An article over at Motherboard covers the growing inequities in the US resulting from the cultivation of individualized transport options.
Carsharing, ridesharing, ride-hailing, public transit, and cycling—"all of those things are needed to replace personal cars," said [Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar].
It's a nice idea, but to actually kill car ownership, we're first going to need to have some very uncomfortable conversations about class and equity in the United States. Public transit used to be the great equalizer, but affordable private rides have become the new favorite of the middle class. When richer people give their money to private ride-hailing or carsharing companies, public transit loses money—and that's not good for cities, societies, or the environment.
[...] This dependence on ride-hailing is having the adverse effect of increasing traffic congestion, which in turn makes bus service slower and more frustrating. Besides, until cities change dramatically—i.e. more parks, fewer parking lots, less sprawl, better accommodations for active and public transit—decreased rates of car ownership likely won't benefit the environment if we're still travelling the same distances in cars.
Those living in countries that still have good or remnants of good mass transit will have different insights. It is unlikely that without good, reliable, vast public transit networks, there will be social and economic equity, assuming that is a goal. While public transit can suck, especially in the US, it is sometimes necessary to take one for the team and vote with your wallet. Unfortunately the situation is often framed as a false dilemma, that there can only be private cars or only mass transit, but not both coexisting and used for different ends at different times by the same people.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:59AM (1 child)
Quite simply, Uber and Lyft call themselves ride sharing in hopes of pulling the wool over regulator's eyes. They are very much yet another cab service except they want to call the drivers contractors and they don't want to deal with medallions, commercial insurance, or other regulatory measures. But it swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:49AM
Agreed.
It's like when some clever spark in the government here changed all the local 'SPEED CAMERA AHEAD' signs to say 'SAFETY CAMERA AHEAD' (and updated the Motor Traffic Act to match). Clever little 'marketing' trick to distract from the real reason those cameras are there. And they always seem to be at sites with artificially low speed limits.
I applaud the guy that went around with 'REVENUE' stickers in the same colour and font and changed the local camera signs to read 'REVENUE CAMERA AHEAD'.