TODAY IN OBVIOUS DISCOVERIES.

Why would people who own an automobile give it up to share one with others?

Short answer: they don't.

Bloomberg’s Joshua Brustein recently reported that Lyft and its ilk haven’t put a dent car in ownership because Americans see ride-share mostly as an occasional alternative to their everyday private vehicle. Drivers tend to call an Uber to avoid driving home rom a boozy dinner, or if they don’t want to fight to find parking in a busy downtown area — but when it comes to their daily commute, they don’t give up their cars.

As for people who don’t have a car, ride-share is often responsible for putting them in one. “[Mobility companies] attract people who weren’t driving anyway,” Brustein said. “When Uber and Lyft riders are asked in surveys how they would have completed a particular trip had ride-hailing not been available, they’re most likely to say they would have taken public transportation, walked, or stayed home.”

Put another way, the existence of a latter-day jitney offering service at a lower fare than that of the state-sanctioned taxi service is going to induce people to make trips they might otherwise have not made, or use the jitney rather than the trolley, er, bus.  That sounds like an increase in individual well-being.  I wish environmental advocates would understand that people will do what they perceive to be in their best interest in the absence of strong incentives to do otherwise.  Consider this from the self-styled Union of Concerned Scientists.  ("Concerned" is a weasel word.  It is usually the leper's bell of an approaching mystic of muscle.)

Our analysis shows that ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace.

Fortunately, the industry can implement several strategies to address the negative impacts of ride-hailing and contribute to a low-carbon transportation future. It must move rapidly to electrify vehicles, increase pooled trips, and complement mass transit. Governments can support those efforts with smart policies that reduce pollution and support efficient, equitable transportation systems. And individuals can make informed choices among transportation options to reduce congestion and pollution, and encourage companies to offer cleaner options.

Two gripes: first, a trip that doesn't take place likely doesn't produce much climate pollution; second, note the Technocratic Impulse present in that list of policies and choices.  The Streetsblog post I started with is similarly vague on What Comes Next.  "If we want to save lives, the planet, our transit system and our sanity, we should recognize U.S. rideshare companies for what they are: just another way to super-charge car culture. Then we should talk seriously about how we can break that culture — and it won’t be as simple as swiping for a ride."

Perhaps, after they've tried everything else, they'll recognize that the government gets more of whatever it subsidizes, including car culture, and they'll think about incentives that work.