[AgloeDreams]

Was making more taxis on the road with more downtime and increasing congestion really an improvement in cities? A Recent study found that 50% of all cars in lower manhattan were rideshares. Is that really a better world? Ridesharing in cities has been absolutely proven to increase pollution rather than reduce while carpooling in rural areas helps reduce pollution. The problem with rideshares is that they are jobs based on time rather than efficiency. You drop someone off and then you are available to pick someone up, so you drive to them, drive them where they need to go and drive to the next person, the points between passengers are reductions in efficiency vs single cars and add to congestion in high congestion areas. In any case mass transit is much better in cities.

[SamReidHughes]

There is surplus value to the customer that you aren't accounting for. Mass transit is a far worse experience than Uber.

[foldr]

In most of the US, probably. It's not so clear cut in London. The tube is usually faster and more pleasant. (London's air quality is pretty bad, and many Uber drivers have an annoying habit of driving through heavy traffic with the windows open.)

[SamReidHughes]

Sure, but London has always had taxis, too, because sometimes they're the better tool. It's not like some people are taxi-takers and others are subway-takers. You use whatever's best at the time. When I lived in Boston I took the T every day -- but on some occasions, a taxi was the better choice.

[foldr]

I was responding to the claim that mass transit was "far worse" than Uber.

[CydeWeys]

And the negative externalities of all those additional cars on the road are far worse than if you just have more people using the existing subway, too.

If you're going to do a full accounting of all the costs of all those additional cars on the road, and all that additional congestion, then rideshare doesn't come out looking so rosy.