Report a Comment

BBut that isn't really making money off of bikesharing. Or it is only in part. Ads on the bikes - that's a result of bike-sharing. But ads on the stations, that isn't. There is nothing stopping DC (except their agreement with Clear Channel I suppose) from just erecting small advertising billboards all over the city and selling the ads. Bikesharing doesn't uniquely make that possible.

So it's a bit circuitous to call that "bikesharing profit."

First, it sounds like we agree that ads on bikes is "making money" off bikesharing and there's nothing circuitous about calling that bikesharing profit. That's how many websites on the internet work -- the website is free for users and they make money from selling ads.

Second, I'd say that ads on stations ARE a result of bikesharing. Without bikesharing, there are no stations and without stations there are no station billboards. Yes, DC could allow the erection of small billboards on places other than stations, but in practicality that wouldn't work nearly as well because A) random billboards would be much more of an eyesore than simply putting ads on stations, B) where exactly would these random billboards go such that they weren't in the way of anything yet very visible?, and C) bikeshare users are a highly coveted demographic by advertisers, hence station ads have a higher value than random billboard ads.

basically you should expand till you are losing an amount of money equal to the net positive externalities

True in theory. In practice, you expand until the public money for expansion runs out (which is a much before the ideal level of expansion or the level of expansion you'd likely achieve if bikeshare was profitable like in LA/NYC).

DC basically invented modern US bikesharing. Let's not lose the lead to places like NYC/LA because they have a superior way of financing bikesharing.

by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 1:43 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam