Silicon Valley loves to parade a “disruptive” new idea every so often, but Uber’s latest move with Route Share isn’t exactly groundbreaking. Remember Smart Routes, Lyft Shuttle, or Musk’s “urban loop”? It’s a bus route. The tech curtain might be new, but the play is the same. They’ve introduced fixed routes and schedule shuttles in seven cities. Here’s what this really means: Uber’s trying to cash in where public transit can’t catch a break.
Uber says Route Share will offer affordable, predictable transport. Their chief product officer even admits the bus analogy but dodges using the word. The CEO, though, is upfront — inspired by buses to cut consumer prices and help with congestion. That’s nice PR, but let’s not pretend this is revolutionary.
Kevin Shen from the Union of Concerned Scientists isn’t buying it either. The idea of Uber reinventing the bus might sound hip, but with more smog and probably fewer benefits. Ridiculous. Five years ago, a report laid it out: Rideshares jack up emissions by 69% compared to the trips they supposedly replace. It’s because too many of these rides are cruising around empty. Unless the cars are EVs, don’t count on saving the planet.
There’s broader concern here. Uber’s poking around in transit arenas like NYC, San Francisco, and elsewhere. It’s hardly about innovation; it’s about squeezing dollars from the public sector while there’s slack in accountability. Public services? They’re about serving everyone, not just profitable routes. Uber’s playbook lacks any of that oversight, which is going to hurt public accountability.
Let’s not ignore how cities like Philly and Dallas are grappling with hemorrhaging transit systems. Philly considers massive service cuts. With federal backing for public services slipping, and a $6 billion transit budget shortfall looming, you can see why Uber scents an opportunity. Their CEO insists they’re not vying with public transit but rather targeting car ownership. Yet, research from UC Davis says otherwise: More than half of Uber and Lyft trips swapped sustainable options like walking and biking for rideshares.
Traffic congestion, especially in big cities, doesn’t need more vehicles. Real competition with trains isn’t healing congestion; it’s a Band-Aid rip-off. Let’s be realistic: Madrid to downtown can still be done cheaper and faster by subway than any Route Share.
So Uber’s trying to rehash old ground with a new label. This move doesn’t streamline transit; it clogs up city arteries with more traffic. It’s time investors sift through the smoke and mirrors and take a hard look at real impacts. When the music stops, it’s the likes of Uber who plan to still be holding a chair.
