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
Voting for candidate
Response rates from 800 Lucan North voters.
71% Yes |
29% No |
71% Yes |
29% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 800 Lucan North voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 800 Lucan North voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Lucan North voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9ZQQHRH4 days4D
No but public transport infrastructure should be improved to make the country more accessible for low income individuals
@9ZLQVZH1wk1W
No, but the Government should subsidise public-trandport services for low-income individuals instead.
@9ZKGZPR2wks2W
The government should be taxing massive corporations who do the most polluting instead of transferring the cost of climate change to ordinary working people
@9ZK46BJ2wks2W
I believe this is a good idea but I don’t think it is worth the risk as it opens the door to many crimes such as theft, murder or kidnapping
@9ZJTRVR2wks2W
No, invest in public transport infrastructure instead
@9ZJJPPJ2wks2W
what is classed as low income how is it going to be monitored
@9ZJ6W6D2wks2W
No, the government should focus on expanding public transport options to facilitate travel
@9ZJ6GGF2wks2W
no, increase funding for public transportation instead, and reform public transport in general
Join in on the most popular conversations.
