Big transit/sustainable mobility stories of 2025

Obviously this isn't everything.  But what sticks out to me.

=========

Congestion pricing in NYC.  In January I wrote that the introduction of congestion pricing in NYC was already the biggest ground transportation story of the year ("The most momentous transportation story of 2025 has already occurred: imposition of NYC's congestion zone").  Basically the results are in ("New York's Congestion Pricing Is Working. Five Charts Show Hows," Bloomberg).  It's working exactly the way it's supposed to.

As far as business effect goes, I worried about business relocation.  That may or may not be an issue.  But visitation to the core of Manhattan is up, and so are sales tax revenues, and reduction in storefront vacancies.  Plus MTA has $500+ million to invest in transit.

Protesters demonstrate outside New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's Manhattan office. Yuki Iwamura/AP

We have to remember that the Trump Administration is still fighting the congestion zone in court ("New York’s Congestion Pricing Succeeds as Trump Fights to End It," Newsweek).

That Gov. Hochul cancelled it ("The Politics That Derailed Congestion Pricing in New York," New Yorker), then reversed course, in part because of sustained public opposition to her decision ("‘Slap in the face’: outrage after New York governor halts congestion pricing," Guardian).  In the end, the price dropped from $15 to $9.

The second biggest story is ongoing financial crises for most transit systems, whose business models were crushed by covid and the shift to work from home.  Many systems have half or fewer the number of riders pre-2020.  And special federal funds for transit were increased under Biden, and not under Trump.

-- "San Diego transit at a crossroads? MTS boasts robust ridership recovery — but faces financial crisis," San Diego Union Tribune

In the SF Bay area, a referendum campaign is underway for two ballot measures to provide additional funding to all types of transit in the region.

Chicago area systems are getting a $1.5 billion payment from the state for the next few years ("Illinois enacts $1.5 billion plan to stabilize Transit and Avoid Service Reductions," Governing).

Philadelphia still needs a long term solution for SEPTA funding, as the Republican dominated State Legislature isn't particularly interested ("SEPTA got stopgap relief, but still needs a sustainable long-term solution," Philadelphia Inquirer, "Credit Shapiro for more SEPTA funds, but still need long-term fix,"  Philadelphia Tribune).  Etc.

Trump Administration uses crime incidents to demean and defund transit.  Using one-off terrible crimes to say transit is unsafe ("US threatens to withhold funds from Boston, Chicago transit agencies," Reuters, "Trump administration threatens to pull New York transit funds as it questions anti-crime efforts," AP, "Deadly stabbing on Charlotte train highlights America's transit safety challenges," ABC11), the Trump Administration used this event as an excuse to suggest defunding transit ("Trump Admin Issues New Threat After Charlotte Train Killing," Newsweek).

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said, “Safety needs to be the top priority of elected officials. Citizens don’t want federal dollars going to public transportation that local leaders refuse to keep safe!”

The fact is, transit is safer than driving ("We Need a Reality Check on Crime, Safety and Transit," "New York City’s Subway Is Actually Safer Than Your Car," Bloomberg).  

As one of the implementers of broken windows policing in NYC said, "there are always going to be high profile one-off incidents, regardless of the overall program of crime suppression."

Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, University of Chicago Press.

The big thing is the availability of guns ("A fighting chance: A new book challenges conventional wisdom on gun violence and suggests new approaches to solving the problem." University of Chicago Magazine), such as in LA ("Person fatally shot on L.A. Metro bus in Exposition Park," LA Times), where a fight between young adults erupted in gun violence and death on a bus.  

DC has a problem on the Metrorail system.  NYC has a problem with people who have extreme mental health issues.  SEPTA a problem with gun violence.

Problems in Minneapolis ("Metro Transit boosts uniformed security presence on light-rail trains," "What a week’s worth of rider text messages reveals about Metro Transit’s problems," Minneapolis Star-Tribune) and Seattle ("How Seattle-area transit is pushing back against crime," ), etc.

I still haven't gotten around to opining about how the BART system in San Francisco is using urban design interventions to improve safety at transit stations ("Can BART bring a Civic Center-style revival to another dilapidated S.F. station?," SF Chronicle).

Fare evasion countermeasures.  NYC, DC, and SF are installing much more difficult to evade emergency exit systems.

USDOT: all in for roads but not road safety.  Changing the funding criteria and basically eliminating transit infrastructure funding going forward ("T4America statement on USDOT proposal to eliminate federal transit funding"), same with sustainable mobility ("Trump Cancels Trail, Bike-Lane Grants Deemed ‘Hostile’ to Cars," Bloomberg) in favor of roads.  

Lots of road safety projects were cancelled because they think safety and diversity of users meaning not just automobile operators, are "woke."

Bike share growth in Toronto.

Bike share use in NYC, Washington, DC, Toronto ("How Bike Share Toronto got big — and what it will take to keep rolling," Toronto Today, "How Bike Share went from death’s door to one of Toronto’s fastest-growing ways to travel," Toronto Star) and Boston ("Bluebikes’ popularity has skyrocketed. This map shows where they are used most and where they lag," Boston Globe) is exploding.  

 DC's system launched in 2010, so it seems to me that it takes a long time to reach critical mass (see Diffusion of Innovation, ("Bikeshare Beat: Capital Bikeshare records over 6.1 million rides in 2024, fastest growing system in US," Greater Greater Washington and "Citi Bike, 10 Years Old and Part of New York’s Street Life," New York Times).  

