8 ms·

Citi Bike Is Amazing. Citibank Should Pay for Every New Yorker's Membership

46 points by raybb 4y ago

Invictus0 4y ago
Why stop there? They should pay for every new yorker to have a car and even a private jet too. /s
nathancahill 4y ago
As long as these guys get a cut: https://www.instagram.com/citibikeboyz/ https://www.instagram.com/citibikeboyz/
steveBK123 4y ago
[flagged]
bequanna 4y ago
> Assuming those are all members paying $205 a year, that's about $29 million a year. It's easy to imagine a scenario where that number doubles to a future 300,000 riders, which would net about $61.5 million. That's a lot of money, in the normal sense of the word "money." But Citibank's 2023 first-quarter earnings were $4.6 billion—a "bumper profit" tied to industry-wide chaos. Ah, more “tax the rich” so I have some freebies nonsense.
- syntaxing 4y ago
  Pretty disingenuous to not provide the next sentence as well. “All those billboards, roaming constantly, for just $10 million! They've also literally inserted a bank's name into the mouths and lives of countless New Yorkers and tourists. It's in the lexicon! How much is that worth? Citibank is getting an incredible deal, and surely they know it.”
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > How much is that worth? Seriously, how much? It’s probably more than $10mm. But 5x that, into perpetuity? What business are Citi winning that’s worth that much?
- greysteil 4y ago
  Not just that, though? I thought the comparison with the cost of sponsoring Citi Field was instructive - compared to that it does look like the advertising benefits to Citi from the deal are outsized, and there is a competitive market for this kind of sponsorship that should allow the dept of transport to extract more value.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > thought the comparison with the cost of sponsoring Citi Field was instructive Citi Field regularly broadcasts games nationally. > there is a competitive market for this kind of sponsorship that should allow the dept of transport to extract more value This would have been a more compelling article: who would be willing to pay more than Citi.
- antiterra 4y ago
  The argument seemed more that the value of bike sponsorship was significantly higher than the cost. Then, there’s the credible accusation that Citibank’s conduct has caused harm, and it is therefore reasonable, though debatable and possibly naive, to suggest that Citibank take action out of social goodwill in addition to whatever settlements they have made (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-federal-and-state-partners-secure-record-7-billion-global-settlement https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-federal-an... has a 90 million NY settlement) It’s not just up to Citibank, though, as the bikes have Lyft (I believe?) as an owner and whatever contractual agreements with the city. Further, there would still need to be some sort of deposit system to prevent casual theft/neglect.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  If anything, they seem to have gone out of their way to find an alternative to just taxing the rich. I think the real message is that people really like these bike programs. So maybe we should pay for them from taxes and instead of adverts for banks we can write "your taxes at work" or "woo! socialism" or whatever on the side of the bikes.
endisneigh 4y ago
I couldn't disagree more. If anything, the city should separate the docks from the bikes, so more companies can compete with their own bike services and infrastructure could be shared and companies taxed to expand it. then the city could place these docks on literally every block and companies could provide the bikes and service to rebalance the bikes on the docks as necessary. that environment would result in more variety of bikes (cargo, electric, tandem, etc) with more frequency and cheaper costs, as they wouldn't have to be concerned about political nonsense on getting the docks setup to begin with.
- 1980phipsi 4y ago
  Great idea. If you don't have a membership, it now costs more than a subway ride to have a bike for a half an hour. It's like they have an offering for tourists (high price per use) and an offering for people who use it all the time (membership), but they don't really have an option for the once in a while type of person.
  - subpixel 4y ago
    There’s no market in the once in a while bike rider, I think it makes perfect sense that you see the value and pay and join if you want to maximize the value each month.
    - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
      While that is true with bikes there is more value than just $. How many things have you not done just because the one-off cost was too high vs the cost of a membership? To me that means that they don't value me wanting to try.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - actionablefiber 4y ago
    A membership is $205/yr (~$185/yr with a citi credit card). I don't know what your standard is for "once in a while" but I visit NYC once every two months or so and get enough use out of it during my visits that I just maintain an annual membership.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
