Uber thinks it’s a ‘good thing’ for cities but cities are having second thoughts

I've seen several stories today on related concepts. This one, and another on apps like Waze advising people to drive through neighborhoods.

It's starting to sound like some folks are questioning the wisdom of having public roads that are free for anybody to use.

Because, y'see, that's the rub. If you want everybody to pay taxes to provide roads, and you want roads from your house to everywhere you want to go that you don't have to (directly) pay for, then you kinda just have to live with the fact that they're public and anybody can use them.

Or, I mean, you could start having private roads everywhere, and then make up any old rules you want.

"on their way to ending car ownership, Uber and Lyft got sidetracked and ended up clogging cities with more traffic. Between 2010 and 2016, traffic congestion in San Francisco increased by about 60 percent, and Uber and Lyft were responsible for more than half of that increase, according to a study published this year. Another study found that Uber and Lyft have added 5.7 billion miles of driving annually in cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC."

Uber is a good thing for mobility, and by association probably also a good thing for destination businesses like bars and restaurants. It's a terrible thing for traffic, the environment, and probably public transit. Whether you think it's a good thing for cities or not will naturally depend on how you prioritize these factors.