Will Lyft and Uber's Shared-Ride Service Hurt Public Transit?

An anonymous reader writes Lyft and Uber have already undercut the price of a taxi in most markets, but with this new service, both are now taking aim at public transit systems. By attempting to offer a viable alternative to the bus and metro, Lyft and Uber are offering new options to consumers in a space where few existed before. As Timothy Lee writes at Vox, "Until recently, there weren't many services in this 'in between' category. If you were going to the airport, you could get a shared-ride van. And some urban areas had dollar vans. But these were limited services in niche markets." If you're traveling with multiple people over short distances, Lyft Line and UberPool can be quite affordable, but it's still not cheap enough.

Comments

No.

[xevioso]

It will not. It's much cheaper to take public transportation in most cities; the only time it would make sense would be on longer trips, because you are saving alot of time by taking Lyft or Uber, but you sure the hell aren't saving money.

And it's much easier to find a cab in San Francisco nowadays, not only because they are having to compete with rideshares, but they actually will notice you now when you wave a hand. So why not take a cab instead of Uber and Lyft?

Re:No.

[duck_rifted]

Time is a factor. If you're running late, and the choice is thirty bucks for a cab, five bucks for Uber or Lyft, or two bucks and an hour wait, you're going to call Uber or Lyft. Only the largest cities have half-decent public transportation. In the area where I life, more than half the city has no service from public transportation because the upper middle class and wealthy politicians are afraid it would bring undesirables to their neighborhoods.

But this just shows that comparing these services the way that the article has is an ill-formed inquiry. Asking the question around leads to so many other factors to consider that we can only answer, "It depends."

None of the circumstances where the new services are preferable are enough to kill public transportation.

Re:No.

[mythosaz]

It will not.

Or, yes, it will, or might. If we're speculating.

How about, "If Taxis were better and cheaper, would more people use them over public transportation?" That seems obvious.

There are already people in, say, New York who take some trips by Taxi and some trips by subway/bus. Let's call it a 50-50 split. If Taxis got cheaper and more convenient for them (a la Uber and Lyft), it might become a 60-40 split. Fewer people, immediately, on public transportation - although it might rebound.

It's certainly less impactful in, say, LA, where people either (a) always drive, or (b) always take public transportation, because they can't afford to drive. Taxis in LA are for people going to clubs or to airports, and Uber and Lyft just cut into the taxi market, not the bus market. Some people, not as many as in NYC, might reach the bus-to-Uber tipping point there too, but I doubt it'd be as drastic.

Re:No.

[rolfwind]

It will not. It's much cheaper to take public transportation in most cities; the only time it would make sense would be on longer trips, because you are saving alot of time by taking Lyft or Uber, but you sure the hell aren't saving money.

I think it will hurt because people will always pay a reasonable convenience fee. Oh, you're right on steady customers of public fare that take public transit daily. But there's all those people taking special trips and the like.

When I was a college student, I had no car, and a 7 minute car ride to the grocery store, 20 mins and checkout, and 7 minute ride back turned into a 1h30m to 2hr15m with the bus depending on time of day. Would I have taken lyft or uber over the bus for a few bucks? Hell yes. It's not as if the bus ride allowed me to study, it was too short for that, 15 mins at most, it was the waiting at a stop not really conducive to study.

But why is this phrased on /. that it be a problem if the answer is yes? Competition is a good thing. And even government monopolies shouldn't be protected forever.

Re:No.

[CRCulver]

Competition is a good thing. And even government monopolies shouldn't be protected forever.

Completely private industries have the possibility to keep their prices low for long enough to seriously threaten public transportation expansion plans or even existing infrastructure, and then raise their prices as soon as they no longer have to compete. In some cities, public transportation is answerable enough to the electorate that fare increases can be prevented.

Re:No.

[Noah Haders]

Lyft and Uber have separate insurance to cover passengers. There is a $1 ride fee on each ride for this. Also I have health insurance that covers me regardless.

Re: No.

[andymadigan]

Ride sharing services in California are regulated, legal, and required to carry insurance. Uber and Lyft both carry insurance in CA.

Re:No.

[ILongForDarkness]

Yes and public transit is tax deductible in a lot of places. It is actually good for regulating somewhat sane hours as in "sorry got to go my train leaves in 10 min". Otherwise I find "flex time" becomes the dude that didn't show up at the office till 10:30am hitting my desk at 5pm for a design review and tying me up for 1-2hrs of unplanned OT.

Re:No.

[demonlapin]

Don't know about Lyft (never used them), but if you're not a cheap bastard you can use Uber's Taxi, Black, or SUV service to avoid this particular problem. I used the hell out of Uber on a vacation to SF and never once thought about UberX. Black cost maybe 10-15% more than a taxi and delivered a much better experience. Their flat-rate service to SFO in a livery car cost the same as the yellow taxi I took into town, and it was a hell of a lot more comfortable.

Re:No.

[Dahamma]

you are saving alot of time by taking Lyft or Uber, but you sure the hell aren't saving money.

Depends on who you are and where you are going. As they say, time is money. If saving 30 minutes on a bus is worth $50 in productivity you are in fact saving money.

Re: No.

[Dahamma]

In the US, at least, Uber has a commercial rideshare insurance policy that is primary and covers $1M per incident.

https://support.uber.com/hc/en...

Likely true in any other country that has similar liability regulations for taxis and rideshares. So, you are basically totally incorrect.

Re: No.