What a strange proposal. If bike sharing is “a bank propaganda program,” and you think your peers agree with you, why not propose the city provide it? The New York City budget is over $100bn a year. > Citi pays $20 million a year for the rights to Citi Field, and that's just regular signage on a stadium where men play the world's most boring sport Citi Field gives Citi an exclusive, branded venue to take clients and cut deals. You’re not going to win M&A business with a free bike.
- bequanna 4y ago
  [flagged]
- eli 4y ago
  No, you just buy a really nice suite if you want a venue for client entertainment. You buy the naming rights to mass market the brand. It's coming from the same budget as TV ads and billboards.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Sure, and I mention that elsewhere [1]. But Citi bankers use their turf more effectively than the competition; I have never heard of anyone else closing a deal there, they go to the Yankees Stadium. Point is: there are single line items that justify a multimillion dollar spend at Citi Field. I can think of no analog for bikes. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35727426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35727426
- chadlavi 4y ago
  Gotta give the cops their billions unfortunately. No room in the budget for frivolous luxuries like "things that make citizens lives better". Heck, they're even going to hobble our libraries to feed the cop beast.
pyrophane 4y ago
Bike availability and quality is already bad enough. I can't imagine how bad it would get if suddenly the program was free.
- ido 4y ago
  Surely the desired solution is to increase supply rather than preventing demand from increasing?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Vaslo 4y ago
Or you could just pay for the bikes yourselves.
pipes 4y ago
"why, because they can afford it" So a company provides an amazing service, everyone happy, and your proposal is "I want this for free".
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  One of the worst readings imaginable on what is actually “we, the people of this city, should charge an evil but apparently necessary business more money for the valuable sponsorship they willingly pay for next time the contract is up”
- nindalf 4y ago
  It's a negotiation, like any other. That's based on how much value the buyer is getting and how much money they have. According to the article, value is high and Citi has gobs of money. Therefore, the seller needs to negotiate harder. Negotiating hard to achieve a win-win is the most capitalistic outcome you could wish for. "I want this for free" -> I'd like this to be accessible to lower income citizens, increase usage of cycles that improves health in general and lowers our city's impact on the climate.
  - pipes 4y ago
    It says in the article it's available to people in public housing for 60 dollars instead of 200.
n0us 4y ago
Here is my controversial opinion: The bikers are the worst people in NYC, they are constantly running through crosswalks while they don't have the light, going the wrong way down the street, riding on the sidewalks, etc. They never stop for anyone or for any reason and if they hit you they'll likely blame you also. You are far more likely to get hit by a bike than a car. I actually hate the bikes and bike lanes and would be overjoyed to see them banned or at least heavily ticketed for bad behavior. In my years of living here I have never once seen a bicycle stop at a stop light. ("Idaho stops" don't count, that's just stopping and then running the light) Furthermore the electric "bicycles" are actually just electric motorcycles with auxiliary pedals and as such should require a license to drive.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > You are far more likely to get hit by a bike than a car 99% of pedestrian deaths result from collisions with cars, not bikes [1]. > electric "bicycles" are actually just electric motorcycles with auxiliary pedals and as such should require a license to drive 99.9% of “motor vehicle collisions that resulted in injuries [in 2018] were caused by e-bikes” [2]. A link is provided to the data; I doubt they’ve materially increased. I share your frustration with bikers ignoring traffic rules. But dangerous bikers, even e-bikers, pale in consequence to cars. [1] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian... [2] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/18/damn-lies-and-statistics-the-numbers-dont-back-up-de-blasios-reason-for-e-bike-crackdown/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/18/damn-lies-and-statist...
  - systemtest 4y ago
    Those numbers should be normalised for a fair comparison.
  - n0us 4y ago
    what-about-ism doesn't persuade me at all, just because cars are dangerous and obnoxious doesn't justify the poor behaviors and culture around bicycles in the city. An "e-bike" that is going 25mph and running red lights without anyone doing any pedaling at all is a motorcycle end of story and they should be banned or require a license.
steveBK123 4y ago
The main issue with these flavors of proposal is we constantly devalue public transport from the right/libertarian side to start with, and now from the left/progressive side. From the left, theres this push that it has to be free or abnormally cheap. The problem with this notion is 1) tons of people ride the subway who can afford to pay 2-5x as much. 2) We know this because subways are competing with Uber which costs $20-50 3) We already subsidize 50% discount metrocards for elderly, disabled, poor, students, etc, etc 4) People just do NOT value things that are free Transit is already in a big enough budget hole, absurdly cheap, and competing against much more expensive competition. The problem is not that it needs to be cheaper, the problem is it needs to be more convenient/frequent/safe/clean/etc. The race to $0 will only make these options worse.
