What If…


I couldn’t help notice the juxtaposition last week.

Moda Health signed a deal to sponsor the Blazer’s arena (formerly the Rose Garden) for 10 years for what some sources have quoted as $40M.

At the same time Willamette Week reported that the City is considering an investment/loan beyond the $2M in Federal seed money to get Bike Share started, for the initial central core (with an aspiration to expand to more neighborhoods in the future).

Not that I have anything against spectator sports. But what if Moda, a health company, sponsored Portland Bike Share for $40M for ten years? Instead of subsidizing an activity where the participants are mostly sedentary and consume calories and alcohol, they could be supporting an activity that actually gets people active and contributes to greater health…

And I suspect we could have a bike share system that reached well beyond 82nd Ave. A guy can dream…


42 responses to “What If…”

  1. Well, the Trailblazers used a consultant to get their sponsor. Perhaps the City of Portland should be looking that direction as well? NYC got Citibank to pay $21 million on their own, why can’t we get a title sponsor to give us $10M?

  2. This whole MODA thing is AMERIKA in a nutshell.
    The priorities of this country are completely backwards.

    Now if they would have changed it to MOTA I might have been ok with it.

  3. Hear hear, Chris!

    Unfortunately the Rose Garden is such a symbol of Portland and the Trail Blazers that Moda is currently waiting through a month or more of *bad* publicity due backlash against killing off the Rose Garden name. By contrast, sponsoring bike share would make an immediate positive splash.

    Bike share also operates year round instead of the 8 month long basketball season when you most often hear about the arena. They could probably also work in some much more effective tie ins with bike share (discounted membership for Moda members!) than with the arena. The Citibike sponsorship deal in NYC is already being hailed as a huge success for Citibank:

    http://www.brandlogic.com/blog/2013/07/12/citi-bike-is-a-branding-home-run.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/citibike-the-perfect-mark_b_3529103.html

    I’m sure the cost to be the title sponsor for Portland Bike Share is just a fraction of the cost of the arena naming rights. Probably somewhere between a quarter to a half of the annual cost, and probably with a more flexible term, too.

    Moda may end up looking outmoded when a bunch of Legacy/Kaiser/etc branded bike kiosks go in right next to their arena.

    A missed opportunity for increasing bike Moda share – how cool would a Moda name have been for us transportation wonks?

  4. To make the point even sharper… ever hear of Citi Field? I hadn’t, and unless you’re a baseball fan, you probably hadn’t either. But Citi Bike was all over the place for most of the spring, and will be again as soon as they expand the system further.

    Oh, by the way, Citi Group is paying $20 million every year for the Citi Field name, or 250% of what they’re paying for Citi Bike annually.

  5. You know, the people that make the decisions on the big sponsorships are not dumb. Basketball is huge in this area.

    There are some problems with the bike share sponsorship:

    1. labor problems- Alta has been accused of what we call on the left “wage theft.” I am familiar with wage and hour laws, and boy, Birk really stepped in it by refusing to pay a few thousand in back wages. C’mon- they got busted for a labor violation associated with WalMart and McDonalds. The case is still pending.

    2. bike share advertising may not reach the people that advertisers want to reach. Kinda like NASCAR- appeals to one group, while other groups are very unimpressed (do you care that Mountain Dew sponsors a stock car?)

    As for bike share itself, it looks like the usual situation- close-in gets all the attention while the death count must reach three school kids for Outer SE to get sidewalks. Very equitable.

    Rather than think that the marketers for big companies are stupid, you might ask why they chose
    basketball over bikes and use that info to understand the promise/limits of bike share advertising. But that would require distance and perspective.

  6. One last thing- to put the appeal of the Blazers in perspective- they draw crowds the same size as U-2 and the Rolling Stones and Justin Beiber and any giant musical act you can think of. And the Blazers do it several times a month!

    I have seen awesome national acts in the Rose Garden- and the promoters set up the stages so that huge blocks of seats were blocked off and left empty. Why? Because it takes really big musical acts (Pearl Jam) drawing from all over the area to fill the Rose Garden for one night.

    The crowd for bike share is real- but it’s more akin to the draw for Pink Martini and the Thermals. Meaningful, but don’t get ahead of yourself.

  7. 10,000 people willingly pay to see the Timbers play.

    We are lucky to get 2000 people to participate in a social justice march.

    ‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure MORE

  8. I think seeing hundreds of “Moda Bikes” all over town would probably be more effective marketing than the terrible sounding “Moda Center”. All of the Blazers super-fans I know were outraged by the change. I think they are getting more bad press from this than they planned.

  9. Chris,

    Sponsors are very risk-adverse, and I doubt that any one sponsor will make a big bet on Alta until the labor issues are cleared up and until the system appears to work really well in other cities.

    The last thing a sponsor wants is bad publicity (can you imagine what Phil Knight said to Tiger Woods?).

    The thing about Moda is that you will see the name at big concerts too (Taylor Swift, NIN).
    No disrespect, but Alta is not in the same league as the Rose Garden/Blazers when it comes to visibility and widespread appeal.

    Alta might be able to pull together a bunch of small sponsorships, but anything in the millions is probably not in the picture at this time. Good luck.

  10. I have followed Alta, so I am aware of their issues. As far as I know, Capital Bikeshare and Hubway are doing really well. Has Citi benefited from their sponsorship in NYC? I guess that is the question.

  11. It seems like an obvious local sponsor would be Nike. Why not swoosh around town on a Nike Bike? Of course, Bike would rhyme with Nike. Somebody get Phil Knight on the phone….

  12. But the show outfit that’s actually in Portland is adidas; the other is somewhere out in WA Co.
    How about a bidding war as in World Cup?

  13. But the shoe outfit that’s actually in Portland is adidas; the other is somewhere out in WA Co.
    How about a bidding war as in World Cup?

  14. What if Apple used their $150 BILLION (yes, with a “B”) hoard of cash for something better?

    Oh, wait, it’s the thousands of Portlanders who are seen preaching Portland’s livability, while they gleefully give their money to Starbucks in Seattle and to Apple in California as they demand that TriMet rides be free and MAX be extended everywhere, on someone else’s dime, because the Starbucks they are at below their subsidized apartment is the recipient of massive property tax breaks so the increased value isn’t paying for TriMet, or anything else. OR…those people could buy Dell laptops for half the price, and use the $650 they saved by voluntarily paying a tax for a better purpose (like getting rid of the 150 remaining TriMet derelict buses, or installing bus shelters at most stops, or improving service reliability).

    is there anything in TriMet’s charter that would prevent them from running bike share?

    So, I guess the official opinion is TriMet should just kill off bus service, since the only “cool” stuff is light rail, Streetcar, WES and bike share. TriMet is a public transit agency. Bicycles are not “Public transit”…at least not any more than Interstate 5 is. I wonder if there’s anything in TriMet’s charter that would prevent TriMet from building a dozen 12 lane freeways.

  15. So, I guess the official opinion is TriMet should just kill off bus service

    Nobody official (or unofficial as far as I’m aware), anywhere, at any time, ever suggested such.

    Erik’s trollish rant, while not being entirely accurate (TriMet does already provide bicycle infrastructure in various ways in current operations and projects, and just where is this Starbucks-owned property that receives massive tax breaks?), garners distinction for inflating the false bus vs. rail “debate” into one of “Mac vs. PC”. So congratulations are in order, and the post transcends to the level of entertainment, where it is otherwise lacking in anything informational or useful.

