The highest cost for taxis is not the cars, nor the gas, but the drivers. Get rid of them, and it's all gravy.
Something like this is most certainly the "mass" transit of the future. It would be lower cost, more convenient, and would actually pollute less than buses during non-peak times.
Quite a bit beyond "organizing the worlds information"[!]
However, with Uber, as far as I know, all drivers own their own vehicles. They just subcontract to Uber.
Further, there is a massive black market for drugs and prostitution in every city and every Black Limo market, SF Uber being no exception. I wonder where this will wind up....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy.2C...
I understand that the establishment will always attempt to maintain control, but I think the situation is too different and complicated for the taxi establishment to overcome. I think that Google Ventures agrees.
Whether a taxi service with self-driving cars should be subject to taxi regulations is a separate issue. Some of the concerns that led to taxi regulations are no longer relevant to a self-driving taxi (e.g. people picking up tourists and robbing them). Some of the concerns that led to taxi regulations are still relevant to self-driving taxis (e.g. companies focusing coverage on high-demand areas and ignoring poorer areas).
It makes no sense today, but it will make sense in 5 ~ 10 years. I bring up individual ownership of self driving cars because that is the environment in which the debate will happen, not the current one in which no self-driving cars exist. What does a "taxi" service look like when Hertz can deliver a self-driving car to my door? How is it any different from what we call a taxi today? Hence, either every self-driving car will be called a "taxi", or none of them will. Or, there needs to be a clearer differentiator between them.
Whether the current service that Uber provides is a taxi or not is irrelevant to the future debate involving cars with no drivers, unless those cars have a fare printed on the side and a light on the roof. It's likely that the taxi lobby will push for NYC to charge every car in the city a non-linear congestion fee unless you have a medallion.
Do you have any source on this?
Edit: Maybe I goofed, mattmcknight accurately points out that in many cities the taxi medallion is the most expensive part of the taxi equation. I'm not intimately familiar with Uber; do drivers still have to obtain medallions in their respective cities?
However, the structure was created for old style limos: I.e. fat cat or prom kid books for hours, days in advance, not competitive with a taxi.
One could reasonably argue booking an uber 1 minute before pickup for a ten minute ride is a lot more like a taxi than a limo.
Note I am not criticizing Uber, as they clearly are obeying the law! But to some it looks like they are skirting it, benefiting from a loophole.
- permit (medallion, whatever)
- labour
- write-off on the taxi
- taxes
- fuel, tires
- insurance
- inspection
- credit card processing fees
Top all of that off with a healthy profit otherwise your taxi operator goes out of business quickly.
All of these to a greater or lesser extent contribute to the costs and result in a price-per distance unit (mile/km) driven and a wait tarif.
Taxis have considerable down-time between jobs so utilization is a factor as well.
Assuming you're not driving a Mercedes, is your monthly car payment + insurance more than your monthly income?
You see where I'm going.
Of course, the vehicles are probably getting twice the MPG, and the drivers are getting paid more, so the number of miles is probably much higher.
Some relevant research is in [1], which i think is implemented in the new finish public transportation service kutsuplus.fi.
And such a service could be great help in rapid transition to self driving cars - capital demands will be smaller, and profitability higher, and much faster to reach critical mass/lockout.
[1]http://www.floating-content.net/~esa/pub/files/jokinen-fists...