Problem solved. Let's move on.

Geesh, this site has some lame moderators. 

Sherman, I have called CSX. they are entirely unaware of anything you're referring to, said they aren't aware of anything that occured yesterday, said they don't know of any trains that were blocked by cyclists. They also said trains would simply honk if people are in the way and proceed slowly as they do all over the world. 

 

This sounds like one guy just complaining.  It's not a big deal. No one cares. Nothing was harmed. This is unnecessary made up drama. If the media writes a story about it it's only because people made it public, not because anyone did anything worth discussing. If people don't think after 200 years railroads are used to folks walking near their tracks, I don't know what to tell you. Homeless people used to live on either side of those tracks down there.  It's not something new. Everything is A-ok.

 

Let's all move along and end this silly discussion. 

Geesh, this site has some lame moderators. 

 

Person 1: There was a problem

Person 2: No there wasn't

...Conversation...

Person 2: Sorry. Failure to communicate. Didn't mean to mess anything up. Hopefully they do something to warn people

Person 1: Thanks for the cooperation. Glad we could work through things.

Person 3: HOLD ON! PERSON 2 WAS RIGHT. Let's get this conversation going again and throw in a couple words to polarize people so that we can make sure they feel insulted or something and respond angrily.

 

No thanks. That doesn't need to happen. Problem solved let's move on.

 

Bicycles ridden on streets need to have traceable license plates.

 

This is a no good, very bad, HORRIBLE idea.

 

1. Bikes are the cleanest transport we have to cover greater than walking distances, any barrier to entry we put on them would discourage use and be bad for environment

 

2. Terrible idea from an equity/equality standpoint, bikes are also the cheapest transport other than walking. Would you really cite a poor person for an unlicensed bicycle?

 

3. Would create the insane dystopian situation of regulating bikes more than guns

 

4. From a libertarian standpoint why should the government regulate a low tech utilitarian device like a bicycle. Might as well force people to register a box of hand tools

 

You're missing where I said they need to be charged for them.  I'm not a purist libertarian and recognize that there are things that government does in its own interest that it should pay for.  For example, I'd require a state ID to vote but charging for it certainly becomes a "poll tax" at that point.

 

Bicyclists are quick to claim that they have the same rights on the roads as cars.  If that's so,  they should have the same responsibilities.  If a bicycle violates a traffic law and a police officer sees them, all they have to do is break visual contact with the officer and more often than not they cannot be charged.

 

As for guns, a bicycle only used on private property need not be regulated.

Geesh, this site has some lame moderators. 

 

Person 1: There was a problem

Person 2: No there wasn't

...Conversation...

Person 2: Sorry. Failure to communicate. Didn't mean to mess anything up. Hopefully they do something to warn people

Person 1: Thanks for the cooperation. Glad we could work through things.

Person 3: HOLD ON! PERSON 2 WAS RIGHT. Let's get this conversation going again and throw in a couple words to polarize people so that we can make sure they feel insulted or something and respond angrily.

 

No thanks. That doesn't need to happen. Problem solved let's move on.

 

Most thankless job on the 'net.  Someone is always going to disapprove and is usually going to say so.

Really? I go up to Clifton to hang out with my brother and my friends who own a place on Bishop and regularly see people using them.

 

I saw a red bike ridden down Clifton Avenue today. That's the second one I've seen on Clifton.

Really? I go up to Clifton to hang out with my brother and my friends who own a place on Bishop and regularly see people using them.

 

I saw a red bike ridden down Clifton Avenue today. That's the second one I've seen on Clifton.

 

Yesterday I ride a bike from Clifton & McMillan to Vine & Daniels, then from Vine & Daniels back to Clifton & McMillan, then from Clifton & McMillan to whatever that street is behind the old IGA, then took the 17 back up to Clifton & McMillan where I grabbed another bike to ride down Ravine to Linn St.

 

This was just yesterday. I use most of those racks up there multiple times per week and I know I'm not the only one.

Bicyclists are quick to claim that they have the same rights on the roads as cars.  If that's so,  they should have the same responsibilities.  If a bicycle violates a traffic law and a police officer sees them, all they have to do is break visual contact with the officer and more often than not they cannot be charged.

 

I just got back from spending the past 2½ weeks in various cities in Japan and Korea, and it was pretty incredible to see that both bikes and motorcycles would either use the street or the sidewalk depending on what made the most sense for the situation. It made for an extremely efficient transportation system. We spend so much time in this city debating where bikes should go ("bikes are like pedestrians and belong on the sidewalk!" vs. "bikes are like cars and belong on the street!") and yet in Asia everyone seems to just grow up and deal with it.

Laure Quinlivan has a nice op-ed piece about how bike lanes would make downtown much more bikable for families and kids (and any casual bicyclist): http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/04/25/cincy-needs-bike-lanes/83092860/

 

It makes me wonder: how wide are the travel lanes on streets in downtown Cincinnati? With the 66' right of way which is typical throughout most of the CBD, it seems like a lot of streets in downtown could accommodate a bike path, three 10' travel lanes, and two dedicated parking lanes. Many downtown streets only need two travel lanes, and the parking lanes could be ditched for wider sidewalks or bumpouts at intersections. Is 10' too narrow for downtown?

 

http://streetmix.net/Wulsin/1/66-downtown-cincinnati

 

 

Downtown is the easiest part of the city to bike in.  It's level, it's in the shade, and cars don't travel quickly. 

 

People just need to bike more.  It's like somebody playing a guitar for the first time and complaining that their fingers hurt.  That goes away in a week and never comes back.  I feel like so much of this talk about bike infrastructure is about building stuff that looks like it's for long-term utilitarian bikers, when really it's for very, very occasional rec riders. 

 

 

 

8' is very tight for a downtown sidewalk, especially once you put in all the poles, posts, signs, lights, meters, and benches.  Granted you can accommodate a lot of those things and street trees in curb bump-outs into the parking lane instead, but not all of them.  I think most of the roadways downtown are 40' wide with 10' travel lanes, so this plan looks like it would require moving the curbs (a very expensive proposition).  I'd rather see 13' sidewalks and eliminate one of the travel lanes instead (or 12' sidewalks with 8' parking lanes).  10' driving lane width is pretty much ideal, which is what most downtown streets are, but it does waste some space with the curb lanes being rush hour limited parking, meaning the parking lanes have to be 10' wide rather than the 7' or 8' width they can be as permanent parking. 

 

And as easy as it may be to bike downtown, it's still very intimidating for normal people, especially with the double right turn lanes.  No matter how slow traffic is going, it's not going to get people out there who aren't already fearless.  Would you tell these kids they just need to "man up and bike more" rather than saying "hey, maybe our streets are designed wrong?"

Kids get good at potentially dangerous things like horseback riding or climbing trees or jumping fences or swimming or playing on frozen ponds or whatever pretty quickly.  For some reason bike riding has been singled out as an exceptionally dangerous activity when it is not, and as such kids are discouraged from doing it outside of designated areas and for primarily recreational purposes, not real transportation.  So they never get good at riding in traffic because they're never allowed to be around "busy streets".

 

I got good at riding a bike and at driving because I had to stop and think about how traffic flowed on "busy streets" when I was 8, 9, 10 years old.  I remember we twice took our bikes to a culvert under Colerain Ave. (near the Mt. Airy Burger King) to get across until we realized it really wasn't that big of a deal to just wait until their was a gap in traffic.  Also, the area where I grew up had hills in every direction so there was no avoiding them. 

 

The issue with Cincinnati is that whenever some improvement is made, bike advocates always find something that needs to be done next.  But the hills are never going away, and people are just never going to start climbing them.  It's never going to be like Chicago, New Orleans, or any of the cities where people cruise around lazily on antique bikes and make a grand entrance to whatever sidewalk café they're heading to.  If you really want to bike in Cincinnati you're going to need a newer bike with functional geometry and you're going to break a sweat even in the dead of winter. 

As an alternative to powered bikes, just start building these all around the city. They are pay per use too, so maybe they would eventually pay for themselves.

 

It's not just biking though.  Kids playing in the streets are very rare compared to what it used to be.  Hell, parents are being arrested for letting their kids walk to school or to the park.  Granted playing in a street isn't as fun as it was in the horse and buggy days since puddles must be drained and oil and antifreeze is more dangerous to play around than horse crap.  Still, the fact that kids aren't allowed to play in streets unless there's essentially zero traffic at all shows how dangerous they're perceived to be. 

