Those Silicon Valley geniuses have done it again!

Next week- “it’s like the subway, but with AI!”

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      6 months ago

      Until the city decides to get rid of the subsidized bus system because “Uber is a better service and covers the routes anyway” and then they jack the price sky-high.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Exactly. How people haven’t realized this yet is fuckin inconceivable. Trusting a for-profit company—with a history of the exact problematic behavior we’re worried about—is beyond stupid. They can operate at a loss for a long time. Just to fuck other businesses out of the market so they can charge as much as they want. It’s literally their business model.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      What if you, the customer, are a poor person? Is Uber going to subsidize a bus pass for you to charter one of Uber’s buses to their job?

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        From my own experience, if you’re poor, you use a regular bus. If you want to get somewhere faster, you pay more and catch a shuttle. If you want comfort, you pay even more and get a taxi. And all modes of transport are always full to the brim. The more the merrier, always.

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          But…that’s our point. Uber taking over bus routes would ultimately void that choice. Public transportation is a public service. Letting a VC-funded for-profit company weasel their way into that space is never going to not fuck poor people. It’ll fuck everyone, but it’ll make “public transportation” unaffordable. And, really, when you’re poor, “if you want to get somewhere faster” isn’t really an option. That’s…the thing with being poor. You don’t have the extra money to spend to catch a shuttle and you don’t have the luxury of paying for comfort. Not to mention, even in the best case scenario, where busses would keep their existing schedule and routes (though the likelihood of this happening is slim) and we’d just get more busses? It’d clog the system, ultimately slowing bus routes.

          So, no. Not “the more the merrier” when it comes to private companies elbowing their way into public service, and especially not when we’re talking about fuckin traffic.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m thinking your job would be the one to do that. A lot of companies subsidize transit passes, the problem is usually there aren’t enough routes, so employees don’t use them.

        • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          The hospitals in my nearby city have their own BRT which is open to public use, and joined to the city’s ticketing system. It shuttles between them and various key locations, and is of course wholly subsidized for the intended users.

          Despite being the only BRT here it pretty much goes everywhere it should, skipping the usual traffic, and as a result gets a lot of use.

          If the users were limited to the regular transportation I think they would just all drive - while there are a lot of routes here they’re not entirely pleasant to use IMO and almost always get stuck in traffic

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Exactly. Mass transit responds to what people say they want (wider roads), whereas hospitals and large companies respond to costs (i.e. cost of more parking vs a shuttle). I’m not saying transit should be privatized, I’m saying private transit filling in the gaps of mass transit is generally a good thing.

              • blazera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                6 months ago

                they dont have to follow regulations if they dont take government subsidies?

                • Jajcus@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Those would be different kind of regulations. Not just ‘you need functioning brakes’ kind, but also ‘you must serve this route that hardly anyone uses and and you cannot make any extra money from’. Or ‘no extra fees, even where some people would pay them’.

    • yildolw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      The private sector takes the profitable popular routes first, which the public system is already serving, meaning the public system would not longer be able to use the fare revenue from the popular routes to subsidize the geographical coverage unpopular ones which are nevertheless needed to get the full network effect

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Uber is a bad faith actor, their business model is entirely monopoly-seeking. If they’re trying to expand into bus routes, the goal will be to reduce the choices available to just Uber.