My local mall does not provide short-term bicycle rentals. It also does not sell roast-lamb-and-mint flavour potato chips, or jeans in a size 32 inch waist/36 inch leg.
I would like to be able to purchase all three of these goods and services. For the last two items on the list, the intuition of the average person is the same as the intuition of the average professional economist: quit whining and deal with it. Most Canadian firms do not produce obscure potato chips flavours or clothes in unusual sizes because consumers aren’t willing to pay enough for those items to cover the firms’ costs. The benefits consumers enjoy from these goods and services are less than the costs of providing them, so it’s not efficient to provide the good or service.
Yet when it comes to short-term bicycle rentals, people often reach a
completely different conclusion: government should intervene to create a bike sharing program. All the world class cities have them: Washington, London, Paris, Beijing, New York, and Toronto.
Although each bicycle sharing program is unique, almost all receive public subsidies. Some cities provide in-kind support. Paris’s scheme, for example, is implemented and operated “free of charge to the city”, in exchange for granting an advertising company “rights to 1,600 advertising hoardings
around Paris”. The company also receives “space to allocate the cycle
stations” at no cost. Other cities provide loan guarantees, as Toronto did for its partner’s $4.8 million capital investment. In yet other cities, such as London, the bicycle share program is publicly owned. The city has ultimate responsibility for absorbing losses, although the program is privately sponsored and operated.
To justify such large public costs, one needs to point to some kind of public benefit, some positive externality created by bicycle sharing programs. To figure out what these were, I took a look at some feasibility studies for bicycle share programs, such as London’s, New York’s, and New Orleans’s. The benefits of bike sharing identified across the studies are
- Improved health through increased physical activity
- Reduced pollution
- Reduced congestion on roads and public transport
- Shorter and more reliable journey times
- Tourism and a strong business climate
These first two arguments for bike shares are easily dispensed with. While increased physical activity is a laudable goal, a study of London’s bicycle share scheme found that the typical user is a professional male between 25 and 44 – probably not the demographic one would want to target in a physical-fitness promotion scheme. Although London’s bike share scheme has been expanded into lower income neighbourhoods, those bikes – in contrast to the ones in more affluent central areas – are little used.
What about pollution? Bicycle sharing programs are a decidedly inferior solution to this problem. A much better option is to put a price on emissions through gasoline taxes and/or congestion charges. This allows each person to choose the way of reducing their carbon footprint – forgoing a trans-Atlantic flight, carpooling, moving closer to work – that works best for them.
The third and fourth arguments – shorter journey times and reduced congestion – are worth taking more seriously. What’s the evidence?
A review of bike share programs (gated here) published earlier this year found that they typically do not take many cars off the road: “mode substitution from cars to bike share is low.” People who use bike share are people who would otherwise be walking or using public transit.
Yet switching people from public transit to bike sharing may be a worthwhile. As the New York feasibility study put it:
“Bike-share programs, which typically can be introduced in a matter of months, can be especially valuable as New York faces increasing subway congestion and no clear, quick answers for relief…”
As an argument for bike share, this has some merit, but how generally applicable is it? That is, how many cities are there where (a) a bike share program would make a noticeable difference to public transport ridership and (b) it is cheaper to build a bike share program than to expand the public transport network? I’ve looked, but I haven’t found a study that compares the costs and benefits of bike share with alternative strategies.
Even when increased cycling has the potential to relieve pressure on the public transport system, I would be interested in knowing how bike sharing compares to alternative methods of encouraging cycling, such as subsidizing private cycle rental operations, providing cycling lessons for people who do not know how to ride bicycles, subsidizing bicycles for low income children and families, subsidizing electric bicycles, improving cycling lanes, or creating safe and secure cycle parking facilities.
What about the final argument for bike sharing programs, that they promote tourism and a strong business climate? Based on my own experience, I’m skeptical. Even though I’m an enthusiastic and confident cyclist, in recent trips to London and Toronto, I’ve not bothered to use those cities’ bike shares. It’s just too hard to navigate around an unfamiliar city on a bicycle, to say nothing of the challenges of locating docking stations. The pricing structure of bike share programs tends to make them unattractive for tourists who want to spend a day or two exploring a city by bicycle. Another issue for tourists is the lack of locks on many bike share bikes.
At one level, I can really see the appeal of bike share programs. But as an economist, my instinct is to say “if you want to subsidize something, just write a cheque.”
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
“What are the reasons for thinking that markets won’t solve this problem on their own?”
Markets are good especially at developing products and services where the benefits can be readily monetized and captured by the entrepreneur and the costs can be shifted to third parties — in short, direct benefits and diffuse costs. In this case the benefits are likely to be diffuse (decreased congestion & air pollution, a positive social presence on the streets, conviviality) and the costs relatively direct.
“How do the costs and benefits compare to the alternatives?”
Alternatives of what aspect? Relieving traffic congestion? Promoting healthy activity? Providing transportation services? Conducting a social experiment? Feeling good? The problem is that a bike share program is by its nature multi-faceted in its objectives. Comparing the costs and benefits to “alternatives” would either have to tolerate a certain degree of impressionism or reduce policy objectives to Procrustean narrowness.
Given that bike sharing is social experiment, it is all the better that “the jury is still out” at least until enough experience, adaptation and evidence have been collected to make a considered judgment.