But the hills are never going away, and people are just never going to start climbing them.  It's never going to be like Chicago, New Orleans, or any of the cities where people cruise around lazily on antique bikes and make a grand entrance to whatever sidewalk café they're heading to.  If you really want to bike in Cincinnati you're going to need a newer bike with functional geometry and you're going to break a sweat even in the dead of winter.

 

Because OTR and the CBD are relatively flat (and traffic moves slowly), the urban basin has the potential to attract MANY more casual riders than we see today if we improve the design of our streets.  I don't mind biking with traffic and aggressive drivers but not everybody feels that way. The urban basin could become a place where people of all ages feel comfortable biking to school, work, for play, etc. Properly designed streets improve the experience for pedestrians, bikers, and cars.

 

jmecklenborg[/member] how would you like to see the streets designed? Do you feel our current street design is perfect? Or how would you like to modify it? 

I generally agree with Jake on the bike issue in Downtown/OTR. I don't think most streets require any designated bike lanes. I think Central Parkway and Liberty in their current configurations could use them. Also Reading, McMicken, Linn, Gilbert, Second, and Third could all use them. Most of the grid doesn't need them, though.

Downtown is the easiest part of the city to bike in.  It's level, it's in the shade, and cars don't travel quickly. 

 

People just need to bike more.  It's like somebody playing a guitar for the first time and complaining that their fingers hurt.  That goes away in a week and never comes back.  I feel like so much of this talk about bike infrastructure is about building stuff that looks like it's for long-term utilitarian bikers, when really it's for very, very occasional rec riders. 

 

 

 

 

People will bike more when the infrastructure is there. It's that simple. As much as cycling advocates might dislike cycle tracks due to their 'separate but equal' premise, it's a fact proven in every city across the world with serious cycling infrastructure: if you build it, they will come.

I generally agree with Jake on the bike issue in Downtown/OTR. I don't think most streets require any designated bike lanes. I think Central Parkway and Liberty in their current configurations could use them. Also Reading, McMicken, Linn, Gilbert, Second, and Third could all use them. Most of the grid doesn't need them, though.

 

I agree completely, except for McMicken. I live on McMicken and Brighton and bike downtown almost daily and never have any issues with traffic. The stretch between Vine and Walnut can sometimes get a little aggressive, but that's the only block remotely unfriendly to bikes.

jmecklenborg[/member] how would you like to see the streets designed? Do you feel our current street design is perfect? Or how would you like to modify it? 

 

The streets are narrow by American standards and so not much can be done without eliminating parking and loading zones and valet stands on one side of the street, and I don't think that's a good idea.  The handful of metered parking spots on a city block will be more important than they are now if construction starts taking the place of the CBD's many surface lots. 

 

People will bike more when the infrastructure is there. It's that simple. As much as cycling advocates might dislike cycle tracks due to their 'separate but equal' premise, it's a fact proven in every city across the world with serious cycling infrastructure: if you build it, they will come.

 

It's not that simple.  There is a lot less bicycling on a college campus during spring break than the week before or after, irrespective of any bike infrastructure.  Same thing with cities -- if an area fills up with a bike-riding demographic, bicycling will increase independent of any infrastructure changes.  Some infrastructure improvements are really important -- especially bike/pedestrian paths on bridges that weren't built with them.  For example, in New Orleans it's impossible to bike across the Mississippi River because the two bridges are both highway bridges.  The only option is a ferry, which costs money and is pretty slow.  In New York I remember that the pedestrian path was rebuilt on the Williamsburg Bridge around 1999 or 2000 which eliminated the steps on the approaches.  Before that people had to carry their bikes up several flights of steps like you have to currently on the Western Hills Viaduct. 

 

Most of the blog-type biking articles that fill up my news feed seem to be written by people who don't bike that much and only started in the past few years.  The focus is 100% on infrastructure -- not the bikes themselves.  In the 90s, most people riding around college campuses and in cities were riding cheap mountain bikes.  That was great because they had low gears, it was tough to get a flat tire, the fat tires didn't get caught in sewer grates, etc., and the bikes were maneuverable and don't roll very fast.  The shift to retro road-type bikes and 1-speed cruisers in the 2000s has introduced problems that didn't exist during the mountain bike era or with a proper multi-speed commuter bike.  Also, I have yet to see any one of these writers suggest that everyone get toe clips -- I'm not sure that these guys even know what toe clips are.  Anyway people, get toe clips.  Not only can you climb much more comfortably, your handling in pretty much every situation is better.  You brake better, you're in better control on downhills, etc. 

