3 ms·
The part where it goes off the rails is limiting the number of cars. This is why taxi's are so expensive, it's not a truly fair market. Also, I strongly disagr
by tensor 9y ago
The part where it goes off the rails is limiting the number of cars. This is why taxi's are so expensive, it's not a truly fair market.
Also, I strongly disagree with the author's sentiment that more people using uber vs public transit is bad. Shortening people's trip time sometimes as much as 1 1/2 hours to 20 min is a huge benefit. Transit could be better, but it won't be if it doesn't have to compete with a genuinely good experience.
Additionally, consider the number of people who have not driven drunk because uber is cheap enough that they are willing to do it. Transit doesn't run as much at night, and people are not willing to either wait the 2h to take night transit if it exists, or pay $50+ a ride for a taxi. We can argue all night about whether or not people should do these things rather than drive drunk, but the cold hard reality is that services like uber have actually reduced the number of drunk drivers by making efficient transport affordable.
- davidf18 9y agoI live in NYC and find a NY Times article written like this embarrassing. Clearly the author does not care for the elderly who, many of whom have trouble walking, and many of whom are on fixed incomes that must use taxis/ubers in order to go from place to place. I suggest the NYT have an elderly person who has trouble walking and who is on a fixed income write about whether they believe these rates should be raised. A complete total lack of empathy for others.
- nicodjimenez 9y agoTotally agree with you. The MTA, now THAT's a transportation monopoly.
- reading-at-work 9y agoThere's hard data to support the drunk driving claim, too. It has been noticeably reduced in areas that allow Uber vs. those that don't.