Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Maryland’s new Traffic and Safety Director explains R4-11 guidance | Main | Wednesday Afternoon Commute - 30 Rock »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

IMO, the bigger fault with the piece is that it is using CaBi as an example of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

You may or may not agree with the decision to spend, but recent survey shows that the investment has saved all sorts of money. I'd say that this is a better investment than many others.

The other problem attacking CaBi as wasteful spending is that money spent on CaBi is peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions spent subsidizing car infrastructure, like roads and parking. In fact, its peanuts compared to hundreds of other goverment programs. Any serious attack on government spending has to target where most of that money is spent, rather than tiny programs.

To put it another way, the present tax system heavily subsidizes private vehicle infrastructure, which serves the rich more than the poor.

SJE, I think that's a whole other issue. But, IMO, the primary criticism of both these pieces is the same. In both cases they are using data that pre-dates the start of a program to label the program unsuccessful. It would be like criticizing a game plan for not winning the game while the national anthem is being sung.

Kennedy adds to it by acting like all the money was for the program that doesn't exist. So she's saying "Hey, this program that doesn't exist yet hasn't achieved its goals even though a lot of money was spent on another, different program with different goals."

Keeping the poor and minorities out is a feature of Bikeshare, not a bug. It allows the service to start out on a more succesful footing and brings in more woman. Not to mention vandalism. Life is a series of tradeoffs.

Salmon's point on the unbanked is a classic blogger error. He is absolutely right that the unbanked is a big problem, but he is wrong that

1) Bikeshare wanted them (see above);

2) It isn't the "unbanked" it is the $100 hold on your debit card

3) Moving to the a monthly fee program solves the issue.

So, issue spotting good, analysis bad.

About the only useful insight here is that the program has not been able to figure out how to effectively penetrate a segment of the population that may have a significant need but that does not have the personal banking and credit resources to be entrusted with an pricy piece of portable, largely untraceable equipment.

The sophomoric hits are really an act of desperation. Before long people will be saying "I'll give you my key fob when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" I think we are past the tipping point--the only people these arguments appeal to are those we don't want to be biking with anyway.

charlie, you can't simultaneously criticize CaBi for placing stations EOTR and also say that they don't want people EOTR to use it.

Early Man, it also appeals to anyone who thinks every bit of government spending is waste. But if this is the best you can find, that actually speaks well of government.

I thought the survey showed that CaBi (ANNUAL) members were slightly poorer than the average D.C.-region commuter. This attack doesn't make any sense at all.

Besides, if there's any subsidy going on, it's really short-term visitors subsidizing the system for local residents, which I'm perfectly OK with. They don't seem to mind either since they get to enjoy a visit to the nation's capital.

(Before I moved here permanently, I always thought it was a very big deal to visit Washington D.C. So do many other people around the country and from other countries.)

All is right in CaBi World. But I'm still trying to figure out what ugly, smugly means.

She weaves across traffic lanes like she's auditioning for hood ornament.

Washcycle: I completely agree with your specific criciticisms of the article.

I was trying to make a more general comment, since the article is part of a general campaign against wasteful government spending and over-reach. CaBi seemed to be a suitable and iconic example of such waste: hipster yuppies in DC getting free bikes. It hits all sorts of emotional trigger for conservatives.

The problem with that argument is that if you agree that the state can spend money on infrastructure and research, then CaBi is not only reasonable, but appears to be a fantastic success.

Okay, let's follow Kennedy's logic. Drivers of automobiles should pay for the entire cost they impose on society. Right now fuel taxes and tolls don't come close to covering the cost of automobile infrastucture. A s a cyclist I subsidize my neighbors' SUV habit. And then there's the cost of pollution on people (like me) with respiratory illnesses. And the cost of treating all the obese people (insured and uninsured) who are feeding (sorry) health care inflation out the wazoo. So let's raise the gas tax, place tolls on bridges, set up transfer payments so I can pay for my Advair, and put fat taxes on Big Macs, then we can talk about CaBi. Or, we can encourage alternatiive healthy behavior. Pick your poison, Kennedy.

I'm sure Kennedy's next video will examine how highway spending is only for people rich enough to own cars.