[An0nymous Coward]

This actually says in plain English that only the higher tiers have proper commercial insurance. The usual service drivers must be "insured" with basic third-party liability, which does NOT insure anyone against illegally accepting money for rides. This is not commercial insurance and would cover nothing if you're charging money for rides, and would more likely just result in a big fine for the driver.

Re:No.

[kwbauer]

IOW, taxis are now a good option because they have competition from Lyft and Uber so Lyft and Uber can go away because they serve no purpose that taxis don't already fulfill?

How about that they are forcing taxis to offer decent customer service because they have competition.

Re: No.

[Dahamma]

No, that's completely untrue. In fact it says in plain English that UberX is not only covered, but is PRIMARY (i.e. comes before the personal insurance). The only limitation to it is that doesn't cover accidents the driver gets into when they do not have a scheduled fare. And since the OP was talking about fares being injured, that makes that part irrelevant.

"If you’re taking a ride requested through uberX, some transportation providers are rideshare drivers providing transportation with their personal vehicles. Rideshare providers carry personal insurance policies. However, there’s a commercial insurance policy for ridesharing with $1 million of coverage per incident. This policy covers drivers’ liability from the time a driver accepts your trip request through the app until the completion of your trip. This policy is expressly primary to the driver’s personal auto policy."

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know when either of these can get me from the Chicago Surbs to Downtown Chicago (45 miles) for under $10.

Or from the far north part of the city to the south part (25-30 miles) with 4 lights per mile for $2.50

Re:No

[Locando]

I love how this is written as if the point behind it is self-evident. Believe it or not, transit advocates already know that transit is highly subsidized.

Needs to be an open protocol.

[Kaz Kylheku]

Ride sharing minus the Lyfts and Ubers of this world. Preferrably something decentralized with many nodes, whereby anyone can join the network.

Wrong Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The only question that matters: Will they improve transportation?

Competition is a bitch; a government never likes it.

Re:Wrong Question

[fustakrakich]

Competition is a bitch; a government never likes it.

Yeah, we noticed, when they give monopoly franchise contracts to their business associates in energy and communications, and family. We need open markets, but we need public oversight. We are supposed to use the government for that purpose.

Re:Wrong Question

[stephanruby]

Competition is a bitch; a government never likes it.

It isn't even competition in this case. Cabs and "ride sharing" augment the capabilities of public transportation. They do not subtract from it. Most people do not live right next to a convenient hub of public transportation. You often need to drive there, or have someone drive you to it. Also for the very few customers that "ride sharing" might actually take away from public transportation, it's a drop in the ocean. "Ride Sharing" simply can't scale like Public Transportation can.

Re:Wrong Question

[Locando]

So who built the roads that the private cab services drive on...? Or the investment structure and the force of law behind the contract enforcement that allows for the existence of these corporations in the first place?

While we're at it, what empirical data do you have to show that increased competition between private parties results in improved transportation services? Are the outcomes in such cases demonstrably superior to those generated when government runs the services or grants monopolies to run them?

It's only worth it

[rsilvergun]

if you can afford it. I don't know anyone who takes public transportation if they don't have to. A drive that takes me 30 minutes by Car used to take a legally blind buddy of mine 90. Try spending 3 hours a day on a smelly bus with cheap, uncomfortable seats. Find when you're a teenager, not so much when you're 30.

With the Cost of Cars going up and up and becoming unattainable for many I'd like to see a real talk about public transportation. I'd also like to see Monkeys and Unicorns shoot out of Cowboy Neal's butt. I'm thinking the latter is for likely than the former...

Re:It's only worth it

[jonwil]

Not all cities have crappy public transport. My city (Brisbane, Australia) has excellent public transport if you live in the right area (to be fair, there are areas with lousy public transport but some of that is due to some political stuff and lack of resources rather than a genuine intent not to provide service to the area. (i.e. service would be better if the resources were there)

Re:It's only worth it

[mysidia]

Some cities have quite nice and convenient public transit, and it can be even better if you live and work in the right places.

Yes, and they're all outside the United States. :-)

Re:It's only worth it

[Harlequin80]

Not to mention that Brisbane keeps investing in public transport (as well as standard vehicle infrastructure) Assuming it gets built the BAT project (underground Bus And Train) will fix a fair number of the current public transport black spots around Brisbane.

Re:It's only worth it

[ILongForDarkness]

I'm the same. I could save maybe 30 min of my 1.5hr commute. But I'd be stuck paying roughly $15-20 a day more and not be able to read and watch tv along the way. Essentially that 30min savings is costing 1hr of down time each way + $100 a week.

Re:It's only worth it

[jonwil]

Brisbane proper does well. Whats missing is more resources devoted to better service levels in areas like the northern gold coast, suburbs like Ormeau, Coomera, Pimpama, Pacific Pines, Oxenford etc.

I have family who live in the area (Upper Coomera near the Masters Hardware and Woolies and stuff) and the last bus through that area leaves Coomera Station at 5:07 or Ormeau Station at 6:01, totally useless for anyone wanting to commute to Brisbane. Weekends get even less service.

Re:It's only worth it

[tepples]

Then look up some other countries' work visa requirements.

Re:It's only worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

Find when you're a teenager, not so much when you're 30.

So much this. I took the bus for many years as a poor student, and then a few years as a decently paid developer. When I finally bought a car (due to a bus strike) my commute went from an hour and a half both ways to _25 minutes_ both ways! That adds up to a substantial amount of extra time.

