12 ms·

Regardless of what you think of Uber, it seems like a no-brainer for small towns to subsidize distributed, on-demand shuttles rather than run a public transit s

• 013a 10y ago
  A better complaint is that a company like Uber can profit from it. The service they provide is so banally simple that it could be replicated by a government office or nonprofit, and has been in several markets (RideAustin as an example). This is how communities should move forward; not through Uber.
  • echelon 10y ago
    Imagine if cities open sourced their ride hailing backend and app code and made it available for other cities to use... That would be incredible!
    • michaelmior 10y ago
      There is LibreTaxi[0] although not quite the same experience. [0] https://github.com/ro31337/libretaxi https://github.com/ro31337/libretaxi
    • icpmacdo 10y ago
      If anyone wants to try and start this, an open source ride sharing app that cities could set up, hit me up on Twitter (@icpmacdo). I have been thinking about this for a while. I would use a node and react native stack. Please post any suggested name's!!
    • aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      It's not ride hailing, but... https://github.com/onebusaway https://github.com/onebusaway
  • jimmywanger 10y ago
    I don't understand your comment. What's wrong with private companies profiting from providing public services? For instance, if you outsource mechanical maintenance for your firetrucks, is that wrong also since a company can profit from it?
    • kuschku 10y ago
      > What's wrong with private companies profiting from providing public services? Simply: Tax money is wasted. Already rich investors end up enriching themselves further, tax money ends up in the taxes of the rich instead of improving the life of the poor. Sometimes it makes sense (see economies of scale), but often it does not, because the private contractor has to design one system that works everywhere, and has to deal with a lot more complexity due to that than a local system. Often expenses also occur elsewhere that wouldn’t in a local system. And paying out to investors is also a common example of additional expenses. Especially if the state has to provide a guarantee the company will be a specific amount of money in profit from the riders of the project. That’s also why in Germany right now there’s lots of protest against privatizing the Autobahn.
      • ghaff 10y ago
        By that argument, no one should outsource anything. You suppose that every company should handle its own janitorial services because their contractor is making money off of them.
        • kuschku 10y ago
          Well, no. Not no one. But a government has the task to always use the least costly bid. And that can also be "build it from scratch". In this example, that’d be cheaper.
          • ghaff 10y ago
            >In this example, that’d be cheaper. I'm no particular fan of Uber. But the idea that some small city government could create a more economical mobile taxi app seems unlikely to me. Now maybe this should be some shared local government infrastructure app but those sort of things aren't that common. I know I use checks to make various payments to my town because the online service actually costs me an incremental fee.
  • Jare 10y ago
    Is it established that Uber actually generates profits from this service? I seriously doubt it.
  • dilap 10y ago
    Sounds great in theory, but I have to wonder if we are living under the same government. My government can't even not fuck up a simple website. I'd hate to see what they'd do with a ridesharing app. Piggy-backing off the extremely polished apps forged in the heat of open-market competition seems like a good call to me.
    • eastWestMath 10y ago
      Are younkt from the UK or US? I know for a fact that both countries have funded great work in accessibility and web design when setting the standards for federal government websites.
      • allenz 10y ago
        Yes, but that's at the federal level, where the economies of scale are better. Most towns contract out their websites and don't have capability. Paying Uber is cheaper than paying software engineers.
      • dilap 10y ago
        Yup, the US, in San Francisco. Hmm, I feel like my experience on US websites has ranged from "decent but not great" (https://www.irs.gov https://www.irs.gov) to "basically terrible" (trying to sign up for a healthcare plan a while ago). I do get the sense our government used to be much more competent overall, and I think it's an interesting question how we can get that back.
  • ptero 10y ago
    Earlier (30+ yrs ago) a view accepted by most was that commercial companies deliver services much more efficiently than governments and bureaucracies. Profits and all, it is still cheaper for government to buy something than to develop it. That mindset seems to have changed. I wonder if the companies are different (greedier?) now, governments and non-profits are more efficient or is this purely a perception shift.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      > That mindset seems to have changed. I wonder if the companies are different (greedier?) now No, its just that -- with the 1980s and beyond push for privatizing governments services -- we now have experience as well as pro-corporate astract theory. And while experience has sometimes shown some benefits, its shown a lot of problems with privatization, as well. (Including that it often promotes a particularly intense, single-beneficiary variation on regulatory capture.)
      • mc32 10y ago
        Governments could run things more efficiently, perhaps, if they only had the service in mind, but you have to figure in union effects. That means no easy allocation of resources, pensions, oversight, need to accommodate many different interests within government, etc. So in the end, it can be cheaper for a for-profit or a non-profit to run rather than a gov itself.
        • maxsilver 10y ago
          I don't see why that's a problem. Your comment basically reads: "Governments could run things more efficiently, perhaps, but you have to figure in that they'll treat employees with a minimum level of respect and dignity". Unions and pensions and oversight are good things that help ensure people are treated fairly (or at least, better than they otherwise would be). I want my tax dollars spent giving locals a decent retirement, and not going into some California VC's portfolio. And "no easy allocation of resources" strikes me as a good thing as well. This is public infrastructure. People depend on this for their daily lives. The last thing we want is for it to be easily unallocated.
  • prostoalex 10y ago
    Fast-forward this by 20 years, and the government organization or non-profit has accrued heavy benefits, wildly optimistic pension plan obligations, and multiple layers of bureaucracy. As exemplified by any random California town crushed by pension obligations to prison guards, police, firefigthers, teachers or just a public employee pension system.
  • dingo_bat 10y ago
    > The service they provide is so banally simple that it could be replicated by a government office or nonprofit So why isn't it as widespread as Uber is?
    • askvictor 10y ago
      Because of this idea that governments shouldn't provide services. Buses seem to have the weight of history behind them.
    • askvictor 10y ago
      Because of this idea that governments shouldn't provide services. Buses seem to have the weight of history behind them.
    • rickycook 10y ago
      critical mass. just because uber has essentially a monopoly on ride sharing doesn't mean what they do as far as tech goes is not trivial. uber does many things with their business practices that help them stay the largest provider.
  • orik 10y ago
    just because a company like Uber can profit from it doesn't mean that a city can do it themselves for cheaper. I think you underestimate economies of scale and the value Uber can provide, and also underestimate the cost of DIYing it and upkeep. edit: like, especially if the town is really small and the app gets low utilization, isn't it better to pay a fixed % on top of each ride (say 50%) to uber than to have to pay someone a full time salary for a year to maintain things.
    • manmal 10y ago
      One argument against Uber would be that all your public transport may break down if Uber fails to get their next funding round.
    • asmosoinio 10y ago
      "...city can't do..." You mean CAN do?
      • orik 10y ago
        thanks for catching that :-)
  • cbhl 10y ago
    Austin is a much bigger market than Innisfil. The town has budgeted $100,000 for their pilot; if they hired their own SWE to build a clone, they'd probably need at least an extra $100k to pay for the staff to build/maintain it.
    • pyrale 10y ago
      For this price,they could hire a couple of drivers with minivans and give them mobile phones. No need for an app in a small town.
  • golergka 10y ago
    What is bad about Uber profiting from providing a service?
  • vonklaus 10y ago
    Uber tech isn't exactly google[1] in difficulty to implement, but it isx pretty ridiculous to suggest they go out and build an uber clone for 300k-600k. Not only would they need PMs but they would need to develop and build iOS and Android versions of this technology and then all the backend algorithims. Then they could build in all the business logic to store driver and rider information securely as well as securely charge and pay them. Then operate the business by marketing it and attracting drivers to the platform. Subsidize Uber vs. All of That? On a 600K MAX budget for a town too small to seriously consider >2 buses, using an existing Lyft or Uber-esque service is a no brainer. [1] I mean what google does is a lot more comkplicated than what Uber does. That said, google is alleging that large swathes of the Uber AI program are literally"exactly the same" as Waymo...
  • netsharc 10y ago
    Indeed, it seems like it's just a software problem: make Smartphone app (with cloud-based backend), distribute to many cities/drivers. But then there's the pesky payments/background check/regulations problem, although 2 out of those 3 Uber can ignore. GNU Ride anyone?
  • briandear 10y ago
    What incentive does government have to innovate and become more efficient?
• stouset 10y ago
  Wait, really? Why? The point of public transit is to reduce congestion. Private shuttles don't do this, so why should they get a public subsidy?