From urbancincy a few years back- http://www.urbancincy.com/2013/12/elm-street-cycle-track-would-provide-critical-link-for-regions-bike-infrastructure/

This is about increasing the amount of casual bicycling. Toe clips aren't going to do that. There will always be a certain group of people that are road warriors: Reflective vests, helmets, toe clips or even the shoes that clip into the pedals, etc. They will want to ride on the road and they will insist the everyone else should ride in the road because that is the way it is. It's not. Get over yourself and build a protected bike lane already!

I think we may have discussed this before... but I can't remember the answer: does anybody know why aren't there Red Bike stations in the middle of UC's campus? Is UC opposed to having the stations on their property? Both main campus and the health campus would benefit from a station right in the middle, in addition to the current locations which are on the periphery. I know a lot of people who have to park quite far from the hospitals then walk 10-15 minutes to get to the hospital. It'd be great to be able to jump on a Red Bike, but there's no place to leave it right in the middle of campus.

Especially since UC Health is the lead sponsor... you'd think that there would be a station or two closer to UC's hospitals.

Maybe an issue at the main campus is access for a vehicle for rebalancing?  It's certainly not impossible, as there's service streets throughout, and the docking stations phone home so it's not like someone has to just drive around checking.  Still, vehicle access to the center of campus is pretty limited.  That's not the case on the medical campus though, which still has several public dedicated streets going through it. 

For what it's worth, I was just standing at 9th and Elm and saw Cranley bike by on a RedBike in the street, properly following traffic laws, and not budging when the Rumpke truck behind him honked his horn and tailgated him. I was actually a little bit proud of him.

Next we just need him to make the connection, "Maybe if we had bike lanes, I wouldn't get honked at..."

Cincinnati has 44 foot right of ways curb to curb.  We are NEVER moving curbs inwards on downtown streets to widen roads.  Your proposal only shows 50' right of ways curb to curb. 

Cincinnati has 44 foot right of ways curb to curb.  We are NEVER moving curbs inwards on downtown streets to widen roads.  Your proposal only shows 50' right of ways curb to curb.

 

Yeah - I think I mistakenly made the sidewalks too small. Downtown's sidewalks are usually ~12', if I'm not mistaken. To be clear, I want to make downtown roads as narrows as possible. I was just trying to figure out what can fit in the ROW without moving curbs.

I think we may have discussed this before... but I can't remember the answer: does anybody know why aren't there Red Bike stations in the middle of UC's campus? Is UC opposed to having the stations on their property? Both main campus and the health campus would benefit from a station right in the middle, in addition to the current locations which are on the periphery. I know a lot of people who have to park quite far from the hospitals then walk 10-15 minutes to get to the hospital. It'd be great to be able to jump on a Red Bike, but there's no place to leave it right in the middle of campus.

 

I believe UC doesn't have Red Bike on campus because they already provide a bike share like program to students (and perhaps have an exclusivity contract?): https://www.uc.edu/foundation/giving/giving_opportunities/campus_wide/bike_share.html

 

There's also this article from the News Record: http://www.newsrecord.org/news/cincinnati-expands-transportation-options-with-bike-share/article_35594ebe-3ee0-11e4-9e74-0017a43b2370.html

^interesting point. In the News & Record article, the public statements make it seem like both UC and Red Bike view their services as complementary, so that would mean they ought to be happy to work together (and put a Red Bike station in the middle of campus, near the Rec Center). But I could imagine some negotiations behind the scenes if the folks behind the Bearcat Bike Share feel threatened by Red Bike.

Yeah, UC and Red Bike need to figure out a way to work together. Columbus ended up with an incredibly dumb situation where OSU started their own bike share system that is not compatible with the city's bike share system. What an incredibly dumb missed opportunity.

Most of the blog-type biking articles that fill up my news feed seem to be written by people who don't bike that much and only started in the past few years.  The focus is 100% on infrastructure -- not the bikes themselves.  In the 90s, most people riding around college campuses and in cities were riding cheap mountain bikes.  That was great because they had low gears, it was tough to get a flat tire, the fat tires didn't get caught in sewer grates, etc., and the bikes were maneuverable and don't roll very fast.  The shift to retro road-type bikes and 1-speed cruisers in the 2000s has introduced problems that didn't exist during the mountain bike era or with a proper multi-speed commuter bike.  Also, I have yet to see any one of these writers suggest that everyone get toe clips -- I'm not sure that these guys even know what toe clips are.  Anyway people, get toe clips.  Not only can you climb much more comfortably, your handling in pretty much every situation is better.  You brake better, you're in better control on downhills, etc.

 

I can personally confirm this statement regarding "mountain bike 90's" vs "road bike present".  I don't ride any more but I road a mountain bike all through the 90's and the only time I ever wiped out was the one time I stupidly thought I could just ease my way up a curb approaching it parallel rather than head on.

 

I agree with Jake that separate bike lanes in downtown Cincinnati are unnecessary, and in fact make the traffic situation more confusing and more dangerous. In fact, downtown Cincinnati as it is now is one of the easiest places to ride in all of the Cincinnati metropolitan area. 

Goodness. Here we go. Somehow drivers in Cincinnati are different than other cities in the world and would be too confused by cycle tracks.

 

Get real. IMO Cincinnati needs a cycle track from Northside to the river. No doubt. Drivers will figure it out.

 

If we are serious about significantly increasing bicycle ridership then cycle tracks is a place to start.

Northside to the river is not downtown Cincinnati. We already have bicycle lanes on most of Central Parkway, and they are getting a lot of use. The ramps across from Cincinnati State are not safe for bicyclists riding southbound, however.

Northside to the river is not downtown Cincinnati. We already have bicycle lanes on most of Central Parkway, and they are getting a lot of use. The ramps across from Cincinnati State are not safe for bicyclists riding southbound, however.

 

Yes, but a route connecting to the river should include downtown. I am standing here staring at a fully separated cycle track in the Sydney CBD where there are some 300,000 workers in roughly the same area as Cincinnati's CBD, and has loads more congestion. And it works beautifully. Similar investments can be found all throughout considerably more congested areas in London and New York. Or you could just take the 2 hour MegaBus up to Indianapolis and check out their Cultural Trail that runs right into the heart of their downtown. And it also works beautifully and is highly legible.

Random question and I'm not sure this is the right place but I have now had Redbike for a few months and was wondering if there was a way to see the full 'leaderboad'? Call me hyper-competitive, but it only shows the top 10 in each category and myself. Is there a way I can see the whole list to compare myself to friends/coworkers?

I noticed today that there are signs marking a "shared use path" for bicycles and pedestrians near the intersection of MLK and Jefferson. The path is a concrete sidewalk, and it crosses the streets at pedestrian crossings.

 

Isn't riding on the sidewalk prohibited?

^ If there's signs that indicate it as a shared path then it's not illegal, but that's still a local situation as far as I know.  Ohio law doesn't expressly prohibit sidewalk riding, though many municipalities do, Cincinnati included, if you're over 16 years old. 

I noticed today that there are signs marking a "shared use path" for bicycles and pedestrians near the intersection of MLK and Jefferson. The path is a concrete sidewalk, and it crosses the streets at pedestrian crossings.

 

Isn't riding on the sidewalk prohibited?

 

Riding on a normal sidewalk is prohibited. Riding on a sidewalk that has been explicitly marked as a "shared use path" with symbols for bikes and pedestrians is allowed.

I rode on Wooster through Fairfax today and was struck by how much the stimulus-funded rebuild of their businesses district has deteriorated in just 2-3 years.  The brick pavers look plastic and worn-out and the side curbs and center medians give no room for cars to pass bikes.  They completely rebuilt the street, and built turn-outs for buses, but for unknown reasons didn't widen the street to include a dedicated bike lane.  In fact the whole situation is more uncomfortable for bikes now than it was before the rebuild.

^ They didn't actually do a full rebuild, they just did the new curbs and stamped concrete median, but they micro-surfaced the asphalt, which is why it's looking so cracked up.  They only this year finished the new traffic signals and the bits of sidewalk around them.  It was still a big missed opportunity, as the lanes are plenty wide enough to do bike lanes, and the stamped concrete median/turn lanes are easily mountable so passing for a larger vehicle wouldn't be that hard.  Mariemont is similar in that the curb-to-curb dimension is excessive, but it's striped with only like a 3-foot "shoulder" and a roughly 14-foot driving lane.  It could easily be re-striped with a proper bike lane, but either ODOT is being difficult since it's a US-route or it's the typical intransigence and anti-bike/transit/walking hysteria that seems most prevalent in the outer neighborhoods, inner suburbs, and enclaves.

^ They didn't actually do a full rebuild, they just did the new curbs and stamped concrete median, but they micro-surfaced the asphalt, which is why it's looking so cracked up.  They only this year finished the new traffic signals and the bits of sidewalk around them.  It was still a big missed opportunity, as the lanes are plenty wide enough to do bike lanes, and the stamped concrete median/turn lanes are easily mountable so passing for a larger vehicle wouldn't be that hard.  Mariemont is similar in that the curb-to-curb dimension is excessive, but it's striped with only like a 3-foot "shoulder" and a roughly 14-foot driving lane.  It could easily be re-striped with a proper bike lane, but either ODOT is being difficult since it's a US-route or it's the typical intransigence and anti-bike/transit/walking hysteria that seems most prevalent in the outer neighborhoods, inner suburbs, and enclaves.

 

Well a lot of people come through there to get to the trail so until the trail is extended, and perhaps even after it is -- depending on what path it takes -- it's going to be an area where constant conflict is going to happen.  I agree, I don't understand what the issue is in Mariemont with the lack of adequate street width, both on the village and on the hill down to Newtown.  The trail was extended there about 10 years ago and there has been no physical change in the village, despite the incredible popularity of the trail.  Part of the reason why I don't ride on the trail very often is because of the issues getting to it -- there are 2-3 spots where you can count on something stupid and getting heckled by angry white  guys in pickup trucks -- but then the trail itself is overwhelmed by kids and novice biking on the weekends.  You can't clear all that nonsense and turn on the speed until you get at least 5 miles north of Loveland. 

 

Also I just had a flashback to getting stung by a bee in the bottom lip yesterday while riding east through Mariemont right before the square.  The road was turning slightly right, a car was about to pass me on the left, and I had to pull the bee out of my lip with my right hand.  I have to wonder how often mysterious fatal bike accidents are caused by insects flying in mouths, bee stings, etc.  I haven't been stung while riding in over 10 years so I've been kind of lucky.  Also, no bike-dog confrontations so far this year!

Something that was awful about exploring Appalachia on a motorcycle was the unlimited amount of loose dogs once you got outside of the towns. I don't care how much horsepower you have; they can still destroy you.

Something that was awful about exploring Appalachia on a motorcycle was the unlimited amount of loose dogs once you got outside of the towns. I don't care how much horsepower you have; they can still destroy you.

 

You can waste a lot of time watching dog-attacks-biker or dog-attacks-motorcyclist videos on youtube:

 

I have had to turn around due to packs of dogs protecting territory out in the country.  It's crazy how they can hear an otherwise completely silent bike changing gears from hundreds of feet away.  I had one chasing me one time on his side of the fence, so I thought I was safe, but he ran ahead to a little dip where he could shoot under.  I hesitated for a second but then turned the bike a little like I was going to run him over and he backed off. 

 

If you do a bike tour having mace at the ready is a must.  You are on a much heavier and slower bike and there's no escaping them. 

 

Also, look out for stuff collapsing onto the roadway (this just happened last week!):

Dog attacks bike race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWPo4rf8KxQ

 

Dog oblivious to bike race:

 

I can add something weird to my resume after Saturday...I was passed by a pickup towing a 300-500 gallon tank of what I assume to have been weed killer in rural Kentucky.  I thought nothing of it as it passed me, but for the next minute I was hit by a mist of weed killer that was somehow being emitted from the tank which I guess was missing its cap.  When I realized what was happening I stopped completely and let it slip off into the distance. 

 

 

Red Bike lands new sponsor

 

 

A new urban apartment complex has signed on to become the latest sponsor of Cincy Red Bike.

 

Aqua on the Levee, the new luxury apartment complex next to Newport on the Levee, will sponsor five Red Bike stations. The stations, which include the one on Fountain Square, one at 12th and Vine streets, two on Broadway at Fifth and Eighth streets, and the station across from the Banks on Second Street, will be wrapped in Aqua’s logo and the bikes will feature its logo.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/08/09/red-bike-lands-new-sponsor.html