Should the government subsidize ride-sharing services for low-income individuals?

Yes, but only as a stopgap while improving access to public transit options.

No, the government shouldn't be subsidizing exploitative corporations using subcontractors as employees to avoid labor regulations at all, and should instead regulate them the same way as taxi services. Low-income individuals should be provided with subsidies to use public transportation and public transportation infrastructure should be expanded to make this feasible.

No, increase spending on public transportation instead.

No, but incentives should be given towards ride-sharing companies to pick up low income individuals at a lower cost.

Yes, but only if they are green energy alterantives like subways, electirc cars etc, and also cots the same amount as a taxi but slightly cheaper

Not if it lowers the pay for these drivers which it in reality does in practice as I've seen myself.

could be a short-term solution for accessibility, but the focus should be on strengthening public transportation as a more sustainable and equitable option

Yes, only if the people who have access to such a program cannot use a personal vehicle due to physical/mental disability and/or they do not have up-to-standard public transportation to their destination(s).

No. For the sake of low taxes, low national debt, capitalism, federalism, checks and balances, and weak government.

Yes because it helps them, but it also effects the person giving the ride because will the company pay them the rest of the money.

In population centers where public transportation does not reach a low income individual’s residence, yes.

No, because that means the people who are going back to take these people to their destination will get paid less and that isn't really fair

No, this will result in paycuts, higher taxes, and a higher national debt. Also, this is a burn-down of capitalism, checks and balances, federalism, and weak government.

I don't believe this is something the government needs to get involved in. There are a lot of good things about these services however, I also believe there is a better way for funding to be used.

States should help fund people with getting a vehicle one time in their life if they are low income to get back and forth to work and whatever.

Yes in the cases that low-income individuals have no option for train/bus or the train/bus commute time exceeds one hour for the purpose of work or to drop off their child at childcare/school

the government shouldn't be subsidizing exploitative corporations using subcontractors as employees to avoid labor regulations at all and should instead regulate them the same way as taxi services. Low-income individuals should be provided with subsidies to use public transportation and public transportation infrastructure should be expanded to make this feasible.

Only if they’re enrolled in an income dependent program for housing, healthcare, or other social service program.

No. There should be robust and free public transportation in all parts of the country in order to render this issue null.

Yes, but put more money into public transportation, which is more efficient, affordable, and accessible for low-income individuals

I think the government should subsidize lower end cars (Kia,Hyuandai, etc.) Because alot of people that live in the usa Dont have transportation such as buses although buses are nice you are not free nor have the freedom of being able to go where ever you want.

No, these companies have switched from a low-cost service to providing transportation that sometimes exceeds that of other options. Additionally, Uber engaged in law-breaking and manipulation of their customers for many years and should not be trusted. Ride-sharing between private citizens should be supported if a viable system can be devised. Otherwise, light rail should be considered in some areas, and small busses in areas where light rail and large buses aren't financially feasible. Current bussing systems in many cities add up to 3 hours of travel time for those who use it, so better options are needed. Also, rich areas shouldn't be allowed to prevent public transportation from going through them.

Yes, but only if you make it safe for both parties and regulate it so drivers get paid living wages.

No, but the public transit system should be greatly expanded to the point where ride-sharing services are unnecessary

No, the focus should be on improving accessibility to public transportation. Subsidizing services provided by ride sharing service that already are not well regulated internally, seems like it would provide an unfair advantage to the ride share companies

yes, but should be a separate group offered and further examinations on the drivers to reduce any issues

No, instead solve the root issue of why people need to ride in motor vehicles to get from point A to B

Build out better public transit and only subsidize ride sharing in the meantime until better public transit exists. We should not privatize our nation’s transportation infrastructure.

Not it places with abundant public transportation like new york but in places where a car is required to travel yes

No and public transportation should receive a major overhaul before a government subsidy can be given

No - public transportation improvement needs to be prioritized. Not subsidizing companies that entirely exist through taxation loopholes. This question is obtuse at best.

No, public transportation should be made to be better and cheaper so that low-income individuals would not need to rely on these services.

Yes, but for individuals who can not utilize public transportation due to physical and mental health concerns

Ride sharing is an unsustainable daily transportation method, build public transportation infrastructure nationwide instead.

No, they should invest in public transport instead.

Public transportation would be more effective and reduce congestion on roads.

No, but increase investment for public transit in low income areas.

Yes, if public transportation isn't possible, however preferably you don't, because that is being used to create and maintain public transit.

No, invest in free and consistent public transportation

Subsidize and expand public transportation and improve high-speed rail and other options. Make the US less reliant on automobile travel.

No, the the government should subsidize public transportation, not private companies

Yes, but don’t subsidize the services themselves lest the funds be misused. Instead provide incentives to consumers to make use of ride-sharing services in areas where public transportation is inefficient

No, we should massively increase public transportation to assist low income individuals and reduce car depenency.

No, public taxes should be invested into public transportation infrastructure which meets the needs of low-income individuals.

No, the federal government should not be subsidizing tech companies like Uber and Lyft. The federal government should work to spend money on public transit to reduce the need for ride sharing.

Yes, but only for essential trips where no reliable public transport exists, like getting to medical care or a job. This should be a limited, local program with clear eligibility rules, not a blanket subsidy.

No, Uber and Lyft should be investigated for misuse of funds with the issue of not providing proper service to the consumer. They put measures in place to capitalize off current ride sharers, with the cost of time and money. Never fully paying correct wages to drivers as well.

No, I think it would be more useful and efficient to start incorporating more things like bike lanes.

The government should implement more robust public transport such as and specifically so trains, and buses.

Yes, but the government should provide free ride-sharing services and public transit (such as rail transit, buses, ferries, and trolleys) to all citizens regardless of income level or lack thereof.

I feel like no because this can affect how much drivers are paid, our societal pressure in public transportation, I feel like it can have a lot of negative effects and crime would increase due to more people from lower income would become targets

alternatively, the government should be creating proper public transit networks in all US cities. subsidies for ridesharing and taxi services should only be a thing implemented in rural areas.

No if u cant pay for an uber Lyft or any of them don’t go simple as that u dont get a free taxi cuz u can’t afford it

Yes, But Only for Children and parent, Seniors Citizens, Disabled Veteran, And people with Developmental disabilities.

No, the government should encourage the business environment that would allow more people to afford services like public transportation or private solutions.

Yes, only as a way to complement an existing public transportation system if the system cannot reach everyone.

No, regulate ride sharing services and put an increased focus on public transportation as opposed to ride sharing services.

This depends upon where people live and if we can prove that they have no access to a vehicle or can't walk to their destination.

No, we should subsidize improvements in public transportation which are safer, more accessible, and efficient for lower income individuals who lack mobility

Yes, but the government should do more to eliminate dependency on cars and give lower income individuals more transportation flexibility

I think we make safer bus places and subway systems that are safe and affective unlike the scary ones in like new york we can create a different system for all classes

Yes, but the government should put more money into public transportation systems that would benefit lower-income individuals more

No, but it should assist low income and disabled people with safer, free or more affordable options.

No, they should rather increase funding for public transport so that it is more accessible/viable for low-income individuals

No, they should invest more in public transport, and increase the efficiency of the current tax dollars being put into the system.

This would be great for individuals that have a hard time with money and can't afford a car, so they go to the resorts on what they need. This would help a lot of people out, but would the people doing the driving make less money and wouldn't profit of it.

I like this plan. However, I think that we should improve our public transport, and in-general make our country less car-dependent.

No, force use of public transport or bikes. Subsidies better used somewhere else such as increasing reliability of public transport or bike lanes. They should first prevent low income individuals from taking loans to buy cars they cannot afford.

No, but they should continue to subsidize costs of public transportation for low-income individuals.

No, the government should instead invest in free forms of public transportation that are accessible to low-income individuals

No, the government should focus more on subsidizing better infrastructure and public transportation.

No- everyone should have access to subsidies for ride-sharing regardless of income. If they don't use their allotment they can assign it to another person or organization or use it as a tax credit.

No, but they should subsidize transportation like public transit and bicycles for lower income individuals

depending on the source of income and how they spend their money and how many people are in their family

I think instead of making uber and lyft more accessible to low income families/people they should make public transportation lower and more easy to access, like trains and buses.

No, this would incentivize ride-sharing companies to raise prices for all users due to the availability of government subsidies for only a portion of their customers.

Publicly available transportation would keep the prices regulated to stay afforable, especially when the corporation is only providing the communication platform to connect customers to independent drivers that supply 100% of the ride experience.

Yes, but only in areas where public transportation is not available, and only when used for going to and from work.

Yes, but only if the person who is sharing there car agree to this, and add a system for sharing a car, or vehicle to low income individuals.

Yes, but only for very low-income levels and if those sharing the rides have no other means of transportation available.

To an extent for work, child care or groceries, but a set amount based on income and ability to work and holding a job.

Use of ride share vouchers for self improvement activities or meeting the family’s basic needs (medical, social service appointments, mental health appointments, etc)

No, ride-sharing services are predatory on a market with insufficient mass-transit and should not be enshrined.

No, I think public transportation is a much safer and better option and should be more accessible to everyone.

Major services should be funded but also regulated. I also think that this would be best for the suburbs, rather than a walkable city.

Yes, if it set up in way where the subsidization occurs on a ride to ride basis, so that the drivers themselves aren't being cheated out of earned income. For example, subsidization could occur in the form of a public transport style card that a low-income individual could charge the ride to. Additionally, there should be a safeguard in place to prevent the passengers from abusing the subsidization, such as: 1) Limiting the subsidization to a certain number of rides per month; 2) Subsidizing all rides under a certain distance; or 3) Subsidize rides by destination, so rides to employment, grocery stores and such can be subsidized but rides to casinos, sporting events, and such won't be subsidized.

No, but they could do that with mass transit options when they improve the public transit infrastructure

Yes, but only in instances where it makes more financial sense than investing in high-quality public transportation options.

The government should get a train system running and actual public transportation so we don't have this question.

This is more of an yes and no type of answer. Yes, because they should be more affordable for low-income parties. Yet, no because though Uber and Lyft is considered a "side hustle" sometimes people do it as a full-time job so if all companies lowered prices it would only help the occupant not the driver in this instance.

Yes and in the meanwhile, government should start a public transportation service like busses and trains. Just like many cities in the north or Europe

No, public transport should be improved instead if the populace needs to rely on these services in the first place.

Yes, but also increase public transportation funding and reduce the need for the day-to-day use of ride-sharing services.

I think the minimum wage should be increased for adults so they can live on their own without struggling for dear life

Yes, but only in the interim as accessible public transportation is made widely available to all individuals.

Yes, if they are using those ride-sharing services to fulfill essential needs such as work or getting groceries