So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist?
Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.
Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.
It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing would have be borne by
a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have to come from somewhere.
considering b) would likely mean that the project wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only alternative.
Everything is a tradeoff.
From my perspective, I'll take shitty ads if the money earned from those ads is spent on significant quality of life improvements. Same reason I support legalization and taxation of gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc where the revenues pay for schools, social services, etc.
> money is fungible
What?
Money being fungible means that one dollar is as good as another. It all goes in a big pile for the budget. In other words, you don't have to match up your revenue sources with your costs (like bikes with advertising), though this is frequently used for the purpose of trying to justify one thing or another.
Yes, it's a trade off. I wish my city had free bike share.