Originally Posted by
jon c.
There are a large enough number of potential variables in the equation that I'm not at all sure I believe such math is necessarily accurate. They may be profitable in a few markets, but I'm very skeptical that such enterprises will prove economically viable on a larger scale.
They are profitable to users by lowering their cost of transportation. They are profitable to tax payers by lowering the cost of infrastructure. How much should the users have to pay for the privilege of transporting themselves on simple machines that use almost no pavement?
Let's flesh out this issue of making money a little by creating a blatantly obvious example: Consider two office buildings across the street from one another. One building houses an automotive industry, such as parts, insurance, tools, etc. Across the street, the building houses the scooter and bike share industry. People who work in the automotive office make a lot of money because their parts, insurance, and tools cost loads of money. The scooters and bikes make less because they have less parts, don't require insurance, and there are less expensive tools needed. So basically what you're saying is that unless the scooters and bikes can find a way to make their products much less cost-efficient, investors will abandon them in favor of the automotive businesses that milk a lot more money out of their users. Do you not see the travesty in that scenario?