Golden Arches for the Roosevelt Island Tram Too?

An earlier post reported on a plan to alleviate a portion of the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge's projected $80 million operating deficit in the next 5 years with funds generated from corporate advertising sponsorships. I speculated that given the costs associated with the operation, continued maintenance, and future $20- 25 million repair of the Roosevelt Island Tram, the temptation must be great to find alternative additional revenue sources such as corporate sponsorships or advertising.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that:

After two months of public debate about a plan to bring corporate advertising to the Golden Gate Bridge, district officials voted Friday to scuttle the idea.
The plan, which would have allowed "discrete" corporate logos in visitor areas of the bridge, outraged critics, who called it "crass commercialism" and a "degrading" of the historic span.
Supporters said the proposal would have raised much-needed revenue for the district - more than $3 million a year - and might have staved off a future toll increase.

And:

"I thought it was a good idea at first, but it just doesn't seem like a workable project," said board member Joanne Sanders, a member of the Sonoma City Council. She said the plans would have encouraged "the commercialization of the bridge."
Bridge officials said they had received 108 public comments about the proposed corporate advertising. Ninety-four of the comments were against the plan, which critics said would have raised relatively little money while plastering the bridge with intrusive messages.

What does this mean for potential corporate sponsorship of the Roosevelt Island Tram? Is the lesson learned from the rejection of sponsorships for the Golden Gate Bridge that any hint of "commercializing" a public iconic symbol with "crass" advertising is wrong or is that the revenue to be gotten for such "crassness" must be sufficiently large to overcome the ick factor?

Image of McGolden Gate Brideg is from Blogs.Sun