Replacing Buses with Ridesharing Would be a ‘Win’ for Everyone
Source: AP Photo/J. David Ake
In a triumphant moment, New York City announced
it would include ridesharing services in its metro budget. Realizing
that many residents live in areas with inadequate late night and early
morning metro services, the Metro Transportation Authority plans to
subsidize ridesharing as early as June to help bridge the gap between
people’s bus stop and home.
While
this is a good start, if cities wanted to improve their public transit,
they would replace their bus systems in favor of ridesharing.
Earlier
this month, New York City Chief Innovation Officer, Mark Dowd,
announced the city is looking to partner with transportation network
companies to help ‘fill the gap’ with some of the cities most unreached
areas. As millions
of New Yorkers currently work outside the typical 9-5 work schedule,
“the program will provide subsidized e-hail rides to outer-borough
residents living more than half a mile from the nearest subway station,
whose off-hour commutes force them to contend with infrequent subway and
bus service,” according to Dowd.
Jonathan Bowles, executive director of the Center for an Urban Future, notes
that many residents are “taking two buses in many cases, and sometimes
these connections take upwards of half an hour late at night.” Indeed,
with one of the longest commutes
in the country, the average New Yorker can expect to spend 58 minutes
traveling each day. Meanwhile, ridesharing services would reduce these
travel times helping residents get home sooner.
Yet, despite these apparent benefits, some are
worried that the funding isn’t going towards public transit. New York
City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, contends
that improving the rail system would be a better use of funds. However,
people like Stringer should embrace the change as cities across the
U.S. have already seen great success in subsidized ridesharing.
In Dallas, the city was able to save $10 per ride when it contracted a portion of its coverage to Uber. Similarly, in Ontario, Canada, city officials scrapped
the idea to implement a bus route that would’ve cost $26 per trip when
they found that Uber would only charge $7 per rider. And in 2015, after
Denver started
to subsidize Uber rides to the airport, David Genova, chief executive
of the Regional Transportation District at Denver’s Union Station boasted that his “colleagues around the country are very, very interested in this [project].”
With cheaper alternatives in the market, it
should come as no surprise that the industry has skyrocketed in
popularity. With more affordable fares and better service, in 2017, New
York City Ubers suppressed taxis in daily ridership. Meanwhile, the future for public transit looks grim, as 200 million fewer rides were taken in 2019 than in 2008.
Instead
of trying to revitalize a declining industry, like Stringer proposes,
or only subsidizing ridesharing to “fill in the gaps,” cities should
allow ridesharing to replace public buses entirely. Not only would this
provide a great benefit to many of the city’s residents, but it would
also substantially free up some funds as well. A National Bureau
Economic of Research paper
found that privatizing every bus route in the nation would save around
$6 billion in tax dollars along while simulating an extra $500 million
in economic activity.
And while some might be skeptical about replacing the
bus with ridesharing, one city has shown it can work. Already in
Arlington, Texas, the city has had great success after it decided to scrap its bus system in favor of the rideshare company, Via, which has given residents the ability to ride for only $3.
As
cities learn to integrate ridesharing in their budgets, they should go a
step further and fully replace public buses with contracting
ridesharing services. Not only will this provide a better and cheaper
service to its residents, but cities will be able to cut costs on their
public transit budget. As New York City has shown, ridesharing is here
to stay. Now it’s up to lawmakers to give both commuters and cities a
‘win’ by fully embracing a free-market solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment