These companies are arriving at an opportune time for cities, many of which are struggling just to fund existing transit service, much less expand it to meet the needs of growing numbers of urban commuters. Both Uber and Lyft tell The Verge that the past year has seen a surge in public officials interested in giving the companies taxpayer dollars for public transit contracts. For the companies, it’s an appealing new way to establish themselves as vital infrastructure, especially in low-density communities like Altamonte where running traditional mass transit can be expensive. Given the pace at which these partnerships are coming together, it’s possible to imagine ride-hail companies taking on the role of all-encompassing, smartphone-driven public transit providers, one town at a time.

But for some transit advocates, the embrace of Uber and its competitors risks undermining civic ideals of accessibility and transparency. In Altamonte, there are already signs that these concerns could be warranted. The pilot program is unusable for people without a smartphone or credit card, and the company attempted to have the city sign an unusually far-reaching nondisclosure agreement.

Ultimately, critics worry that if these programs succeed, they could pluck the affluent commuters who wield real political influence off trains and busses, leading to a crisis of declining ridership and decreasing clout for traditional public transportation.

Uber has so far been pitching itself as a supplement to existing transit programs rather than a replacement. But in June of last year, for the company’s five-year anniversary, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick envisioned a future where increasing efficiency would make Uber cost-competitive not just with owning a car, but with traditional mass transit. When drivers drop off a customer only to pick up another, chained together in a "perpetual trip," Kalanick said, "not only is it much less expensive than taking a cab or owning a car, it has the potential to be as affordable as taking a subway, or a bus, or other means of transportation. And that’s what we believe is the real game-changer. Those are the things we’ll be working on in years to come."

Eoin Treacy's view

Uber and to a much lesser extent Lyft are increasingly ubiquitous. More than a few people I know make use of Uber for their teenagers’ school run rather than buy them a car. Many airports allow pickups and many business travellers no longer rent cars. Ride sharing/hailing apps are comparatively cheap, quick and easy to use provided of course you have a smartphone and a credit card. 

In a free market Uber or some other hackney service would take over from low volume public transport, but of course we do not have a free market in transportation. Unions dominate the provision of transportation whether rail or bus and they jealously protect their interests. The entitled status quo is fighting a tough rear guard action to ensure ride sharing, and indeed short-term letting services like Airbnb, are curtailed and regulated. This is slowing the penetration of these services but is unlikely to derail the trend. 

This also helps to explain why Uber is so eager to pioneer autonomous vehicles. Drivers are its largest overhead and represent the greatest inhibition to providing a truly successful first/last mile service. Additionally by doing away with drivers it would elegantly sidestep many of the labour arguments being used to counter the service’s growth. 

This is a sector we are certain to hear more about over the coming years. It represents just one more example of how technological innovation is enormously disruptive and its exponential growth ensures the pace of change is challenging to keep up with.