I understand the plight of the union and the fear of instability, but in all honesty the biggest criticism of this move is that it's basically a conflict of interest for Lyft. It's mentioned in the article! Lyft wants people to pay up to get a car ride somewhere. Bikeshares encourage people to not get rides from place to place, either cycling directly to a destination or to a public transit stop. And Lyft won't get more money from bikes than they do from car rides, so they're basically incentivized to provide a sub-par bikeshare experience to push more Lyfts.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)
Los Angeles
918 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to /c/LosAngeles, the ultimate online forum for everything related to the City of Angels! This bustling community is designed for Angelenos, tourists, and dreamers alike, to discuss, discover, and engage with all things LA. From the glittering Hollywood Walk of Fame to the city's eclectic food scene, the stunning beaches of Santa Monica to the vibrant art of the Getty, this community shines a spotlight on the vast cultural, social, and physical landscapes of Los Angeles.
Our threads span a wide spectrum of topics, including local events, restaurant recommendations, traffic tips, historical discussions, and insightful exchanges about life in LA's numerous neighborhoods. Whether you're looking to swap stories about surviving the 405, share your sunset photos from Griffith Observatory, or ask for advice about navigating LA's dynamic job market, /c/LosAngeles is your community. Join us and immerse yourself in the diverse and ever-evolving narratives that make up this vibrant, sprawling city we call home.
Related Communities:
Nearby Communities:
- California
- Bakersfield, CA
- Bay Area, CA
- Burbank, CA
- Fresno, CA
- Long Beach, CA
- Los Angeles, CA
- Oakland, CA
- San Diego, CA
- San Jose, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Sacramento, CA
- Santa Clarita, CA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the best take I've heard on the matter. Even ignoring Lyft's track record as a worker-hostile company and pretending that public-private partnerships as a concept aren't absolute fucking cancer to city services, why would anyone hand over control of a crucial piece of transit infrastructure to a corporation that only exists to replace that infrastructure?
I'd say this applies to every instance of a private company taking over a public service. But it does apply more in this particular case for the reasons you pointed out.