Um. WHERE is CABI in arlington. Rosslyn to Ballston - and Crystal City. Is it in Columbia Pike; No. Is CABI leadership actively resisting deploying to Columbia pike; they sure seem like it. Is CABI down in Shirlington - forget that Shirlington is a restaurant hot spot. It is also where a lot of latinos live and it is also the day laborer pick up location. There are lots and lots of latinos in these location. These are hard working middle class latinos with bank accounts and credit cards - and a lot of them on bikes. But CABI refuses to deploy in these areas.

In civil rights jurisprudence, this would be de facto discrimination and subject the government to civil rights liability. If I were Arlington, I would think strongly about getting some CABI stations somewhere out of the rich white neighborhoods.

I don't think CaBi is "refusing" to deploy to those areas. Some of the stations are in neighborhoods with just the demographics you cited. And certainly some of the DC stations are. Why are you limiting the review to Arlington only?

hmm. another charlie?

That Reason "story" is one of the stupidest things i've ever seen committed to video. washcycle, i'm amazed you had to patience to bother deconstructing such a slanted, poorly researched, vile, screed. The woman is literally interviewing herself.

CaBi is going to be expanding in Arlington very soon. They have asked for public input about the overall strategy for CaBi Arlington expansion, whether they should focus on filling in gaps in existing areas, whether they should expand to Shirlington, Columbia Pike, Lee Highway and East Falls Church, and how the new areas should be connected with existing areas.

Hardly seems like CaBi is refusing to deploy in those areas. They simply needed to start off in the more densely populated areas that also have office/restaurant development. Those areas are also closest to D.C., which is important when starting off the system.

Besides all of this, the fact is that the Crystal City Business Improvement District and Arlington initiated the idea of a bikeshare system in the County. D.C. was looking for an improved system of its own, after the early experiment with SmartBike. When D.C. heard about the Arlington/Crystal City project, they joined in and the idea of a region-wide bikeshare system was born.

Why would the Crystal City BID pay to start a bikeshare system in Columbia Pike?

First....she's hot.

Second....I'm a Republican and I like Reason.

Third......I agree with the first comment that CaBi is a really good use of taxpayer money for a number of reasons. The main reason is that good bike infrastructure adds to quality of life and improves livability for the entire area. The ripple effect improves the local economy, boosts property values, encourages small business, etc. etc.

Fourth....for the life of me, I can't figure out why Republicans are against spending on biking/pedestrian infrastructure improvements. I guess it's an easy target because biking seems frivolous on the surface and only really relevant for urban/suburban areas which are heavily Democrat. I happen to think that their blanket objection to biking infrastructure investments is intellectual laziness on their part. I am so disconnected from my own party on this particular issue.

According to the 2012 America Bikes survey:

"80 percent of Republican respondents and 88 percent of Democrat respondents think Congress should maintain or increase federal funds for biking and walking"

The party leadership is disconnected from their own members on this issue. I don't understand it either.

http://www.americabikes.org/2012survey

She doesn't help her case either by getting demographic numbers wrong. Is she using 1990 statistics?

The problem I've always had is that the short-term bike rental is not the best example of a public good, and competes with spending money on bike trails & lanes, cycletracks, and the like, which are much better examples of public goods. (the whole non-excludable and non-rivalrous thing)

Re Charlie: Michael H is spot on with his response regarding Capital Bikeshare expansion in Arlington. Rollout is phased due to funding. Initial rollout was based around Crystal City because the Crystal City BID helped fund it. Then the next logical expansion was RB corridor because it's dense, mixed use, and connects easily to DC bikeshare stations. Now the County is finalizing an extensive Transit Development Plan including extensive public input to determine where the next rounds of expansion go. The plan will be finalized and made public in July. Columbia Pike and Shirlington supporters are going to like it. Details are here: http://www.bikearlington.com/pages/bikesharing/arlington-bikeshare-transit-development-plan/

Kolohe, First of all, I'd like to see a quantification of the "public good" of these items you think are better than bike share. Second, are these things that we can pay for with CMAQ money? Because if not, it's kind of irrelevant. Third, while I would agree in principle that government should try to apply money to where it will do the most good, in practice I'm happy when they can apply it in ways that do a lot of good. If there are more programs out there that do a lot of good, but not enough money to fund them, perhaps we should look at ways to raise more revenue.

So the argument that there are better programs out there is really an argument for more taxes. Which I might be OK with.