“Relieving traffic congestion”
Problem is, the data doesn’t seem to be on your side. At best, something like 1% of commutes are on bikes. Why? I doubt it’s because there is a shortage of bikes. In part I suspect it’s because there is a surplus of long distances to get to work, school, shopping. Winter doesn’t help. Not to mention the kids and other flotsam and jetsam that comes along for the ride. Even in good weather, have you ever tried returning home from the big box store with 2 young kids in tow and a weeks worth of groceries – on a bike? Or taking a ball bag containing 10 soccer balls, a first aid kit, cones, and pinnies to soccer practice? Not. Going. To. Happen.
“Procrustean narrowness”
You mean like not being able to imagine how and where most people actually live and work.
Patrick,
It’s always such a pleasure to talk past someone whose mind is made up and will not be confused by either arguments or facts. Could it be that the bike sharing is not intended to be for the “most people” who you presume to be the only ones worthy of some sort of public policy initiative? Not. Going. To. Innovate.
Sandwichman, declaring something innovation doesn’t make it so. Who is the policy intended to benefit? And maybe if you clearly stated what problem you’re trying to fix. If you’re just doing social experiments, then I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that “most people” would prefer you do it with your own money, rather than taking theirs.
Look, if you actually read what I’ve been saying, you’d see I’m, in some ways, really on your team. I’m not against bike sharing subsidies because I have an irrational hatred of bikes, but rather because it’s so plainly not going to work on the kind of scale that is going to matter. And it’s a HUGE distraction from the underlying problems of urban planning and design. I’d love to live in world where bikes and walking replaced cars in the city. But that is not the world we live in. People live in suburbs long distances from work, shops, service, and recreation. They have groceries, ikea furniture, kids, elderly parents to transport over those long distances in Canadian winters. Bikes suck for all those everyday transportation needs.
The current organization of daily life didn’t happen randomly, and we are now stuck with trillions of dollars worth of residential building stock and associated infrastructure that requires cars to function. Without cars, all that stuff becomes more or less useless, and hence worthless. IMO, if your goal is to get people to ride bikes, then the innovation lies in finding a way to convince them to stop investing in sprawl, and think of long term plans to faze out the existing sprawl without ruining the millions of people for whom their little piece of sprawl represents their single largest investment and only savings. That’s no small undertaking. If you solve that, you’d also solve a big chunk of the GW puzzle too. But I digress.
Sandwichman: “Could it be that the bike sharing is not intended to be for the “most people” who you presume to be the only ones worthy of some sort of public policy initiative?”
It could be. On the other hand, if that’s the theory than it’s doomed to fail, since in a democracy “most people” are the ones who pay the bills (or at least, they think they’re paying the bills – though, given the limits of municipal revenue tools in Canada, i.e., a reliance on property tax, “most people” may actually be paying the bills in this instance) and elect the politicians who make the decisions. Unless you can sell them on a clear benefit to them of prying open the public purse to subsidize bixi-type programs (and, as I discuss below, there’s good reason to believe you can’t), those progams are not long for this earth (obviously, if they can pay for themselves, that’s a different story, but then we wouldn’t be having this discussion).
Ciceron: “I would guess that it is not a subsidy paid to the rich. Most likely, Bixi users have lower incomes than other Montrealers”
I can’t speak for Montreal, but that’s unlikely to be true in Toronto (downtown real estate prices being what they are). Moreover, the mechanics of the Bixi system almost certainly exclude the poor. Think about it, you need a credit card to rent a bike. You know why poor people choose to pay 400% effective interest rates at payday loan shops (rather than 30% on a credit card)? They don’t have credit cards (well, and they’re bad at math). In Toronto, not only does the Bixi system not serve the poor, it effectively excludes them. Patrick is not wrong to suggest that it’s a project for the latte-sipping classes. At the very least it’s a project for the credit card class.
Whitfit: “is a tiny cost, so saying it has a tiny effect is not necessarily fatal to it.”
True, but only if there is even a tiny effect. I would go so far as to say, in Toronto, at least, it likely has NO effect on pollution, congestion, etc. Look at where the Bixi stations are located in Toronto, it serves an area that’s effectively bounded by Bathurst St. on the west, Parliament on the East, and Bloor St on the North. Now, there’s probably a pretty compelling reason for that limited geographical scope (that’s the only area where the population density is likely to be enough to make it feasible, a larger system would likely be even less economically viable than the current one for the reasons that Patrick identifies) but it also means that you wouldn’t expect to see to the program have any meaningful impact on shifting people out of cars since the people who live in that downtown core choose to do so (and pay a hefty price for rent/real estate) in large part because it relieves them of having to drive to work/shop/play. Bixi is just a subsidized bike rental service for people who would otherwise walk, take transit or ride their own bike.
I note that Frances interpretation of the Montreal data suggests that that’s been Montreal’s experience as well.
Patrick,
My personal appreciation for bike sharing has zero to do with any desire to be eco groovy. I want to get to and from work and around town quickly, without being stuffed in a bus or taxi or worrying about where I’ll leave my bike, or whether it’ll be raining when I have to return. And I don’t care if I have to pay double or triple what I’m currently paying for that privilege. And it annoys me that subsidies for stupid modes of transportation render my preferred mode uneconomical. So if we can’t get rid of everybody else’s subsidies I have absolutely no problem taking one too.
“all that is meaningless in a world where people shop for a family of four once a week at the big box store and commute… Bikes suck for all those everyday transportation needs.”
OK, this program is not actually about you. You got your buses and highways and monster trucks, right? It’s for those of us who live or work in the core of a real city. It’s all about enabling efficient transportation in the core. If it buys me an extra 40 minutes per day (and it does) I’ll allocate about half of that to work, and you and the rest of the public will get 50% of my extra output. You’re welcome.
The lower bound on the marginal value of the bike share to me is the 30 bucks/day I might otherwise spend on taxis if I choose to get to work as quickly as on a bike. And yes I’d be happy to pay 3X as much as I do for my bike share membership. But that’s not an option because thanks to your monster SUV subsidies, my bike share isn’t commercially viable.
“At best, something like 1% of commutes are on bikes.”
In Montreal Bixi runs about 20,000 trips per day, almost all of which I’d bet are commutes. There are, I believe, 300,000 workers in the core. So one ride per 15 commuters by Bixi. And the majority of bikes aren’t Bixis. Anyways, if the scale is small, so is the cost.
“it’s so plainly not going to work on the kind of scale that is going to matter.”
Just keep repeating that, and it’ll become true!
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine imposing a fair congestion charge in a big city (no, not Edmonton or Ottawa – seriously, we’re talking about big cities, and again this is not about you.) Let’s say $30/day. Now how appealing is it going to be to grab that bike? You don’t know? The studies don’t exist? Well let’s just forget it then. Bike shares must be useless.
Bob,
“I note that Frances interpretation of the Montreal data suggests that that’s been Montreal’s experience as well.”
Frances “interpretation” is based on a phone survey of montrealers asking if they’ve increased their level of physical activity as a result of the Bixi system. Seriously.
Patrick: “The current organization of daily life didn’t happen randomly…”
No. But it also didn’t happen as the result of a coherent, comprehensive plan. It happened incrementally with a lot of it adapting to “the way things actually are.” (And of course the bulk of collective decision-making usually deferred to those with the greater financial power. But to point THAT out would be heretical.)
Bob Smith: “Bixi is just a subsidized bike rental service for people who would otherwise walk, take transit or ride their own bike.”
What’s wrong with that? Walking takes longer than riding a bike and transit isn’t as flexible. So to encourage non-auto traveling, you supplement it with additional options. Why does one have to assume that the purpose of bike sharing is to get people directly out of their cars?
Have you, Patrick, or you, Bob Smith, ever done a transit planning assessment? I have. That’s why I would be reluctant to pronounce a verdict on bike sharing based simply on my prejudices and a handful of anecdotes. It is astonishing to see that adding the phrases “as an economist…” and “cost/benefit” to a smattering of anecdotes and biases elevates the whole discussion to a matter of principle. Wow. Just wow.
The so-called costs and so-called benefits in a so-called cost/benefit analysis are estimates based on projections of monetary values including monetary values assigned to non-monetary phenomena, the inclusion or exclusion of which are largely conventional and somewhat arbitrary. In short, a cost/benefit analysis may be either an exercise in collaborative introspection or a manipulative “objectivity” p.r. spin.
K: “Frances “interpretation” is based on a phone survey of montrealers asking if they’ve increased their level of physical activity as a result of the Bixi system. Seriously.”
K, seriously? That’s not what the study asked, did you even read the study? (http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/10/1/66) I can’t speak for others, but I’d find your criticism of its design much more compelling if it indicated that you’d actually read the thing.
“Let’s say $30/day. Now how appealing is it going to be to grab that bike?”
Well, let’s look at a real life example, shall we? London has a congestion charge (not $30/ day, I don’t know why you think that’s a “fair” charge, London charges closer to $17). London has a bike rental scheme. If anything, London might be expected to be more favourable or a bike sharing program than a city like Toronto, since it’s old enough not to have been build around cars (and its winters, while wet, aren’t frozen). And yet, after several years of operations, Transport for London still has no idea when (if ever) that scheme will stop losing money (and this, despite a lucrative sponsorship deal with Barclays bank). So, even in favourable conditions, where alternative modes of transportation are properly priced, that’s a bike sharing program that’s a money loser.
As for usership, it apparently averages 23,000 “hires” (not neccesarily discrete users) per day. I couldn’t tell you whether that’s good or bad, but it works out to just under 1,000 hires an hour (though since much of that use is during peak communiting hours, that understates the net effect.
Interestingly, at least some of the commentary on the London scheme appears to confirm Patrick’s intution about bike share programs being programs for the latte-sipping class. According to the Guardian:
“But a residual concern remains who is using the scheme: overwhelmingly white men aged between 25 and 44, many of whom earn more than £50,000 a year. For a scheme that has already cost £79m, with a further £45m for the extension to cover the Olympic Park next year, can we really justify this “posh-boy toy”?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/bike-blog/2011/jul/10/boris-bikes-hire-scheme-london)
Moreover, the fact that the democraphics of the bike hire users match those of bike users generally suggest that all the scheme is doing is shifting people off of their own bikes onto rented one. T
K: “What’s wrong with that? Walking takes longer than riding a bike and transit isn’t as flexible. So to encourage non-auto traveling, you supplement it with additional options”
Fine, that’s a nice theory. Make the case. Where’s the evidence that it does that? Spare us the ad hominem sniping about Patrick or my “prejudices and a handful of anecdotes” (by anecdotse, I suppose you mean my factual description of the Toronto bixi program and its obvious limitations in terms of getting people off the roads, or the quite reasonable observation – consistent with the experience in London – that it doesn’t serve the poor) and put forward some actual facts of your own. Give us some reasons why you think the arguments we’re making are making are incorrect.
I’m not opposed to bike sharing programs, per se, but if you’re going to be asking the public to subsidize it on the basis that it, either directly or indirectly, reduces congestion, polution, whatever, make that case. It isn’t obvious from the Montreal study that was referred to above (i.e., actual research as opposed to speculation and wishful thinking, and I note, research originally cited in defense of the bixi program) that that happens, and if it does it’s at an exorbitant cost.
