[baddox]

> Among biggest impacts of the ride services has been the drop in taxi rides taken by people in ramp taxis, which carry people in wheelchairs. As the ride services have grown and the number of cabs has diminished, so has the availability of wheelchair-accessible taxis, which are costlier to operate.

That's certainly a negative effect, but why would it result from the rise of ridesharing services? If taxi companies need to scale back the number of cars in their fleet, shouldn't they only take from the cars that aren't accessible?

[jostmey]

Yeah, you would think the taxi companies would lean more on this niche market, not less.

[philip1209]

It's worth pointing out that they seem to have a monopoly in handicapped transport too. Not saying this is a major plus and not saying it's a profitable market, but they can at least use it to their advantage in marketing and courts.

[cmsmith]

It's not only not a major plus, it's a minus.

Traditional taxi companies are forced by regulators to provide less profitable accessible transport in exchange for being given a monopoly on taxi services. Part of the way that Uber is undercutting the taxi companies is by not providing services to the disabled (or at least not without added cost).

[lallysingh]

The accessible ones probably use more fuel per mile.

[sjg007]

I am sure there will soon be uber accessible.

[jfoster]

In many places it may not be profitable enough for transportation companies to voluntarily offer it. That would explain why the regulator was forcing some taxis to have this capability.