Can't give a quantitative answer, but from a qualitative one, using the definition of public good: CaBi is excludable - you gotta pay to ride. Contrast with, say, the Mount Vernon Trail or the Pennsylvania Avenue cycle lanes, which are both free. Furthermore, while you could of course make CaBi 'free', it would be very difficult to start charging tolls to anybody that started to use a cycle path.

Rivalrous, granted, is on a continuum, but still CaBi is far more rivalrous than (other) bike infrastructure - you can't ride a bike if I'm riding it, and vice versa. (and entire stations can be completely empty or completely filled, as whatever's Murphy's law would dictate for a given circumstance) My use of the W&OD, on the other hand, doesn't effect your use nearly as much.

To be clear, this is more a holistic, and idelogical view, rather than whether or not any given funding source is available or not. I have no idea what CMAQ money can or can't pay for. But in general, I'd rather have the government pay for things that are impractical or impossible for the private sector to accomplish.

(and I'm generally negative on 'public-private partnerships' of any kind - public stuff should be public stuff and private stuff private. Mingling of the two, whether is conservatives trying to 'privatise' government, or liberals trying to be neo-liberals, is crony capitalism in either case)

Ok, so using that definition of public good, CaBi isn't a public good. But it does improve the quality of public goods through cleaner air and less congestion. I'm unclear on why creating public goods is better than improving existing ones, and therefore should be preferred.

So, I don't see why CaBi's excludable and rivalrous nature makes it worse for government support than a bike trail.

Kolohe: on the contrary, CaBi is a positive for bike lane and other facility growth, because it increases ridership and thus the constituency who need the facilities.

I think cities should have the flexibility to decide if they want to invest their money in a way that attracts more investment in the city, for the benefit of all the residents. Sure, it can be abused, but that doesn't argue against every use, just against ones that really don't get the return they were advertised to get.

Remember: any government spending is welfare. And any non-poor person who is taking advantage of it is a welfare cheat. (Obviously, people working in the defense sector are totally, totally the exception).

Actually, the funniest part of the whole "Reason" magazine piece is that 90% of the comments rhapsodize about how Teh Hott "VJ Kennedy" is.

Fourth....for the life of me, I can't figure out why Republicans are against spending on biking/pedestrian infrastructure improvements. I guess it's an easy target because biking seems frivolous on the surface and only really relevant for urban/suburban areas which are heavily Democrat.

You seem to have figured it out just fine. Good work.

Liberals support policies that make they perceive are good for the country. Conservatives support policies that benefit their narrow cohort, and which they feel will punish some boogeyman "Other". (e.g. "lie-beral Demon-crats")

Plus, they apparently think "a hot chick" is a valid argument.

She's not even that hot, IMO, especially when she starts talking. Stupidity is an unattractive trait.

+1 antibozo!

This piece is so poorly made, it hurts. *shudder*

Kolohe: even if you have to pay to ride, building the system with taxpayer money and having the economics not focused on repaying that capital fits the public good argument.

IOW, the funding for the system is like building a road, which is a public good even if you have to pay for gas to drive.

Y'all no it's not. It's exactly like the government operating Avis. Actually, it's like the government granting an exclusive license and a subsidy to Avis. Or, if you prefer, to keep the context of clean air, it's like the government granting an exclusive license and subsidy to some hypothetical rental car company that only rented out Volts and Leafs. Call it E-Zip Car.

If the context were indeed cars, y'all would recognize this immediately (e.g. 'the high cost of free parking')

There are indeed some other 'public goods' that operate on a similar model, like USPS and Amtrak, but even those models are debatable as the best way to provide the public good desired. (but which I at present have no particular desire to debate here)

But putting those aside, there's public utility stuff like electric and water, which have a variety of models, from fully publicly owned to fully privately owned. And one can find examples of each and in-between of where things work very well, and where things don't work as much. All of which is to say, I don't really see CaBi as a 'natural monopoly.'

---

I do appreciate the bank shot politics of it. More CaBi means more CaBi riders means more demand for bike infrastructure and eventually the political class must respond.

But you know why the political class will listen to these demands? Because CaBi riders are in the socioecomic class that politicians listen to. Which is how this kerfuffle all started.

bikeshare = public good due to air quality improvement, public health impact, congestion mitigation, and trip generation (--> commerce --> GDP+). all true for other bike projects too.

also all true for privately funded bikeshare too. Challenge for CaBi is to demonstrate a greater ROI over and above that provided by a concessionaire (ie CitiBike and LA BikeNation), by whatever measures we the public deem important (equity, ridership, modeshare growth, etc)

"the tax money that has been used so far isn't money that was set aside for social justice or transportation equity. It was money that was set aside for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement. Now, you're free to complain that CMAQ money isn't creating transportation that serves the poor or less educated or minorities, but doing so is like complaining that your TV doesn't make coffee." All transportation money is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. While JARC specifically seeks to mitigate equity gaps, and CMAQ primarily seeks to address other goals, it's absolutely not something that can be so casually dismissed.

Kolohe, what you still haven't explained is - if CaBi isn't a public good as you define it - why we should give a s--t. So what? It also doesn't make coffee.

darren, Title VI, as I understand it, precludes discrimination. There is a long distance between failing to attract certain groups and discriminating against them.

Discrimination can be both in overt act or (the more applicable here) disparate impact. It IS a long distance, and I could write CaBi's defense for them, but I make the point simply to note that your (and DeBonis') statement about CMAQ, or any other Federal funding, giving a recipient a free pass to say, "Only Group X using my project? Not my problem, I'm mitigating air quality," is wrong.

Strong demographic/ socioeconomic patterns like this make for discomfort among stewards of public funds. Particularly as bikeshare stakeholders are attempting to sell bikeshare as "bike transit service", where the presumption of equity of service is at its highest.

Reason/Cato et al hamfistedly raise the issue simply to tear down bikeshare. Bikeshare supporters cannot afford to take this bait and say, "so what, we're saving money and other good stuff." We need to take our medicine and take this issue on.

I'm sure if you look at demographics for highway use you'll find demographic skews as well. Why are these not an equivalent issue?

"Kolohe, what you still haven't explained is - if CaBi isn't a public good as you define it - why we should give a s--t. So what? It also doesn't make coffee."

Government should pay for public goods. Government should not pay for non-public goods.

@antibozo, not a proper analogy, as highways are the "way", not the "vehicle". Highways can be used by somebody who doesn't have access to a car, via a well-functioning transit system. Which is the more apt analogy. If a bus system showed demographics that skewed like CaBi's, the response would be an immediate root cause analysis, not comments about TVs making coffee.

Government should not pay for non-public goods.

Why not?

darren, regardless of other various laws, the GOALs of CMAQ are right there in the name, so yes looking at other goals and complaining that it doesn't meet them is like complaining that your TV doesn't make coffee. No matter how noble those other goals are.

And there is the inconvenient fact that CaBi is absolutely in compliance with Title VI.

Okay. Just don't ever liken bikeshare to public transportation, then, until someone can definitively explain with research why there's a socioeconomic divide in ridership that can't be addressed by the program managers.

I'd like to think, however, that CaBi can walk and chew gum at the same time. Equity is a highly worthy goal for them to embrace, to meet the challenge of - to restate my earlier point - to demonstrate how publicly funded and managed bikeshare can deliver a greater ROI over and above that provided by a concessionaire (ie CitiBike and LA BikeNation), by whatever measures we the public deem important (equity, ridership, modeshare growth, etc).

darren,

1. I'm not sure why I can't liken it to transit without that explanation. Is demographic match a key element of "transit"?

2. I'm not sure there is a socioeconomic divide in ridership. If you compare to the average DC resident or DC worker, then yes. But I'm not sure why that would be the comparison. It makes more sense to compare it to the average DC area bike commuter. And I think that probably compares pretty favorably.

3. I'm not saying equity isn't a good goal. With or without federal funding, and with or without CMAQ funding, it is a good goal. But it's silly to use CMAQ funding as a launchpoint for criticism of the demographic make-up of CaBi users.

"Government should not pay for non-public goods."

Why not?

Because it tends to be a less economically efficient way of obtaining those goods. And competes with scarce (in the economic sense) resources that are needed to provide more orthodox public goods.

Sure you can raise taxes. First of all, good luck with that. But moreover, most transportation is funded by flat (i.e. non-progressive) taxes like gas taxes (at a levels), state sales taxes and local property taxes. So, if you want to raise the gas tax, again good luck with that, though I would support you. But I don't have a bone to pick about progressive taxation, or lack thereof.

