4 ms·

Pardon my amusement at the observation this conflagration is eerily like the City of Austin imported more California culture than it wanted - oh sure, everybody

Pardon my amusement at the observation this conflagration is eerily like the City of Austin imported more California culture than it wanted - oh sure, everybody likes tech start ups, but the whole wasteful socially progressive government style that appartently tagged along isn't so loved. Hm, funny that.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Startup culture is more libertarian than socially progressive. Socially progressive would be Austin providing a robust public transportation system, thereby removing the need for ridesharing. Wouldn't it be more efficient for public transportation to be provided via taxes and user fees versus Uber and Lyft siphoning off of the flow of transportation payments for their shareholders? That seems inefficient to me.
- crispy2000 10y ago
  More efficient? By what measurement? Certainly not the consumer's time nor the taxpayers' money! Billion dollar light rail trains that roll empty are not a terribly efficient use of money. Buses are more flexible, but waiting for a bus then having to walk from the bus stop home is apparently an unsatisfactory use of time to many passengers. A system that connects a passenger with the nearest available driver and doesn't take too much for their part in the transaction would seem to be efficient in time and money for both the passenger and driver. In addition, it provides a source of employment for people who are looking for work and meet the criteria. Not saying that Uber, Lyft, and other "ride sharing" services are all on the side of the angels, but their success points to a need which they are meeting.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    You're post makes a whole lot of assumptions about ridesharing. 1. Uber drivers are compensated sufficiently for their time and expenses (research has shown this isn't true, Uber drivers scrape by just like cabbies) 2. That a consumer's time is more valuable than having public transportation available to everyone (Ridesharing > Buses/bike shares/etc) 3. That expensive rail is one of the only options. The solution is a mix of buses, bicycle sharing, and electric self-driving cars. How we get there is the tricky part.
    - crispy2000 10y ago
      Didn't assume either 1, 2, nor 3. 1. Perhaps your definition of "compensated sufficiently" doesn't jibe with those of the thousands of drivers who voluntarily choose to drive for Uber and similar services. 2. SOME consumers consider their time too valuable to take public transportation as you have defined it. 3. I mentioned light rail AND buses in my decidedly non-encyclopedic comment about efficiency of ridesharing. Those are two of the main options currently available in Austin. Definitely, "the solution is a mix", but the components and proportions of that mix are best left to the consumers, not solely to central planners, whether in governments or in large corporations. Indeed, since the vote, local rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin, perhaps better suited to the needs of Austinites.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Indeed, since the vote, local rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin, perhaps better suited to the needs of Austinites. So what you're saying is a regulated free market is driving innovation. Go figure.
triangleman 10y ago
It's the other way around. Tax-fleeing Californians who moved to Austin expected an anti-regulatory climate, and found that the city is more conservative than they wanted. Austinites are fine with tech startups but don't try and strong-arm them into changing their laws to suit the needs of out-of-state corporations.
- crispy2000 10y ago
  Had to laugh at the thought of Austin as too conservative. And given that both Uber and Lyft have headquarters in San Francisco, they could hardly be less "tax-fleeing"!
  - triangleman 10y ago
    Austin may be socially liberal but it is classically conservative. It is conservative to look at new industries with skepticism and pass common-sense regulations that give everyone a level playing field. And I was replying to the parent who referred to ex-West coast liberals migrating to Austin. If these people expected a "progressive" government like they might find in San Francisco, they were probably disappointed by the actions of the Austin City Council and its support from Austin voters.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

Startup culture is more libertarian than socially progressive. Socially progressive would be Austin providing a robust public transportation system, thereby removing the need for ridesharing. Wouldn't it be more efficient for public transportation to be provided via taxes and user fees versus Uber and Lyft siphoning off of the flow of transportation payments for their shareholders? That seems inefficient to me.

crispy2000 10y ago
More efficient? By what measurement? Certainly not the consumer's time nor the taxpayers' money! Billion dollar light rail trains that roll empty are not a terribly efficient use of money. Buses are more flexible, but waiting for a bus then having to walk from the bus stop home is apparently an unsatisfactory use of time to many passengers. A system that connects a passenger with the nearest available driver and doesn't take too much for their part in the transaction would seem to be efficient in time and money for both the passenger and driver. In addition, it provides a source of employment for people who are looking for work and meet the criteria. Not saying that Uber, Lyft, and other "ride sharing" services are all on the side of the angels, but their success points to a need which they are meeting.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  You're post makes a whole lot of assumptions about ridesharing. 1. Uber drivers are compensated sufficiently for their time and expenses (research has shown this isn't true, Uber drivers scrape by just like cabbies) 2. That a consumer's time is more valuable than having public transportation available to everyone (Ridesharing > Buses/bike shares/etc) 3. That expensive rail is one of the only options. The solution is a mix of buses, bicycle sharing, and electric self-driving cars. How we get there is the tricky part.
  - crispy2000 10y ago
    Didn't assume either 1, 2, nor 3. 1. Perhaps your definition of "compensated sufficiently" doesn't jibe with those of the thousands of drivers who voluntarily choose to drive for Uber and similar services. 2. SOME consumers consider their time too valuable to take public transportation as you have defined it. 3. I mentioned light rail AND buses in my decidedly non-encyclopedic comment about efficiency of ridesharing. Those are two of the main options currently available in Austin. Definitely, "the solution is a mix", but the components and proportions of that mix are best left to the consumers, not solely to central planners, whether in governments or in large corporations. Indeed, since the vote, local rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin, perhaps better suited to the needs of Austinites.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      > Indeed, since the vote, local rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin, perhaps better suited to the needs of Austinites. So what you're saying is a regulated free market is driving innovation. Go figure.

triangleman 10y ago

It's the other way around. Tax-fleeing Californians who moved to Austin expected an anti-regulatory climate, and found that the city is more conservative than they wanted. Austinites are fine with tech startups but don't try and strong-arm them into changing their laws to suit the needs of out-of-state corporations.

crispy2000 10y ago
Had to laugh at the thought of Austin as too conservative. And given that both Uber and Lyft have headquarters in San Francisco, they could hardly be less "tax-fleeing"!
- triangleman 10y ago
  Austin may be socially liberal but it is classically conservative. It is conservative to look at new industries with skepticism and pass common-sense regulations that give everyone a level playing field. And I was replying to the parent who referred to ex-West coast liberals migrating to Austin. If these people expected a "progressive" government like they might find in San Francisco, they were probably disappointed by the actions of the Austin City Council and its support from Austin voters.