- cafard 4y ago
  The subways are competing with Uber? Why didn't Uber lobby against the building of subways and forestall them?
  - steveBK123 4y ago
    How many subways have the MTA built since the existence of Uber? How much confidence do you have in the MTA expanding service in your lifetime? Yes, tons of people ride the subway and also ride Uber for some trips when its too late (safety)/trains are too infrequent (service)/theres delays (service)/for comfort/etc.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > How many subways have the MTA built since the existence of Uber? Two: the Q and 7 extension. The T is on the drawing board [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway\ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway\
      - steveBK123 4y ago
        Right, projects that were like 50 years in the making, long delayed, etc. The 2nd phase up to 125th probably takes another 10 years and $20B if we are lucky. The final leg down to Hanover Square will be a race against FiDi sinking into the sea in the 2100s.
jamisteven 4y ago
Idea bad, idea gone.
zhte415 4y ago
Article uses an image with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license. Hosted on a non not-for profit website. With content that's not Creative Commons. Bemoaning not sharing profits.
icegreentea2 4y ago
Heh. Obviously NYC should try to get the best deal possible out of Citi. The comparison to the naming rights to Citi Field is reasonable. That said, I think Citi would rather walk away than be 'forced' to pay the costs of the entire system. That just paints them as an easy target for the next municipality.
mpalmer 4y ago
Has the author given any thought to how many bikes (each with its own servicing/replacement cost) would need to be added to the system to support millions of non-paying members? I would guess he has not. Personally, this is literally the first time I've thought of Citibank in connection with Citibike in years. I think there might be a ceiling on the brand-awareness benefits of these roaming billboards.
exabrial 4y ago
Sounds like excess operating overhead with rideshare companies should be eliminated first.
tuukkah 4y ago
The real issue is here: > membership with unlimited rides costs $205 Why is the cost so high and who profits from it? More bicycle memberships would mean less congestion and pollution as well as healthier population. My experience in European cities is that the annual pass costs around €30.
- yellowstuff 4y ago
  Lyft operates Citibike, but it looks like they make less than $1mm per month from membership fees: https://mot-marketing-whitelabel-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/nyc/March-2023-Citi-Bike-Monthly-Report.pdf https://mot-marketing-whitelabel-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/nyc/M.... Not a cash cow! Members use the bikes heavily, which requires maintenance, and people who drive around Manhattan taking bikes from popular parking spots and bringing them to popular departure spots, and recharging electric bikes. This is very imbalanced, EG everyone wants to go to Grand Central in the morning and leave from there in the evening. In addition to the marginal cost from each member, Citi bike has high fixed costs, like maintaining the bike docks. My guess is that even at $205 for a membership Lyfy doesn't profit much.
  - tuukkah 4y ago
    If the price was $30 per year, I bet you could attract at least 400,000 casual subscribers (in an area of 24M people) and earn the same $12M per year. The more casual users would put less strain on the system too. I wonder if the report you linked to is somehow broken ("There were 18 active Citi Bike stations at the end of March.") but 2 trips per bike per day sounds comparably low - I guess an annual report would be more useful. > everyone wants to go to Grand Central in the morning and leave from there in the evening. Sounds problematic (and weird) to me, like they have attracted only a specific type of potential users.
    - tzs 4y ago
      > If the price was $30 per year, I bet you could attract at least 400,000 casual subscribers (in an area of 24M people) and earn the same $12M per year. The more casual users would put less strain on the system too. How would having more casual users put less strain on the system? Lowering the price to $30/year isn't going to cause the people who now pay $200+/year to stop using it, so all those new casual users would be in addition to those already using it.
throw7 4y ago
I'm just salty "e-bikes" have become synonymous with "bicycle". The two should be separate categories and, if anything, they should be in the motorcycle/scooter type and regulated, as such, appropriately.
jggonz 4y ago
Citi is doing a great thing and it's charging a fair price. There is a benefit for all of us when businesses charge a fee for the products and services they provide: We don't take those products or services for granted. Just because some big bank can afford to pay for your bike ride, doesn't make you entitled to ask them to do it.

