Comments on: Spending to Protect Assets

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:12:02 +0000

It’s possible, though, that the technology is closely related to theft rates. If there were no accountability, it seems, to me, entirely plausible that the entire fleet and then some would walk off in the course of a year.
Of course, one might imagine lower-tech solutions, like engraving the bikes with an identifiable logo to make fencing more difficult.
There’s also the cost of diminished service to add to the cost of theft. Not only is the bike itself missing, but the lower service quality, in terms of fewer bikes being available, might hurt subscription as a whole.
It’s a reach to justify the seemingly exorbitant price of the protection technology, even so, but not completely impossible to imagine, I think.

By: Iang (manual trackback: the Dutch Revolving Bicycle Cycle)

Iang (manual trackback: the Dutch Revolving Bicycle Cycle) — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:12:42 +0000

It is standard for a service price to differ remarkably from a commodity price. Moving more of the user’s components into the service can more correctly identify more of the trade.
Consider a half-liter of beer (or your favourite measure). In bulk at the supermarket it might cost 50c (total guess, not close to any USD supermarkets today). But at the pub, it is more likely to go for around $2-3. The service component easily dominates, and indeed they could practically give away the liquid. Indeed, this differential in service price is popularly arbitraged in Australia, where it is called BYO.
Here closer to me the city bike programme is quite popular. The dominant model does seem to be subscription to a well-identified local person, and tourists generally have to ask a local to enable them a bike somehow. The rule is that you are charged only if you have it for longer than an hour. There are bike points all over the city so it is a reasonable commuting proposition. Having sufficient locations to secure the bikes, rented from the city, probably adds a hefty premium.

By: David Brodbeck

David Brodbeck — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:49:33 +0000

It’s not clear to me from the article if the $4,500 figure is just for the security features, or whether it includes the bikes, racks, administrative overhead, etc. If it’s all-inclusive it might be a lot more reasonable. For that matter, even if the security features exceed the cost of the bike they might be worth it if they keep the bikes available — no one is going to subscribe if they consistently find empty racks due to all the bikes having been stolen, and a project with a high theft rate would no doubt quickly be abandoned as a political boondoggle.