-- "Shared Mobility's Role in Sustainable Mobility: Past, Present, and Future," Annual Review in Environment and Resources

Sadly, in many places, systems are minimally used or have shuttered operations, including high profile cities like Minneapolis ("Nice Ride shuts down pioneering Minneapolis bike share program," Minnesota Public Radio).  

It's important to figure out what separates successful places from the unsuccessful ones, to increase biking uptake.

Bike Share Toronto 2024 Business Review

One factor obviously is infrastructure along with urban form. Scale too.  

Plus, E-bikes have made a big difference too.  Although in response, cost per trip is higher.  I was always critical about e-bikes in the flat core of a city ("(Still) tired of mis-understanding of the potential for e-bikes," 2015) but it's not for me to say how people "should be using" bikes.

And of course, whether or not there is public subsidy as part of an overall transportation planning program.  Systems relying on sponsorship, like Minneapolis, fall apart when they can't replace sponsors.

-- Better Bike Share Partnership

Matt Elliott, a columnist for the Toronto Star warns us that as systems are successful, depending on the operator, they can focus more on extracting more revenue from riders, rather than improving the system ("Why dark clouds loom over Bike Share Toronto, despite its undeniable success," 2030 Bike Share Toronto Growth Strategy - Ride More, Connect More, Toronto Parking Authority, Presentation).

Here’s the problem. The TPA report, after justifiably bragging about its recent success, spends much of the rest of the document laying out ways to extract more money from the Bike Share riders who have contributed to that success. That includes “new revenue streams” like “loyalty programs, digital advertising networks, feature upsells, and advanced reservations.” It reads like a road map that could easily lead to what the tech writer Cory Doctorow has colourfully called “enshittification” — the process whereby online platforms and services decline over time as they change from focusing on what benefits users to what benefits their bottom line.

You know it when you see it. It usually starts when a service that previously offered a reasonable price and a good user experience begins constantly trying to sell you on their Premium Extra VIP Plus program while also showing unskippable ads for weight-loss drugs.

This decline can be an insidious process that starts with good intentions. For instance, Bike Share has had problems with dock and bike availability, especially at peak times of day. From the TPA’s perspective, allowing people to reserve a bike in advance for a small fee might seem like a good way to ease frustration. For users, however, a much better approach would be to add more bikes and docks in areas with high demand.

A swarm of Lime Bikes in London.

Note that the Economist argues dockless bike share is a key component to the success of bike share in London ("London has become a cycling city It shows how dockless-electric bikes could transform cities").

They argue that London is a cycling city now because of dockless bike share.).  

If one secret is making the bikes really electric, the other seems to be making them really dockless. Previously, bike-hire schemes offered a patchy service: it was often hard to find a bike and it could take ages to find a designated parking space. Today, London’s operators have more bikes. But critically they have negotiated relaxed parking rules, including on residential streets, meaning their fleets fan out widely. Lime claims that 97% of Londoners in its service area live within a two-minute walk of one of their bikes. As with Uber, it thinks users open the app if they know convenience is only a few minutes away.

This is run by operators separate from the TfL operated bike share system.   But parking and storage can be a big mess.

Slow as molasses new transit lines in Toronto ("Why does Toronto insist on taking the ‘rapid’ out of rapid transit?," Toronto Star), "City, TTC taking steps to improve service speed of Finch West LRT, Chow says," CBC).  They won't give streetcars priority over cars.

... But any Torontonian will tell you that just because the line is there on the map doesn’t mean it will get you where you need to be in any kind of hurry. Toronto has the distinction of running the slowest streetcar system in the world.

This is because the city and the TTC don’t consider it any kind of priority to make rapid transit rapid. They design these lines and choose how to operate them to ensure they are slow. On purpose. If that wasn’t clear before, it has become so in the debates at the TTC board and city council that have followed Torontonians’ astonished rage at the sloth-like performance of our new $3.5 billion LRT line.

Authorities decided to put 18 stops on an 11-kilometre route. They decided the vehicles should travel below 25 km/h (less than half the speed of the traffic beside them) through intersections and when approaching stations, assuring they will never get up to a decent speed. They decided the vehicles should stop endlessly at red lights and also be forced to wait for single-occupant vehicles make left turns or U-turns. They decided, quietly, that instead of the promised 33 minutes for a trip across the line, 48 minutes was a reasonable stretch goal — something to aim for after the slower “soft launch.”

Note that this is an issue for bus systems in most places as well.  Cars get the priority.  That should change.  Transit vehicles move far more people. 

Montreal REM expansion in Canada.  The REM is what some people call "light metro," and is a new complement ("Montreal’s New Rail Line Is the Future" Canada has forgotten how to build fast, cheap transit. A new megaproject has the fix," Maclean's), to the famed Montreal subway system, built and funded by the provincial pension system as an investment.  

But the thing is that it is above ground in most places.  Montreal's subway is 100% underground, so it can operate during terrible snowstorms.  Not the REM.  

Although to me, REM is a ripoff of government.  They get paid 75 cents per kilometer per passenger traveled per ride for 99 years.  That seems like a lot of money to me.  A 10km trip costs $7.50 Canadian ($5.45 US) to the government.  A good deal for the Pension Fund.  It would have been cheaper for local government to pay.  Financing through third parties is always more expensive.

DC dumping the streetcar ("DC makes yet another bad decision about streetcars: will replace the one line with a so called "fancy" bus | The Vision Thing," "Budget cut means D.C. Streetcar will shut down in March," Washington Post).  

