Threat to ride-sharing at Sky Harbor (Phoenix: rental car, rental, home)

[veritased]

Originally Posted by mp775

Because the City has to pay to build and maintain the infrastructure to support all of those rideshare cars in and around the airport. And they do not "keep cars off the road," because in order to be available there have to be empty Ubers and Lyfts driving around all the time waiting for a ping. I don't know specifically about Sky Harbor, but traffic congestion around airport terminals in general has gotten astronomically worse with the advent of ridesharing.

1. tariffing passengers to/from the airport via ride-sharing service is NOT the only way to make revenue for the airport. There are many other ways, landing/takeoff fees, gate fees, taxes that actually are based on usage, not arbitrary slapping of taxes on any and all peripheral businesses. While you are at it, why not tariff everyone entering the airport via a toll-gate with a $5 charge... why just the ride-sharing services?

2. Maybe not in Phoenix yet, but in other busier cities, yes there is actual ride-sharing going on, reducing the amount of cars, and the more cars there are roaming around waiting for pings, doing true ride-sharing, the less we need to put our own cars on the road.

3. I don't notice terminal traffic being worse, due to ride-sharing, at all. In fact the opposite. At most airports, the ride-sharing is put outside the inner lanes of private pickup/dropoff. Hence there is less traffic at LAX, SFO, SJC than there used to be. Well, OK, LAX is still a disaster.

[More Rock]

Get rid of Lyft/Uber and SuperShuttle to the airport. A perfect plan to boost our economy.


What idiots.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by More Rock

Get rid of Lyft/Uber and SuperShuttle to the airport. A perfect plan to boost our economy.


What idiots.

There's no evidence that SuperShuttle's demise has anything to do with the new fees at Sky Harbor. SuperShuttle is going out of business everywhere. If anything, the success of Lyft and Uber has contributed to the death of SuperShuttle. With their artificially low fares, they were able to make private rides as cheap (for now) as the actual shared rides offered by SuperShuttle.

[Bates419]

I know little about this issue but last night I watched an airport official saying the point of this tariff was to fund the rail system while alleviating congestion by cars at the airport. They said there was no fee to drop off at rail area and ride the rail for free to terminal. That doesn't seem like a bad idea??

[mp775]

Originally Posted by veritased

1. tariffing passengers to/from the airport via ride-sharing service is NOT the only way to make revenue for the airport.

Of course it isn't, but it seems like the most appropriate way to raise revenue to improve the very infrastructure that TNCs rely on to provide their service.

2. Maybe not in Phoenix yet, but in other busier cities, yes there is actual ride-sharing going on, reducing the amount of cars, and the more cars there are roaming around waiting for pings, doing true ride-sharing, the less we need to put our own cars on the road.

It might reduce vehicle ownership and the need for parking, but it increases overall congestion and vehicle miles traveled.

3. I don't notice terminal traffic being worse, due to ride-sharing, at all. In fact the opposite. At most airports, the ride-sharing is put outside the inner lanes of private pickup/dropoff. Hence there is less traffic at LAX, SFO, SJC than there used to be. Well, OK, LAX is still a disaster.

In general, TNCs have increased traffic congestion at airports. Confining them to a separate lane is one way to tackle it, but if they have a dedicated lane then they should contribute to a dedicated revenue stream to maintain that lane.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Bates419

I know little about this issue but last night I watched an airport official saying the point of this tariff was to fund the rail system while alleviating congestion by cars at the airport. They said there was no fee to drop off at rail area and ride the rail for free to terminal. That doesn't seem like a bad idea??

It's a reduced fee for pickup and dropoff at the 44th St / Washington Sky Train station, but there's still a fee. Riding the Sky Train itself is free. I agree that it's a good idea to shift some traffic away from the terminal curb and to this facility at the edge of the airport. This option is viable mostly for those coming from points east of the airport right now; however, as part of the next phase of the Sky Train, there will be a second ground transportation center on the west side of the airport.

[veritased]

How can multiple riders, who would otherwise take one car apiece, sharing one car, increase congestion? Of course it cannot, that's exactly what it doesn't do. What sort of logic are you employing there? I agree in Phoenix where that option may not be *yet* used, then ride-sharing may not currently reduce traffic. But as more Uber/Lyft riders come online, then that option, which is popular in Bay area and LA, will be used here, too.

Perhaps you don't know this whole set of options exist, Uber-Pool for example I think it's called, because you haven't used Uber outside of AZ.

Re: "In general, TNCs have increased traffic congestion at airports. Confining them to a separate lane is one way to tackle it, but if they have a dedicated lane then they should contribute to a dedicated revenue stream to maintain that lane.":
Nope, there is no dedicated lane, just an area of the airport roadway that is used to push all that pickup/dropoff load away from the main terminal's conventional drive-ups. So it actually alleviates congestion big time, but Mayor Kate doesn't understand Econ 101, and wants to drive Uber/Lyft away and increase single passenger traffic back on to the main drive-up. I can't understand why you want ALL traffic to be lumped into one or two lanes, when it could be two disparate locations and more lanes.

Well, the next election is coming along, we'll see if people love their taxes or not.

[Valley Native]

https://indefenseofliberty.blog/2019...de-share-fees/

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ri...r-fee-increase

The debate is far from over on this matter. Uber & Lyft are threatening to abandon Sky Harbor, and an investigation by the Attorney General is pending. The Goldwater Institute is threatening legal action over this matter, claiming it violates the state Constitution & the will of the voters. I personally am not a fan of Uber & Lyft, and I realize the city is trying to push mass transit/rail availability, but hiking fees is not the way to do it. If Uber & Lyft actually make good on their threats, it will hurt business and limit people's transportation choices.

[Burkmere]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

https://indefenseofliberty.blog/2019...de-share-fees/

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ri...r-fee-increase

The debate is far from over on this matter. Uber & Lyft are threatening to abandon Sky Harbor, and an investigation by the Attorney General is pending. The Goldwater Institute is threatening legal action over this matter, claiming it violates the state Constitution & the will of the voters. I personally am not a fan of Uber & Lyft, and I realize the city is trying to push mass transit/rail availability, but hiking fees is not the way to do it. If Uber & Lyft actually make good on their threats, it will hurt business and limit people's transportation choices.

Yes, I would be extremely disappointed if Lyft and Uber actually did leave Sky Harbor. I suppose I could figure out how to use the Sky Train stop, but it would be more of a pain.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

Yes, I would be extremely disappointed if Lyft and Uber actually did leave Sky Harbor. I suppose I could figure out how to use the Sky Train stop, but it would be more of a pain.

I hate to admit defeat but I generally bill out travel so I’d just start using cabs again.

I dint really care about the surcharge. Is it annoying? Yeah. Still cheaper than leaving my car in the garage? Absolutely