to see if it works first,” he says. “Then we’ll expand.” Still, the District of Columbia offers compelling attributes that make it a solid candidate to host a bike-share program. There is a growing cycling culture, due in part to the district’s international composition.

But it may not work if there aren't enough bikes. I'm worried, but hopeful. And there is a lot riding on this

“We have Congress — the senators and the representatives and their staff who will be using these bikes every day will see how wonderful they are, and then they’ll want them back in their home states.”

Comments

Catch-22

Obstacles like safety are overcome by boldness in sheer numbers. However in the US we are reacting to these risks in exactly the wrong way - scale down the project, which only sets it up for failure. Individual risk is manly dependent on allowing numbers of cyclists to pass a certain threshold. Past that threshold, safety to the individual continues to increase dramatically. The risk to safety exists only when we fail to pass the point of ubiquity. Overall liability should actually continue to decrease past that point of investment.

Saturation of the environment is more difficult than in Europe, because all geography is more sprawling here. That means numbers need to be higher than in Europe - not lower, in order to compensate for loss of saturation. Compensation for loss of saturation means we must be even more bold than Europe to match their success. A failure on a scaled-down project just leads to a vicious cycle.

[Chris Loos]

I agree...the fact that the pilot program is so small is a problem.

However, I'm more concerned about the limited number of locations than the number of bikes. As a DC resident, I would gladly shell out $40 if there were locations all over the city to drop the bikes off at...shared bikes would become a valid transportation alternative for me.

The fact that there are only 10 locations however limits my options. As things stand, I can't see paying $40 for the service. Hopefully for the sake of this program succeeding, other DC residents won't come to this same conclusion.

[bawler]

I, too, am worried there aren't enough locations, or enough bikes. I guess I'll shell out the $40 - but without more locations, I'm not sure I'll be able to use it that much. If they could've started more boldly, they should have. I was under the impression that there was some sort of limitation other than the desire to start small.

[guez]

As someone who is familiar with the Paris system, let me echo your concerns.

Here is the key comparison. In Paris there are many more Velib' stations (over 1000) than Metro stations: this means that Velib' has a good chance of bringing you closer to your destination than the Metro. This makes cycling convenient. In DC, the number of proposed bike stations is a tiny fraction of the number of Metro stations. This means lots of extra walking and/or buses and/or trains.

The problem, for me, is not so much the number of bikes, but rather the number of stations. (Of course more stations means more bikes...)