(one of the biggest things Obama missed on coming into office is raising the gas tax when the price had plumetted in the wake of the financial crisis. Of course, you can't do that if you promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under 200K a year. Though you can raise cigarette taxes that way. But nobody likes smokers anymore, but most people still like driving)

I agree that government as a general rule should not get involved in matters that private actors can handle. But to every rule, there are exceptions. A transcontinental railroad, for example, would have been pieced together eventually, but probably decades after it was with the help of eminent domain and land grants.

Because it tends to be a less economically efficient way of obtaining those goods. And competes with scarce (in the economic sense) resources that are needed to provide more orthodox public goods.

Do you have any proof of this?

And is a "tendency" really enough for a hard rule? Doesn't that imply that sometimes it has these negative effects, and sometimes it doesn't? If so, shouldn't each project be evaluated on it's own to see if it has the problems you describe. And if that is true then aren't we back to the question of why THIS particular project doesn't make sense beyond some arbitrary rule about "public goods."

If not, I suppose you support de-funding a whole host of non-public goods that are currently funded. Things like higher education, park campgrounds, the USPS, etc...

If the only justification you have for your opinion is that you have some rule against funding things that don't strictly meet the definition of "public goods" without some underlying value it's based on, then my response is that I don't really value your rule - and from what I can see, no one else really does either. Which means you're going to need a stronger argument based on things society does value.

A transcontinental railroad, for example, would have been pieced together eventually, but probably decades after it was with the help of eminent domain and land grants.

True enough. Stealing land from the Indians and giving it to corporations is a pretty good bargain if you can get it.

---

"Because it tends to be a less economically efficient way of obtaining those goods. And competes with scarce (in the economic sense) resources that are needed to provide more orthodox public goods."

Do you have any proof of this?

I'm not an economist, but this is pretty much what any economist on the spectrum from Greg Mankiw to Bruce Bartlett to Brad DeLong to Paul Krugman will tell you. (as you get to the latter names, they will tell you that sometimes inefficiency is the goal, or rather, measuring inefficiency is beside the point, because you're trying to build aggregate demand. And they're basically correct. But that's not what we're talking about right now)

"without some underlying value it's based on"

And my response to Crickey7 illustrates the underlying value. Sure, it's definitely possible for the government to provide anything and everything, and even in some cases, to do it very well. My entering argument, though, is that the goverment should not try to do everything, because it often goes astray. Because politics, and thus the strongest political faction will dictate the process, and influence the outcome. And the starting demarcation between what the government should do and should not do resides at the boundary between public and private goods.

But if your *entering* argument is that the government can do whatever, and it requires an affirmative case to show that they should *not* do something, well, that's where our fundemental disagreement lies.

I'm not an economist, but this is pretty much what any economist on the spectrum from Greg Mankiw to Bruce Bartlett to Brad DeLong to Paul Krugman will tell you.

So Paul Krugman is against publicly-subsidized higher education and publicly-run bike-sharing? That's news to me.

Just saying that everyone agrees with you, when in fact the way we run government is counter to that, doesn't really cut it. If the publicly-funded model is a less efficient way of getting bike-sharing than show me how that is true. Why didn't a private, unsubsidized company move into the space to make a profit? Why hasn't that happened anywhere?

And my response to Crickey7 illustrates the underlying value.

So the underlying value is in not stealing land from Indians? Is that something CaBi is doing?

And the starting demarcation between what the government should do and should not do resides at the boundary between public and private goods.

Fine, but calling it a starting "demarcation" means that it isn't the ending demarcation. And in this case we've ended up on the other side, so why is that bad in this case? Is it because we're taking land from the indigenous population?

But if your *entering* argument is that the government can do whatever, and it requires an affirmative case to show that they should *not* do something, well, that's where our fundemental disagreement lies.

No. Our fundamental disagreement is that I think this is one of the times when the demarcation should be moved and you don't, but you're not telling me why.

darren -- wrt "public funding" of bike share vs. "private funding" of bike share (NYC, LA) and ROI, I don't think ROI is the issue.

Sure for profit companies want to make money but the question, more or less is dependent on two factors (1) whether or not the city is prominent enough, a global city, a headquarters city, etc., so that potential sponsors deem a relationship where they pay many millions of $ is worth it to them for advertising-image building purposes; and (2) whether or not there will be a high degree of casual users, thereby generating comparatively high revenues for operations, compared to membership. (The DC experience. And note that is the "DC" experience, not the Arlington etc. experience.)

Bike Nation is "banking" on being able to land a sponsor. (I talked to them about it, even though they knew I am in the business too.) I surmise that they don't have the $ in hand to actually build and deploy without sponsorship monies. Like what bcycle agreed to in Baltimore (and they didn't succeed), they presumably have a specific period of time to land a sponsor. In LA, they have a good shot. Even in NYC, it was necessary for the city of New York to step in and apply "suasion" to get a local sponsor to pony up the $. Alta wasn't able to line up sponsorship on their own.

In my opinion, there are only 3-5 cities in the US where the sponsorship model is viable (NYC, LA, SF, maybe Chicago, potentially Seattle for other reasons).

By comparison, I don't have the figures on hand (I think I have them written down somewhere), but I think that New Balance paid less than $1 million/year to sponsor the Hubway system in Boston.

@Richard Layman, when i said ROI, i should have said "ROI" (or really, "ROA". Or gotten away from accounting analogies entirely).

My point was that with 'no money down' systems popping up (whether or not they're sustainable in those places, or would be here), many cities are having to answer tough questions from the public about why they need public funds. As the largest publicly funded system, CaBi should be clearly delivering a 'return', because those questions will intensify assuming that NYC is successful. We need a darned good answer 'why is our way better?'

The 'return' I would like to see is not just monetary, or even just raw ridership numbers. I think there are many ways that CaBi could deliver results to the region (igniting bicycling in new demographics, better integrating w transit, creating a structured pipeline of lifelong bicyclists, etc), to justify the value of a significant municipal stake in a bikeshare system.

darren> Highways can be used by somebody who doesn't have access to a car, via a well-functioning transit system. Which is the more apt analogy. If a bus system showed demographics that skewed like CaBi's, the response would be an immediate root cause analysis, not comments about TVs making coffee.

Really? Seems to me the clientele of any transit system will have a demographic skew of some kind. Commuters are, by definition, more employed than average. Reason's objections that, of CaBi users, "7 percent make less than $25,000 a year," "more than 90 percent were employed," and "14 percent reported they were college students, suggesting that very few welfare recipients are using the service," are meaningless unless you compare these statistics with those for other forms of transit. One should expect people at the very low income scale not to be commuting; if they're employed at all, they will want to work near where they live so they're not bleeding away their meager income on commuting expenses. People living fully on welfare programs don't commute at all, so why would they lay out money for CaBi? And, as washcycle pointed out earlier, the survey was self-selected from Internet users, anyway.

Just look at the WMATA 2010 Title VI Equity Evaluation here:
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/Title_VI_Equity%20_Evaluation_of_FY2011_Budget.pdf

and look at the relative low-income ridership of Metrorail (14%) vs. Metrobus (42%), or minority ridership: Metrorail (45%) vs. Metrobus (75%). This is on a system that's been established for decades with plenty of subsidies for low-income users, yet equity clearly doesn't exist. CaBi hasn't even had time to start addressing the issue (again, as washcycle points out, the survey couldn't possibly have captured anything); it's a little early to be criticizing it for not succeeding yet, or catastrophizing about inequities that haven't been properly measured yet, isn't it?

That's why i say the whole thing is stupid. It marvels over tautology.

Seems there is much objection to the idea of looking out for the poor.
I wish all you dam yuppies would go to hell.

Thank you for your brilliant, well-argued insight.

As the largest publicly funded system, CaBi should be clearly delivering a 'return', because those questions will intensify assuming that NYC is successful.

And it is.

We need a darned good answer 'why is our way better?'

I disagree. We need a good answer to "why is our way best for the DC area?" And a big part of that answer is that Arlington doesn't allow advertising in the public space and DC already sold the exclusive right to advertise in places where CaBi stations go to ClearChannel. So going with an ad-revenue exchange won't work here. Nor is it really that different from what DC is doing.

DC sold it's ad rights, and then it paid for a bike sharing system. LA is trading the ad rights for a bike sharing system. It's the same transaction, they just cut out the middle step of money. So really our way isn't that much different.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader