> The answer to getting cars off the street (whether private or shared) is to build other options that people can use
I think we agree completely on this, and the best other options in cities are all mass transit, not individual cars.
> Taxis are cars too by the way. How did all those taxi regulations improve externalities?
Taxis didn't impose nearly the same congestion externalities as ride shares (or single occupancy cars) simply because there just weren't as many of them, due to the controversial medallion system. They were never a form of mass transit.
And as anyone who waited hours for a taxi before the ride share era knows, the lack of supply was the primary frustration with taxis. Ride share simply multiplies out the taxi technology of low occupancy cars, which while it solves the taxi supply problem increases the existing congestion problem wrought by low occupancy cars in general. Therefore it is not the way to achieve scalable transit in even somewhat dense environments.
But to your question, maybe congestion taxes on single passenger ride sharing pushes us toward a form of dispatchable mass transit which shares many of the conveniences of ride-share with the social benefits of mass transit i.e. a fleet of dispatchable municipal minibuses that work like a larger Uber Pool.
That would be especially helpful for last-mile connectivity for mass transit like commuter trains, whose parking lots are today overwhelmed by single occupancy cars.
As a user I don't care. I would rather have a transportation option than not. What do you expect millions of people to do? Either don't travel or go back to driving their own cars? What is this abstract "social good" where nobody is served and everyone is miserable?
Lack of alternatives is the problem. Externalities of Uber are nothing but political outrage and a distraction. If the govt put even a fraction of the effort in battling Uber into building more rail and bus lines then everything would be solved.
This has been proven by the massive surge in electric scooters and bike sharing companies, which Uber also provides. Are those externalities too? Or do people just want to get around and need ways to do so?
I think we agree completely on this, and the best other options in cities are all mass transit, not individual cars.
> Taxis are cars too by the way. How did all those taxi regulations improve externalities?
Taxis didn't impose nearly the same congestion externalities as ride shares (or single occupancy cars) simply because there just weren't as many of them, due to the controversial medallion system. They were never a form of mass transit.
And as anyone who waited hours for a taxi before the ride share era knows, the lack of supply was the primary frustration with taxis. Ride share simply multiplies out the taxi technology of low occupancy cars, which while it solves the taxi supply problem increases the existing congestion problem wrought by low occupancy cars in general. Therefore it is not the way to achieve scalable transit in even somewhat dense environments.
But to your question, maybe congestion taxes on single passenger ride sharing pushes us toward a form of dispatchable mass transit which shares many of the conveniences of ride-share with the social benefits of mass transit i.e. a fleet of dispatchable municipal minibuses that work like a larger Uber Pool.
That would be especially helpful for last-mile connectivity for mass transit like commuter trains, whose parking lots are today overwhelmed by single occupancy cars.