4 ms·

Amen. Uber and Lyft are adding congestion to our roads and undermining public transportation, all while profiting off public infrastructure and a class of drive

• rowdyc 8y ago
  You just described Bus Rapid Transit
  • themoonbus 8y ago
    Which LA is thankfully building
• mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  State owned rideshare network will be better how exactly? People taking their car or someone else’s makes no difference.
  • kbos87 8y ago
    I’m not saying they need to deliver a better service. I’m saying they should meet the current status quo, and use their regulatory power to make Uber and Lyft’s services inferior.
    • kmlx 8y ago
      if your purpose is to make people hate politicians and government even more than they do now, then this would be a good way to do it. but this idea that somehow the state/government knows better is very condescending.
      • kbos87 8y ago
        I’m not saying they know better. I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built any real competitive moat. Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system. Also - why instantly criticize government for “knowing better”? Any entrepreneur starting a business in an existing space is doing the same thing, and they’d likely be celebrated.
        • kmlx 8y ago
          > I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built any real competitive moat. I agree with the competitive moat issue. Not ideal for a business, but not a deal breaker. > Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system. Thanks for the explanation. It's a bit clearer to me know. I don't see a need to tax Uber/Lyft when considering that the main fault lies in the municipality failing to make owning a car so expensive that people would rather take the bus. Good examples come from Europe: owning a car in some places costs you so much, that taking an Uber/tram/subway/bus is the only way to go. Thus, fewer people have cars. And thus politicians focus on public transport. As long as we're talking taxes, why tax a taxi service when you can instead tax the huge number of people that actually don't need cars?
• twblalock 8y ago
  > Id like to see the start of a state owned rideshare network with specially zoned drop off, pick up, and lane privileges that Uber and Lyft don’t get access to. Uber and Lyft exist because the state didn't build one of those. In fact the state has built a completely inadequate public transit system in LA. Uber and Lyft are widely used because people in LA don't have an alternative.
  • kbos87 8y ago
    Fine, but the concept is out in the world now. The cities should be able to replicate the concept, compete and leverage their strengths the same way any for profit entity could.
    • twblalock 8y ago
      If the private market provides a service at a fair price, and consumers like it, why should the city try to duplicate it? It would be a waste of taxpayer money for the city government to try to clone a business that is doing just fine already.
      • kbos87 8y ago
        Why draw an artificial line between cities and private markets? Innovation isn’t the exclusive domain of for profit companies. Part of the reason why we end up in these situations where public utilities are in such an embarrassing state is that we don’t expect or allow them to innovate, even down what is now a well proven pathway.
        • twblalock 8y ago
          It's not an artificial line because of stuff like this, which you mentioned: > specially zoned drop off, pick up, and lane privileges that Uber and Lyft don’t get access to There are clear differences between the state and private businesses. The state can make laws to prevent private businesses from competing with it, can grant monopolies, etc. The state is not operated for profit, and the profit motive is the only reason things like Uber and Lyft exist -- the state never would have thought to create something like that.
• jak92 8y ago
  > Id like to see the start of a state owned rideshare network You mean a bus.
  • kbos87 8y ago
    Buses yes, but the market has asserted that buses serve a pretty different use case vs. door to door car service.