3 ms·
>> The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out the cost across all taxi rides...
by TuringNYC 4y ago
>> The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is compared to the requirement for licensed taxis.
Wouldnt it make sense for Uber to subsidize the ADA compliant drivers for their extra costs (or reduced yield) and then for Uber to spread that cost across their entire service?
- shagie 4y agoI was referring to the existing taxi services. With Uber offering poor service for wheelchairs and similar, individuals needing those services remain using traditional taxis. Meanwhile, the regular riders (the bulk of the profits for a company) switch to Uber for whatever reason. This results in that the additional costs for handling riders that need the extra assistance are not borne by the unlicensed companies that are not providing the ADA services that the licensed companies are required to. If one was to go with a "{A} should subsidize {B} for ADA rides" this would be "Uber should subsidize taxi companies" for the increased proportion of wheelchair accessible vans and similar that the taxi companies are required to maintain. As it is, Uber isn't spreading any of the cost of ADA rides amongst their customers or drivers because (A) Uber doesn't have a sufficient set of vehicles available to address ADA and (B) Uber drivers are discriminating and not picking up passengers that have needs covered under the ADA.