10 Ways Citi Bike Could Actually Make Money

Image via Complex Original

Setting up more bikes and more racks would lead to more maintenance costs, but it would also be a surefire way to get more people riding—and paying. At this point, with Citi Bike in operation for nearly a full year, one would presume that they could pinpoint the areas with the most traffic and add more racks there (OMG parking tho!), as well as expand further uptown (right now it stops at 60th Street) and into Brooklyn. Double down and show that bike share is here to stay.

This seems like an absolute no-brainer, although the MTA probably wouldn't agree. If it was set up so a bike could be freed by a swipe of a Metrocard—at the same $2.50 per ride rate—ridership could soar. Leaving the office or the apartment on a perfect sunny day, who wants to descend into the subway? Nobody, that's who.

While it's great that Citi Bank stepped up to be the primary bike share sponsor, does that preclude the city from pursuing other avenues of revenue? There's a lot of advertising space on those bulky blue bikes, why not sell it all? And there are worse business models to follow than NASCAR's.

Can't put more logos on the bikes themselves? Fine. Convince someone of means (of which there are plenty in New York City alone) that bike share is a worthy cause, even without their name plastered all over it. David Byrne, we're looking at you. Whimsical bike racks are great and all, but how about contributing to something bike-related that actually matters?

What is the purpose of Citi Bike? If it's just to make money and show how progressive New York City is, sure, we suppose should be self-sufficient. But if it's to better the lives of New Yorkers and the livability of the city, shouldn't it receive public money? There wouldn't even need to be a new tax instituted if there was agreement to redirect a tiny percentage of tolls or parking tickets or even parking fees/taxes. Obviously this would be tricky—and will probably never happen—but we can dream.

OK, MTA, don't have a heart attack. No one likes a sick passenger. But here's the thing—you're spending money anyway. And with ridership ever increasing, it's either increase capacity or present alternatives. Well, bike share. Get people out on bikes, and there are fewer people trying to squeeze onto that already overcrowded F train. Just a thought.

The easiest way to bring in more money is to charge more. And while there is a delicate balance where raising fees too high drives away potential customers, there still seems to be some wiggle room here. Primarily in the annual membership, which is currently set at $95 before taxes. This seems ludicrously low. Doubling it to $190 still keeps it at way less than a dollar a day, and anyone who buys a bike for that little doesn't expect it to last much more than a year anyway. It seems unlikely that regular users would balk at that price.

Instead of charging more money, the program could also charge less in hopes of gaining more customers. Ideally they would do both. Raise the annual membership, and institute a third rate meant to attract commuters. Right now you can get a 24-hour pass for $9.95; why not introduce a 12-hour pass for $4.95? It's an ideal rate/timeline for commuters, who would end up paying the same rate as they would normally for the subway or bus. The $9.95 rate only makes sense if one has multiple trips planned in a single day, which isn't a normal occurrence for a lot of New Yorkers.

Hertz has a program called "Dream Cars" that allows your average Joe to rent a Ferrari. Of course it costs more—a lot more—but it's a Ferrari. Why not find a way to do the same thing with Citi Bike? Would someone pay, say, $100 to whip a top-of-the-line Pinarello around Prospect Park for a half-hour? It would require some different infrastructure as well as a generous bike company, but it wouldn't hurt to try.

Isn't this a free market? Isn't this AMERICA?!? Also, New York is huge. Set up a secondary bike share program, get someone else to sponsor it, and let 'em compete. Ideally you get Citi Bank and Chase to get in an escalating bank-on-bikes war that ends with them each paying millions to put their respective logos on as many bikes as possible. They could fund it by—er, you know what? Never mind.