> The goal, he said, “is just to reduce prices to the consumer and then help with congestion and the environment.”
Like Uber cares about any of these things (prices, consumers, congestion, the environment)
Like Uber cares about any of these things (prices, consumers, congestion, the environment)
Anyone with industry experience would tell you your statement is wildly off the mark, beyond perhaps employees desiring a livable wage.
Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices, customers congestion and the environment.
Calling the police or fire department should incur service chargers.
Libraries should charge rental fees.
Schools should all charge tuition, including "public" schools.
If they're not at least breaking even, are we sure they're providing any public good?
What is the right way to frame it? Total cost per passenger mile might be good. The transit systems that move the most people efficiently would do well on that metric.
Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent." Social programs sometimes measured this way too. The term for this escapes me at the moment, but I think it would be more useful?
This type of cost-benefit analysis (or economic multiplier calculation) is also used to justify public subsidy of sports stadiums and the like. Unfortunately, these analyses always use overly optimistic assumptions, and fall victim to the broken windows fallacy.
Not sure how that squares with ~$40 billion high speed rail in California.
Most US transit agencies are designed as jobs programs (not necessarily bad, just wasteful) or to transfer tax money to construction firms.
Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc.
I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point.
The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.
Far less unprofitable than the road system. Gas taxes & tolls cover a far smaller percentage of road building & upkeep than bus fares cover of transit costs.
Even admitting that, I'd be willing to bet that essentially no single Uber employee is working that job out of care for environment, or interest in having a healthy transportation system in their city. I know for a fact that's a consideration for many people who work for city transit agencies.
Did it work?
According to this article https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/yellow-cab-bankr... they filed for bankruptcy in 2016 due to liability claims from passenger crashes. But even so:
"San Francisco's Yellow Cab collective is not stopping service. You'll still be able to spot, and maybe hail, a Yellow Cab in San Francisco. It says business is still strong and that it averages 15,000 fares a day in the city. The chapter 11 filing will allow it to restructure its debts, it said in a statement. "
From what I can tell the company is still around. They have relatively recent Google reviews and there are posts with complaints about them on Reddit all in the past 6 months. I think it was acquired by a competitor (CityWide) through the bankruptcy, which then rebranded as Yellow Cab.
The point is SF still has traditional cabs and they compete with Uber.
That's basically how the market economy works. It's not controversial and it's why we in the industrialized world live in such affluence when compared to centrally planned systems or systems from the past.
I find these kind of comments like "corporation doesn't care" are lazy and boring. What's the point? It's a service, that looks pretty cool and is supplementing an often crappy public transportation system. And it won't cost taxpayers anything. In fact, it'll likely be subsidized by rich people who own Uber stock