A few days ago Patrick posted about the vandalism and theft that threatened to end Vélib’, Paris’s experiment in large-scale bikesharing. The New York Times and the BBC both ran the story too.But according to Ben Fried at Streetsblog, the rumors about Vélib’s problems have been spread (and greatly exaggerated) by Vélib’s own operators, JCDecaux, as a PR ploy. Here’s why:“The basic structure of the Vélib contract works like this. JCDecaux runs the whole system in exchange for the rights to 1,600 outdoor displays, turning its profit from selling that ad space. The city of Paris keeps the revenue from Vélib’ user fees, so it can claim to provide the service at no taxpayer expense. Now, with the full Paris network of 20,600 bicycles and 1,451 stations completed, penalties for inadequate maintenance are in the process of taking effect. Hence the hue and cry from JCDecaux.”Comments on Patrick’s post (see the ones by Carahenson and 13Strong) suggest the system is working pretty well. What do you think? Were we had?Either way, one lesson to be learned here for other bike sharing programs is that the entity running the system shouldn’t just be custodians of the bikes, they should own them, otherwise they have an incentive to scapegoat mischievous kids when bikes get damaged or stolen.
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