This is the endgame for a poor planning process from "start" (not the initial planning) to finish.  I joke that DC and Seattle started streetcar planning in 2003.  Seattle got the first line in 2007.  DC in 2014.  

Also, the city received an unsolicited offer from the private sector to run and grow the system (that's how it's done in Portland, Oregon, home in the US to the first modern streetcar).  But they blew it off.

What could have been: "The DC Streetcar May Run to Benning Road Metro in 2026," DC Urban Turf.

As DC plans to build a new stadium for the NFL football team, the current streetcar alignment is adjacent, and could have been leveraged to provide service within the campus as a complement to bus and subway service, and link to more subway stations as another mobility alternative.

Relatedly, Minnesota's pathetic Northstar commuter railroad is closing--by not extending it to St. Cloud it wasn't particularly useful ("Minnesota's Northstar Commuter Rail to Be Replaced by Expanded Bus Service Network," Hoodline), cities in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system are trying to opt out--an anti-transit State Government doesn't have DART's back ("So You Want to Leave DART?," D Magazine), and plenty of communities, like Illinois, refuse transit extension to their communities ("Huntley backs out of planned Metra station for new passenger train service between Rockford and Chicago," Lake County Scanner).

Electric bicycles.  E-bikes, unlike electric cars, do actually shift environmental metrics by reducing car trips ("For some parents, minivans are out and e-bikes are in," Boston Globe, "The best bike gets you out of your car," Bicycling, "How electric bikes reduce car use," Transportation Research: Part D), whereas EVs replace gasoline car trips, still creating traffic congestion and maintaining automobile dominance in the transportation planning paradigm.  But the lack of standards for equipment, safety, weight etc. create problems.

Safety/We need national standards.  Many communities are beginning to regulate electric bikes more closely in the face of deaths and accidents ("Molly’s Last Ride Twelve-year-old Molly Steinsapir crashed onto the pavement from a Rad Power e-bike and never woke up. With a poorly regulated e-bike industry, who is responsible when a child dies?," Bicycling).  

And complaints of reckless riding by pedestrians and motor vehicles operators.  Many in the micromobility world criticize this regulatory action, saying that accidents and deaths are still worse when it comes to motor vehicles.  Sure.  

True.  But working to reduce needless deaths wrt road safety (e.g., Vision Zero) should be the priority.  E bikes don't get a pass  ("14 year old riding an ebike on the sidewalk AT 25MPH, hits woman, she gets traumatic brain injury," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Santee poised to ban e-bikes for children under 12 City will work with schools, community to educate them about the tougher regulations," San Diego Union-Tribune, "Toronto is looking at licences for e-bikes. Here’s why that may be better for delivery riders — and pedestrians," Toronto Star, "It’s getting hard to ignore e-bikes’ dangers: If drivers of cars are responsible for their crashes, drivers of e-bikes are responsible for theirs," Boston Globe).

Plus, because of the weight of an e-bike (too much for me right now), brakes need frequent adjustment.

So should standardization of rules across the US.  Many types of electric "bikes" are more akin to motorcycles, capable of speeds much higher than a typical "analog" bicycle, say the super riders can do 20mph.  Duffers like me, more like 12 mph.  There are even electric "bikes" that go faster than 28mph.  Those aren't bikes, they are mopeds/motorcycles.

Bankruptcy.  Not unlike the beginnings of the auto industry, the new technology of electricity powered bikes leads to lots of new entrants.  But there are far more entrants than there is demand.  

A few years ago a technology leading e bike company, Van Moof, went out of business, stranding users.  Although it was acquired and restarted by a firm specializing in sports equipment.

Rad Power Bikes, a company which has set up stores around the country, but is based in Seattle, just declared bankruptcy ("Seattle e-bike pioneer files bankruptcy, owes millions," Seattle Times).  And I'd been looking at that company for a bike, because I like the design.

Gondolas in Paris: the Transit City paradigm.  Paris, which continues to expand its system of train, subway, and tram (light rail) transit ("Map of the Grand Paris Express, Europe’s Larctgest Transit Expansion Project," The Urbanist), has added gondolas to the mix ("Europe’s longest urban cable car is unveiled over dazzling capital city," Metro UK, "In the Île-de-France region, a cable car to reduce urban inequalities," Le Monde).

The new line, the first of its kind in the French capital, has been designed to connect the city’s isolated outskirts, poorly served by trains and buses, to the Métro network. At 4.5 kilometres long, the route links Métro Line 8 in Créteil to Villa Nova in Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, and passes through Limeil-Brevannes and Valenton on the way.

The cable car system — which features 105 gondolas with 10 seats each — is expected to carry around 11,000 passengers per day above Parisian streets. While the new cable car is the longest in Europe, it still lags behind the longest in the world, which connects the Bolivian cities of La Paz and El Alto over 20 miles.

Although to be fair, projected ridership is equivalent to a medium usage bus line.  OTOH, offering much faster trips and greater access and connectedness on "social urbanism" grounds.

The Le Monde article makes clear it took a long time, about 20 years, from idea to fruition.   But it was also implemented.  It's an example of the idea that to be a "Transit City" you have to keep investing in and where practical and needed, building new infrastructure.

Meanwhile proposals in DC for connection between the Rosslyn Metrorail station and Georgetown, Staten Island to New Jersey ("Bayonne mayor gives aerial gondola plan a thumbs up," Staten Island Advance) and Los Angeles ("Metro votes to approve Dodger Stadium gondola project despite protests," Los Angeles Times) languish.

Passengers wait Saturday at the new Star Lake Station. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times)

Transit expansions.  Are still happening, with projects that predate the Trump Administration.  One notable is Seattle ("New light rail stations open with South King County party," Seattle Times).  Each expansion generates a lot of new ridership, much more than say the Silver Line did for Metrorail in Suburban Virginia.

Last year’s extension to Lynnwood opened up the northern suburbs; this year’s stretch into Redmond welded together the tech-heavy Eastside; and now the jump to Federal Way is anticipated to be a boon for workers and students in South King County.

Up to 23,000 riders a day are expected to board or exit a train at the three new stations, boosting ridership along that 1 Line spine from the current 110,000 daily average. The Eastside’s 2 Line carries about 10,000 passengers a day, but its popularity is expected to grow once it connects with the 1 Line next year.

It's an example of how I say that transit infrastructure, done right, can have the speediest return on public investment, so it should be seen as an economic development measure.

Vision Zero/Road Safety.  For another entry, this is too long as it is.

Biking is transportation, not merely a toy | Reacting to Nassim Taleb

Fortune Magazine reports that prominent business economist Nassim Taleb argues that the decline in the US is partly measured by the rise in planning and implementing bicycle lanes, which he calls a lifestyle rather than an economic endeavor ("'Black Swan' author Nassim Taleb says your city's new bike lane is the reason the economy sucks").  From the article:

Taleb argued well-intentioned “lifestyle improvements” like new bike lanes, while popular among city planners and politicians, reveal a deeper problem silently afflicting Western economies: the illusion of growth in societies that have reached their limits of prosperity. “Many are discovering,” he said, “that lifestyle improvements, such as bicycling paths and pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly cities, may not produce economic growth.”

Taleb’s key message in his latest speech could be considered counterintuitive and unnerving for champions of urban progressivism: symbols of modernity—such as city bike lanes—are evidence of economic stagnation, not success. 

Denmark cycle superhighway.

Evening rush hour traffic funnels to one lane traveling south on 19th St, NW because of illegal parking at curbside.  Washington Post photo by Gerald Martineau.

Referencing his 2012 book Antifragile, in which he applied the idea of the “S-curve” from biology in an economic context, Taleb explained that most systems—including national economies—undergo an initial phase of rapid growth as needs are met and utility rises. Eventually, however, they hit a ceiling: once everyone owns a car, buys a home, and enjoys basic comforts, the returns on further investment slow dramatically. He said his research shows that in both biology and economics, “entities grow in a convex way, then slow as they saturate — growth may be unbounded, but remains sub-logarithmic.” For instance, you may grow your house to include a two-car garage, but that doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily graduate to a five-car garage. The incentive diminishes after a certain stage of growth and the curve takes on an S shape.

By contrast, look at Copenhagen.  From the LA Times:

Copenhagen’s city government reported in early July that 62% of its residents are now commuting to work or school by bike — an increase from 52% in 2015 and 36% in 2012, when the City Council launched a 14-year-plan to improve the quality, safety and comfort of cycling. Those bikers pedal an estimated total of 800,000 miles a day. According to local reports, there are more bikes (675,000) than people in Copenhagen, and five times as many bicycles as cars. 

Catchment area of public transit stops for pedestrians and cyclists.  From the VeloQuebec publication, Planning and Design for Pedestrians and Cyclists: A Technical Guide, p. 135.  First edition.

Biking increases access to destinations for an affordable cost.  Taleb couldn't be more wrong, unable to see beyond his blinders that bicycling is a toy.  Bicycles, like other modes of transportation, is about facilitating exchange more efficiently.  

In the "Walking" (1800-1890) and "Transit" (1890-1920) City design eras ("Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in the Spatial Evolution of the American Metropolis," Peter Muller), biking is faster than walking and combined with transit, allows people to reach a wide array of destinations--work, school, home, and other--relatively quickly.

In cities designed for transit/biking, with the right density and street network, cyclists can travel a 5 mile radius = about 75 square miles, in 25 minutes or less.

Research by Newman and Kenworthy find that metropolitan areas with strong transit systems have higher average incomes than those reliant on the car ("Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy," Transportation Research Part A, 1999).

From the Los Angeles Times:

“I had a Mercedes but it sat in the garage all the time because it was so much easier to get everywhere by bike,” said Jensen, a 51-year-old who works in a downtown investment bank. He got rid of the car, which was costing him about $500 a month, after moving from the suburbs to the city and finding that he didn’t need it anymore.

Space requirements for different modes in facilitating exchange can have deleterious economic effects.  Cities were created to maximize exchange--not just transactionally, but of ideas, innovation, experiences, etc.  Facilitating the automobile requires a lot more space than for biking/walking/transit.  This ends up having significant negative effects when the majority of mobility space is devoted to the car.  It reduces people's ability to engage in exchange.  

The more traffic, the less interaction (Appleyard).

Also, as John Norquist, former mayor of Milwaukee has pointed out, when you tear down houses and commercial enterprises to build or widen roads, you do reduce economic activity and local tax revenue.

See for example the work of Donald Appleyard (Livable Streets) and David Engwicht (Reclaiming our cities and towns: better living through less traffic).

Reductions in household costs for transportation.  The Center for Neighborhood Technology's Housing + Transportation Affordability Index household costs studies finds that about 20% of the average household budget, generally consumed by car(s).