46 points by raybb 4y ago

Invictus0 4y ago

Why stop there? They should pay for every new yorker to have a car and even a private jet too. /s

nathancahill 4y ago

As long as these guys get a cut: https://www.instagram.com/citibikeboyz/ https://www.instagram.com/citibikeboyz/

steveBK123 4y ago

[flagged]

bequanna 4y ago

> Assuming those are all members paying $205 a year, that's about $29 million a year. It's easy to imagine a scenario where that number doubles to a future 300,000 riders, which would net about $61.5 million. That's a lot of money, in the normal sense of the word "money." But Citibank's 2023 first-quarter earnings were $4.6 billion—a "bumper profit" tied to industry-wide chaos. Ah, more “tax the rich” so I have some freebies nonsense.

syntaxing 4y ago
Pretty disingenuous to not provide the next sentence as well. “All those billboards, roaming constantly, for just $10 million! They've also literally inserted a bank's name into the mouths and lives of countless New Yorkers and tourists. It's in the lexicon! How much is that worth? Citibank is getting an incredible deal, and surely they know it.”
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > How much is that worth? Seriously, how much? It’s probably more than $10mm. But 5x that, into perpetuity? What business are Citi winning that’s worth that much?
greysteil 4y ago
Not just that, though? I thought the comparison with the cost of sponsoring Citi Field was instructive - compared to that it does look like the advertising benefits to Citi from the deal are outsized, and there is a competitive market for this kind of sponsorship that should allow the dept of transport to extract more value.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > thought the comparison with the cost of sponsoring Citi Field was instructive Citi Field regularly broadcasts games nationally. > there is a competitive market for this kind of sponsorship that should allow the dept of transport to extract more value This would have been a more compelling article: who would be willing to pay more than Citi.
antiterra 4y ago
The argument seemed more that the value of bike sponsorship was significantly higher than the cost. Then, there’s the credible accusation that Citibank’s conduct has caused harm, and it is therefore reasonable, though debatable and possibly naive, to suggest that Citibank take action out of social goodwill in addition to whatever settlements they have made (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-federal-and-state-partners-secure-record-7-billion-global-settlement https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-federal-an... has a 90 million NY settlement) It’s not just up to Citibank, though, as the bikes have Lyft (I believe?) as an owner and whatever contractual agreements with the city. Further, there would still need to be some sort of deposit system to prevent casual theft/neglect.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
If anything, they seem to have gone out of their way to find an alternative to just taxing the rich. I think the real message is that people really like these bike programs. So maybe we should pay for them from taxes and instead of adverts for banks we can write "your taxes at work" or "woo! socialism" or whatever on the side of the bikes.

endisneigh 4y ago

I couldn't disagree more. If anything, the city should separate the docks from the bikes, so more companies can compete with their own bike services and infrastructure could be shared and companies taxed to expand it. then the city could place these docks on literally every block and companies could provide the bikes and service to rebalance the bikes on the docks as necessary. that environment would result in more variety of bikes (cargo, electric, tandem, etc) with more frequency and cheaper costs, as they wouldn't have to be concerned about political nonsense on getting the docks setup to begin with.

1980phipsi 4y ago
Great idea. If you don't have a membership, it now costs more than a subway ride to have a bike for a half an hour. It's like they have an offering for tourists (high price per use) and an offering for people who use it all the time (membership), but they don't really have an option for the once in a while type of person.
- subpixel 4y ago
  There’s no market in the once in a while bike rider, I think it makes perfect sense that you see the value and pay and join if you want to maximize the value each month.
  - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
    While that is true with bikes there is more value than just $. How many things have you not done just because the one-off cost was too high vs the cost of a membership? To me that means that they don't value me wanting to try.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  A membership is $205/yr (~$185/yr with a citi credit card). I don't know what your standard is for "once in a while" but I visit NYC once every two months or so and get enough use out of it during my visits that I just maintain an annual membership.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

What a strange proposal. If bike sharing is “a bank propaganda program,” and you think your peers agree with you, why not propose the city provide it? The New York City budget is over $100bn a year. > Citi pays $20 million a year for the rights to Citi Field, and that's just regular signage on a stadium where men play the world's most boring sport Citi Field gives Citi an exclusive, branded venue to take clients and cut deals. You’re not going to win M&A business with a free bike.

