Those Silicon Valley geniuses have done it again!

Next week- “it’s like the subway, but with AI!”

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is what happens when you believe the private sector is the answer to everything. We reinvent the wheel one hundred times, and each time its more square than before.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      They didn’t reinvent anything, private small scale shuttle buses have existed since forever. If you don’t have them in your city it doesn’t mean that’s a brand new thing.

    • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      They invented FSD in the sixties and it makes a handy little loop through downtown Detroit.

      • skyspydude1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        And now we’re inventing the shittiest “rail line” between Ann Arbor and Detroit on 94. All the hassle and expense of rail travel, with none of the efficiency!

  • ribhu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wait they didn’t have them in the US? We’ve had uber shuttles for years in India

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Frankly it doesn’t matter. Japan has several private companies operating rail services. Tokyo has several subway systems.

        We need more appropriately priced, accessible mass transit. I don’t care if it’s public or private.

        • pufferfisherpowder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          7 months ago

          We need to tax the fuck out of the dIsRupTIve vultures called venture capitalists. The only disruption they cause is offering an existing service with extra little value returned to society and workers until the competition is dead. Then prices are raised and society gets squeezed a second time. It’s fucking disgusting. The raised tax on these fuckers can then be used for public transport, amongst other things.

          So, no, we don’t get public transport from banning Uber doing this. But Uber wouldn’t do this (or exist) if the investors of this shit company would pay their fair share and if Uber had to follow proper labor laws.

        • akilou@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes. Allowing Uber to do this justifies a disinvestment in public services. “why should we spend more on bus service when no one rides it anyway? They’re all taking Uber bus”

            • freebee@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              Uber will only cherry pick profitable routes for profitable customers, stealing them from public transport which will become more expensive as a result. Public transport is a public service available to everyone for a fair price. Uber is not public transport. Uber starting busservice somehow signals they want to move into that space, but they will never be servicing the poorest towns. Parts of PT being privatised by uber probably is bad news for bus passengers on less popular routes.

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Look at any of these tech companies’ history. They corner the market by operating at massive losses that VCs can foot for, like, a decade. And then when they’ve driven out other options, they abuse the fuck out of customers. They “disrupt” by obliterating, and that’s when they move for the kill shot: ever-expanding profits.

          This is not a good thing. Even in NYC, where the MTA is a massive chunk of money, we have one of the slowest bus systems in the world. That’s through no fault of the busses, mind, this is the cars fault. And, kinda Uber’s fault. The traffic is so bad, even where busses have their own lanes, the traffic slows that shit down like crazy.

          Depending on the govt (Adams would probably jump at this, whoever his successor will be will obviously determine how it’d go), the city sees $$$ and sacrifices the long term well-being of the city for their own “successes” while in office. And money/budget is always a crunch, no matter the place. So if Uber wanted to “disrupt” NYC by basically taking over busses or getting a contract to use the bus stops and bus lanes, the govt saves money while generating revenue because those VCs are eyeing the long term where they can ultimately make the city reliant on their services and force people to contribute to their bottom line. Our trains are great, but they don’t go everywhere, sometimes busses are necessary, especially for outerborough people and historically poorer neighborhoods. You can see those areas on the train map, because trains basically avoid them.

          Trusting vampiric capitalists with any public good is a fuckin stupid thing to do. Look at healthcare. How we have privatized healthcare is beyond me, but look at the state of it. Now, this is more expanding on the conversation than actually replying directly to your question, but it sort of does get at the heart of it. For a time, we would get more transportation. It wouldn’t be public, it’d be private. But it wouldn’t solve the issues. It’d just create new ones.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            This is not a good thing. Even in NYC, where the MTA is a massive chunk of money, we have one of the slowest bus systems in the world. That’s through no fault of the busses, mind, this is the cars fault. And, kinda Uber’s fault. The traffic is so bad, even where busses have their own lanes, the traffic slows that shit down like crazy.

            Im with you that cars are the problem, thats why im defending this proposal for more bus service. Also in the same boat of venture capitalist tech companies are all those bike sharing businesses that popped up over the years. I still see them as positive, they’ve become integrated into many european pedestrian friendly cities id like for American cities to imitate.

            • TheFriar@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yeah…but busses exist right now. Cars are still the problem. A private company getting involved bus routes won’t do shit for that problem. We have one of the best transit systems in the world in nyc. But people can’t give up their cars. Letting Uber muscle into public transit won’t change that. If anything, it’ll drive up the cost of busses and make even fewer people rely on busses.

              We have citibikes in nyc. The traffic problem is still awful. As a bike rider myself, I can tell you that riding a bike here is not for everyone. I know plenty of able-bodied people terrified away from riding bikes. But say the city into the bike sharing service. It wouldn’t be $15. It would be…I dunno, $5. Then more people would use them. See what I’m saying?

              The way to spread anything good is to make a cost, not a profit maker. Bringing business into the public service game is a horrible idea. There’s no way this does anything good for anyone but Uber. That’s how businesses operate. There might be a time where it seems things are getting better, but that’s just the phase where they’re willing to operate at a loss to corner the market. This phase is ending right now with Amazon: they drove out so many businesses by becoming so reliable, quick, and convenient. Now, they’re starting to scale back free returns. This happened not too long ago with Uber and Lyft. The money behind it finally said, “alright, play time is over. We won’t operate at a loss for much longer, we’ve cornered the rideshare market, now it’s time for prices to creep up to the point where we profit more and more.”

              It’s their business model. It’s vampiric and destructive. Not helpful. Trusting them with a public service is so, so, so foolish.

    • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yea I see this as a net positive. They mention concert venues. This is the perfect use case, I remember so many times struggling to get a bus after a big show because they’re packed. This could relieve that. It could increase frequency of pickups on existing routes, it’ll cut down on single passenger Ubers.

  • casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Do people consider shuttles and buses the same thing? Because this sounds like a shuttle, which as far as I’m aware is completely different from a bus. I take a shuttle to the airport, which requires a reservation and ~$50 whereas I take a bus to get around town and it’s typically free.

    Essentially it sounds like they are trying to dip into the shuttle market, not the inner-city bus market. Though maybe both?

    • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Whatever you have to tell yourself to avoid sounding like you’re using the same transportation method as the commoners.