[Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited:

Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service.

As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]

My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.

The brouhaha over the pregnant nurse “stealing” a youth’s Citi bike was only possible due to the habit of under-18 users camping on bikes to continue riding them for free when their timer expired.

Is this an argument for public-private deals?

This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.

Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to drink alcohol.

Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get it.

Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the roads.

As road wear and tear is proportional to the third or fourth power of axle weight.

i.e. Even a fully loaded Escalade does roughly ~1 cent of road damage for every hundreds of dollars a normal city bus does.