bequanna 4y ago
[flagged]
eli 4y ago
No, you just buy a really nice suite if you want a venue for client entertainment. You buy the naming rights to mass market the brand. It's coming from the same budget as TV ads and billboards.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Sure, and I mention that elsewhere [1]. But Citi bankers use their turf more effectively than the competition; I have never heard of anyone else closing a deal there, they go to the Yankees Stadium. Point is: there are single line items that justify a multimillion dollar spend at Citi Field. I can think of no analog for bikes. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35727426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35727426
chadlavi 4y ago
Gotta give the cops their billions unfortunately. No room in the budget for frivolous luxuries like "things that make citizens lives better". Heck, they're even going to hobble our libraries to feed the cop beast.

pyrophane 4y ago

Bike availability and quality is already bad enough. I can't imagine how bad it would get if suddenly the program was free.

ido 4y ago
Surely the desired solution is to increase supply rather than preventing demand from increasing?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Vaslo 4y ago

Or you could just pay for the bikes yourselves.

pipes 4y ago

"why, because they can afford it" So a company provides an amazing service, everyone happy, and your proposal is "I want this for free".

tehwebguy 4y ago
One of the worst readings imaginable on what is actually “we, the people of this city, should charge an evil but apparently necessary business more money for the valuable sponsorship they willingly pay for next time the contract is up”
nindalf 4y ago
It's a negotiation, like any other. That's based on how much value the buyer is getting and how much money they have. According to the article, value is high and Citi has gobs of money. Therefore, the seller needs to negotiate harder. Negotiating hard to achieve a win-win is the most capitalistic outcome you could wish for. "I want this for free" -> I'd like this to be accessible to lower income citizens, increase usage of cycles that improves health in general and lowers our city's impact on the climate.
- pipes 4y ago
  It says in the article it's available to people in public housing for 60 dollars instead of 200.

n0us 4y ago

Here is my controversial opinion: The bikers are the worst people in NYC, they are constantly running through crosswalks while they don't have the light, going the wrong way down the street, riding on the sidewalks, etc. They never stop for anyone or for any reason and if they hit you they'll likely blame you also. You are far more likely to get hit by a bike than a car. I actually hate the bikes and bike lanes and would be overjoyed to see them banned or at least heavily ticketed for bad behavior. In my years of living here I have never once seen a bicycle stop at a stop light. ("Idaho stops" don't count, that's just stopping and then running the light) Furthermore the electric "bicycles" are actually just electric motorcycles with auxiliary pedals and as such should require a license to drive.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> You are far more likely to get hit by a bike than a car 99% of pedestrian deaths result from collisions with cars, not bikes [1]. > electric "bicycles" are actually just electric motorcycles with auxiliary pedals and as such should require a license to drive 99.9% of “motor vehicle collisions that resulted in injuries [in 2018] were caused by e-bikes” [2]. A link is provided to the data; I doubt they’ve materially increased. I share your frustration with bikers ignoring traffic rules. But dangerous bikers, even e-bikers, pale in consequence to cars. [1] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian... [2] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/18/damn-lies-and-statistics-the-numbers-dont-back-up-de-blasios-reason-for-e-bike-crackdown/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/18/damn-lies-and-statist...
- systemtest 4y ago
  Those numbers should be normalised for a fair comparison.
- n0us 4y ago
  what-about-ism doesn't persuade me at all, just because cars are dangerous and obnoxious doesn't justify the poor behaviors and culture around bicycles in the city. An "e-bike" that is going 25mph and running red lights without anyone doing any pedaling at all is a motorcycle end of story and they should be banned or require a license.

steveBK123 4y ago

The main issue with these flavors of proposal is we constantly devalue public transport from the right/libertarian side to start with, and now from the left/progressive side. From the left, theres this push that it has to be free or abnormally cheap. The problem with this notion is 1) tons of people ride the subway who can afford to pay 2-5x as much. 2) We know this because subways are competing with Uber which costs $20-50 3) We already subsidize 50% discount metrocards for elderly, disabled, poor, students, etc, etc 4) People just do NOT value things that are free Transit is already in a big enough budget hole, absurdly cheap, and competing against much more expensive competition. The problem is not that it needs to be cheaper, the problem is it needs to be more convenient/frequent/safe/clean/etc. The race to $0 will only make these options worse.

cafard 4y ago
The subways are competing with Uber? Why didn't Uber lobby against the building of subways and forestall them?
- steveBK123 4y ago
  How many subways have the MTA built since the existence of Uber? How much confidence do you have in the MTA expanding service in your lifetime? Yes, tons of people ride the subway and also ride Uber for some trips when its too late (safety)/trains are too infrequent (service)/theres delays (service)/for comfort/etc.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > How many subways have the MTA built since the existence of Uber? Two: the Q and 7 extension. The T is on the drawing board [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway\ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway\
    - steveBK123 4y ago
      Right, projects that were like 50 years in the making, long delayed, etc. The 2nd phase up to 125th probably takes another 10 years and $20B if we are lucky. The final leg down to Hanover Square will be a race against FiDi sinking into the sea in the 2100s.

jamisteven 4y ago

Idea bad, idea gone.

zhte415 4y ago

Article uses an image with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license. Hosted on a non not-for profit website. With content that's not Creative Commons. Bemoaning not sharing profits.

icegreentea2 4y ago

Heh. Obviously NYC should try to get the best deal possible out of Citi. The comparison to the naming rights to Citi Field is reasonable. That said, I think Citi would rather walk away than be 'forced' to pay the costs of the entire system. That just paints them as an easy target for the next municipality.

mpalmer 4y ago

Has the author given any thought to how many bikes (each with its own servicing/replacement cost) would need to be added to the system to support millions of non-paying members? I would guess he has not. Personally, this is literally the first time I've thought of Citibank in connection with Citibike in years. I think there might be a ceiling on the brand-awareness benefits of these roaming billboards.

exabrial 4y ago

Sounds like excess operating overhead with rideshare companies should be eliminated first.

tuukkah 4y ago

The real issue is here: > membership with unlimited rides costs $205 Why is the cost so high and who profits from it? More bicycle memberships would mean less congestion and pollution as well as healthier population. My experience in European cities is that the annual pass costs around €30.

yellowstuff 4y ago
Lyft operates Citibike, but it looks like they make less than $1mm per month from membership fees: https://mot-marketing-whitelabel-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/nyc/March-2023-Citi-Bike-Monthly-Report.pdf https://mot-marketing-whitelabel-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/nyc/M.... Not a cash cow! Members use the bikes heavily, which requires maintenance, and people who drive around Manhattan taking bikes from popular parking spots and bringing them to popular departure spots, and recharging electric bikes. This is very imbalanced, EG everyone wants to go to Grand Central in the morning and leave from there in the evening. In addition to the marginal cost from each member, Citi bike has high fixed costs, like maintaining the bike docks. My guess is that even at $205 for a membership Lyfy doesn't profit much.
- tuukkah 4y ago
  If the price was $30 per year, I bet you could attract at least 400,000 casual subscribers (in an area of 24M people) and earn the same $12M per year. The more casual users would put less strain on the system too. I wonder if the report you linked to is somehow broken ("There were 18 active Citi Bike stations at the end of March.") but 2 trips per bike per day sounds comparably low - I guess an annual report would be more useful. > everyone wants to go to Grand Central in the morning and leave from there in the evening. Sounds problematic (and weird) to me, like they have attracted only a specific type of potential users.
  - tzs 4y ago
    > If the price was $30 per year, I bet you could attract at least 400,000 casual subscribers (in an area of 24M people) and earn the same $12M per year. The more casual users would put less strain on the system too. How would having more casual users put less strain on the system? Lowering the price to $30/year isn't going to cause the people who now pay $200+/year to stop using it, so all those new casual users would be in addition to those already using it.

throw7 4y ago

I'm just salty "e-bikes" have become synonymous with "bicycle". The two should be separate categories and, if anything, they should be in the motorcycle/scooter type and regulated, as such, appropriately.

jggonz 4y ago

Citi is doing a great thing and it's charging a fair price. There is a benefit for all of us when businesses charge a fee for the products and services they provide: We don't take those products or services for granted. Just because some big bank can afford to pay for your bike ride, doesn't make you entitled to ask them to do it.