Wednesday’s Headlines

National headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • mckillio

    It’s long past time to have tougher driving requirements for ride share drivers and at least look into limiting the number of them.

    • TakeFive

      Whether it’s the ‘right’ or the ‘left’ rarely am I for a Nanny State approach to free enterprise. Demand-driven innovation has been driving this country’s economy forever. Rideshare driving is a great way for teachers or anybody to have a part time job to help pay the rent. Many can drive the weekends and pick up a few hundred $’s.

      What would you guess the odds are that voters would approve of their freedom to choose being limited? It’s worth noting that gentrifying areas of Portland is where bus ridership is down. As for the study referenced, nothing wrong with a good intellectual exercises but I’ll call it poppycock.

      • MT

        How about just charging for the use of public streets by for-profit car services?

        • TakeFive

          Because they’re taxpayer funded public streets? That said if taxpayer/voters want to approve of such a scheme then that’s different.

          • MT

            So what that they are taxpayer funded? So are a lot of things. Doesn’t mean fees can’t be charged for their use. Parks are taxpayer funded, but you have to pay if you want to camp in them, for example.
            Taxpayers are free to use public streets for free, but if you want to drive a vehicle on those streets, you need a licence, the vehicle must be registered, and you must pay for insurance. There’s no reason a tax or fee on vehicles can’t also be charged, especially when it’s a private company using public land for their own profit.
            I wouldn’t describe Uber as a small business. It’s a taxi company that skirts all the regulations that are supposed to apply to taxi companies. Part of that regulation should be fees that make those companies pay for the wear and tear, pollution, and congestion they cause.

      • mckillio

        I hear you but if this is a net negative to society and it certainly looks like it is then we should definitely look into limiting the number of drivers. I’m not saying we should do it, just look into it.

        Of course voters would be against it but this isn’t something that would require a vote. I’d certainly assume that gentrifying areas are more likely to use ride share since it costs more money than transit.

        • TakeFive

          Not sure how meaningful that research was. We’re talking about spreading ride-sharing from Boulder through the whole metro Denver area. Many drivers will work from say 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm; others from 7:00 to midnight while others will choose the bar shift from maybe 10:00 pm to 2:30 am. The early bird drivers start around 4:00 am to catch those good rides to DIA.

          Without rideshare as an option some may decide they need a car, or a 2nd car. If one lives in the burbs then rideshare enables (easy) access to light rail stations. It’s a lot more complicated than the simplistic analysis that some would apply.