While not very well supported the arguments do make sense logically and it is enough to get people thinking about the problem. Sure, more rigor is nice but it'

While not very well supported the arguments do make sense logically and it is enough to get people thinking about the problem. Sure, more rigor is nice but it's not necessary to get people to start looking at a problem. I don't think someone needs to be an authority to raise legitimate concerns. That shouldn't be a requirement because otherwise we run into "appeal to authority" types of fallacies. It does make an interesting argument that ride sharing makes transportation by car available to a wider audience (walking, bike, public transportation) and that is why it is causing congestion. Those people would have just suffered through it or not moved to a city that required them to do those things in the first place before ride sharing. I found this statement funny though: > There’s no way that ride hailing could move people around as efficiently as mass transit. Efficiency is subjective to the actual metric. Clearly the metrics people actually care about (time and convenience most likely) are not being addressed; otherwise, they would be using public transportation more. I personally drive to work despite being walking distance to Caltrain on both ends because it takes me 25 minutes door to door. If I take public transportation it is 60-90 minutes. Plus my time options are extremely limited. No train options past 7:30 AM. Plus it's more expensive than the gas, wear, and tear.