According to the American Automobile Association cost of maintaining a new car is very expensive ("AAA: New Vehicle Costs Drop to $11577" ) is spent on transportation.  

People who live in close proximity between work and home can bike or use transit (or walk) for significantly less money.  The journal article "Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles,"(Ecological Economics) reports that it costs 6x more to use a car than a bicycle.  Money not spent on a car can be spent on other things.

Even cheaper if your workplace offers discounted transit passes, like the federal government.

When we lived in DC, not owning a car supported about $100,000 of a mortgage.  These are economic effects of great significance.

I consider it a great privilege to have lived in Washington, DC, and to some extent, Ann Arbor, Michigan, where the walking-transit city form allowed me a great deal of mobility without having to rely on a car.

Electric bicycles offer scalar change in biking economics and take up.  Electric bikes can be a game changer in terms of shifting trips from the car to a bicycle, with significant impacts as well.  A study from the e bike manufacturer Upway, "How Much Can You Save Riding an E-Bike vs. Driving?," finds that it can be up to 68x cheaper to ride an electric bicycle compared to a car.  

E bikes allow people to travel further distances faster, making bike commuting more appealing to larger numbers of people (" Is An Electric Bicycle Good for Commuting in Denver?," AddMotor).

Although the industry is in its early stages (like how automobiles were at one time) and there are issues with manufacturing quality and maintenance, especially the need for frequent brake adjustment ("Molly’s Last Ride: Twelve-year-old Molly Steinsapir crashed onto the pavement from a Rad Power e-bike and never woke up. With a poorly regulated e-bike industry, who is responsible when a child dies?," Bicycling Magazine).

-- "Overwhelmed by E-Bike Options? We Tested Dozens—These 16 Are Actually Worth It," Bicycling Magazine

Parents are buying electric cargo bicycles to ferry kids to and from school ("How to Bike Commute With Your Kids," Wired).  This reduces traffic congestion during rush hour periods, which is a positive economic effect.  

E-bikes also make it easier for people to continue to bicycle as they age. 

And, they may make bicycling for transportation more practical and appealing in the suburbs, which tend to have less good bicycle infrastructure--e-bikes are made to ride on streets.

My attitude about e-bicycles has changed significantly over time ("(Still) tired of mis-understanding of the potential for e-bikes," 2015).

Economic benefits from better health.  Then there are the health effects.  I am a good example.  I took up biking for transportation at the age of 30, because my father and other close male relatives all died of heart disease at the age of 54 or younger.  And I knew I didn't want to pay for nor did I think I could routinize actually using a gym membership.  From the LA Times:

“I don’t miss it at all,” the 6-foot-7 Jensen added before setting off on the ride home on a warm summer evening. He said he’d been looking forward to it all afternoon. “The hour on the bike is time I don’t have to spend in a gym. I got healthier and look forward every day to all that fresh air. Life’s good.”

It turns out that I wasn't able to ward off heart disease.  I have it, bad, at the onset of 63.  But so far I've outlived my male relatives by at least 11 years, and it turns out the health benefits from biking all that time made me physically resilient--I've survived two cancers, the heart disease, and a deathly bout with covid (among others) that would have killed others (I'm called the miracle patient by many of my doctors).

From the Bloomberg article, "What England’s New National Cycling Network Needs to Get Rolling":

Investments in cycling infrastructure also make financial sense, outstripping the benefits of investment in roads by a country mile. According to Sustrans, the 30-year return on investment of some parts of the existing National Cycling Network was £8 per £1 spent, most of that in health benefits. The 3,500 miles of planned improvements will help get 1.6 million people more active, England’s transport minister, Simon Lightwood, said at July’s Active City conference.

Urban resilience.  Ironically, Taleb has written extensively about urban resilience.  Bicycling for transportation can be a significant contributor because it reduces dependence on automobiles and gasoline.

The oil crises of the 1970s led the Netherlands and Denmark to shift mobility policy toward transit and biking, to reduce dependence on gasoline ("Copenhagen has taken bicycle commuting to a whole new level," Los Angeles Times, "America, The Netherlands, and the Oil Crisis: 50 Years Later," ITDP). 

This is especially true in the face of disasters, when gasoline supply systems can be disrupted and road networks broken ("Gas shortages caused by Hurricane Milton will take days to address, experts say," ABC-TV).

Conclusion.   Yes, the economic return from bike lanes ("Study Finds Bike Lanes Can Provide Positive Economic Impact in Cities," Portland State University) isn't as high as from the Interstate highway system ("When Interstates Paved the Way The construction of the Interstate Highway System helped to develop the U.S. economy," Richmond Federal Reserve).  

Island Press publishes Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence.

But the marginal economic return from new additions to the highway network don't necessarily have the same value as the development of the initial network.

And the economic return from biking at the scale of the individual household can be quite significant.

The economic return on reducing the impact on climate change by switching to bicycles/electric bicycles can also be significant.

Scooters, private equity, micromobility and transit

 (g.d.  Blogger keeps destroying the post, although I think it's the connection.)

Micromobility is the fancy term now in transit, looking at how bikes, bike share, electric bikes, scooters and even skateboards complement traditional transit, especially in terms of what is called "the first mile/last mile" problem of getting people from their point of origin to the transit station and from the transit station to their final destination.

Private equity doesn't do stuff "out of goodness" but to make a profit, and quickly--often much faster than it is possible for a developing business to do.  Lots of cool more public good type "businesses" have been destroyed by private equity seeking a quick return or to cash out.

We've already determined that in the US, because of population density, depopulation of cities, and sprawl, that transit isn't profitable.  That's why it's been taken over by the public sector, except in a few rare situations (Asian countries have high population density and transit agencies are more active in high value real estate development so their situation is different).

Isla Vista, California.

So I wasn't surprised to see some articles about the bankruptcy of Bird (Superpedestrian), the major player in the electric scooter space ("E-scooter companies are going bankrupt. That should alarm you even if you hate them," Fast Company, "Bird's bankruptcy is bad news for scooter commuters," Washington Post).  

The reason first is that transit isn't profitable, especially quickly.  

But the second is that they significantly misunderstood the market.  They thought it was transit, it was recreational.  Bird launched in Santa Monica, a tourist-beach town, and the scooter users were recreational.

-- "What the e-scooter industry hasn't figured out about Santa Monica: It's recreation not transportation," 2018

Note, ride hailing is a similar issue.  Trips cost more than transit, lead to more congestion as they replace transit trips with car trips, and were significantly subsidized by venture capital ("Farewell, Millennial Lifestyle Subsidy," New York Times).

Then there is the nuisance issue.  Many scooter users aren't respectful of the public space and abandon the vehicles at the end of their trip, on sidewalks, in intersections, etc.  From the FC article:

But those who care about the future of urban life should not indulge in scooter schadenfreude. For all the annoyance they inspire, shared e-scooters have been valuable additions to American neighborhoods, frequently replacing car trips that pose a much greater threat to street safety and clean air. Cities—whose leaders have contributed to e-scooters’ current predicament—would be worse without them.

Regardless, I think the premise is wrong.  At least in the US, scooter trips don't replace car trips, but transit trips, and they are a lot more expensive than a transit trip.  (This was true of initial research on bike share too, but there are advantages to reducing train congestion and getting closer to your final destination.)

It wasn't the kind of business that could scale up. Especially to make lots of profit.  See the flameout of Chinese bike share and the fact that with a couple exceptions, bike share in the US is not capable of making money.

That doesn't mean bike share isn't valuable, just that it needs to be conceived of in terms of first mile/last mile linked trips with transit.  

In some other countries, the transit agency provides free access to bike share to start or finish a trip, out of access and equity issues.  In the US, I think only Columbia Transit in South Carolina does this.

FWIW, I have no problem with scooters and bike share being integrated into transit systems, as a way to improve customer experience.

-- "The problem when you define every outcome as a success, you don't learn, and therefore failure is more likely: bike share in Seattle and Los Angeles as examples," 2016

But it's good at some things, not others. It's personal transit, not mass transit.  And it works best in areas with a lot of stations.  In terms of off loading parking, security, and maintenance, it's awesome.

Paris votes to ban electric scooters

Photo: Alamy.

From "Parisians vote to ban rental e-scooters from French capital by huge margin," Guardian:

Parisians have voted to rid the streets of the French capital of rental electric scooters, with an overwhelming 90% of votes cast supporting a ban, official results show.

Paris was a pioneer when it introduced e-scooters, or trottinettes, in 2018 as the city’s authorities sought to promote non-polluting forms of urban transport.

But as the two-wheeled vehicles grew in popularity, especially among young people, so did the number of accidents: in 2022, three people died and 459 were injured in e-scooter accidents in Paris.

In what was billed as a “public consultation” voters were asked: “For or against self-service scooters?”

I think in the US, which is car dominated when it comes to mobility, high numbers of the electorate would vote against sustainable mobility measures--bicycling, transit (some cities vote in favor, others vociferously against), trails (Hamilton County/Cincinnati voted against a trail measure a few years ago), pedestrian improvements. 

Reckless driving.  With electric scooters, part of it is perception that many of the riders ride in a deliberately dangerous fashion.  I know I see that myself, and I can't believe how fast they will ride, given the reality that road condition can make riding at higher speeds dangerous.

A major spark for the backlash against scooters was the death of a pedestrian on the sidewalk, after being hit by an electric scooter ("Paris police search for two e-scooter riders after pedestrian killed," Guardian). But there have been a number of deaths and many injuries, not just in Paris, but across France.

Poor parking.  But probably the biggest issue is how so many users don't park scooters in a way that is respectful of public space. ("Electric scooters have ruined Paris – we can't let London be next," Telegraph, 2019).  From the article:

Normally, anything that combats the notorious traffic congestion on the streets of Paris deserves applause. The city was a pioneer in public bike-rental schemes when it launched Vélib’ in 2007, beating London by five years. You can now get electric versions, and the dockless bike revolution that swept across most major cities has hit Paris too.

But pedal power requires a bit of effort – even on an e-bike – so the next step to make life easier for commuters was to bring in little electric scooters, which the American operator Lime did in the summer of 2018. While I still can’t get over the sight of grown-ups riding these things that look better powered by small children, I had to admit the scooters – known as trottinettes – made sense if you want to whizz around the city with relative ease. They’re known as “free-floating”, meaning you can pick up and drop off where you please by using an app. But what I wasn’t expecting was the bedlam that descended on the streets of Paris.

On my latest visit in October, I was taken aback by the sheer number of scooters lying abandoned in the streets. In front of the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, along crowded streets, on bridges, thrown into the Seine – hundreds were just dumped unceremoniously once users finished their journey, or had their journeys curtailed by a flat battery. They almost had the appearance of a city-wide art installation – a pathos invoked by what looked like giant toys discarded here and there. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an Instagram hashtag of “forgotten scooters in picturesque places”.

Getty Images, 2021.  Scooters parked in the public space in Paris.

How do you get people to follow rules?  I think this is one of the unintended problems of sharing programs like scooters, seated electric scooters (Revel sharing in NYC and San Francisco), and perhaps even bikes (although less so), in that people join and use the mode without necessarily having to demonstrate they know how to use the device safely.

Paris introduced rules after the introduction, in response to the problems.  Later so did France more generally ("Electric scooters: France introduces new rules to 'restore tranquillity'," BBC) but apparently that wasn't enough.  The national rules include:

• Riders must be at least 12 years of age
  
• Riding on the pavement will be prohibited unless in designated areas, and then at walking speed only
• Only one rider will be allowed per device, and no mobile phone use will be allowed
• Users cannot go against the traffic flow and must use cycle paths where available
• Riders will not be allowed to wear headphones while on their scooter
• By next July, the scooters' top speed will be capped at 25km/h
• Users riding on permitted faster roads must wear a helmet and high-visibility clothing
• E-scooters will be banned completely on country roads

 Rules are one thing.  You need compliance.

It's unfortunate, because electric scooters can be a part of urban mobility solutions that shift the mobility paradigm away from dominance by the automobile ("We review the swiftest way to see the Paris sights — by e-scooter," Times of London).

What about the US?  Paris has 15,000 scooters.  There are so many fewer in the US, that the impact is minimal.  Although there is no question that scooters are often poorly parked, even when parking areas are provided. 

While a goodly number of the trips are trasnportational, perhaps even a majority are more about recreation ("What the e-scooter industry hasn't figured out about Santa Monica: It's recreation not transportation," 2018).

In Salt Lake, I noticed that Spin has a few scooter stations, but maybe that's a function of an agreement with the University of Utah, since I've only seen such stations on their campus.  And the number of slots is minimal. 

Referenda should be held only during regular elections.  WRT the vote in Paris, it's not like a referendum that is part of a general election ballot, it's a voluntary vote, and that is likely to draw opponents who are not a more random sample of the electorate.  Personally, I believe such votes should only be taken during general elections from the standpoint of fairness.

Sustainable mobility framework.  This entry,"Further updates to the Sustainable Mobility Platform Framework" (2018) aims to create a master "mode" framework for sustainable mobility.  It's augmented by additional information in the various comments, which needs to be compiled into an updated entry.

What are now called "micromobility" services--bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, electric scooters, skateboards, etc.--are a subset.

Revel pivots to EV infrastructure promotion.  In mentioning Revel above, I've been out of touch.  Originally they were created to provide shared mopeds, first in NYC, then expanding to other cities like Washington and Miami.

Since then they've dropped most cities, except for New York and San Francisco, and they've pivoted adding other electricity-based mobility services, electric cars functioning as taxis (Bollore tried this in Paris and other cities in North America and it wasn't sustainable), and installing high quality electric charging infrastructure.

Electric scooter station for Spin

Maybe I don't get out enough, but I haven't seen a scooter station comparable to a bicycle sharing station.  This is on the University of Utah campus, by their bike shop.

The University of Utah has a set of digital ad kiosks across the campus.  The one pictured is on 500 South, next to the Rice-Eccles Football Stadium, and not too far from the University TRAX light rail station.

They are used to promote the Utah Transit Agency (bus, light rail, railroad commuter).  And I have seen ads for Spin on them.  But I haven't yet seen ads for biking.  

I don't know if they promoted the University Bike Week in ads on the system.

This Spin ad is somewhat subtle, not promoting electric scooters per se, but wearing helmets, which is why I noticed it. 

In any case, as I suggested in #10 in this entry ("PL #5: Creating a Silver Spring "Sustainable Mobility District" | Part 3: Program items 10-18"), "Create a digital community and transit information network for Silver Spring, employing kiosks and mobile applications" such community digital ad systems can be leveraged to promote community organizations and events, sustainable mobility, etc.

Transporting Little Caesars pizza on an electric scooter

I was reading an article about the introduction of a new scooter company into the Detroit market ("A fifth e-scooter brand just landed in Detroit," Detroit Free Press).  

The firm charges $1 base fee per trip, plus 39 cents/minute, which is pretty much what the other firms charge.  I don't know if the locality adds a sales tax per trip, the way DC does for car sharing.

That means a three minute trip costs more than a bus ride, and two ten minute trips per day for one month equal the cost of a bicycle, less if purchased used.\

[added 9/2/2021] I forgot to mention you can do a member subscription for these services, usually.  The member fee of $6/month means you're not charged a per trip fee of $1.

A ten minute trip is still about $4, even without the base charge.

Recreation versus transportation.  I still think most of the uses are recreational, not transportational, based on observation ("What the e-scooter industry hasn't figured out about Santa Monica: It's recreation not transportation").  

Although there is no question a significant number of the rides are transportational.  And some people, like the people in the photo, buy their own.

Nice Ride bicycle share in Minneapolis includes e-scooters.  I did see that electric scooters have been incorporated into the city wide bicycle sharing program in Minneapolis.  Lyft provides the scooters.  Pricing for Nice Ride members is slightly lower per minute, and there is no base charge of $1 per ride.  Nice Ride provides some scooter stations, separately from the bike sharing stations.  

And they come with locks and the user is expected to lock them up, rather than merely discard them in the public space.