  • jimmywanger 10y ago
    > The point of public transit is to reduce congestion. That is only one of the points of public transit. Another couple points is to provide services to people who can't afford cars or have special needs (paratransit) or who can't drive (children and seniors) Public transit in many parts of the country (not big cities) has very little to do with reducing congestion.
  • unchocked 10y ago
    In exurban areas, the purpose of public transportation is to provide mobility for people who do not own & drive cars. Congestion is not an issue there.
  • NamTaf 10y ago
    That's one point. Another is to reduce the burden of owning a car. In smaller towns where congestion isn't really an issue due to population size and low population density, efficient public transport is also difficult because you get minimal people using each individual route yet have to provide many underused routes to cover the area. In that instance, ride hailing solves that problem by being point-to-point. It also means you're not sinking a significant sum of money into the ownership and maintenance of a car if you're only using it a couple of times a week, e.g.: for shopping and maybe going out somewhere on the weekend.
    • manmal 10y ago
      In small Austrian towns we mostly have hailed shared taxis, basically a van waiting for people to call, most of the times operated by a taxi company and heavily subsidized. The cost would translate to about CAD4. If they need to, they will take little detours to pick up more people, and save some emissions and time.
  • jonathankoren 10y ago
• manmal 10y ago
  Is this supposed to be cheap? $3-5 for a trip within a smallish town? I get it that this is a subsidized fee already - a taxi trip in my town is at least €5 (though unsubsidized); but in my town (slightly bigger than Innisfil), a bus ticket for €2 will get you anywhere, and people are already complaining about that price tag, because you get better value in larger towns for that amount. In Vienna, €2 will get you wherever you want to go within the city, no matter if subway, tram, bus, or all of them. Are buses in Canada 2x as expensive as in Austria? And why? BTW I think we have 20-30 buses for 40k citizens? How could Innisfil with 36k citizens get by with 1-2 buses? This really confuses me. UPDATE: A commenter advised me that €1 != CAD1; and it turns out that Innisfil covers about 4 times the size of my home town, so they are not comparable.
  • ng12 10y ago
    Except buses always take longer than a private car between the wait, extra stops, and crowding potential. They're not really comparable.
    • manmal 10y ago
      You are right, of course. It is more convenient, and buses might be driving around almost empty. Public transport has to cover people with low income though, and just omitting buses altogether would suck a lot if a bus ride was only half the price. If it's the same pricetag, then I get how they came to this decision, from an economic viewpoint; from an environmental and city development viewpoint, putting a town of 36k citizens in taxis is surely suboptimal.
    • astrange 10y ago
      Crowding means the bus is taking less time than everyone riding cars would. Too many people inside a bus doesn't slow you down the way too many cars on a road does. Extra stops could be solved if drivers knew ahead of time who was at what bus stop - of course, saving time this way means you can't have a schedule anymore.
  • chongli 10y ago
    I live in Waterloo, Canada. Cash fare for the bus is $3.25 and tickets are $13.30 for 5. Once the ION LRT opens up next year I'll be able to take that on the same fare, all integrated.
• marincounty 10y ago
  And who's going to be "The Side Hustler" who goes out and buys a late model Van with a wheel chair lift? And, I imagine Uber would have an aesthetic model requirement too? It all great, except for the Side Hustlers? (I recently saw the shimmy man argue with a Uber driver over having to declare bankruptcy. Just wrong. Drivers, maybe it's time to slowly look into forming a union? Quietly. Will it ever happen? No--because too many people are desperate for any work.)
• LoSboccacc 10y ago
  it seems more efficient what Milano does, you get a green number and a compact bus comes collect/drop you around. the rides can be booked the day before or called on demand (this has some timing restrictions) so that the service is optimized for day-to-day usage patterns I'm gonna bet a service with this model will be able to out-compete Uber even on small cities.
  • glenneroo 10y ago
    Slightly related: In Vienna/Austria when you pay for a semester/yearly ticket for public transportation, you are eligible for free usage of a special taxi ("sammeltaxi") to come pick you up when the regular bus/tram isn't running e.g. after midnight. The phone number is listed on every bus/tram station, although very few people seem to use it. They claim the wait is up to 1 hour but I usually wait 15-30 minutes.