Uber Drivers Must Switch to EVs by 2030 - Ride-hailing service Uber says it will go fully-electric and phase out gas-burning cars by 2030.

By José Rodríguez Jr.
9/20/22 1:00PM

Uber is expanding its EV options to more cities across the U.S., and is setting a deadline for drivers to transition to electric cars by 2030. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi tells CBS that drivers who haven’t made the switch to an EV by then won’t be allowed back on its platform.

The latest expansion to Uber’s Comfort Electric service is a part of its goal to phase out gas-burning cars from its platform within the next few years. The Comfort Electric option is different from Uber Green in terms of vehicle eligibility; Uber Green includes hybrid and fully-electric models, but Comfort Electric requires drivers to operate fully-electric cars, exclusively.


Screenshot: Uber

It’s supposed to be a premium option, according to Car and Driver, providing rides in EVs from Tesla, Polestar and the Ford Mustang Mach-E. When Comfort Electric launched in May of 2022, it was available in select California cities and Dubai, but it’s now available throughout the U.S. and Canada in these cities:

Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore-Maryland, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Connecticut, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, NYC Suburbs, Philadelphia, Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St Louis, Vancouver (Canada), Washington D.C.

Now that Uber has expanded Comfort Electric and committed to phasing out gas-burning cars, multiple outlets say the ride-hailing service is transitioning to a fully-electric fleet, but that’s a misnomer; Uber doesn’t have a fleet.

If it did, that would mean Uber has employees to pilot its so-called fleet, but Uber doesn’t have employees. Uber hosts “users” on its platform, which connects people driving their own cars with people who need a ride.

That’s how Uber has evaded the responsibilities of a traditional employer, and, now, that’ll to apply to the “fleet’s” EV transition, too. Uber won’t foot the bill for drivers to switch from ICE-equipped cars to EVs; instead, it’ll be offering incentives to convince drivers to go electric, per CBS:

Uber is trying to slash its carbon footprint by incentivizing its drivers to switch to EVs.
But they are not cheap. Electric vehicles cost an average of $60,000. Uber plans to spend $800 million to help offset the cost for its drivers.
The company is also paying drivers a dollar for every EV trip they make and providing discounts on charging. Uber is partnering with Hertz to allow drivers to have the option of renting Teslas on a weekly or monthly basis.

At best, Uber will provide a Hertz rental for drivers to continue picking up fares after the 2030 EV deadline, and a few other incentives. Admittedly, these have made a difference, with one driver citing a $200 increase in fares per week.

But then again, the price of these Hertz EV rentals ranges from $299 to $334 per week, so what’s the net gain? What’s worse, with the price of EVs not going down any time soon, I wonder if the extra money Uber drivers make will ever actually be enough to afford the same EV they’ll depend on, and become just another business — sorry, personal expense.


Screenshot: Uber

Source (Archive)

 

[FamicomGorby]

I'd say it's bold of Uber assuming they'll still be around in seven years.

 

[mold]

does anybody know how come there is so little competition in this area? why are there are only 2 ridesharing apps?

 

[Too Many Catgirls]

The fact that so many "market forces" are demanding I get the type of vehicle that they want makes me want to go the opposite direction.

Maybe I'll get a F350.

 

[CircuSphere]

They can't tow worth a damn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nS0Fdayj8Y

They are not practical for anything but short commutes where you charge at home.

and that doesn't even get into the logistics of strip mining lithium and procuring all that copper and actually having energy in the grid to charge them.

Fuck you yuppie fuckers, you'll have to pry the stick-shift out of my cold dead hands or burry me in my V8!

 

[Matt Damon]

They are not practical for anything but short commutes where you charge at home.

Surely if it's good enough for carrying soyboys and their lattes on the commute from their studio apartment to their tech start-up office, it's good enough for anybody.

 

[drfuzzyballs]

Well the technology better improve seeing as they take hours to charge.

 

[named]

does anybody know how come there is so little competition in this area? why are there are only 2 ridesharing apps?

There are two main reasons.

The first is the "network effect;" essentially a bootstrapping problem. These "ride-sharing" applications require you to have a pool of non-employee drivers. Since they're non-employees, you can't hire them when you want; you need to be able to already provide them a pool of riders. One won't exist without the other.

The second is that they're money pits. If you want to get funding for these, you usually need to be able to spin a tale for your funders wherein you become a monopoly provider and can jack up prices at a later date. In the September 2021 quarter-end, for example, Uber reported that their "mobility group" (taxi services) made $544M on $10B gross for a 5% profit margin; and their other groups are still losing money. It's continually lost money on its operations, lost even more money on its investments, and is still in business only due to investor optimism.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

does anybody know how come there is so little competition in this area? why are there are only 2 ridesharing apps?

Regulatory capture. Technically, their service was illegal in a lot of areas with laws around cabs, and they just funneled tech investor capital into fighting the lawsuits until regulators caved and carved out spaces for them. Then they started shoring up those positions raising security fearmongering to destroy competitors by putting more controls and regulations in place that competitors would have to deal with.