This is not an exaggeration. Our system here (Halifax, NS, Canada if anyone is curious) sucks for several reasons:

- The routes are really poorly thought out, very few people can take just one bus.
- The timings are such so you are always arriving right as your next bus is leaving.
- The city roads are a mess as we kinda grew from horse and buggy. This means the bus pulling in and out of stops actually adds a fair bit of time to the journey.
- they've also been cutting back on the number of runs, which in addition to longer wait times means every bus is more crowded, which means every stop it takes people longer to get to the doors, which means the route is even slower.

When you factor in the time spent waiting for the bus (twice per trip in my case), and the time spent literally backtracking because they try to get every little side street and ally they can, it adds up to a ridiculous amount of time.

And that's not even considering the shitty experience of actually being on the bus itself.

After about 4 years of owning a car, I'll be damned if I ever go back to that again.

Re:It's only worth it

[wisnoskij]

This. It all depends. In a busy city with a great subway system public transit can be several times faster than if you owned a car, and less than 1% of the cost.

Re:It's only worth it

[mister_playboy]

I have read that half of the USA's total daily public transportation ridership is found in a single city... New York City

This one factoid portrays our public transport situation very well...

Re:It's only worth it

[robbiedo]

Portland is in the US.

Re:It's only worth it

[Aighearach]

Good point! So is San Francisco.

Re:It's only worth it

[demonlapin]

So you spend money on a service that you don't require, that takes longer than the private transportation you already own, and you do it in all weather conditions? Do that in Houston in July or Minneapolis in February and tell me how you feel about it.

Re:It's only worth it

[Dahamma]

And SF public transportation sucks ass. Your point?

Re:It's only worth it

[Locando]

Sounds like someone's stuck riding the N-Judah! (Or the 38, or the 30, or...)

Re: It's only worth it

[radl33t]

I do in Minneapolis, year round. Not a big deal.

Re:It's only worth it

[serviscope_minor]

I have read that half of the USA's total daily public transportation ridership is found in a single city...

New York City This one factoid portrays our public transport situation very well...

Without context that fact is not worth much. I imagine it's a higher proportion in the UK, and 100% in Singapore.

Re:It's only worth it

[robbyb20]

Are they being used incorrectly?

Re:It's only worth it

[nabsltd]

With the Cost of Cars going up and up and becoming unattainable for many

I don't know if the price of a car is really a factor compared to previous years.

Today, about $14K will get you a new car that works fine for the daily commute. And, although you could have gotten a similar "entry-level" car in 2000 for the the same price adjusted for inflation (about $10K), that car would have a lot fewer standard features than today's cars. And, $10K in pay at the minimum wage rate in 2000 would be $14K today.

Re:It's only worth it

[Slashdot Parent]

I don't know anyone who takes public transportation if they don't have to.

It really depends on the individual situation.

For me, I live near a suburban train station and my office is near a downtown station on the same line. My commute is about 5 minutes shorter if I drive, but traffic can be frustrating in the city. On the train, I can relax and read and let someone else do the driving. So while I can perfectly well afford to commute by car, I typically take the train because it's less stressful.

If I truly had to spend 3 hours on a smelly bus, then you'd be right, there is no way in hell that I would tolerate that shit at my age. All I'm saying is that if the public transport option is reasonably pleasant, people will use it even if they can afford to drive.

Re:It's only worth it

[neilo_1701D]

Some cities have quite nice and convenient public transit, and it can be even better if you live and work in the right places.

Yes, and they're all outside the United States. :-)

Really? I live in NJ, and work in Manhattan. My monthly PATH card costs $89; that $4.45/day, and my monthly MTA MetroCard costs $112; that's $5.60/day. I've a 5 minute walk to the PATH each day ad a 5 minute walk from the subway to my office. So for $5.02 a trip, I get from home to work on the (mostly) reliable PATH and the (somewhat more reliable) NY subway in an average time of 20 min (best is 15 min; worst was an hour).

The PATH is almost always clean (if a little packed in the mornings); the subway is the E line, which originates at WTC so the cars are cleaned and not so packed.

All in all, for my daily trip cost it's a pretty good service.

The alternatives are a taxi (good luck with getting one to cross from NJ to NY or the other way) or a car service. The times I've had to use a car service it was a $50 "mate's rates" fare one way, and took 30-40 min, thanks to the traffic in the Holland tunnel.

However, if there's an Uber or Lyft service that offers a one-way service from NJ to NY, can get me there in 15 minutes or less and costs less than five bucks, I'm game to try.

Re:It's only worth it

[itsenrique]

I believe they are called [parenthesis]

Re:It's only worth it

[blue9steel]

Although Portland's public transit is much better than many other US Cities, frankly it still sucks for most purposes.

Re:It's only worth it

[ganjadude]

I went to Munich back in 2008 and was shocked at how great the public transit system is (coming from someone who has used the NYC system quite often) and i realized within a day that we are decades behind munich when it comes to public transport.

having said that, most places in america are not cities that lend to public transit systems to begin with. Im 20 miles from work and most of it is small towns and farmland, it wouldnt make any sense to have a light rail. we have a bus system but the busses dont go anywhere I need them, and frankly I hate taking busses id rather drive

being in the hudson valley however, it is very nice to hop on amtrak take it into grand central or penn for 20 bucks round trip give or take instead of driving which wont save you time (bridges and tunnels always full) pay more in gas and tolls, add in parking and its not worth driving into NYC these days.

Re:It's only worth it

[demonlapin]

I'm not stuck on anything. My commute is five minutes if all the lights are green and eight if they're all red.

