Ride-sharing services, like Uber and Lyft, provide transportation options that can be subsidized to make them more affordable for low-income individuals. Proponents argue that it increases mobility for low-income individuals, reduces reliance on personal vehicles, and can reduce traffic congestion. Opponents argue that it is a misuse of public funds, may benefit ride-sharing companies more than individuals, and could discourage public transportation use.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Political party
State
Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.3k Australia voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 1.3k Australia voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Australia voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@BDPHSSP4wks4W
@BDPFXTQ4wks4W
@BD2FTK62mos2MO
@BC8PTNG3mos3MO
@BBZLQBT3mos3MO
No. Increase road infrastructure and public transportation modes (build more train lines, increase bus and train routes). For mobility limited people, create zoned bus shuttle services that can pick up and drop off passengers to and from their homes and into the bus/train interchange, and make shuttle services available (have multiple timed runs everyday). Create a registry for passengers to register. Shuttle service may be free, or government subsidised (provide ID's or transport passes for these individuals).
@BBXGKX23mos3MO
@B7F57CF9mos9MO
@B3RF2P51yr1Y
Join in on the most popular conversations.
Based on 1.3k responses to this question.
These results come from iSideWith's ongoing political issues survey. We collect over a million responses per day, filter out duplicate and multiple submissions, and break the results down by political party, ideology, age, state, and census demographics (income, race, education, household).
iSideWith is non-partisan — we don't advocate for any party, candidate, or position. We report what the public tells us.
Writing about this issue? Use the live data and link back to the full results.