Then combine that with the compounding network effect, and its just very hard to dive in without similar levels of massive investor and human capital, which leave you in the same situation as Uber, which is an excessively bloated middleman that can't survive without screwing both sides of the equation. A proper competitor would have to aim to be a lean, mean service with few staff and simple, clear functionality, to lure drivers and customers with better cuts and smaller fares from shrinking their take. But that's not investor appealing.

Edit: Ninja'd by submission lag, damnit

If it did, that would mean Uber has employees to pilot its so-called fleet, but Uber doesn’t have employees. Uber hosts “users” on its platform, which connects people driving their own cars with people who need a ride.

And this is why it will fail - The kinds of people running Ubers are not the kinds of people who have $70k to drop on an absurdly expensive EV. The smart ones who have capital to burn buy used, super economical simple cars and run them into the fucking ground. The dumb ones just ride personal vehicles for a bit of extra on the side. Anyone with an EV who's doing serious uber driving is profoundly retarded at some point in their decision tree to have gotten there.

 

[Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed]

They think people will roll with this, considering most of their drivers probably don’t make enough to just get an EV?

 

[named]

And this is why it will fail - The kinds of people running Ubers are not the kinds of people who have $70k to drop on an absurdly expensive EV. The smart ones who have capital to burn buy used, super economical simple cars and run them into the fucking ground. The dumb ones just ride personal vehicles for a bit of extra on the side. Anyone with an EV who's doing serious uber driving is profoundly retarded at some point in their decision tree to have gotten there.

The dumb ones lose money anyway. Driving for these companies is not really profitable if you don't know how to abuse tax deductions. Vehicle repairs and gas eat into your short-term profits and the average "employee" isn't properly budgeting for that.

I can manage to deal with the regulatory capture since they're hardly profitable to begin with, but I'm not happy with these companies screwing over the "employees."

I know a grand total of one person who isn't stupid and works in this sort of job; and it's only because he doesn't want a stable job in the first place.

They think people will roll with this, considering most of their drivers probably don’t make enough to just get an EV?

Uber has ties with another company (Partner Point) for financing, and is more than happy to help drivers shackle themselves to the company. Indentured servitude is profitable.

 

[Matt Damon]

They think people will roll with this, considering most of their drivers probably don’t make enough to just get an EV?

Nah, 2030 is still a long time away.

By announcing this, they make headlines and get accolades from all the fashionable eco-fags without actually having to do anything at all. Then they can quietly rescind the infeasible policy at any time.

 

[Standardized Profile]

Sounds like a great opportunity for Lyft.

 

[Just_Somebody]

Lmao okay sure.

Uber Drivers use their own cars to make a bit of extra money. Realistically, it's an African guy and his brother/cousin/whatever buying a working car within the 10 year maximum limit for Uber cars, and drive the thing to the ground.

Unless EVs become affordable, there's no way it'll work. Also lol at renting a car at $300 a week (not including whatever rental insurance) to drive for Uber. Holy fuck.

 

[Kramer on the phone]

does anybody know how come there is so little competition in this area? why are there are only 2 ridesharing apps?

literally cost, its exactly like youtube or a fuckload of other sites, its such a massive cost to run that only through a fuck load of seed money can they keep it viable, uber was absurdly awesome to use a decade ago, because they were subsidizing the fares even more than they do now. ridesharing should cost triple but if it did people wouldn't use it as much if at all.

and while you could launch your app, it would fail because it requires a lot of drivers in order for it to be viable, if you don't have the rides for people to share people will just use another service.

Nah, 2030 is still a long time away.

By announcing this, they make headlines and get accolades from all the fashionable eco-fags without actually having to do anything at all. Then they can quietly rescind the infeasible policy at any time.

exactly, its like REAL ID, we're on year 15 of delaying that process.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Imagine not only being in an uber, but getting burned to death as the car erupts into flames by slightly touching the curb

 

[The Tall Man]

REAL ID

Most people carry their smartphone everywhere they go.
The biggest parts of the Internet require your phone number to interact.
There is probably less than 0.01% of westerners that are outside this system.

Why have I not heard of more people getting turned into a cared corpse by their li-ion battery going up in flames while they are in their car?

 

[Megaton Punch]

"If you want to keep your fifteen dollar an hour job, you must first purchase a $50,000 EV. Or you can rent one! It's super affordable, trust me! Yes, we recently purchased a car rental service, why do you ask?"

 

[Kramer on the phone]

The biggest parts of the Internet require your phone number to interact.
There is probably less than 0.01% of westerners that are outside this system.

you clearly don't know many immigrants, most of them (which is roughly 10% of the western population) still live life like its the 90s/2000s.

these people still use the actual bank tellers over the ATM.

 

[The Tall Man]

you clearly don't know many immigrants, most of them (which is roughly 10% of the western population) still live life like its the 90s/2000s.

these people still use the actual bank tellers over the ATM.

reverse uno