Id like to see the start of a state owned rideshare network with specially zoned drop off, pick up, and lane privileges that Uber and Lyft don’t get access to.
Uber and Lyft exist because the state didn't build one of those. In fact the state has built a completely inadequate public transit system in LA. Uber and Lyft are widely used because people in LA don't have an alternative.
> specially zoned drop off, pick up, and lane privileges that Uber and Lyft don’t get access to
There are clear differences between the state and private businesses. The state can make laws to prevent private businesses from competing with it, can grant monopolies, etc.
The state is not operated for profit, and the profit motive is the only reason things like Uber and Lyft exist -- the state never would have thought to create something like that.
Also - why instantly criticize government for “knowing better”? Any entrepreneur starting a business in an existing space is doing the same thing, and they’d likely be celebrated.
I agree with the competitive moat issue. Not ideal for a business, but not a deal breaker.
> Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system.
Thanks for the explanation. It's a bit clearer to me know. I don't see a need to tax Uber/Lyft when considering that the main fault lies in the municipality failing to make owning a car so expensive that people would rather take the bus. Good examples come from Europe: owning a car in some places costs you so much, that taking an Uber/tram/subway/bus is the only way to go. Thus, fewer people have cars. And thus politicians focus on public transport. As long as we're talking taxes, why tax a taxi service when you can instead tax the huge number of people that actually don't need cars?
You mean a bus.