Tragedie des Biens Communs

Today, NPR reports on the progress of the hot new bike share program in Paris, Velib—that's "velo" (bike) plus "liberté" (duh). Morning Edition finds that French administrators are shocked to discover that people are a little rough on the 20,000 bikes strewn around the city for use by anyone, anytime:

What has surprised everyone is vandalism: 16,000 bikes have been replaced because of damage or theft. Tires have been slashed, frames smashed, chains cut. And 8,000 bikes have been stolen.

Eleanor Beardsley of NPR chronicles her own experience with busted brakes on a Velib, and then offers a bit of conjecture about what could possibly be going on:

Parisians have many theories about the vandalism. Some say it's youths taking revenge on the bourgeois bohemian class that use the Velibs. Others chalk it up to the disagreeable character of Parisians.

After French police fished the 100th bike out of the Seine and remained on the lookout for 8,000 more, or perhaps when the shop clocked that 15,999th repair, you'd think someone would have taken a second whip out a French-English dictionary and work up a rough translation of the phrase "tragedy of the commons."

Comments

[Pierre]

Heard that piece on NPR this a.m.

OTOH, they did say that the same program in other cities had not suffered the same issues. So maybe it is just the obnoxious Parisiennes. Uncouth urban youth are the same everyover.

[Shawn]

My college did the same thing last year. All bikes were either stolen or damaged within a week.

[Gabe Harris]

Al Qaeda is having problems overcoming the uber-competent western intelligence agencies so obviously they have resorted to attacking lower value targets.

[emmajane]

Back in 2001, Charlottesville VA had a ‘yellow bike’ program that lasted all of a few months, if that. It ain’t just the Parisiennes. We are slow learners, aren’t we?

[domoarrigato]

Al Qaeda is having problems overcoming the uber-competent western intelligence agencies so obviously they have resorted to attacking lower value targets.

Perfect mix of snark, reality, and threadjacking rolled into one. Well played, sir, well played.

[dbcooper]

OTOH, they did say that the same program in other cities had not suffered the same issues. So maybe it is just the obnoxious Parisiennes.

Perhaps most of the other programs are in Northern Europe, and programs that work for those cultures don’t translate to other cultures?

[brotherben]

Great. My kids saw this picture of a suave and very handsome young Parisienne riding without a helmet and they think it must be okay.

[domoarrigato]

My kids saw this picture of a suave and very handsome young Parisienne riding without a helmet and they think it must be okay.

It is if you are french – brain damage is essentially irrelevant.

[kilroy]

You’re missing the point. This is a covert stimulus plan for the French. A bicycle bailout if you will. Not to mention all the stimulatin’ the repairs, parts market, police investigations, etc. will provide.

We should be doing this too, only we need to super-size it. Take all those cash-for-clunkers cars we bought, paint ’em school bus yellow and have them crank with just a DUI interlock.

[Xeones]

I remember the yellow bikes, emmajane! I think i even saw one, once. Crushed on the railroad tracks by Rugby Road, if i recall correctly.

[creech]

But naturally it is uncouth American tourists who are stealing all the bikes. Like where did Lance Armstrong really get that bike he was riding last week??

[Andrew G.]

I await a British solution to this issue: install a CCTV camera or two on the bikes monitoring use 24/7.

[scape]

Perhaps it’s a language problem. “Velo Liberte” is only two letters away from “free bike”.

Velib? Thanks, I’ll take two.

[R C Dean]

How exactly do you steal a bike that is free for everyone to use?

[Fluffy]

Is this really the tragedy of the commons?

The commons analysis demonstrates that individual participants in the system will act rationally to maximize their own return, to the detriment of the communal resource.

Vandalism isn’t rational value-maximization. It’s just people being dicks.

So this isn’t really the tragedy of the commons, it’s just standard low-level assholery and criminality. The only propertarian aspect to it is that since the bikes are communally owned, no one person is taking responsibility for protecting the bikes against asshole kids, the way ordinary property would be protected, and the kids know that. But it does seem like that problem could be contained if the community, acting through its law enforcement arm, took greater pains to stop petty vandalism of the bikes.

There’s no way around the tragedy of the commons, but it does seem like there’s a way around this particular problem: stop vandals from purposefully wrecking the bikes for laughs.

[Kevin]

A shorter version of Fluffy’s point: People tend to take care of their own shit better than other people’s shit, and better than community shit.

