Instead, the council wants to not only extract that 25-cent Uber tax you're paying on each ride now, but also want you, the taxpayer, to subsidize - guess who - Barwood cab, the Council's idea of cutting-edge transportation. Like in D.C., cab companies would handle paratransit services beyond what MetroAccess provides.
Term limits are gaining steam thanks to the Council's disregard for residents' concerns about development from Lyttonsville to Chevy Chase to Westbard. Unlike paratransit, there will be an app for that.
What a poorly written jumble of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteFirst, cab companies already pick up the slack when no MetroAccess vehicle is available. You're acting like this is some new action taken by the council.
Second, the 25-cent surcharge against Uber is because they don't provide transportation for disabled people so the county has to do it for them. Uber already knows that the fee against them goes away if they, themselves begin to provide rides to disabled people.
Third, the council believes taxis should remain the MetroAcess alternative because they're a licensed, trained and supervised fleet of vehicles. Alternatively, just about anyone can become in Uber driver in a couple of days after they rubber stamp you. It's perfectly reasonable for people to think putting our most needy citizens in the charge of random, unlicensed people is a bad idea that only opens the door to abuses.
Fourth, I have no idea what Uber and Lyft have to do with term limits and development, so I'll just chalk that up to poor writing.
Troll, much, 5:06? Way to allow racist comments on your site, Dyer.
ReplyDeleteI personally love Uber (never used Lyft; I assume it's great too). But a 25 cent/ride surcharge hardly constitutes a "crackdown." Seems pretty reasonable to me.
ReplyDelete@10:15 what councilmember office do you work at?
ReplyDelete