Should the US government subsidize Uber and/or Lyft in areas that lack public transportation?

Question

So that people who can’t afford a car or can’t drive, still have a reliable way to get around at the cost of public transportation (or at least closer to the lower cost of transit) even if they love outside of a major city/metro area.

The solution is in reach physically, it’s just currently way too expensive for pretty much everyone to afford to rely on.

This could be a potential solution to America’s lack of transit issue!

Answer 1

They should offer corporate welfare to no one.

Answer 2

I think the money would be much better spent on improved bus lines, with more frequent and reliable service. I think Lyft and Uber LOOK good environmentally, because they allow some people to live without car ownership. But they rely on private car owners to do the driving. That doesn't seem like a good long-term solution to our transportation needs.

\

Answer 3

Cannot afford the cost of PUBLIC transportation. Have the community that live in these hard to reach places come together so you all can afford COMMUNITY transportation.



Have someone in the community be a paid driver for the community.

Answer 4

The vast majority of government funded public transportation loses money. It would be cheaper for the government to replace all of it with Uber and/or Lyft.

Answer 5

With all the support and concern the left has, I’m sure they are providing that help already. Because they are Democrats, they call it D Uber.

Answer 6

Hell no!

Answer 7

No. It won't happen anyway since some liberal areas have already taken steps to stop Uber from competing in their area.



There was even a court ruling against them that changed the definition of independent contractor just to hurt Uber. Oh and btw, you're not supposed to notice that all of this is being done to protect monopolies.

Answer 8

mm

Answer 9

No.