[bigwally]

Lets play spot the difference.

From the article; "Her goal is not to sell the service to consumers, but rather to the government." And now we change two words; "Her goal is not to sell the service to consumers, but rather to venture capitalists."

The entire argument is flawed, they are selling to a customer. Does it matter who the customer is?

Why does the government subsidize public transport in large cities?

From the Article; "In the case of Alta Bicycle Share, my life would be better without its existence." Try swapping "Alta Bicycle Share" with "New York Subway".

I certainly hope Casey Research (the article writer) wasn't subsidized by the oil or car industry to write this piece of garbage.

[keiferski]

The point is that a system-wide focus on selling to the government isn't desirable. Likewise, I would think that a system-wide focus on selling to venture capitalists to be similarly undesirable.

The NY subway isn't a good comparison, at all. Most people would still use and pay for the subway, even it were privatized. On the contrary (which is specifically stated in the article) the rent-a-bikes don't seem to be needed by consumers. Whether consumers really want the bikes is unknown, but that isn't the point he's making.

[bigwally]

>Most people would still use and pay for the subway, even it were privatized.

Given that nearly all the public transport for large cities is provided at a loss, I wonder if people would pay? History suggests not.

I have no idea if the rent-a-bikes are needed by consumers or not. The article doesn't seem to quote any studies by transport planners or the like. It is written by a company that provides energy/oil information, I wouldn't expect them to write an article about the problems of cars anytime soon.