Sorry, I should have attributed that quote to Sandwichman, not K.
More anecdotes!
“no idea when (if ever) that scheme will stop losing money”
Any idea when the police department or the sewer system will stop “losing money”?
Gotcha, facts that Sandwichman doesn’t want to hear = anecdotes. Funny, we’re not hearing a lot of facts (anecdotal or otherwise) from you.
“Any idea when the police department or the sewer system will stop “losing money”
Pretty weak strawman. I mean, Rob Ford weak. The public benefits of police or sewer services are fairly obvious – the public benefits of bike sharing are not.
K – fine. So if it’s so great then why does it need me to subsidies it.
Bob Smith: “Spare us the ad hominem sniping about Patrick or my ‘prejudices and a handful of anecdotes'”
Last time I checked “ad hominem” meant criticizing a person rather than their argument. To say that your arguments are prejudices and anecdotes is to criticize your arguments. Spare us the bogus fallacy claims.
“Make the case. Where’s the evidence that it does that?”
You misunderstand what I’m trying to say. I’m not advocating bike sharing here, I’m objecting to the marshaling of a priori assumptions and cherry-picked anecdotes to pass judgment on a particular subsidy scheme considered in isolation.
There seems to be two rather peculiar premises to this rush to judgment: either 1. if the service was worthwhile, the market would provide it or 2. for the service to be considered a public good, it would have to serve “the reality most people live” (with “most people” possibly standing in for “people like me”).
All that I’m saying is that YOU have failed to make a persuasive case AGAINST bike sharing. You’ve simply raised a number of potential objections. That’s what I mean by anecdotal. That’s not good enough. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a case to be made against bike sharing — simply that it hasn’t been made here.
The prosecution fails to makes its case; the defense rests.
K – On congestion charge: sure, do it. But why privilege bikes? If the congestion charge makes bike share attractive, then why not let the private sector do it? Where’s the market failure?
Again, I’m not against bike shares per se. I’m against public subsidies for bike shares. I have yet to hear anyone articulate the market failure that public subsidies are supposed to address. What problem are you trying to solve?
Sandwichman – You’re damn right it’s good enough. When it comes to spending public money, which is scarce, and there are no lack of worthy recipients, I think that the onus is on you to make a credible case FOR subsidiezed bike sharing. So far all I’ve got from you is some hand waving about social experiments, feeling good, and vague claims about fitness for the 1% (as per StatsCan stats on percentage of commuters on bikes).
By your own admission, it’s not terribly expensive to setup. So if the barriers to entry are so low and the benefits so great, then why not invest your own money in the scheme. Obviously, somebody is just leaving money lying around on the ground.
Sandwichman,
When you suggest that someone’s arguments are based on prejudices, that’s an attack on the person making the argument, not the argument itself.
Oh, and speaking of fallacious claims: ” either 1. if the service was worthwhile, the market would provide it or 2. for the service to be considered a public good, it would have to serve “the reality most people live” (with “most people” possibly standing in for “people like me”).
Neither I nor, I think, Patrick have made those arguments. The market might not provide worthwhile goods, we both accept that proposition. That isn’t a strange concept that’s somehow foreign to economists. They call it a “market failure”. What’s the market failure? Likewise, for the service to be a “public good” it has to provide some benefit that isn’t fully captured by the person who receives it (if the benefit is purely private, almost by definition, it isn’t a public good). What’s that benefit? Proponents of bike-sharing argue that it reduces congestion and pollution by getting cars off the road, fine, but the facts don’t back that up.
“The prosecution fails to makes its case; the defense rests.”
This isn’t a criminal trial (where the crown has the onus to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). The better analogy would be a civil trial, where the party that makes its case on the balance of probabilities wins. Subsidies for bike-sharing programs have been defended on the grounds that they reduce congestion and pollution. The only real evidence presented in this discussion suggests that they don’t have any material impact in that regard (i.e., one switched ride per bixi bike) at a significant cost, although we’ve provided circumstantial evidence as to why bixi bike programs shouldn’t be expected to shift riders off the road (i.e., they primarily serve people who already commute by transit or bike – i.e., the downtown core of Toronto or London, for example). Now, if you don’t like that evidence (making it an “anecdote” in your mind), that’s fine, but in the absence of ANY evidence that bixi bike programs do materially shift commuting patterns, that’s the evidence that stands.
Moreover, the case isn’t just between subsidizing bike sharing vs. doing nothing, the real discussion should be what’s a more cost-effective way of getting people out of their cars (or better social uses for that money ). Frances hit the nail on the head earlier, by wondering if we wouldn’t be futher ahead to subsidize bicycle parking (or maybe shower facilities) than bike rentals. But unless we critically examine the purported benefits of bike sharing schemes – which is precisely what we’re doing here – that discussion won’t happen.
Patrick: “I have yet to hear anyone articulate the market failure that public subsidies are supposed to address.”
Bob Smith: “They call it a ‘market failure’. What’s the market failure?”
There are (at least) two schools of thought on the question of “market failure.” You seem not to have heard about the other school of thought. Perhaps this not-hearing could be remedied by listening?
Joan Martinez-Alier has argued that “Externalities are not so much market failures as cost-shifting ‘successes’.” This sums up a tradition that has not accepted the a priori assumption that actually-existing market exchanges approximate the optimal allocation that would presumably result from the operation of ideal competitive markets.
To put it differently, “market failure” is a misnomer. The ideal market’s optimal allocation that market failure allegedly “fails” is a figment of the imagination. Neither are the actions of human beings better understood as “angel failures.”
