Bike-Share Numbers and the Fight Over What They Mean
The Riverton city council reported that its bike-share program, launched 18 months ago, now has 4,200 annual members and 61,000 rides in the past year. Ridership peaks between 7 and 9 a.m. and again from 4 to 6 p.m., and 72 percent of trips begin or end within three blocks of a light-rail station. Program staff note that the city added 14 stations in the past year and that membership fees cover 38 percent of operating costs, with the rest coming from a municipal subsidy. A council member who opposed the program says the numbers "prove it is a commuter service for people who already have transit options," while the program director calls the same figures evidence of "last-mile connectivity" worth expanding.
1. What central idea about the program is best supported by the passage as a whole?
Read the worked answer
Build the claim from the data, not from either quote.
- 72% of trips touch a rail station, and rides peak at 7–9 a.m. and 4–6 p.m. → the program is used heavily to bridge the gap between transit and a final destination.
- Membership fees cover only 38% of operating costs → the program cannot pay for itself at current pricing.
A defensible central idea must account for both strands, e.g.: The program functions largely as a connector to rail transit and depends on public subsidy to keep running.
Reject: "The program is a success" or "a failure." The passage supplies no ridership target and no cost-benefit comparison, so those conclusions would be imported, not supported. Note also that the two quoted officials both describe the same facts - the passage gives you use patterns and finances, not a verdict.
2. The council member and the program director cite identical figures. What does that suggest about the nature of their disagreement?
Read the worked answer
They do not dispute the data; they dispute the interpretation and the value judgment layered on top of it.
- Council member: "people who already have transit options" treats serving transit riders as redundant - a cost, not a benefit.
- Director: "last-mile connectivity" treats the same riders as evidence of a gap the program fills - a benefit.
Inference: the disagreement is about what counts as success, not about what happened. That means gathering more statistics of the same kind (more ride counts, more station data) would not settle it; the dispute would only narrow if the two sides agreed on a criterion - for example, whether replacing short car trips or feeding rail stations is the goal.
3. Which detail in the passage is least useful for judging whether the program primarily serves commuters, and why?
Read the worked answer
The 38% cost-recovery figure. It is a financial detail: it tells you how the program is funded, not when, where, or why people ride.
Compare the details that do bear on the question:
- Trip timing (7–9 a.m., 4–6 p.m.) → directly indicates commute use.
- Proximity to rail stations (72% within three blocks) → indicates transit-connection use.
The 14 new stations is a weaker candidate but still relevant, since expansion could change use patterns. The cost-recovery number, by contrast, would stay the same even if every rider were a tourist on a weekend outing, so it carries no information about trip purpose.