This kind of throws water on the leftist theory that the “community” or the government will take better care of you, your family, and your property than you will. People have to be coerced or tricked into socialism.

[John Thacker]

Is this really the tragedy of the commons?

Some of it probably is. Any damage that’s because of the “drive it like you stole it” attitude is tragedy of the commons, I think you would concede.

Vandalism isn’t rational value-maximization. It’s just people being dicks…. stop vandals from purposefully wrecking the bikes for laughs.

What, laughter isn’t a rational value? You humorless bastard, Fluffy. Vandals enjoy being dicks. They are rationally maximizing their own return, because dickery is its own reward to them.

[Isaac Bartram]

It’s probably a canard, but I once heard that Amsterdam has the highest rate of bicycle theft in the world (in addition to the rate of bicycle ownership).

Not really on topic but it provides an opening for this joke.

Q: How do you get a Dutchmen to run.

A: While walking by a bunch of them you shout “hey, that looks like my bike.” At least one of them will run like hell.

[John Thacker]

I mean, they put those bikes there for people to enjoy. What if I enjoy slashing a tire more than riding? What sense does it make to say that some types of utility counts and other types don’t?

Sure, vandalism definitely imposes societal costs, but it still seems like you’re rationally maximizing your own value and putting the costs on others.

[$]

Vandalism isn’t rational value-maximization. It’s just people being dicks.

People value hurting other people, however passive-aggressively or vicariously, over all “rational” values. Economics seldom accounts for this, and libertarians never do.

[Tulpa]

How exactly do you steal a bike that is free for everyone to use?

LOL. Maybe there are 8,000 Parisiennes just in the middle of a long, long bike ride with every intention of returning the bike.

[emmajane]

I think it is a northern European thing, and does not translate well outside of copenhagen and Amsterdam. But in re helmets, we were shocked to see the crazy Amsterdammers riding their bikes, no helmets to be seen, and kids on the handlebars!

[Xeones]

But in re helmets, we were shocked to see the crazy Amsterdammers riding their bikes, no helmets to be seen, and kids on the handlebars!

They were probably all high from taking the marihuana too!

[Space Fiend]

My college did the same thing last year. All bikes were either stolen or damaged within a week.

Holy crap, that’s the worst idea ever. Here at my school, you’re lucky if your bike, locked to a fence with locked handlebars behind a locked gate, is there the next day.

[Fluffy]

I mean, they put those bikes there for people to enjoy. What if I enjoy slashing a tire more than riding? What sense does it make to say that some types of utility counts and other types don’t?

Sure, vandalism definitely imposes societal costs, but it still seems like you’re rationally maximizing your own value and putting the costs on others.

That is true, but it trivializes the observation at the heart of the tragedy of the commons.

The commons fails even if everyone who uses it uses it properly or for its intended use. It does so because the free resource can be converted into a private resource, and every individual is incented to take as much of the free resource as possible before others do.

If someone in the traditional tragedy of the commons scenario was deliberately burning the pastureland for laughs, or sowing it with salt or something, the other system participants would just treat them as criminals. “You can’t successfully have a communal pasture because someone might burn it for no reason,” is not a very compelling lesson or parable, because the listener can just say, “Um, OK – so we make it illegal to burn the pasture for fun.” The lesson is supposed to be that communal resources aren’t sustainable even when used as designed.

[Sean W. Malone]

“People value hurting other people, however passive-aggressively or vicariously, over all “rational” values. Economics seldom accounts for this, and libertarians never do.”

You twat, we are about the *only* group who takes that into account. See above!

Thus why we favor systems which maximize things like private property in order to minimize things like… oh I dunno… Dickheads vandalizing & stealing thousands of “public” bicycles.

This ain’t rocket science, Dollar-dollar bill!

[Sean W. Malone]

Fluffy, loss due to vandalism in this case is the mistreatment & over/careless use of the common “good”.

I don’t think you can really separate vandalism and malicious acts from the ridiculously careless ones that Tragedy of the Commons also encompasses.

[Kevin]

“People value hurting other people, however passive-aggressively or vicariously, over all “rational” values. Economics seldom accounts for this, and libertarians never do.”

To add: Most of us believe that one of the few (maybe the only) uses of government and the law is to protect private property and the rights of citizens. You are thinking about anarchists.