There are indeed relationships that can be illuminated by the assumption of the equivalent of a friction-less plane. For example, it makes it easier to explain mechanics to grade nine physics students. But don’t trust an engineer who insists that the performance of a machine can be optimized entirely by the elimination of friction. Friction also performs functions.
Bob Smith: “When you suggest that someone’s arguments are based on prejudices, that’s an attack on the person making the argument, not the argument itself.”
Um. I suppose when I suggest that someone’s arguments are simply unsubstantiated assertions or are plain wrong, I’m also attacking the person? Look, I paid five pounds for an argument; this is just contradiction.
B.S., again: “Now, if you don’t like that evidence (making it an “anecdote” in your mind), that’s fine, but in the absence of ANY evidence that bixi bike programs do materially shift commuting patterns, that’s the evidence that stands.”
Sorry, Bub, er Bob, but the bike sharing programs you’re talking about were no doubt approved by public authorities on the basis of submissions made by proponents, supplemented by the advice of staff. They may or may not have lived up to the original expectations. At some point in the future there will be a review process. I don’t have to “make the case” for a program that has already received approval and funding. Sorry, I don’t.
For me, this discussion is not about subsidizing bike sharing but about evaluation criteria. The so-called orthodox argument of, on the one hand — as Sidgwick put it — “the universally beneficent and harmonious operation of self-interest well let alone” and on the other hand “market failure” is not, IMHO, the only way to skin this cat. But if the only tool you know is a hammer…
Sandwichman: “is not, IMHO, the only way to skin this cat. But if the only tool you know is a hammer…”
My apologies for the grotesque image of skinning a cat with a hammer. But having broached the topic of cat skinning, I can’t resist sharing the following:
The market failure is affordable travel for the masses. The response in the past has been to build networks of roads and highways involving large amounts of public money. That has worked well for a time. In the Toronto area, with rising population densities and increasing traffic congestion, this approach is becoming less feasible. Assuming that we want to continue growing and promoting economic activity, most people agree that the only solution is public transit.
Given the larges costs associated with traffic congestion and the massive amounts of money that public transit requires, I think it’s worth experiment with different proposals. I don’t know but I think bike share programs are a relatively cheap form of transportation and are worth trying out especially if it can be better integrated with existing public transit. I would make it free and just require a toonie deposit to encourage people to return the bikes to a rack.
“the bike sharing programs you’re talking about were no doubt approved by public authorities on the basis of submissions made by proponents, supplemented by the advice of staff. They may or may not have lived up to the original expectations. At some point in the future there will be a review process. I don’t have to “make the case” for a program that has already received approval and funding.”
Oh well, if the government said it was a good idea…. Have you met Toronto’s mayor? http://gawker.com/for-sale-a-video-of-toronto-mayor-rob-ford-smoking-cra-507736569
“This sums up a tradition that has not accepted the a priori assumption that actually-existing market exchanges approximate the optimal allocation that would presumably result from the operation of ideal competitive markets.”
Tomotoe, Tomato. Now you’re just arguing about the definition of a “market failure” (i.e., that it includes what others might characterize as a success. That doesn’t in any way address or refute the positions Patrick and I are taking.
“I would make it free and just require a toonie deposit to encourage people to return the bikes to a rack.”
That’s been done. It was also known as the “how’d you like to “buy” a bike for a dollar” program. And funny, with no record of who “rented” the bikes, if they were returned, they were in rough condition.
“I don’t know but I think bike share programs are a relatively cheap form of transportation and are worth trying out especially if it can be better integrated with existing public transit.”
Fair enough, but they’ve been tried out, and so far have not been obviously successful (or cheap).
Bob Smith: “Oh well, if the government said it was a good idea…. Have you met Toronto’s mayor?”
ad hominem AND non sequitur. But if you insist:
Well, even an alleged crack smoking blow hard can be right once in while.
Actually, I think Rob Ford and his ilk really illustrate the point I’m trying to make. Keeping in mind that the guy had enough support to get elected. It’s probably accurate to say that Ford and his supporters are generally pretty hostile to stuff like public transit, bike share, etc … Why? I submit that it is because it doesn’t offer much to people living in the ‘burbs – generally seen as the core of his support. They have to spend a ton of money on two cars just to make their lives workable, and they understandably don’t want to pay for stuff that isn’t going to benefit them in any way.
“That’s been done. It was also known as the “how’d you like to “buy” a bike for a dollar” program. And funny, with no record of who “rented” the bikes, if they were returned, they were in rough condition.”
Fine, have them tap on with a presto card.
“Fair enough, but they’ve been tried out, and so far have not been obviously successful (or cheap).”
Compared with building and operating subways, LRTs, streetcars, I’d say the bike share program is pretty cheap.
Patrick,
“If the congestion charge makes bike share attractive, then why not let the private sector do it?”
Yes! I keep telling you I don’t mind paying more, but that the efficient market price can’t be charged because competing modes of transportation are subsidized. The “market failure” is that the free market got broken by government subsidies for motor transport. In an efficient market there would be unsubsidised bike shares, but in this world I can’t have my preferred mode of transportation without also getting a subsidy. I DON’T WANT YOUR MONEY! I just want what would exist already all by itself, if we weren’t all massively subsidising your lifestyle.
Bob,
The marginal cost of adding another car commuter in a congested city is huge. I.e. many multiples of the wasted hours of that particular commuter. Despite the congestion charge, central London is still highly congested, and the current 10 quid charge is a pathetic compromise compared to the marginal external cost of driving.
“That’s not what the study asked, did you even read the study?”
I did read it, but you’re right. They asked if people used more active forms of transportation and correlated that with whether the person had tried a Bixi. I see no evidence that they asked people how many trips they shifted to the bike share. As far as I can tell, they just assumed the average user shifted 5, 10, or 15% of their trips. The questions were clearly designed to find out if people were more active/healthier as a result of the bike share (it’s a journal about nutrition and physical activity). Very little there that can be used to assess the impact on congestion and travel times in the core, which to me is the critical externality.
“that the democraphics of the bike hire users match those of bike users generally suggest that all the scheme is doing is shifting people off of their own bikes onto rented one”
Now there’s a wild conjecture. I doubt it. Try finding a place to keep your bike in a typical London flat. And outside is out of the question. Apparently the mean time between theft of a London bicycle is 23 months (look it up).
“if we weren’t all massively subsidising your lifestyle.”
But there’s the rub. Firstly, I and most others like me are simply coping with the world the way we found it. We are price takers. Secondly, we live in a democracy. Assuming there is a subsidy for ‘my’ lifestyle (I made $0 in the last year so if I were you I’d be careful about assumption about my ‘lifestyle’), then it would be awarded by the consent of the governed. If you can convince the rest of the people like me that my lifestyle needs less subsidy, then go for it. In the meantime, I don’t want to pay for your silly bike share program any more than I want to pay for your concert tickets or your latte.
Patrick,
Yup, economics rarely triumphs, and policy is about power, etc, etc. I thought you wanted to talk about market failures.
Bob,
I’ll see your conjecture, and raise you another conjecture…
Huge cities are a) congested and b) chock full of slow moving taxis. I conjecture that in such cities the principal use of bike shares is to shift rich, latte-sipping yuppies out of taxis and onto bikes, which, thanks to the congestion go about as fast as the taxis. You get some air and you don’t have to listen to crazy talk.
I win on both counts, lifestyle not withstanding.
“The marginal cost of adding another car commuter in a congested city is huge. I.e. many multiples of the wasted hours of that particular commuter. Despite the congestion charge, central London is still highly congested, and the current 10 quid charge is a pathetic compromise compared to the marginal external cost of driving.”
Ok, well, the Montreal study figures that the it shifted exactly one car trip per bike. As Frances observed, unless the marginal cost of another car commuter is in the hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars per driver, that’s not an efficient way of reducing congestion. Maybe that study is wrong, but funny, the proponents of the bixi service (i.e., the company hitting cities up for massive subsidies) don’t seem to be going out of their way to produce competing studies.
Moreover, it’s not even clear that the bixi-type systems are the most efficient way of promoting bicycle use. What about, say, subsidizing bicycle parking, or shower facilities? What about spending money on bike lanes? Do we really believe that the biggest barrier to people using bicycles to commute is that without a subsidized bike rental operation, people won’t be able to get their hands on bikes?
And the “conjecture” that people in downtown Toronto (an area well served by public transit – with closely packed and regular subway, bus and street car routes) aren’t likely to be driving in the first instance, in sort of like a conjecture that the Inuit don’t generally wear bikinis in January. I could be wrong, but I’d take that bet.
ML:
“Compared with building and operating subways, LRTs, streetcars, I’d say the bike share program is pretty cheap.”
What’s the basis for that comparison? In absolute dollars, maybe, but the proper comparison is on a per ride basis. And recall, in most cities – certain in Toronto – the bixi-type services only serve the most densely-populated areas, whereas transit serves the entire city. If the TTC, for example, only served Toronto’s downtown core, it would be a hell of a lot less expensive than it it now. If we want to talk about cost, let’s compare like-with-like.
K: “Apparently the mean time between theft of a London bicycle is 23 months (look it up)”
That long? A few years ago, when Igor Kenk was running the show in Toronto, no one owned a bike in this city, you just rented it from the bike thiefs. After it got stolen, you wandered downtown and “rented” a “used” one.
“
“Fine, have them tap on with a presto card.”
Yeah, you can do that (and bixi has a yearly pass you can use – though they still want a credit card number). But unless the presto card is linked to a credit card (and, at least under the current system, they don’t have to be, though regular users all do) bikes are going to go walking. A number of cities tried making their bikes too ugly to steal (I think the UofT student council tried a free social biking program with hideaous yellow bikes – they all disappeared within days), but that apparently didn’t disuade vandals and thieves. When Paris first set up its system, 80% of its bikes where either stolen (and apparently sold in third-world markets, where their rugged construction was prized) or vandalized (dumped in the Seine, hung from lamposts – you know, good old fashioned fun) – the Paris city counsel had to reimburse the private company running the program.
“Well, even an alleged crack smoking blow hard can be right once in while”
And the fact that crack smoking morons can get elected, suggests that Sandwichman’s blind faith in the wisdom of elected officials is misguided. As if elected officials aren’t driven by pretty much everything – emotion, ideology, lobbyists, vested interests, self-interest, etc. – except reasoned evidence. Personally, I’m of the view that voters should be critical of what their elected officials tell them. But if Sandwichman feels differently, well, the world needs followers.
B.S.: “Sandwichman’s blind faith in the wisdom of elected officials”
Laugh, laugh, laugh. Your interpretation is so off it’s (ir)on(ic). You must be confusing me with “majority rules” Patrick. But thanks for the Kenk! No, seriously.
This thread is done. Stick a fork in it.
So says the almighty Sandwichman.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but even as a dedicated Toronto cyclist I’m a little skeptical about the merits of Bixi… it seems to me that it mostly provides bicycles to people who already own bicycles and would have ridden them anyway, and that’s a pretty lame thing to subsidize.
The danger of bicycle theft is overstated… buy a decent lock and use it, problem solved.
I never have to pull out my smartphone (don’t have one anyway) and wonder if there is a bike available, because I ride my own bike, and it’s always available, 24/7/365.
I should have said that I’m good with K’s point that he shouldn’t subsidies my ‘lifstyle’ (understanding the Royal he and me). I agree that measures like carbon taxes and congestion charges are all pretty clearly fixing market failures. Let’s do it.
Now, extend me the same courtesy. Either produce the market failure that subsidies for bike shares will fix, or stop trying to pick my pocket.
One positive externality of the city-sponsored Bixi program that I haven’t seen: it sends a message that the city is bicycle friendly. Bikes are here. They belong on the roads. Here, the City is even providing you with a bike to ride on the road! How clear can the message be?
That said, if we’re spending public funds on making the city a bicycle-friendly place, I think more bike parking would be vastly more cost effective. You could build a lot of post and ring for 4 million bucks.
Patrick,
“stop trying to pick my pocket.”
Honestly, I don’t even mind paying for your bus. But I don’t see how it’s any less picking my pocket, than the bike share is picking yours.
Darren,
Even with a $150 lock, you still can’t leave your bike out at night. I think stealability is an intrinsic design feature of standard bikes. Bixis, and their parts are apparently of no interest to thieves (or not removable), a feature that the free market is apparently not capable of equalling. Maybe there’s a trade off between easy repair, and difficult theft, which isn’t a problem for Bixis as repairs are only made in huge specialized shops. As Bob says, it was basically impossible to defend against Kenk.
test
That just about sums it up: “test”
K, what kind of bike are we talking about here? No, you can’t leave your Cervelo out at night, but I’ve had no problems with my $500 beater bike and $80 lock, and I’ve left my bike pretty much everywhere, for years. (the nice weekend bike stays inside, but it only comes out on weekends anyway).
Anecdote: I talked to a Toronto police officer several months after they arrested Kenk, and he said the rate of bike theft in Toronto had plummeted since his arrest. I don’t know if that’s held up.
“But I don’t see how it’s any less picking my pocket, than the bike share is picking yours.”
Not to rehash the thread, but the case for subsidy must be made in each case. You can’t just say: “well, your favourite thing gets subsidized, so my favourite thing should get subsidized too!” In the case of BIXI, I’m just not seeing it. There’s a cheap and easy alternative to BIXI, riding your own bike, that has zero negative externalities. (Frankly the disadvantages of BIXI look overwhelming to me and I’ve never been tempted to try it in spite of being a daily cyclist).
The alternative to taking the bus is usually taking your car, and that is neither cheap, easy, or without externalities.
Subsidizing one of those things is not like subsidizing the other.
@Sandwichman, you might have better luck engaging people if you dialed down the attitude by about three notches.
I’m in Montreal with limited internet access right now – I don’t have time to moderate, so if the discussion starts getting nasty I’ll just close the thread.
One thing that struck me walking around downtown Montreal yesterday evening around 6:00 p.m. – in contrast to Ottawa, I saw lots of people riding Bixi bikes. And using the tried-and-true empirical strategy of asking my taxi driver, I learned that Bixi bikes have actually made a difference to the number of people taking taxis here.
But as I walked past three Bixi depots in a row with no bikes in them, it occurred to me that there’s one huge difference between a bike share and public transit: because bikes are much more rival, the marginal cost of an additional Bixi bike user is much higher than the marginal cost of an additional, say, metro user. When another person uses a metro, I can still get on. But that person who took the last Bixi bike prevented me from renting one.
I’m not sure that the rivalness of Bixi bikes is properly reflected in the pricing structure.
“I’m not sure that the rivalness of Bixi bikes is properly reflected in the pricing structure.”
I one buy an annual Bixi pass, one is allowed 45 (it used to be 30) free minutes per trip. There is a charge for extra time. I would guess this is to address the rivalness issue.
Darren: “@Sandwichman, you might have better luck engaging people if you dialed down the attitude by about three notches.”
Thanks for the unsolicited advice. I don’t have any trouble engaging people and have no illusions about persuading people who disagree with me. So what’s your point? What I say makes you uncomfortable so you want to discount it by attributing it to “attitude”? Well, my advice to you, sir, is to deal with your own discomfort and not project it onto others.
Bob Smith: “What’s the basis for that comparison? In absolute dollars, maybe, but the proper comparison is on a per ride basis.”
I was thinking of all costs, including costs on a per ride basis. I was just going on personal experience where it costs next to nothing to ride a bike as compared with public transit or driving a car.
According to Wikipedia, the TTC’s operating cost was $1.45 billion and they have a ridership of 514 million passengers per year for a cost of $2.82 per ride. According to a Star article, Bixi’s operating costs in Toronto are $1.5 million and they have had a ridership 1.3 million trips since the launch in May 2011. Assuming it has been two years, the per ride cost is $2.3 per ride. I was expecting a bigger difference, but it is a small system with only 1000 bikes and it has just started up.
You may be right about the problem of theft and it’s not that I support this particular program. I just see travel in the Toronto area as a major problem and I believe in experimenting and trying out different solutions.
“Bob says, it was basically impossible to defend against Kenk.”
True, on the other hand, the Paris experience suggests that even Bixi-type bikes will be stolen and/or vandalized. Surprisingly, Toronto’s bixi system seems to be doing OK, although I wonder if that’s a function of it being concentrated in the relatively dense downtown core. Or maybe they learned from the Paris experience in designing more rugged locking systems.
ML: “According to Wikipedia, the TTC’s operating cost was $1.45 billion and they have a ridership of 514 million passengers per year for a cost of $2.82 per ride. According to a Star article, Bixi’s operating costs in Toronto are $1.5 million and they have had a ridership 1.3 million trips since the launch in May 2011. Assuming it has been two years, the per ride cost is $2.3 per ride. I was expecting a bigger difference, but it is a small system with only 1000 bikes and it has just started up.”
Right, but the fact that it’s starting up, in this instance, actually works in Bixis favour. For reasons of both politics and public policy, the TTC serves a vast area of relatively sparsely populated city. A noon bus running throught the wastelands of Etobicoke (but I repeat myself) costs the same to run as the bus running through the city core, but likely serves a fraction of the number of people. Moreover, a TTC “ride” could include a trip from Scarborough in one end to Etobicoke on the other (not that its clear why one would want to take that trip). The nature of the bixi system is that its trips are going to be much shorter. So when you’re looking at the TTC’s per-ride operating cost, you’re looking at an average of high cost suburban routes and low cost downtown ones, and cost that includes “long” rides and “short” rides. Bixi only serves the downtown core (Bathurst to Parliament, and the lake to Bloor), and it’s rides are inherently shorter. So if you’re comparing per ride cost, you have to compare like with like.
I’m all for experimenting (though I’m happy to let Montreal do the experimenting for us, let’s free ride on their research), but if we’re going to experiement, we have to crically assess the results on a proper oranges-to-oranges basis.
Subwayman: “This thread is done. Stick a fork in it.” – May 30, 2013 at 08:01 PM
Frances,
My boyfriend lives in Montreal, and the rivalness of Bixi bikes is a huge problem for him. His apartment is very small, and doesn’t have space for a bike. Parking a bike on the street is not an option in his neighbourhood.
He’s in Law School at McGill, working as an RA this summer. He has often tried to take a bike to work—only to find that all the parking spaces are full. He then has to spend quite a while going around to all the bike racks, trying to find an empty space. Then, on the way home, he has the same problem—everyone is doing the same commute, but they usually leave earlier or later than him.
Your post made me feel really uncomfortable, because I like the idea of bike shares. Dealing with parking for bikes is really annoying, but it would be great to be able to hop on a bike to go to a store, or the Byward Market, or work… but I already have a bus pass because I need it—I take the bus out to Centrepointe for work twice a week, and wouldn’t have time to bike there—and Bixi doesn’t exist there, anyway. Nor in Vanier, where I also work thrice a week.
I don’t agree that bike shares are for the rich, though. Certainly, credit-card using class, so people with decent credit and jobs, not the poor. But Centretown and Lowertown are not posh neighbourhoods in Ottawa. And while downtown is certainly expensive in Toronto, I have a lot of relatively poor friends (couples with household income <$30000) l who live just outside of it and who love Bixi because they can have days where they get to travel around the city for little money & get exercise.
So I do feel that bike shares are awesome. And yet, I feel the truth in your arguments. It kinda pained me to read your article just because I have been supporting them. But I think you are right. Bixi has little effect on all the good things we want, but costs a lot of money, and has several large flaws.
I guess I’ll go back to my long-standing arguments for a Land Value Tax, as that would have a real effect on eliminating the subsidization of sprawl (instead, it would incentivize density, allowing more land for nature and everyone), and thus would reduce the dependency on cars and transit. And, instead of opening the public purse, this would be revenue-neutral, replacing our silly property tax. We would get more effect for no money! Combine that with a carbon tax, and make people who drive on the roads pay for them, and you’ll get much nicer cities. Of course, we should also get rid of public transit subsidization (it promotes sprawl).
(I’m a believer in Georgism; the land belongs to all, but your work belongs to you. We, of course, tax the opposite: if you have lots of undeveloped land, it’s almost free; if you spend a lot of money to build an office tower, it’s heavily taxed. Not only does that provide disincentives for development, but it is also morally perverse. Of course, the world has changed since Henry George, and I also believe that this should be complemented with sales taxes and maybe a small income tax).
Frances,
“because bikes are much more rival, the marginal cost of an additional Bixi bike user is much higher than the marginal cost of an additional, say, metro user.”
On average, I don’t think that’s true. It’s trivial to scale the system up and down. The stands are solar powered, perfectly modular, and require no infrastructure. I’ve seen them add racks in a few minutes. It doesn’t seem very different to me than adding an additional bus to a route.
“But that person who took the last Bixi bike prevented me from renting one.”
It’s not really a hard constraint. The cost is usually a couple of hundred meter walk from one station to the next. But you do need the (free) Bixou app to tell you how many bikes/free racks are available at each stand.
“I’m not sure that the rivalness of Bixi bikes is properly reflected in the pricing structure.”
What Ciceron says. The pricing structure is designed to keep the bikes in the racks. Over 45 minutes and you basically get a fine. That said, the stands in the core 500m X 500m are pretty well empty of bikes by 5:45pm. Though it’s still no more than a 300m walk to get a bike, it’s pretty clear that the Bixi fraction on outgoing bike paths drops precipitously around that time. But then, sometimes the buses are full too. Before 5:30 there are plenty of bikes.
“Surprisingly, Toronto’s bixi system seems to be doing OK”
The Bixi frame is automatically bolted onto the rack. You’d have to cut a 5 inch wide piece of metal off the front of the frame to steal it. You cannot achieve that level of locking with a regular bike. Also, it locks in about one second, and it takes about 3 seconds to unlock it (if you have a key). No carrying and dealing with unwieldy locks.