Re:It's only worth it

[TheCastro1689]

DC is number a close number two. There isn't much Public Transit in the US.

Re:It's only worth it

[ottothecow]

It is ok, the complainers don't live somewhere where the trains have wide ranging routes and service that can be faster than driving. In those cities, I don't know that a shared ride service is a threat.

Here in Chicago, you pay a premium to live near a CTA line in the city (or a metra stop in the suburbs). Living near one means you don't have to have a car (or maybe your family can only have one car since you don't need to make separate commutes). When people look at jobs or new homes, they factor in access to public transit so they don't get stuck in situations where people say "oh, I could take the bus, but I would have to transfer twice and it takes 3 hours". I have the option to take 4 different routes to work: Motorcycle, Bus, Bicycle, Train. I live a short walk from the train and right next to an entrance to Lake Shore Drive (basically a highway straight to downtown) so I can take an express bus that gets on the highway and skips stopping in the middle.

The difference between this is mostly a tossup. The motorcycle is faster in the summer unless traffic is randomly bad, in which case it is slow (and once school starts in the fall, I think a lot more parents start driving again and traffic gets worse). I am able to sneakily park the motorcycle for free, but I would be paying $235 a month to park a car. The express bus involves very little walking and I always have a seat and can read, but it is subject to the whims of traffic and since it does make some stops, it will never be faster than the motorcycle. The bicycle is quick...I am a fast rider, but I can probably beat the bus unless there is zero traffic (and we have showers at work, so I just leave earlier and shower in the office instead of at home). The train requires a bit more walking on either end, and I usually don't get a seat in the morning, but it is consistent rain or shine since it is not subject to the whims of traffic, and it takes about the same time as the bus on a low-traffic day.

Where does an uber car pool fit into this? I occasionally take a normal taxi or uber/lyft if I am running late (or if the motorcycle isn't working) since by the time I am "late", traffic has lightened up. But if it were some alternative car pool scheme where they had to drop off extra riders, I don't see the advantage over the bus or train. The public transit options are already almost as fast as driving through traffic. If you add in the time to drop somebody else off or wait for a pickup...you aren't gaining anything. The fact that a regular Uber X/Lyft is significantl cheaper than a taxi (which I understand is not the case in NYC), does mean that I sometimes use transit less, it doesn't replace the 2x a day I use it for the commute.

I can see it hurting the crappy public transit systems in smaller cities where they have mostly been relegated to the poor...but maybe at that point it is really becoming purely competition for the local public transit. If the local public transit makes you transfer between two buses that only come twice an hour, and this can get you an "app-delivered" car pool in 10 minutes (and then skip the transfer)...then maybe these things deserve to win (or at least kick the local transit into action).

Re:It's only worth it

[TheCastro1689]

Exactly, I imagine someone with a large vehicle like a suburban would be able to pull this off. $5.00, 6 people, makes about $30 each trip, hopefully shuttles people out or has some sort of rounds they can do and bam, they're making between $30-$60 an hour. Or like myself I drive to work, roughly 45min. I've carpooled with friends before, but I could easily do it with strangers if I was making somewhere around $5-$15 each way that would more than pay for gas.

Re:It's only worth it

[OutOnARock]

.....and as my name implies, Honolulu has an awesome public bus system.....

....now if we get the HART train system actually up and running, then we'll really have something...

Re:It's only worth it

[OutOnARock]

sorry to reply to my own, but "as the name implies where I live,"....need more coffee..its only 8:30a in paradise

Re:It's only worth it

[Honclfibr]

Your definition of close is questionable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

Re: It's only worth it

[AvitarX]

I think it's a personality thing (train vs drive).

I was in long island for a while, and had a 90 minute door to door commute (working in manhatten). I hated it. A couple times I needed my truck in the city and drove, it was two hours each way, but I arrived feeling much better, and having had a much nicer experiance. This is even though you can drink on the lirr.

Re:It's only worth it

[__Paul__]

if you can afford it. I don't know anyone who takes public transportation if they don't have to. A drive that takes me 30 minutes by Car used to take a legally blind buddy of mine 90. Try spending 3 hours a day on a smelly bus with cheap, uncomfortable seats.

Hi. Nice to meet you. I'm the person who will always take public transport in preference to a taxi, despite the fact that I can easily afford the taxi.

I don't care how much money I have, $15 for a trip from the centre of Melbourne to my inner city suburb is a complete rip-off.

Re:It's only worth it

[nobodie]

You are living in the past. Here in Tampa, public transit, that is buses, is growing faster than uber and lyft. (Disclaimer, my wife drove for Lyft until a couple of weeks ago, when she just got sick of the low return on time and our investment in a nice car). I was talking to a driver on the #6 route last week (my morning ride of 45-50 minutes door to desk) and he said they just hired 27 new drivers for route expansion and retirement replacement. Mostly expansion according to him. He has 30 years in as a driver and plans to stay on, the custoimers are getting nicer he says.

If I was driving, on the highway, it would take about 35 minutes from door to desk, so it costs me an extra 10-15 minutes to take the bus. Even at twice the loss consider this:
Bus cost: $.50 (50 cents) one way= $1.00 a day
Gas cost: 20 miles one way, 40 round trip, say $5.00 a day
Parking cost: $250.00 a year, say $1.00 a day minimum if I take no vacations
Cost of maintenance or carpayments for that second car (as it is we only keep one car because I don't need it to drive to work) as well as taxes and insurance.

OK, now think about this: instead of two crappy cars on my crappy salary we have a 2014 Chevy Volt, spend less than $100.00 a month on gas, $0 on maintenance, and have an nice, awesome ride. We are looking at trading up to a Tesla S when they come off of lease and we can get them about half price.
How could I do that if I was wasting my money on a second car?

More and more people can and should run this kind of simple cost/benefit analysis and realize that their lifestyle could be better just by making better choices. When I talk about this at work everyone has excuses, but the reality is that people are starting to move to my neighborhood because it has awesome bus service. the value of my house has gone up 45% in the last three years because it is close to downtown and has 5 different bus lines running on 15-20 minute schedules within 3 blocks of my front door.

So, your description of the bus is wrong, I know cause I ride it every day, dressed for my office and my classrooms and I fit in just fine.

Re:It's only worth it

[Aighearach]

I lived in SF, without a car. The public transit was really super awesome. If by "SF" you're thinking "Bay Area" it may or may not suck. I heard such rumors, but I didn't leave the City. In the actual place called "SF" the public transit is cheap, plentiful, and safe. Lots of nerds with laptops. Presumably they've slimmed down to tablets by now.

My favorite part was that they just run the routes in circles as fast as they can, and instead of coming at a scheduled time it comes every n minutes. So on my street there was a bus every 20 minutes, and if traffic was light, they'd actually come faster. Normal scheduling, instead of coming more often when they can, they just park somewhere for a long time and make everybody wait, including people already on the bus. Just the waiting at "time points" can be a significant part of the total trip time on long multi-bus trips in other towns.

Also, their light rail is really great. People think of the BART but that is for East Bay people to get to or from the City. The MUNI light rail in SF is extensive, runs fast, has modern trains, and is the same price as a bus; and transfer-compatible with a bus. So you don't have to pay extra or pay twice to get across town.

I lived way down on the south side of Twin Peaks, almost to the south edge of town, and I could downtown or to lower Haight/GG in 20 minutes. Even at 3am there was a "night owl" bus.

Portland has cleaner buses, but they're more expensive and run less often than SF. And they have better trains to the `burbs, but less trains in town. So overall SF and Portland have equal quality systems IMO, with different strongest areas.

My much smaller town has awful transit, with expensive buses that don't go very many places very often, and still lots of waiting for transfers.

Re:It's only worth it

[Stuarticus]

Parentheses

I use Uber over public transit

[Hadlock]

Parked my car a year ago and I ride my bike to work most days. There's a bus stop less than 200 feet from my house. If it rains or gets below 40F (it's Texas, only gets that cold maybe 3 weeks a year) I take an Uber. Since I live 3.2 miles from downtown it costs between $6.43 and as much as $8. A single bus ticket costs $2.50, drops me off six blocks from my office, and runs on their schedule, and is frequently late. For $3 more I get dropped off in front of my office, they pick me up on my schedule, I get a real seat belt, appropriate heating/A/C, listen to NPR, nobody asking for money or sitting next to someone not having showered for a week etc etc. I usually take the bus home for $2.50 as I have more time in the afternoons to wait for a bus.
 
Parking downtown costs $5 for the bad lot four blocks from my office, $7 for a semi private parking garage. That's $100-$150/mo to rent an 8x10' piece of ground.
 
There's a very slight premium for using uber, but compared to paying for car insurance, maintenance, gas + the hassle of driving myself around, Uber is a fucking deal. In my very very corner case. That $1.50 a day premium is a really nice premium that really improves my morning, for those days that I need a car to get to work.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[Anonymous Coward]

subtract uber, and your public transit rides take a car off the road... that's the main reason public transit exists, to reduce traffic at a reasonable fare. uber doesn't do that.. it costs more and keeps the car on the road.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I thought it was used to get people who couldn't afford private transport to where they needed to be. But what would I know, I don't own a car anyway. Let's also ignore the fact that more than one person will use an Uber car in one day, removing more than just one car from the road. Let's also ignore the jobs they're providing, because the bus and taxi unions sure do.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[MacTO]

Services like Uber, Lyft, and taxies woud end up increasing road usage since drivers have to drive to pick up their fare. The only infrastructure they reduce the demand for are parking lots.

Besides, public transit has not been for "people who couldn't afford private transport" for a very long time. At least that is the case in major urban centres, where people will gladly accepted a higher cost of living simply to ditch the car.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[mvdwege]

For $3 more I get dropped off in front of my office, they pick me up on my schedule, I get a real seat belt, appropriate heating/A/C, listen to NPR, nobody asking for money or sitting next to someone not having showered for a week etc etc.

Oh yes, God forbid you little princesses should ever see the masses up close

Just remember what happened to Marie-Antoinette.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[phantomfive]

Funny, I thought it was used to get people who couldn't afford private transport to where they needed to be

Funny story about that, several years ago there was a survey in Los Angeles about public transportation. A full 75% of people said they wanted it, but then less than 20% said they would use it.

What they really wanted was public transportation for other people, so the roads would be clear.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[Hadlock]

There was a HUGE pushback against the Dallas DART light rail in the mid-90's when it was announced, however initial turnout was 50% higher than even the best expectations and they accelerated plans for the subway portion through uptown to the suburbs. Nowadays there's 4 or 5 lines, one even connects with the major international DFW airport. The station by my office has a train leaving every 1-2 minutes during peak rush hour, completely packed for the suburbs. I am the only person in my office that doesn't take the train (because I bicycle in).
 