  16. What if Apple used their $150 BILLION (yes, with a “B”) hoard of cash for something better?

    How about arguing that they should potentially be required to pay more taxes and be required to use it to build products in the US instead of at cheap factories overseas?

    demand that TriMet rides be free

    Who are “the thousands of Portlanders” that are actually demanding that? OPAL isn’t even asking for that (well, maybe for high school students, but that’s really just asking for what most every Oregon school district provides, and taking advantage of economy of scale).

    give their money to Starbucks in Seattle

    While it is true that a portion of it does go to the corporate level, a fair percentage does stay locally in the form of wages, services, rent, etc. It’s not like an Apple computer bought online.

    below their subsidized apartment is the recipient of massive property tax breaks

    Subsidized apartments are generally reserved for those with lower incomes who may otherwise have trouble getting housing. Moreover, what evidence do you have that a business in such a building doesn’t have to pay normal lease/tax rates?

    those people could buy Dell laptops for half the price

    And potentially get frustrated at Windows. Moreover, that’s not a good analogy as the post is about what kind of advertising could be bought, not what the money could be spent on instead of advertising.

    Bicycles are not “Public transit”

    While that is technically true, bicycling is another non-polluting, non-congesting travel mode. So, if a transit agency’s goal is to provide non-automobile transportation, supporting bicycling does make some sense.

  17. Bob. R, the stupid micro apartments ARE subsidized:

    1. They don’t need to be built in the first place—-this is just fulfilling the wet dream of certain Portlanders to think that they are world class planners, like a certain mentally deficient mayor who now works at PSU. 2. A lot of the construction labor is here contrary to existing Congressional mandates, which also are intended to protect American labor. The former people are canny at getting in on US or state taxpayer funded programs. 3. The overcrowding is forcing prices higher and higher, which is good for the outside investors seeking to make their fortunes on the Portland RE market(including unfriendly foreign investors) but bad for small fry Portlanders, whether renters or owners.

    Thus certain egos, and certain pocketbooks, are getting a far better end of the deal than the rest of us.

    Re: Erik H.: A ‘troll’ would be someone who posts here on rare occasions and blasts someone else’s opinion. Erik H. isn’t a troll and he made an artful observation, IMO. Al M on the other hand, has repeatedly used this forum for his personal grievances, far beyond any reasonable amount

    If this blog doesn’t want heated debates, then try putting on topics that don’t solicit controversy. No, wait—-that would be too grownup.

  18. Al M on the other hand, has repeatedly used this forum for his personal grievances, far beyond any reasonable amount

    ~~~>Guilty as charged

  19. Ron, you’ve moved the goalposts. Nobody argues the fact that there are some apartments in the city which were constructed with subsidies. What Erik said was that Starbucks (apparently as a property owner) was the recipient “massive property tax breaks”. Show me.

    And yes, it was a trollish comment. Another appropriate response, as a moderator, would have been to delete it entirely. But there’s been so many outlandish rants from others lately that it didn’t seem fair to Erik to delete it. So instead, I posted a response.

    Nonetheless, the ratio of heat to light in the comments lately has been moving in the wrong direction, and now that I have more time to check in on the blog (family emergencies), I intend to tamp down the hyperbole, shouting, and misdirection to more appropriate levels.

  20. Bob,

    To my way of thinking, the fact that the Pearl District properties don’t pay much in the way of property tax is akin to a subsidy.

    The actual example of Starbucks may have been inaccurate, but the overall point of tax fairness
    is well-taken.

    Density has made some people very rich, while causing existing residents & tax payers outside of the inner ring to feel that they are being asked to make all the sacrifices.

  21. I intend to tamp down the hyperbole, shouting, and misdirection to more appropriate levels.

    Uh oh, Oberst-Gruppenführer is back……

  22. The bus-rail debate is not false. I consider it deadly important. It has to do with how to better serve the population of a relatively low density area like Portland Metro.

  23. The bus-rail debate is not false.

    ~~~>I didn’t mean to imply that the discussion was false, at least for some of us.

    People that need transit have paid dearly for the light rail system as bus service has dwindled more and more. Every time there is a light rail disruption they pull buses off routes to cover.

    The debate is very real for the people that actually need bus service.

    But the debate is more about government shoving itself on people in places like Clackamas County.

    Most of those people never have used transit and have no intention of using transit. They see it as ‘big brother’ exerting influence where its not wanted.

  24. @Nick –

    The bus-rail debate is “false” in the sense that it’s a debate that transit activists of all points of view are being tricked into having because we live in a time of forced austerity.

