Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Not under any definition of public transit I've heard

From source [3], as provided above:

>> The taxi should not be viewed as antagonistic to public transport, people who use taxis are in general 'public transport users' not 'car users'. Any improvement in the taxi service should therefore be viewed as an important improvement in public transport provision. Any improvement in the provision of taxi services will be very valuable for people with mobility problems since they rely on the taxi for a significant amount of their travel due to the door to door nature of the taxi service.

> They cause congestion proportional to their users, i.e. orders of magnitude more congesting than buses.

As other comments have discussed, this is controversial.

[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2838043

[1] http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf




You're begging the question—you didn't quote a justification for the term, you quoted an argument that requires the same justification.

Taxis are absolutely antagonistic to public transit, as demonstrated by the ratio of human labor to humans transported. Cars are simply the most comfortable version of transit available to people who have the means. It is not available to those without the means. The idea that the taxi users are the same as bus users is simply being class-blind.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: