Trump has begun another trade war. Here's a timeline of how we got here
Canada's leader laments lost friendship with US in town that sheltered stranded Americans after 9/11
Chinese EV giant BYD's fourth-quarter profit leaps 73%
You're an American in another land? Prepare to talk about the why and how of Trump 2.0
Chalk talk: Star power, top teams and No. 5 seeds headline the women's March Madness Sweet 16
Purdue returns to Sweet 16 with 76-62 win over McNeese in March Madness
Allegations have emerged that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority manipulated its bidding process to unlawfully favor Lyft, the current operator of its bike‑share system, in the awarding of a new $198 million contract.
According to a formal complaint filed by Bicycle Transit Systems (BTS), Metro drafted specifications that aligned exceptionally closely with Lyft’s operations, effectively delineating competitors from mounting viable bids. The complaint states that Metro’s requirements mirrored Lyft’s existing technology, a move BTS argues amounted to a tainted procurement process that violated procurement laws.
BTS, which operates bike‑share systems in several U.S. cities, is demanding Metro reopen the bidding process to ensure fair competition. The company also asserts that Metro dismissed input from smaller vendors and failed to adhere to open transparent procurement standards.
The contract at issue would run for five years and is valued at nearly $200 million, funding bike rentals, maintenance, rebalancing, and system upgrades. The bike‑share program has been an essential part of Metro’s mobility portfolio, offering public bikes and scooters throughout the county.
If BTS’s allegations are upheld, it could force Metro to cancel the current bid, potentially delaying the new contract and disrupting continuity in bike‑share services for L.A. residents.
BTS filed its grievance in early June following Metro’s release of its request for proposals, citing multiple problematic elements in the process. Among the concerns were technical specifications that appeared to be tailored to Lyft’s proprietary system, which BTS argues gave Lyft an unfair advantage.
The complaint also pointed to exclusionary language in the bid documents that limited the ability of other vendors to qualify, effectively narrowing competition. Additionally, BTS criticized the lack of meaningful stakeholder input during key decision-making phases, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in the procurement process.
The new bid — estimated at $198 million — represents Metro’s largest single bike‑share procurement to date.
