Ask HN: Why don't cities/states create their own ride-sharing platform? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why don't cities/states create their own ride-sharing platform?

22 pointscheapsteak17 comments

Don't dispatch networks seem a lot like infrastructure? The main barrier doesn't seem to be technology, but network effects, and to a lesser extent, government regulation.

Why don't cities/provinces/states make their own?

Adoption wouldn't be an issue, following government code wouldn't be an issue, would probably bring in quite a bit of revenue.

Are any cities doing this already?

View on HN

It's not entirely clear yet what long-term effect ridesharing will have on city traffic [1] and cities are very invested in keeping that low. Buses and trains and such keep that traffic lower, at least according to current data.

Of course, if ridesharing proves itself to reduce traffic, I wouldn't be surprised to find cities experimenting with public-private partnerships to implement them locally. We have something very successful in DC called Capital Bikeshare that is focused largely on reducing traffic.

But, unlike bikesharing, if Uber and kin prove out ridesharing as valuable to DC, I cannot see what the local government would add with their own system, something that I know the DC government does consider. Capital Bikeshare is so successful precisely because the government is involved. They can convert a couple street parking spaces or a traffic intersection median into a bikeshare without asking anyone, and have done so with no real complaint.

[1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-uber-making-nyc-rush-...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Bikeshare

Chicago is doing something very similar with Divvy. [1]

[1] https://www.divvybikes.com/

That sounds similar to BCycle [1]. Is it a branded version for Chicago? In Cincinnati we have Red Bike [2].

1: https://www.bcycle.com/

2: http://www.cincyredbike.org/

Washington DC has been doing it as long as I can remember:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging

Basically pickup someone random so you can utilize HOV.

I actually used this when I used to work in DC but lived in NoVA. Really good stuff and helpful. You basically get a free ride to the city and many times almost close to where you work.

Some do. Michigan has had it since 1974 [0]. Of course, it was a bit less dependent on technology when it started.

[0] http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9615_11228_11234--...

Helsinki tried this with their Kutsuplus service, but it ended up proving too expensive and underused for being publicly funded. They are now looking for private companies to run a similar service.

http://www.wired.com/2013/10/on-demand-public-transit/

Because they're clueless and they're living in the past. There are notable exceptions but for the most part this applies to public administration in general.

From their point of view, why should they try to find novel solutions to evident problems while they can much more easily just "regulate away" the potential for such solutions (for now, that is) and claim the problem doesn't exist in the first place? Public administration is notoriously bad at both embracing change and long-term planning because its stakeholders' outlook is measured in legislative periods.

City planners are enamored with building stuff. That's why they want to build subways and light rail systems instead of bus rapid transport.

Building stuff is more permanent and facilitates other building--like apartment building or office building near stations.

With IT dispatch systems they aren't building anything physical and aren't affecting the built environment and all their training is about affecting the built environment.

They might yet do this, but local government tends to be terrible with IT. It's more likely that compromises will be reached to allow Uber to operate, such as requirements for insurance or real employment contracts.

Nobody has mentioned this, but possibly relevant is the issue of lawsuits:

If a class-action is brought against an Uber, it can be sued out of existence (think like a major case that affects their publicity and kills the business).

Even though a local government can become bankrupt, it doesn't happen quite that often. It is also easier to police a small subset of bus/train drivers and register a known subset of taxi-drivers than having to manage a work-force of in-out ride-sharing drivers.

Ride-sharing also doesn't seem that efficient, as I've never read/heard of an awesome/PR+ story of Uber/Lyft reducing the traffic congestion in New York/London (known as congested cities).

When driving on the highway recently, I noticed a standard governmental sign which had a 1-800 number to call for ride sharing.

Your post made me think of this, so I did some quick googling of my state and the surrounding states. It seems all of them have ridesharing programs and regulations to promote ridesharing to some degree.

Of course these are not sophisticated technological platforms with mobile apps. Personally I was intrigued by the possibilities for user experience... what would it be like to get a ride by calling one of these phone numbers?

here's one: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jul/10/helsinki-share...

Fuel is government-taxed. More traffic jams = more fuel = more tax. Forget long-term thinking. MORE TAX. NOW.

I agree with @BjoernKW also.

"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Unions

Neoliberalism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com