[kilroy]

I bet if you’re contracted to repair the bicycles you have a few ‘extra’ ones that just happens to show up everyday.

[PapayaSF]

they did say that the same program in other cities had not suffered the same issues

Didn’t Amsterdam do this in the late ’60s-early ’70s and had to abandon the program after the bikes kept getting thrown into canals?

[J sub D]

Along the same lines –

As someone who has often rented cars while on business trips I warn you – NEVER buy a used car from a rental outfit.

[Tulpa]

At least not until they get the smell of hooker perfume out of the back seat.

[Tulpa]

they did say that the same program in other cities had not suffered the same issues

Note that they conveniently failed to specify which other cities it worked in…

[swillfredo pareto]

So this isn’t really the tragedy of the commons, it’s just standard low-level assholery and criminality.

Agreed, although I think it is more of a free rider problem, both economically and figuratively. Whenever I turn in my rental car I get it detailed first.

[squarooticus]

J sub:

As someone who has often rented cars while on business trips I warn you – NEVER buy a used car from a rental outfit.

QFT.

I can’t even recall at this point how many stories I’ve heard from sales-type friends who, on business trips, would take their rental cars to the track, or do donuts in gravel parking lots, or get air on hilly roads, etc. Rental cars are not the used cars one wants to buy.

[brotherben]

Maybe one of you west coast hippies can answer this: wasn’t there something like this in Portland Or a few years back?

[Isaac Bartram]

Isn’t there a story about some guy who rented a car to drive in a NASCAR race?

Back when NASCAR was actually stock cars, that is.

[Lincoln]

Economics seldom accounts for this, and libertarians never do.

Bullshit we don’t. This is called griefing, sir, and it is a concept many libertarians are well acquainted with. It will exist in any system where the cost of entry is low and one can remain anonymous. It was probably the French division of 4 chan that messed up the bikes in the first place.

[Hazel Meade]

I’m with Fluffy on this. This isn’t really classic Tragedy of the Commons.

You don’t even need tragedy of the commons to explain it. Just the simple fact that if you’re handing out free shit, people will take it. It’s a no-brainer.

[Hazel Meade]

Every progressive “hippie” town I’ve lived in has tried something like this in recent years, and in every single case the bikes are stolen or damaged within a few weeks.

[JB]

Crime is awful in France so no surprise.

[Pierre]

they did say that the same program in other cities had not suffered the same issues

Note that they conveniently failed to specify which other cities it worked in…

No, actually they did say – I just can’t remember; I wasn’t yet fully awake when I heard the story. But it was another town or city in France.

[R C Dean]

At least not until they get the smell of hooker perfume out of the back seat.

What good is a hooker in the back seat?

[joshua corning]

The commons analysis demonstrates that individual participants in the system will act rationally to maximize their own return, to the detriment of the communal resource.

I would totally jump a ramp into the river with a community bike.

and I would yell “Free bike river jumps from the community…WOOOPEEE!!!!” when i did it.

I must have a french flair for living.

[joshua corning]

Maybe one of you west coast hippies can answer this: wasn’t there something like this in Portland Or a few years back?

No poeple would just steal bikes then leave them lying around….sometimes they would would last a couple of weeks.

“When did you get a new bike?”

“Oh yeah i just saw this by the book store on Hawthorn so I took it. I think i will ride it to bar then take a bus back.”

When my roommate did this with a car i told him that grand theft auto was a felony….he drove it back to where he found it.

[joshua corning]

The commons fails even if everyone who uses it uses it properly or for its intended use. It does so because the free resource can be converted into a private resource, and every individual is incented to take as much of the free resource as possible before others do.

How is 8000 bikes stolen not converting a free resource into a private resource?

[Rhywun]

They could fix this by simply charging for the first half hour instead of giving it away for “free”. Ten or twenty bucks up front would stop a lot of the vandalism and thefts. Putting it on your credit card would eliminate it completely. It’s too bad a good idea (easy, widespread bike rentals) has to suffer for ideological reasons.

[Voros McCracken]

Fluffy,

I think you’re being too strict in the application of “TOTC” here. Yes it’s not exactly the same, but it sure is a close relative. I think your argument, while valid, is more of a quibble than anything else. I think this is in the general ballpark of “TOTC.”

[ransom147]

Mr. Thacker has a keen eye for utility!

[Bettie]

I love how an NPR type was surprised by this. Hasn’t she noticed that public radio is treated the same way?