It appears that Lyft is a Nice Ride partner, providing e-bikes and e-scooters.  But the standard bike share bike is a flat rate charge, while the e-vehicles have per minute fees.

Bird shows some profitability.  I figure that's the logical route to keep such micromobility devices as part of the transportation mix, since it seems unlikely that the business can ever be lucrative for for profit firms, especially venture capital funded firms seeking big returns ("The Scooter Wars Are Coming to the Stock Market," Wall Street Journal).  From the article:

“My view is that we are going to see more and more discouragement of the car, and not just the internal combustion engine. For short journeys it doesn’t make sense to use vehicles that are so excessive to consumer needs in terms of weight and seats,” says Kristina Church, head of sustainable solutions at Lombard Odier Investment Managers. 

The problem of broken scooters littering cities has muddied the green pitch, but micromobility companies are fixing this with proprietary ruggedized designs. Bird began by buying off-the-shelf scooters that only ended up lasting three to four months under the strain of the streets. Now a life of between 18 and 24 months is typical, says Chief Executive Travis VanderZanden. 

The financial case for buying the stocks also depends in part on vehicle lifespans. Profit growth will be a function of both increasing rider numbers and reducing operating expenses, including hefty depreciation charges. The longer scooters last, the lower the costs.

I just don't see it as being a particularly profitable business, even though improvements in the vehicl and battery make profit more likely.

Metropolitan transportation associations.  The integration of for profit and public mobility options in transit systems is discussed here ("The answer is: Create a single multi-state/regional multi-modal transit planning, management, and operations authority association" and "Another example of the need to reconfigure transpo planning and operations at the metropolitan scale: Boston is seizing dockless bike share bikes, which compete with their dock-based system").

Crashes and deaths: The scary thing about micromobility "devices" in places where motor vehicle operators are unfamiliar with them

The media are full of articles about bicyclists (and pedestrians) getting killed or injured by errant drivers and have been for a long time ("Six People, Including ‘Several' Children, Struck by Vehicle in Gaithersburg, Authorities Say," NBCWashington; "Truck Driver Who Killed 5 Cyclists Is Sentenced to 40 Years," New York Times).

Unless the driver is impaired, the penalties are minimal.

Mostly, this comes down to bicyclists riding in places where the car is overwhelmingly dominant and people have infinitesimal experience "sharing the road."  To them, the road is for cars, cars and nothing but cars.

My experience cycling for about 30 years in DC found two things, at least over the last 10 years: (1) my most harrowing experiences with motor vehicles were with cars with non-DC license plates and (2) over the past ten years especially, it seemed like more and more motor vehicle operators were "deferring" to cyclists, even when the cyclist didn't have the right of way.

I chalked this up to the center city having a much greater representation of modes other than the car--walking first, transit second, and cycling third.  While there aren't tons of cyclists in DC, there are many, and far more than there are in most places.

15th Street Cycletrack, DC.

Pedestrians cross K Street NW in snarled traffic Wednesday as rain turned to heavy snow and slowed the rush hour to a halt. Photo Credit: Bill O'leary, Washington Post

Living briefly in Orange County, California (for a month), I rarely saw cyclists, even though surprisingly, most of the major arterials were outfitted with bike lanes.

Santa Monica.

Scooters are another thing entirely.  First, the standard of quality for roadways isn't enough, in most places, to accommodate scooters safely.  But second, I hadn't really thought about the issue of lack of familiarity on the part of motor vehicle operators, in dealing with pedestrians, cyclists, and now scooter operators.

Even in a place like Orange, California, which has a traditional "main street" like core, the town core is a pod in the midst of a sprawl land use and transportation planning paradigm.  Few drivers are familiar with "sharing the road" on a regular basis.

-- "Man from Orange dies after car in Long Beach hits his electric scooter," Orange County Register

So we shouldn't be surprised, sadly, when cyclists, pedestrians, and scooter operators are killed in such places.

30 Days of Biking initiative: Minneapolis

In the vein of how I argue that focusing on "Bike to Work Day," one day in May, which is Bike Month, is a problem, because we spend most of our outreach efforts on one day rather than building greater participation for the entire year, the Minneapolis 30 Days of Biking initiative is a program I admire.

It focuses on getting people to bike every day, starting in April.

-- twitter feed

From the website:

I created my 30 Days of Biking profile. Now what?!
Step 1: Ride your bike.

Step 2: Share your adventures online with the hashtag #30daysofbiking.

Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2 ad infinitum and experience pure joyfulness.

You're good to go!

The program started in 2010 ("The man who invented 30 Days of Biking," MinnPost).

In terms of developing an annual calendar of outreach programming for cycling for transportation, more cities need to add this to the program.

Past blog entries:

-- "Best practice bicycle planning for suburban settings using the "action planning" method" 2010
-- "Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 1, leveraging Bike Month" 2019

Biking during the pandemic.  There has been writing about how biking should be considered an essential activity so that bike shops can remain open ("Why Is Bicycle Transportation Not Essential?"), while a spokesperson for the British Automobile Association was derisive ("Motoring group warns against cycling because of 'risk of falling off and needing medical help'," Edinburgh News), while in NYC biking take up has increased significantly since the onset of the coronavirus ("A Surge in Biking to Avoid Crowded Trains," New York Times).

Although in NYC, injuries are up significantly ("NYPD: Bike Injuries Are Up 43 Percent During Coronavirus Crisis," Streetsblog).