So essentially that buses need to have higher fares in low density areas? I'm sure Uber fixed-route shuttles will cost many times more. It's hard to imagine a fixed-route shuttle making much more sense in a low density area than buses logistically.
Unfortunately that means low income folks who can't afford 5-10x higher daily fare (and I think that's a decent guess) are excluded from living there. But sure, if we assume a public transit system should be profitable (and I personally disagree with that) you'd end up unable to service expensive to reach areas.
I concede that's a rock and hard place situation though.
What I can see as an upside is that if Uber's brand lets them short circuit the classism and normalize not using a car all the time. That's also a prerequisite for a healthy bus system, generally you have to build the transit and make it reliable before expecting people to stop driving cars, people have to be able to reliably get around. So if it makes people feel secure in not owning one, when public bus routes are added they'll actually have riders and not get discontinued after a month trial.
Unfortunately that means low income folks who can't afford 5-10x higher daily fare (and I think that's a decent guess) are excluded from living there. But sure, if we assume a public transit system should be profitable (and I personally disagree with that) you'd end up unable to service expensive to reach areas.
I concede that's a rock and hard place situation though.
What I can see as an upside is that if Uber's brand lets them short circuit the classism and normalize not using a car all the time. That's also a prerequisite for a healthy bus system, generally you have to build the transit and make it reliable before expecting people to stop driving cars, people have to be able to reliably get around. So if it makes people feel secure in not owning one, when public bus routes are added they'll actually have riders and not get discontinued after a month trial.