Posted on 02/28/2020 10:43:58 AM PST by Kaslin
In a triumphant moment, New York City announced it would include ridesharing services in its metro budget. Realizing that many residents live in areas with inadequate late night and early morning metro services, the Metro Transportation Authority plans to subsidize ridesharing as early as June to help bridge the gap between people’s bus stop and home.
While this is a good start, if cities wanted to improve their public transit, they would replace their bus systems in favor of ridesharing.
Earlier this month, New York City Chief Innovation Officer, Mark Dowd, announced the city is looking to partner with transportation network companies to help ‘fill the gap’ with some of the cities most unreached areas. As millions of New Yorkers currently work outside the typical 9-5 work schedule, “the program will provide subsidized e-hail rides to outer-borough residents living more than half a mile from the nearest subway station, whose off-hour commutes force them to contend with infrequent subway and bus service,” according to Dowd.
Jonathan Bowles, executive director of the Center for an Urban Future, notes that many residents are “taking two buses in many cases, and sometimes these connections take upwards of half an hour late at night.” Indeed, with one of the longest commutes in the country, the average New Yorker can expect to spend 58 minutes traveling each day. Meanwhile, ridesharing services would reduce these travel times helping residents get home sooner.
Yet, despite these apparent benefits, some are worried that the funding isn’t going towards public transit. New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, contends that improving the rail system would be a better use of funds. However, people like Stringer should embrace the change as cities across the U.S. have already seen great success in subsidized ridesharing.
In Dallas, the city was able to save $10 per ride when it contracted a portion of its coverage to Uber. Similarly, in Ontario, Canada, city officials scrapped the idea to implement a bus route that would’ve cost $26 per trip when they found that Uber would only charge $7 per rider. And in 2015, after Denver started to subsidize Uber rides to the airport, David Genova, chief executive of the Regional Transportation District at Denver’s Union Station boasted that his “colleagues around the country are very, very interested in this [project].”
With cheaper alternatives in the market, it should come as no surprise that the industry has skyrocketed in popularity. With more affordable fares and better service, in 2017, New York City Ubers suppressed taxis in daily ridership. Meanwhile, the future for public transit looks grim, as 200 million fewer rides were taken in 2019 than in 2008.
Instead of trying to revitalize a declining industry, like Stringer proposes, or only subsidizing ridesharing to “fill in the gaps,” cities should allow ridesharing to replace public buses entirely. Not only would this provide a great benefit to many of the city’s residents, but it would also substantially free up some funds as well. A National Bureau Economic of Research paper found that privatizing every bus route in the nation would save around $6 billion in tax dollars along while simulating an extra $500 million in economic activity.
And while some might be skeptical about replacing the bus with ridesharing, one city has shown it can work. Already in Arlington, Texas, the city has had great success after it decided to scrap its bus system in favor of the rideshare company, Via, which has given residents the ability to ride for only $3.
As cities learn to integrate ridesharing in their budgets, they should go a step further and fully replace public buses with contracting ridesharing services. Not only will this provide a better and cheaper service to its residents, but cities will be able to cut costs on their public transit budget. As New York City has shown, ridesharing is here to stay. Now it’s up to lawmakers to give both commuters and cities a ‘win’ by fully embracing a free-market solution.
Just ignore the bedbugs.
and lack of hygiene
...privatizing every bus route in the nation would save around $6 billion in tax dollars along while simulating an extra $500 million in economic activity.
...”and lack of hygiene”
The best of both worlds.
In Mexico the hombres drive small school buses.
I don’t believe they get a subsidy.
Well I did a Uber in Seattle and I will never do it again. Filthy car and rude Indian driver. It was one of those test runs and I will not repeat. It baffles me that people just jump into strangers cars.
1. How does this work in the ghetto?
2. Can they deny you a ride because you violated their terms of service by wearing a MAGA Hat or going to a republican rally (let alone having a concealed weapon permit).
This is hysterical and I have been in NY and if they think this is gonna fly they are insane
Democrats do not do much thinking, just postulating about how they can make everyone behave as they want, or else
Unworkable. Streets would be totally clogged with cars.
Also, the bus operator, in addition to driving the bus, provides security for the passengers.
Getting into a car with a driver and passengers you don’t know is too much of a security risk.
The nearest you could come to feasible ride sharing is to have cabs that carry multiple passengers. Maybe uber.
And there are the subways.
Free Market?
Just a wee-bit over the top dontcha think?
I would never ride an Uber either. I just don’t trust them
You leave the office, not drive them home!
Do you really think there are fewer bedbugs on a bus than an Uber?
Does anyone really think the people on the bus are cleaner on average?
It’d be GREAT [YUGE?] for spreading infectious material.
It wouldn’t be a “win” for bus drivers.
Uber/Lyft costs a bit less than a taxi....way more than a city bus. With government subsidies it would get worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.