    There is great wealth in this nation, but it’s trickling up, not down, and being spent on dubious things. Just looking at the US share of the dollar cost of the Iraq war (not to mention the human lives lost or ruined), it’s the equivalent of well over 1,000 MAX lines, or thought of another way, over 20 MAJOR transit projects (BRT, rail, conventional frequent bus, etc.) in every state. Think what that would do in terms of global oil demand and how we organize cities.

    That fact is that the federal govt. is spending less per person than it was years ago (the fed budget is shrinking, not growing, per-capita) and the states/cities have been left to pick up the pace but without much in the way of additional resources after the recession.

    That’s why the squeeze is on at every major transit agency, not just TriMet, and not just those which have included light rail as part of the mix.

    We can debate the merits and applicability of where to put buses, rail, aerial trams, whatever, but the fact that we’re having the argument at all based on the current funding mix is, in fact, a distraction.

    @Al –

    The debate is very real for the people that actually need rail service, as well.

    According to TriMet’s rider surveys, fully half of all transit riders use a COMBINATION of buses and MAX. 34% more are MAX-only. Only 13% report being bus-only. Deciding how to allocate priorities between bus and rail operations and projects is about serving THE VAST MAJORITY of riders. Pitting one mode against another, as though they were in opposition, is a sort of Solomon’s Choice.

  25. Pitting one mode against another, as though they were in opposition, is a sort of Solomon’s Choice.

    ~~~> I’ve said it over and over and over, I am not against light rail and have never been against light rail.I am for transit, as much as possible.

    What I am against is government policy that allows the building of a $1.5 billion dollar light rail line to a town of 20,000 while cutting back already existing transit services and complaining about costs of operating transit services.

    As you say Bob, there is lots of money out there, but its trickling up, we should all know that.

    The government is facilitating that process and big boondoggle projects such as MLR is how they are helping the TRICKLE UP economics.

    You know as well as I do that people make millions of this stuff, just take a look at the bogus CRC that still keeps going and going and going!

    Do you actually think these policies are put in place to help the citizens?

    It’s all about the money!

  26. What I am against is government policy that allows the building of a $1.5 billion dollar light rail line to a town of 20,000

    That’s rather misleading. Balk about the overall cost or funding mechanisms (many have), but 8 of the 10 stations on the PMLR project are in the City of Portland, with a population of roughly 600,000. The project includes a new TRANSIT bridge which will serve buses, light rail, and streetcar, as well as bikes and peds. The project includes a new TRANSITWAY from downtown to about 8th-11th Ave. which will speed buses through inner-SE Portland, benefiting those that connect to Powell and Milwaukie Ave. The project is adding many new sidewalks and bike/ped amenities. It is NOT just a light rail project.

    This is a regional, multi-modal project which will serve many, many more people than just those going to downtown Milwaukie.

    Yes, contractors associated with the planning and construction do make money. They’d do so if it were a BRT project or any other capital program benefiting transit.

    We should be focused on containing costs and getting the most for the dollar out of any infrastructure project. That fact that somebody may be profiting, alone, is not a reason to oppose a project. It’s a reason to pay attention, but it doesn’t affect the merits of the overall project.

    The CRC was a terrible project. Not because people stood to profit (although that could be one of the reasons the proposal was so terrible.) The CRC should have been killed and totally rethought based on it’s staggering lack of merit.

    PMLR-opponents should seek to do the same — argue the merits of the project.

  27. So, Al, what do you have to say about the actual topic of this post… I’m curious? What do you think of bikeshare programs. Do you think bikeshare programs should have an advertising sponsor (private/corporate or public/nonprofit) if that helps make them pencil out?

  28. So, Al, what do you have to say about the actual topic of this post

    I did say at the beginning of this thread that I thought that Chris’s point was well taken and its a condemnation of the American way of life when an insurance company can spend $40 million dollars stolen from its insured in higher premium rates for advertising on sports complex when they could have bought every single person who wanted one a bicycle instead.

  29. “PMLR-opponents should seek to do the same — argue the merits of the project.”

    A westshore trolley—with land already acquired plus a leg to Milwaukie across the Sellwood Bridge plus limited-stop buses would have done just as much for about ten percent of the cost:

    Cons:
    1. From PSU south to Holgate—isn’t this close enough that a high number of transit users would cycle instead? Redundant, isn’t it, especially if you argue that cycling is the future for close in transit.

    2. Holgate to SE Tacoma—-barren industrial land that few people will want to live in, and then 1.5 miles of parkland on both sides.

    3. SE Tacoma St. to downtown Milwaukie—-mostly industrial land. Residential use is a significant distance away.

    That leaves the town of Milwaukie— “The population was 20,291 at the 2010 census.”

    At any given time you could count the people waiting at the Milwaukie Transit Center on your fingers and toes.

    Pros: My real estate value is climbing!

  30. Ron,

    Writing off OMSI and inner-SE as “better for cycling” is ridiculous. You know very well that not everyone can cycle, and a majority choose not to for various reasons (often citing safety). These stops are going to see huge ridership. Families going to OMSI, commuters that choose not to cycle or drive, etc.

    The rest of your argument ignores induced demand. Go back to the Milwaukie TC at rush hour a year after the line opens. You’re going to need more fingers and toes to if you want to count everyone.

  31. “These stops are going to see huge ridership. Families going to OMSI, commuters that choose not to cycle or drive, etc.”

    OK, but I still don’t see what going to a town of 20,000 people accomplishes.

    That herd of inner SE dwellers could get around just as fast on the bus. Or are they traveling out to the dollar store in Oak Grove? Besides you didn’t answer the point of whether cycling would, if Portland planning is based in real world thinking, supersede conventional transit.

    I suppose you are right—the rainy winter weather tends to quell that option. I see it clearly now….

    I thought Portland was encouraging bicycle rider apartments—even at $1300/mo??

  32. You’re right, Ron. We should just build more single-family homes, further and further out. Then we can widen our roads to accommodate the cars. Let’s make McLoughlin 8 lanes. Let’s make Tacoma 4 for the entire stretch. You would like to have twice that Clackamas Co. traffic going by your house every day?

  33. I thought Portland was encouraging bicycle rider apartments—even at $1300/mo??

    Portland is allowing denser development without mandated parking (now some is required in some cases, unfortunately) in transit-friendly, walkable corridors, which also helps those who choose bikes. “Bicycle rider apartments” is somebody’s marketing term but does not apply broadly to policy. You won’t find “bicycle rider apartments” in the zoning code.

  34. To add to that, and I know this conversation has been had before, Ron, but here goes: Transit ridership is lower in the fall and winter, meaning that transit has the capacity to absorb “fair weather” cyclists.

    Other cities in the world which experience something called “winter” have nonetheless developed very high bicycle mode share, as well as high transit mode share.

  35. Other cities in the world which experience something called “winter” have nonetheless developed very high bicycle mode share, as well as high transit mode share.

    ~~>Trimet has unwittingly pushed the switch to bicycles. The fares are just to high for short trips now and service is so spotty people abandoned the transit service for something reliable, like their own pedal power.

  36. Al- you’re totally right. When going 1-2 miles costs $2.50 and you have to wait up to 20 minutes for a ride, the bicycle is a very appealing option. Distance-based fares might encourage more short Tri-Met trips, at the cost of slowing down the buses for through-trips. If we do encourage short trips, we should make sure to also make boarding a very fast process.

  37. Trimet has unwittingly pushed the switch to bicycles. The fares are just to high for short trips now and service is so spotty people abandoned the transit service for something reliable, like their own pedal power.

    Is this necessarily a bad thing? It’s less revenue for the agency (assuming that the folks in question aren’t pass-holders), but in either case it’s a car not on the road.

    Transit and bikes complement each other nicely–bikes are great for short-to-medium trips on nice days (or not-so-nice days for the more dedicated); transit is great for longer trips or bad weather.

Leave a Reply to Ron Swaren Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *