That's sort of besides the point, as the article points out. Many people realize these are in fact an economic boon.
But since the rollout was handled poorly (particularly by the city) it's unsurprising that folks objected to parking and space being displaced without any clear explanation of the value proposition.
> Does the value proposition of bikes for rent at lower cost than provided by existing bike rentals needs to be explained?
The cost of it, its availability, and eligibility certainly needs to be explained. How would anyone know them otherwise? I've seen multiple stations and the signage explaining the program did not answer my questions, but rather referred me to a website. That's not an option for everyone, nor were the signs I saw in a diversity of languages to improve comprehension.
Maybe the stations I saw lacked these features and others have them, so I will accept correction there.
You might be right here that the stations could do a better job of explaining different options, but it seems like people will tell their friends about it and learn about it that way if its useful.
To be honest though, almost every major city has a bike share now so I am a little perplexed that we need to reexplain its value from first principles.
But since the rollout was handled poorly (particularly by the city) it's unsurprising that folks objected to parking and space being displaced without any clear explanation of the value proposition.