[MattXIV]

I think whether it’s technically a tragedy of the commons depends on whether the vandals are breaking the bikes to be assholes by inconvieniencing others or for the pure joy of breaking shit.

If it’s the former, then it isn’t a tragedy of the commons since the goal of annoying and inconviencing others would not be served by wrecking bikes they personally owned.

If it’s the later, it is a tragedy of the commons, since in that case they don’t buy their own bikes to break since the amusement doesn’t justify the cost, but the small decrease in being able to find a bike to borrow because they wrecked one up previously doesn’t exceed the joy of destruction.

I can relate far more to the second motive (breaking shit IS fun), but have no idea which is driving the actual phenomenon. In either case, the conclusion if you let people borrow bikes for free they’re going to fuck them up stands.

[joshua corning]

I think whether it’s technically a tragedy of the commons depends on whether the vandals are breaking the bikes to be assholes by inconvieniencing others or for the pure joy of breaking shit.

The breaking of bikes could simply be riding them hard or taking parts off. Without a brake down of the numbers it is hard to tell.

The 8000 bikes stolen is a ToC in the strictest sense.

Just because Fluffy wants to focus on the unknown number of vandalized bikes (vs broken or parted bikes) does not invalidate the 8000 bikes stolen.

Also broken bikes from negligent use is a strict ToC as well as parted bikes.

[Neu Mejican]

The NPR broadcast mentioned the exact French cities that had not had similar problems.

I forget exactly, but somehow Leon and Nice come to mind.

So, what does it say about the ToC that this works in some cities and not others. Does successful implementation of this program in other places refute the concept…or do we only get to point to failures as evidence?

[Brian Courts]

Maybe one of you west coast hippies can answer this: wasn’t there something like this in Portland Or a few years back?

No poeple would just steal bikes then leave them lying around….sometimes they would would last a couple of weeks.

First, I’m not exactly a “west coast hippie” and second I don’t exactly understand Joshua’s answer: “No, they didn’t try this but they were all stolen”?

Anyway…

Yes, Portland did try something like this a few years ago and yes the program died an early death when all the bikes were quickly stolen or vandalized. Amusingly, there was an article in the paper here not too long ago about talk of trying this again here in Portland, only this time with a “better” program modeled on European cities like, yes, Paris.

[mark]

It’s probably a canard, but I once heard that Amsterdam has the highest rate of bicycle theft in the world (in addition to the rate of bicycle ownership).

The bike economy in Amsterdam is tied to the heroin economy. Junkies steal bikes and sell them back to tourists and less-than-scrupulous residents. This has led to the wisdom that one should never spend more on a bike lock than you would on a bike.

[mark]

Perhaps most of the other programs are in Northern Europe, and programs that work for those cultures don’t translate to other cultures?

Win. Anyone still think national health care is a good idea?

[lukas]

Velibs are not free to use by anyone, anywhere. If you want to take one, first you’ll have to post EUR150 bail as a check or by preauthorizing a payment on your credit card. And if you don’t return it within half an hour of taking it, you will get slapped with high rental fees.

They are also veeeeeeery clunky and virtually unresellable. Why anyone would steal them when you can buy better bikes for less than EUR100 is beyond me.

[BakedPenguin]

They should have called the program the “DeSica”.

[Neu Mejican]

How to implement the free bike program and avoid the problem.

1) Secure location for pick up and drop off.
2) Library card style identification used to check out bike.
3) Library style fines for damaged bikes upon return.

This could, of course, be automated with nifty electronic cards.

It seems the issue is anonymity rather than price. If the problem is anonymity leading to not taking responsibility, then address the anonymity issue.

[brotherben]

Mr. Courts, I thought it had passed through my brain at one time. Thank you.

(I have a mind like a wet paper sack)

[Neu Mejican]

lukas,

Hmmm… I cross-posted with you.

So, given your description, how do they not know where 8000 of the bikes are. Can’t they just check their data-base?

Is it that the pick-up/drop-off locations are not secure?

[Hazel Meade]

How to implement the free bike program and avoid the problem.

1) Secure location for pick up and drop off.
2) Library card style identification used to check out bike.
3) Library style fines for damaged bikes upon return.

This could, of course, be automated with nifty electronic cards.

You actually expect a bunch of hippies to go through the hassle of doing all that? The whole point of it is to enable one to get high and ride around town and not have to worry about where you leave your bike.

They are also veeeeeeery clunky and virtually unresellable. Why anyone would steal them when you can buy better bikes for less than EUR100 is beyond me.

They probably are being vandalized because the bike thieves are incensed at the lack of resale value. How dare the city invite them to steal, only to trick them by making the bikes so crappy?

[Hazel Meade]

Site thought …

Maybe bike thieves are deliberately vandalizing them so that people will have to continue buying newer, more expensive bikes for them to steal.

What the hell happens to all the stolen bikes in the world anyway? Maybe there’s some kind of massive underground bike mafia controlling the stolen bike trade.

[lukas]

The pick-up/drop-off stations seemed secure enough to me. the bikes are locked in place until you unlock them with your personalized code (for short term subscribers) or RFID chip card (for long term subscribers). Unless you break the locks, there is no way you can take you a bike anonymously (Well, you could use a stolen credit card…)

So they have implemented your points #1 and #2. #3 is very hard to do with unstaffed pick-up/drop-off points.

Indeed, broken bikes are so common that users have developed an informal way of signaling the condition: If the saddle of a bike at a pick-up location has been turned 180 degrees, there’s a good chance that something is wrong with it (ah, emergent behavior!)

Frankly, I have no idea where the disappeared 8000 bikes might be. I don’t see why anyone would steal them… Some of it might be attributable to accidents and pure thoughtlessness, but to me the most plausible explanation is that the contractor that runs Velib has vastly inflated those numbers in order to squeeze some more money out of the city of Paris. It certainly wouldn’t be beyond them.

[Jefferson]

Can I just say, I love KM-W’s mouse-over captions? Like secret little treasures.

[Neu Mejican]

Thanks for the clarification Lukas.

I wonder why it works better in other cities in France.

The corruption angle may be a BIG piece in that case.

[Fluffy]

How is 8000 bikes stolen not converting a free resource into a private resource?

It’s still not really analogous. Stealing the bikes takes a formerly communal resource and makes it private property [the private property of the thief]. This is more like enclosing the commons and making it private land than it is like an overexploitation. And enclosure is supposed to be the solution to the tragedy of the commons. The bikes that were stolen are now private property and presumably won’t be destroyed because no one perceives value in owning them, in the classic TOTC failure. I was trying to describe the accrual of private benefit by using the communal resource – the way you get a private benefit by feeding your sheep on the common pasture.

Hey, I’m willing to concede that maybe I’m defining TOTC too strictly. But I always thought it was:

1. Communal resource exists that no one owns and everyone has access to using.

2. Each user can privately benefit by using and exploiting the communal resource within the communal framework.

3. Users can’t know if others will overexploit the communal resource and deplete it.

4. Therefore, every user is incented to be the first to overexploit the resource, since they accrue a private benefit thereby, and if they fail to act the resource may be exploited by others. No one has any incentive to preserve the resource, since they don’t own it and can’t be sure they will get any future benefit from preserving it.

So therefore, to be a TOTC the bike program would have to go like this:

1. Bikes are available that no one owns and that everyone has access to using.

2. The users gain benefits by using the bikes within the communal framework.

3. No one knows how long the bikes will be around, or if other people will wreck them.

4. Therefore, all the users decide to use the bikes as much as possible, to enjoy them before they’re all wrecked, but by so doing actually end up wearing the bikes out so that no one has bikes any more.

We shouldn’t assign failures to communal resources that aren’t unique to the communal nature of the resource. Bikes that are private property can be stolen or vandalized, too – but that doesn’t say anything in particular about the viability of the institution of private property.

[Dan Alban]

This is most definitely an example of the Tragedy of the Commons aka the problem of common-property resources, as discussed more fully here:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-berry-bikes-a-lesson-in-private-property/

[MikeP]

I gotta side with Fluffy on the Tragedy of the Commons debate.

The Tragedy of the Commons is interesting precisely because individuals using the commons exactly as it was intended to be used overuse it and thus experience a worse outcome than they would if it were privately owned.

The vandalism and theft seen here looks more like the Tragedy of the Cheap Rental That No One Cares To Monitor — quite a bit less interesting as an economic conundrum.

[Abdul]

I read that a few people steal the bikes in order to photograph them in odd places, like the top of a mounain in Morroco. Don’t think that odd hobby accounts for all 8,000. Maybe the others are cannibalized for parts?

[MikeP]

The vandalism and theft seen here looks more like the Tragedy of the Cheap Rental That No One Cares To Monitor — quite a bit less interesting as an economic conundrum.

Of course, that’s not to say that there isn’t an actual Tragedy of the Commons here. The bikes will indeed be carelessly abused in their normal use more than they would be were they owned by their users or were someone paying attention to charge bike abusers.

It’s just that throwing the bike in the Seine is as much a case of the classic Tragedy of the Commons as is four wheeling through the community pasture — i.e., it isn’t.

[lukas]

Oh, corruption definitely is big in this whole Velib story.

See, Paris is governed by a bunch of environmentally conscious people (do-gooder-lefty-greenies). Cars are bad (for cars are what poorer suburban people use to get to their jobs in Paris. Parisians get to enjoy subsidized public transport with excellent coverage). Therefore, the wise men of the City Council decided that Paris had to become a car-unfriendly city (not that it hadn’t been car-unfriendly enough already) and went about suppressing lanes on major thoroughfares in order to convert them into bike/bus lanes, build tramways, or plant trees (don’t you like trees?)

Shockingly enough, those dreaded cars still found it useful to get inside the city and disturb the peaceful ways of Parisians that wanted nothing more than to be left alone. So, the wise men of the City Council deliberated, they would provide cheap bike rentals for everyone: the ensuing armies of inept cyclists would surely keep any sane driver out of the city of man’s desire.

However, cheap bike rentals come at a cost (and they were wise enough to hide that cost from their constituents as long as possible). Thus, they wrote up a 10-year contract for the following, quite obviously related tasks:

– Selflessly running a bike rental system that would provide Parisians with those instruments of terror
– Not-so-selflessly administering concessions to a good part of the city’s billboards (Yes, all billboards in Paris are owned by the city.)

Two big names in outdoor advertising showed up to bid for the contract: JCDecaux and ClearChannel. When it became apparent that ClearChannel was making the winning offer, the wise men of the City Council, remembering that ClearChannel was American and thus evil, rewrote the bidding conditions to favor JCDecaux’ bid.

In an unrelated event, a few weeks after the contract was awarded to JCDecaux, it became known to the wise men of the City Council that the excessive amount of outdoor advertising was a blight upon the natural beauty of Paris. Consequently, they decided to reduce the number of billboards, coincidentally (honest!) granting JCDecaux a virtual monopoly on the exploitation of Paris’ billboards… but that’s a small price to pay for the restoration of ancient beauty, isn’t it?

(And now, ladies and gentlemen, you know why Chicago and Paris are sister cities.)

[Rhywun]

So have we established that they should be able to track the thefts down to the renter or not? The only way this makes sense is if the company operating this isn’t matching individual bikes to the people renting them, which sounds more like poor business practices than tragedy of the commons to me.

[PapayaSF]

Lukas: Thanks for the background information.

[Lowdog]

That is some great insight, lukas. I remember when I was in Paris in the early 90’s that Paris seemed already to be unfriendly to cars, although that may have simply been due to the narrow streets and whatnot. German cities were much more car-friendly (probably due to the fact that they had to rebuild after WWII), and Spain had a decent enough car culture, depending upon the size and age of the urban setting in question.

I wonder, does Paris also have rent controls in place to make it difficult for folks to move into Paris from the suburbs?

[lukas]

Lowdog: Of course Paris has rent controls. And overbearing zoning restrictions (esp. height caps) on building new housing, too.

[Max]

Two programs that didn’t go the same way, because they anticipated that people are scumbacks, thieves and/or plain stupid are in Lyon and Karlsruhe. In Karlsruhe, bikes are heavily secured by a huge chain-block which is unlocked by a handy signal. You have to reserve your bike by texting the DB (Deutsche Bahn = German train company) with the bike’s number and give your credit card number. Then it is unlocked for as long as you want it to be.

In Lyon it is a bit different. They have velo-stations where you can buy short-term tickets with your credit card and pay a fee of 1 to 3 euro (depending of the days you want to use) and you get the first half hour free. However, you can only travel between those preinstalled stations.

Both programs require some sort of identification and therefore are less prone to theft and still very viable (especially with train and tram(light rail) tickets ranging between 2 to 4 euro.

[lukas]

Max, the Paris system is a close copy of Lyon’s.

[SxCx]

Who said they were free? Montreal has an identical system called Bixi and it’s five bucks a day. You can also get monthly memberships, like you would the subway. The bikes are locked in by high-powered magnets at terminals laced throughout the city. For tourists, it’s great. It’s faster than transit and cheaper than a cab.

But it will fail, because everyone’s a piece of shit.

[robc]

As someone who has often rented cars while on business trips I warn you – NEVER buy a used car from a rental outfit.

All rental cars are off-road vehicles.

[Slocum]

According to this, it’s mostly a negotiating ploy on the part of the contractor:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/02/12/reports-of-velibs-demise-greatly-exaggerated/

Unless bikes are being stolen directly from the racks, they must be stolen from riders who’ve checked them out and locked them (or just left them) somewhere outside an official rack. But these renters have put down a deposit on their credit card and can be charged for the lost/stolen bike.

Vandalism of bikes in racks, though, as well as careless use and mounting repair problems, I believe. And this set of problems is more interesting (from the Wiki):

Although rental bicycles are not dedicated, it has been known for people to chain a bicycle to its station so that it will remain available to them for a subsequent trip; V?lib’ has declared this to be uncivic behaviour; V?lib’ employees are authorised to cut the locks in these cases.[10]

Stations at greater elevations generally suffer from greater demand. In addition, there is a net inflow of bicycles from the outskirts to the city centre earlier in the day, and a net flow outwards in the evening. Thus, depending on the time of day, Velib’ needs to manage the demand at outermost and centremost stations. Consequently, bicycles may be unavailable in some locations, whilst parking problems exist for others.

Velib is faced with logistical issues, and is constantly having to relocate cycles during the course of the day, but it still has problems. There are proposals to make adjustment to the pricing mechanism.[11]. The “bonus V’+” bonus system was put in place on 14 June 2008 in an effort to adjust the demand level. Fifteen minutes of free cycling time is credited to users who rent bicycles from stations without the logo (mostly situated at the edge of the city and more than 60 m above sea level) and drop bicycles off at stations where the logo is displayed.[12].

So nobody wants to ride the heavy, clunk things uphill — duh. And often there’s no bike when you need one, and no place to park a bike when you arrive — and to prevent this from becoming a huge problem, Velib has to truck bikes around from station to station during the night. Which still doesn’t make a lot of sense–after all, the excess bikes on the periphery at night are going to be needed the next morning. Sounds to me like they just need a lot more total rack spaces than bikes.

Will they get all this sorted enough to keep a system that makes money and provides rental bikes at a price people are willing to pay? Or will it ultimately fail? Too early to tell (though I think I’d bet on failure eventually — or, rather, a large, ongoing public subsidy).

But in any case, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the tragedy of the commons. And there’s no good reason for libertarians to have a knee-jerk negative reaction — especially if it remains a private company trying to provide an innovative service and turn a profit. It would be much better, of course, not to have the stupid arrangement where the company’s revenue comes from city provided advertising space while the city gets the bike rental (what a ridiculous scheme), but still.

[JD]

I’m wondering about all the positive effects people claim in the article. (I mean, of course they do, because government programs are NEVER failures according to their sponsors.) Their metrics for “success” seem to be “people are riding the bikes! and buying their own!” Well, that’s nice, but if the city were to put out piles of big-screen plasma TVs and people took them and used them, it would be a “success” by the same measure, but I don’t think anyone would actually call it useful. I’d have used metrics like: is the air less polluted? are there fewer or less severe traffic accidents? But nobody seems interested in metrics like that.

BTW, as a New York City resident, the last freakin’ thing I want is more bikes on the street.

[JD]

Checking for more information about the program, I found this on Wikipedia: “The price per bicycle has been variously stated as US$1,300 (if provided by JCDecaux)[2], EUR300[3], or US$3,460[4] apiece. They are three-speed bicycles…”

At least $1300 for a three-speed? Government at work…

[R C Dean]

That is some great insight, lukas.

No kidding. No government program can be fully understood until all the kickbacks and brother-in-law deals are in plain view.

[Greg]

The Reason crowd should be careful about directing people to read up on problems of the commons, collective action problems, etc…

[Unsubstantive Kurt]

(And now, ladies and gentlemen, you know why Chicago and Paris are sister cities.)

I’m not sure if this is relavant, but JCDeaux somehow managed to win a bus stop billboard concession in Chicago, also.