6 ms·

This is the logical development of what Douglas Rushkoff explained in his last book “Throwing Rocks At The Google Bus”. First, they protest as private companies

• snarf21 10y ago
  Very well written. The thing that scares me about this thing in particular is what happens if Uber stops subsidizing the drivers after one year and says they need to increase prices by 75% moving forward. In all of these things there is a switching cost. Would the city be able to switch back? What if Uber drivers unionize or stop driving if their wages drop too low? Uber has to hope new drivers sign up and the city can do nothing about this. I think the big thing the the city is losing is control and that may easily be worth the money. It is also quite possible that some efficiencies in the busing program could pay higher dividends. I also fear that decisions like this are being done to be cool not because they are best for the community.
  • lhorie 10y ago
    I think in this case, it's not that big of a deal. We're talking about a town where the primary transportation method now is cars. If the Uber partnership goes south, there are a number of other options for residents (basically whatever they do to get around now), it becomes mostly a matter of convenience/cost. The town is basically just subsidizing a small-scale private service that would probably exist anyways to cater to a small portion of the already small population. To put it in perspective how puny this program is, look at the cost: 225k over a year or so. That's less than it costs to run a single bus.
• Quarrelsome 10y ago
  you do realise the $300,000 - $600,000 they were thinking of spending on a public transport system would have mostly gone to private companies, right? A modern public transport system is typically provided by a plethora of private companies that provide the buses, the driver consoles and smartcard services that also require a monthly/yearly subscription for maintenance and data consolidation. The story here is of uber eating up ~$300,000 that would have gone to other private companies in the past. The result is that residents of this town get more responsive transport at potentially any hour that is more direct and often cheaper. The residents win here. This is a feel good story IMO.
  • madsbuch 10y ago
    It is not a question of private vs. public companies. It is a question of regulation.
    • bparsons 10y ago
      This can be regulated.
      • mannykannot 10y ago
        In practice, that depends on the contract. I bet Uber had more, higher-paid lawyers than the town.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • AdamSC1 10y ago
          Clearly you have never faced the wrath of a small town town-council member who has the ability to ratify by-laws and knows everyone in town by their first name! I pity the high-priced lawyer who thinks he can battle small towns. It'd be easier to battle a big city regulator any day.
      • intopieces 10y ago
• matz1 10y ago
  will someone get blacklisted because he got a bad rating? Yes What about surge pricing: will citizens experience a higher price when demand is increasing? Yes If the city doesn't like this then they should choose other provider or other solution.
  • icebraining 10y ago
    Do you know the terms of the agreement, or are you speculating? Because it seems clear from the report that surge pricing won't be paid by the users for the agreed routes.
    • astrodust 10y ago
      Like Uber gives a fuck about "agreements".
• chii 10y ago
  > experience a higher price when demand is increasing? the economic utilitarian in me says that this is the correct behaviour - a higher demand should induce a higher price, followed by higher supply/production. But this can only happen when there's open, free competition. On the other hand, essential goods should not be subject to laws of the market - but instead made available at a steady, low rate, even at the cost of the rich subsidising for the poor. Water, food, shelter should be cheap for everyone!
• rsync 10y ago
  "Public Services are associated with a social consensus that is usually expressed through democratic elections. If they are public it’s because we consider that they should be available to all, regardless of income, physical ability and/or mental acuity. Of course, there is nothing new with Public Services being provided by private companies. But then, they are usually subject to some regulation." Except for buses. Buses are a cheap, quick way to pretend like you care about public transportation and check off a few boxes on your development list while providing the absolute worst transit option possible. The users of transit get shafted with soul-crushing scheduling and performance. The opponents of transit get a convenient "example" of why it's a bad investment. Innocent bystanders like me get an urban environment polluted by big dirty, hulking (and usually empty) buses bonking their way around the city streets. Anything is better than bus transit in the US.
  • tabeth 10y ago
    What? Arguably, a bus is the most flexible and cheapest way of transporting people in groups over 10 while simultaneously maximizing the use of existing infrastructure.
    • nix0n 10y ago
      I think that's 100% true in places with a critical mass of population density, in fact "groups over 10" sounds about right. But in some places, it's going to be an hour between trips if you're trying to get 10 people onto the bus. Innisfil is not shutting down an existing transit system to replace it with Uber, they're declining to buy 2 buses.
  • HillaryBriss 10y ago
    one reason that buses seem so unpleasant in the US is the current system of laws governing the use of streets/roads. it's not hard to imagine different laws which would improve the experience of bus riders: what if cars were only allowed to use streets during non rush hour times? what if two out of the four lanes on every freeway were dedicated to buses and only buses 24/7? what if individual car registrations were simply capped at a small number? what if car registration fees/taxes were increased significantly because, per passenger mile, cars wear the roads down and take up more road space than buses? what if through a combination of better policing, more surveillance, more robust passenger identification, and so on, buses could be made cleaner, safer and more pleasant? these things sound draconian and anti-democratic, to be sure, but the technology of buses could be far more efficient than they are today if the laws were tilted heavily in their favor. but right now, individual cars rule the road.
• wyager 10y ago
  No one is forced to use any particular email or messenger client, unlike (one could argue) public transportation.
• stcredzero 10y ago
  What if we begin to rate citizens as Apps rate users: will someone get blacklisted because he got a bad rating? This Extra Credits video is about an attempt by the Chinese government to implement this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI