This is an excellent idea, and is consistent with also taxing any societally borne externalities caused by ride-sharing, the primary being congestion. And taxis should be held to the same regulatory standard.
Taxis are cars too by the way. How did all those taxi regulations improve externalities?
The biggest study was in SF and was inherently flawed by looking at traffic over years. It's obvious that an increasing population will generate more traffic, and Uber has allowed more people to travel than before. Serving more people isn't a bad thing, it's a natural situation that cities should plan for instead of being constantly surprised by.
Are you sure?
100% of riders, for all rides they take, would choose to use a car if they could not use ride sharing?
Absolutely none would walk, ride a bike, take a bus, take a train, choose not to go?
I have a hard time believing that it's purely a "car I have access to or a ride share," 100% of the time. So I believe some amount of rides are happening that would not have people driving.
Of the drivers for ride sharing, there is some amount of time between trips that they are simply waiting for the next customer. This is time they wouldn't be on the road if they were not driving, and time the person who is using the ride sharing wouldn't be on the road either. So, I also believe that drivers must be on the road more often than the sum of the time they've kept other people from driving.
If drivers are on the road more with ride sharing, and if less than 100% of people using the ride sharing service would choose a method of transport other than a car, I cannot see how ride sharing wouldn't strictly require an increase in traffic?
Uber will add to traffic but traffic always increases anyway. Check any city over any period of time. It's normal. Uber isn't the problem, it's the lack of capacity for a growing population and other viable transportation. For example, look at electric scooters and bikes in big cities that people are using for medium distances instead of cars. That's what happens when there's progress and competition instead of regressive regulation.
The Uber driver has to drive to pick them up. Then once they drop them off, they have to drive to the next fare. Sometimes they even circle around high traffic areas in heavy traffic in order to get to customers faster.
Basically anytime you see an uber driver without a passenger is likely extra car time on the road compared to what those passengers would have done with private cars.
You also have more and more people in every growing city supercommuting due to rising housing costs. A lot of these supercommuters are driving their own personal vehicle because they are now living in places where a personal vehicle is a necessity. Once you have your own personal vehicle for local use, it's economically advantageous to use it for commuting to work.
Given all the changes in growing cities in the past 5-10 years, you couldn't even begin to isolate the cause of congestion down to just one cause, but that's what these studies falsely claim because they don't understand the null hypothesis and that correlation does not imply causation.
I think we agree completely on this, and the best other options in cities are all mass transit, not individual cars.
> Taxis are cars too by the way. How did all those taxi regulations improve externalities?
Taxis didn't impose nearly the same congestion externalities as ride shares (or single occupancy cars) simply because there just weren't as many of them, due to the controversial medallion system. They were never a form of mass transit.
And as anyone who waited hours for a taxi before the ride share era knows, the lack of supply was the primary frustration with taxis. Ride share simply multiplies out the taxi technology of low occupancy cars, which while it solves the taxi supply problem increases the existing congestion problem wrought by low occupancy cars in general. Therefore it is not the way to achieve scalable transit in even somewhat dense environments.
But to your question, maybe congestion taxes on single passenger ride sharing pushes us toward a form of dispatchable mass transit which shares many of the conveniences of ride-share with the social benefits of mass transit i.e. a fleet of dispatchable municipal minibuses that work like a larger Uber Pool.
That would be especially helpful for last-mile connectivity for mass transit like commuter trains, whose parking lots are today overwhelmed by single occupancy cars.
Lack of alternatives is the problem. Externalities of Uber are nothing but political outrage and a distraction. If the govt put even a fraction of the effort in battling Uber into building more rail and bus lines then everything would be solved.
This has been proven by the massive surge in electric scooters and bike sharing companies, which Uber also provides. Are those externalities too? Or do people just want to get around and need ways to do so?
I agree. We should be making it more expensive to operate any low-occupancy vehicle during peak congestion hours in congested areas, not just ride-shares.