If you believe that Uber and Lyft are decreasing the number of cars on the road, then taxing them to "free up congested roads" is misguided, as it will have exactly the opposite effect.
Talk to anyone with a reasonable public transit system about how ridesharing is clearing up the roads (spoiler alert: it's not, they're decreasing public transit ridership and contributing to a constantly worsening congestion issue).
Perhaps public transit systems could look into what ride-sharing is doing, what elements of it are so appealing to users, and if there’s any similar actions they could offer to make public transit more appealing.
It seems pretty obvious. Uber is more convenient and it comes directly to your home. People will pay more for that, which is why it probably shouldn’t be so cheap as to make public transit easy to dismiss, especially when that pricing structure encourages more cars on the road with only 1-2 people in them and the negatives that go along with it (more carbon usage, more cars idling in traffic, more road damage, more pollution to inner city dwellers, more danger to pedestrians and cyclists, etc)
So, rather than examining if there are ways to make public transport more convenient, appealing, and competitive, the only solution is to make private transport less appealing?
I didn't say that, but maybe it should be a combination of both. Which is why some cities are partnering with Uber/Lyft to do the last mile part (to the home), but using public transit for the bulk of it.
I do think you really have to question an economic model where Uber/Lyft have clobbered cabs using an unsustainable VC-funded model that will eventually run out and substantially increase cost to the end-user.
I think they're likely profitable in the cities where they've achieved scale. Specifically, I suspect that Uber (and Uber drivers) in the Boston/Cambridge market (where I live) are making a net profit overall.
Drivers who drive full time can afford to pay for the car expenses (variable and fixed). Drivers who drive part time are able to cover the variable costs (and they already had their fixed costs anyway). Uber is probably not losing money in Boston. If all three of those things are true, Uber is sustainable in Boston.
The problem is that ride sharing isn't providing a service with a realistic and sustainable price. In Boston I can get a 15 minute Uber pool trip door-to-door for $3.
They're undercutting public transportation and traditional taxi services that need to operate with a realistic budget that isn't fueled by billions of VC dollars.
If there are two people in the Pool on average, $6 for a 15 minute ride feels like it could be a sustainable price to me. When Pool first launched in Boston/Cambridge, I used to almost always be solo. Now, I would say that my average occupancy is 1.75 to 2 on Pool rides. It's also to the point that Pool rides seem to be cheap when they would result in Pooling and almost the same price as UberX when they'd more likely be solo.
If they're undercutting public transport and doing so at a sustainable price, I view that as healthy competition. If they're undercutting solely based on VC subsidies, that will inevitably end. In the Boston market, I think they're likely profitable on an overall basis, just as grocers are overall (very slightly) profitable, even when they sell loss-leaders and give other subsidies to consumers.
You're not talking a lot into account, especially that drivers are freelancers who own their own vehicles. That $6 per 15 minutes turns into $24/hr (if you're literally non-stop taking fares, which is impossible).
Then you have maintenance, wear, healthcare, retirement, etc... Just accounting for fuel and maintenance these drivers are making minimum wage without any benefits, even if they drive full-time.
The so-called gig economy is bullshit that erodes just about everything it touches, from workers rights to public services.