People fucking hate riding the bus, but they love the train, for whatever reason. Maybe because they're bigger inside and you can walk around. And the route/stops never change. Now DFW boasts 96+ miles of commuter focused light rail, with another 20+ miles coming over the next decade (compare to 650 miles for NYC). That does take quite a few cars off the road. I would guesstimate our office takes about 800 cars off the road every day using rail.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[swb]

I think "increases road usage" doesn't make sense.

If 10 people decide to take Uber instead of driving, that's 9 less cars that use the road at all. You can't make any statement about total miles driven without know where those 10 people start and end their trip.

Uber could reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars that need to use the road at the same time.

The way to think about UberX is that economically, a car is physical capital that is underutilized. It gets driven to work, parked and does no useful work until it is driven home. Uber lets people maximize the utility of the capital.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[Slashdot Parent]

People fucking hate riding the bus, but they love the train, for whatever reason.

I ride the train, so I can fill in the "whatever" for you:

1. The train doesn't have any traffic lights and it doesn't get stuck in traffic.
2. The train doesn't stop every 500-1000 ft.
3. The train comes every 3-5 minutes instead of every 15-20 minutes for the bus.
4. The train doesn't get jam-packed like sardines because it's way bigger than a bus and it comes more often.
5. The train stations are often enclosed in some way, so you don't have to wait for the train in the rain/cold/wind/snow/etc. (e.g. the train station by my house is outdoors, but it is covered and protected somewhat from the wind)

Of course, if the weather is truly shitty, I'll just drive. But most of the time, I take the train. No way in hell I'd take the bus.

Re:I use Uber over public transit

[Slashdot Parent]

Oh yes, God forbid you little princesses should ever see the masses up close

I'm not the OP, but I can say that I'm fine with 99.9% of the masses. But that one passenger out of 1000 that stinks up the whole bus is not a pleasant experience. And if you ride a bus round trip every day, you'll have that negative experience, what, once every week or two?

It's only worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not at all universal. Some cities have quite nice and convenient public transit, and it can be even better if you live and work in the right places. I own a car and can afford to drive to work, but I typically take light-rail. It takes maybe 30 minutes as opposed to 25 by car, but I get 15 minutes of walking and fresh air and I can read while in transit, and I don't have to experience daily driver-rage-stress. I actually rather like taking the train to work.

Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

[BarbaraHudson]

As someone else pointed out to me a few days ago, "Where does it say 'News for nerds. Stuff that matters"?

And SJWs have had their 15 minutes, everyone else now thinks "Nothing to see here" when they see one ...

Not Sharing

[jklovanc]

Can we please stop calling it "ride sharing"? It is no more ride sharing that a grocery store is "food sharing".

Re:Not Sharing

[mjwx]

Can we please stop calling it "ride sharing"? It is no more ride sharing that a grocery store is "food sharing".

But then we'd have to call them what they are, taxis... and that means they'll have to meet the same standards and requirements as regular taxis. Uber and Lyft will ultimately fail. Mini-cabbing (which is essentially what Uber is doing) has been legal in London for ages and the London black cabs are still around and going strong. In Australia, Uber isn't any cheaper than getting a legit taxi who has a license, insurance and may actually know where they're going.

Re:Not Sharing

[Daniel_Staal]

Actually, at this point it's exactly a share taxi. I wonder when Americans will realize they've just re-invented a form of semi-formal public transport that's common in undeveloped countries without real public transport.

Re:Not Sharing

[thesupraman]

Its also a mini cab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom

Is it only America that hasnt realised this trick shortly after the invention of the car? or thought that you needed a phone 'app' to use one?

Re:Not Sharing

[jklovanc]

From the article you cited;

These vehicles for hire are typically smaller than buses and usually take passengers on a fixed or semi-fixed route without timetables, but instead departing when all seats are filled.

Uber/Lyft vehicles do not have fixed or semi-fixed routs. They do not pick up multiple fairs at a time. They do get dispatched to a specific location, pick up a specific person or persons, and take them to another specific location by the shortest route. They do exactly the same thing that a taxi does.

Re:Not Sharing

[quantaman]

Here's an idea.

Uber/Lyft/whoever buys a small fleet of buses. You use a smartphone app to say you want to get to B by 3pm, ridesharing service responds "I can pick you up between 2:20-2:30 and drop you off between 2:50-3". One of the buses already carrying a small group of passengers then makes a small detour to pick you up (maintaining all the other contracts it agreed to, basically a travelling salesman problem) and you're on your way. You could even arrange a daily pickup for work.

It's tough as hell to pull off, but it's flexible, it's something the system described in the article could grow into organically, and it could actually compete with mass transit on price and environmental efficiency.

Re:Not Sharing

[jklovanc]

That would be interesting but not what Uber/Lyft is doing. Uber works because there is no initial investment in vehicles. The vehicles are already owned by the drivers. The issue with your idea is that it takes a lot of capitol to buy vehicles and pay drivers until the service catches on. Services like this are in a catch 22 situation. Not enough people use the service because there are not enough vehicles on the road. There are not enough vehicles on the road because not enough people are using the system.

it's something the system described in the article could grow into organically

Things grow when there is an excess. For quite a while a service like this will be bleeding money. If you don't have enough money to get over that initial loss period the the service dies.

Re:Not Sharing

[eepok]

Yes, please.

Lyft's use of the term "Rideshare" is a knowing and willing deception. Lyft's creator, John Zimmer, actually made a Ridesharing webapp that is still in use by many Universities (Zimride). Zimride facilitates the creation of carpools and vanpools-- not rides on a confederated taxi service. Of course, Zimmer saw the big money in a taxi service and with his history in actual Rideshare and has tried to re-write the definition so that (hopefully) he could side-step taxi regulations.

By the way, "Rideshare" is a federally recognized term that describes an entire industry whose job it is to reduce the number of automobiles on the road by convincing people to take transit, carpool, vanpool, bike, and walk instead of driving. (Check it out: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd...)

Re:Not Sharing

[quantaman]

it's something the system described in the article could grow into organically

Things grow when there is an excess. For quite a while a service like this will be bleeding money. If you don't have enough money to get over that initial loss period the the service dies.

But they don't have to start with buses. Uber buys a couple of their own vans (they got tons of cash) and hires fulltime drivers for some of their high volume routes. They then add a carpool option that people can select where if they do end up sharing they'll get a cheaper price at the cost of a slightly longer commute. If it gets popular they can start adding more/bigger vehicles in those regions.

It's viable from the start and the start state isn't much different from what they're doing now.

Re:Not Sharing

[jklovanc]

If this i such a good idea then why are vanpools that have been around for decades not taking over?

Uber buys a couple of their own vans (they got tons of cash) and hires fulltime drivers for some of their high volume routes.

A couple of vans would only cover a very few routes. Di you really think an hour or two between pickups is viable? Secondly it would completely shed Uber's fatasy of "ride share". Being picked up by a company owned vehicle with a company paid driver is no no way "ride sharing". Therefore Uber would have to comply with the same rules as taxis. It also adds employees to Uber and employees are expensive.

It's viable from the start and the start state isn't much different from what they're doing now.

Sorry but company owned, company driven buses on semi-set routes is very different than a dispatch service which is what they are right now.

Re:Not Sharing

[quantaman]

If this i such a good idea then why are vanpools that have been around for decades not taking over?

They never had a Uber/Lyft userbase, particularly not one that could seemlessly transition between being a cablike service and a bus. Also note how technology can change something from impractical to easy.

A couple of vans would only cover a very few routes. Di you really think an hour or two between pickups is viable? Secondly it would completely shed Uber's fatasy of "ride share". Being picked up by a company owned vehicle with a company paid driver is no no way "ride sharing". Therefore Uber would have to comply with the same rules as taxis. It also adds employees to Uber and employees are expensive.

Why would it be an hour or two? If it's not being "carpooled" it's just a regular Uber vehicle in a high volume area. As for the employee cost Uber effectively has employees driving the cars now, the pay mechanism is just a bit different.

Sorry but company owned, company driven buses on semi-set routes is very different than a dispatch service which is what they are right now.

But it doesn't start on semi-set routes. It just sits in a high volume area. The route is set by the people who order it, only if it gets really big would you consider semi-set routes. You could even do it for current Uber drivers, guy owns a van, signs up to offer carpooling. Partway through the trip he gets an alert, asks the passengers if they'd accept a $10 discount for a 5 minute detour and a couple extra fares. Is that really a huge departure from what they're doing now?

should be banned or regulated

[goombah99]

Lyft and Uber drivers should have to follow the same not-free regs as taxi drivers. things like displaying a hack lic, certification of insurance or bonding, and penalties for systematic race discrimination are things that taxi drivers and their companies are required to follow. Undercutting these is not a good idea.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

Lyft and Uber drivers should have to follow the same not-free regs as taxi drivers.

Why?

Serious question. Forget about questions of fairness, step back and look at first principles and evaluate whether the regulations are of value to society. Were these rules ever necessary? If so, why? Do the same reasons apply to Uber and Lyft?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[An0nymous Coward]

You have never been involved in an injury lawsuit involving a motor vehicle crash have you?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Rinikusu]

Yes. Because people are fucking assholes. Yes.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[whoever57]

Serious question. Forget about questions of fairness, step back and look at first principles and evaluate whether the regulations are of value to society. Were these rules ever necessary? If so, why? Do the same reasons apply to Uber and Lyft?

Some are clearly necessary. Others not so much. Unfortunately, the regulations around medallions are often abut revenue for the city, which merely pushes up costs for the taxi drivers. In return, the taxi drivers get a limit on competition.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Wrath0fb0b]

I don't think anyone claims that Uber should not have insured drivers or should permit their drivers to discriminated by race.

What they do claim, is that it's ridiculous for the city to have a fixed number of medallions for drivers, instead of letting anyone that meets the (insurance,inspection,background,...) checks compete under the same set of rule. The sad fact in a number of cities is that possession of an arbitrary token is more important that substantive comliance with an objective set of requirements.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[thegarbz]

On each of your points I will say why for a different reason:

1. Licence / certification: What does this bring to the ability to ride in someone else's car? They are already licensed to be on the road, why should this license magically not apply when they carry someone other than a friend / family member?

2. Insurance: This is more of a problem with the insurance system than anything else. Why do different levels of insurance exist when a vehicle is used in different circumstances. Either apply a blanket policy which is compulsory (Australia has compulsory third party insurance for any registered vehicle), or change all insurance schemes to grade the vehicle by real time risk, i.e. km driven in a period. Why should a car be perfectly fine insurance wise to drive on the road and then suddenly not be fine when it's carrying another passenger?

3. Racism: Don't you already have laws that cover this one? Do you have different laws for taxi drivers vs the local bakery? If so then why? If not then why would it be an issue?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[thegarbz]

And what has this got to do with carrying a passenger?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[roman_mir]

People must be able to discriminate against who they want for any reason whatsoever, government has no authority to punish people for any of it, all of this 'authority' is actually usurpation of unauthorised power. As to insurance, etc., you are assuming that the people cannot make their own choices in life and that government must be there, holding everybody's hands as if they were children. Guess what, adults are not children and they do not need government to make their every day choices for them. It is about time that the technology opens eyes of so many to this trivial fact.

Re: should be banned or regulated

[ottothecow]

And don't forget, in many places, the taxi license has nothing to do with driving skill. Here in Chicago, it is entirely about knowledge of local roads and landmarks. Sure, it is annoying when an uber driver has zero idea where they are going and needs a GPS to find the highway... But the way the cab companies talk about their "specially licensed" drivers, you would actually think it meant something about car-handling skill.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[demonlapin]

Uber Black (their standard service tier, not UberX, which is private people driving their own vehicles) is composed entirely of people who have commercial driver's licenses to operate car services/limos. I used them almost exclusively on a vacation in San Francisco and found them to be cleaner, more pleasant, more responsive, and not much more expensive than a cab. And all I had to do was tap a few spots on a smartphone instead of hanging out in a line at a taxi stand.

I also took a trip from SF up to Napa for some winery tours. I had an arranged car service for the day that was effectively indistinguishable from Uber when I was in the car, and yet he was also fully insured.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[stephanruby]

Lyft and Uber drivers should have to follow the same not-free regs as taxi drivers. things like displaying a hack lic, certification of insurance or bonding, and penalties for systematic race discrimination are things that taxi drivers and their companies are required to follow. Undercutting these is not a good idea.

Uber's insurance is explained here, and its legalese can be found here. I haven't looked for Lyft's policy, but I assume that Lyft's policy can be just as easily found.

penalties for systematic race discrimination are things that taxi drivers and their companies are required to follow.

And yet despite all those penalties, racial discrimination still happens systematically during peak hours. During peak hours, taxi drivers can easily pretend not to have seen someone hailing them down if they know they can easily pick up someone else just as easily.

And in a way, Uber and Lyft's processes nicely solve that problem, since for them, they're not allowed to pick up people who are hailing them visually. They can only pick up the people that have hailed them electronically through a mobile app. So choosing your customer based on skin color is much less of a possibility for Uber and Lyft drivers, because now there is an electronic paper trail if a driver suddenly decides not to pick up a potential customer he has agreed to pick up electronically.

The electronic process of ordering rides through a mobile app also solves the problem of displaying a license. By ordering a ride through Uber, you see the picture, you see the id, and you see the rating of who's going pick you up before they do pick you up. Just try to get that level of information the next time you call for a Yellow cab, you won't get it.

Not only that but in a few big cities, where the number of medaillons stays stagnant despite the desperate need of additional taxis on the road during peak hours, Uber and Lyft are serving the needs of an underserved market. Because I can tell you, in my personal experience, it's not just black people that can't find a cab sometimes. As a white person who sometimes really needs a cab in San Francisco during peak hours, I've simply given up trying to find one. I can only assume that only customers from five star hotels and hot supermodels can catch cabs during those hours, because I see many cabs during those times, and I've used my phone to call cab companies as well, but those cabs are certainly not stopping for me, or they have the light on signaling that they're on their way to pick up someone else.

If I really need a car after work for some reason, I'll drive my car in, clogging up the system even more, and I'll risk paying insane parking fees for the entire day (despite the fact that I might only need the car for a fraction of that time, to go somewhere after 5 PM, that's not easily reached with public transportation).

Re:should be banned or regulated

[argStyopa]

Nonsense.
You want the things that those certify? Then get a real taxi (and pay for it).
- Hack license - all that proves is that they're connected to the giant money-train that are cab licenses in metro areas. Inspection? Certification? It means none of those.
- Insurance - yep, important to have it. Using Uber/Lyft, you're risking not having it.
- Race discrimination - apparently you don't notice the whole 'review' part of uber. If someone can be an overt racist/sexist/whatever-phobe, and still make money, more power to them. If that sort of behavior means that they can't make it economically work, then they should learn how to be civilized.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[phantomfive]

If that's something you care about, lobby your city representatives to do something about it.

That's the beauty of the federation system, each area can regulate (or not) as they see fit, and over time we see which ones work best.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Dahamma]

Because if you hire a negligent cab driver with no personal assets and no insurance who kills or maims a passenger insurance you or your family is basically screwed.

Why should it be any different from any other profession/company (doctor, airline, etc) where you put your life in someone else's hands?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Dahamma]

Many rules were absolutely necessary. Today, some are, some aren't. Probably needs an overhaul, but that doesn't mean some things aren't working well...

Do you ever wonder why with this completely paranoid culture we have today why no one ever really worries about getting into a random car driven by a complete stranger in a dark alley in a city in a major US city? Well, it's because the medallion that driver carries is worth several hundred thousand dollars in most cases. These guys (or their employers) are in it for the money, and there is a lot of it - which is part of the implicit guarantee to follow the rules...

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Richard_at_work]

On each of your points I will say why for a different reason:

1. Licence / certification: What does this bring to the ability to ride in someone else's car? They are already licensed to be on the road, why should this license magically not apply when they carry someone other than a friend / family member?

I can already cook and make meals for my friends, why do I need various licenses and inspections to open a restaurant for someone other than a friend / family member?

2. Insurance: This is more of a problem with the insurance system than anything else. Why do different levels of insurance exist when a vehicle is used in different circumstances. Either apply a blanket policy which is compulsory (Australia has compulsory third party insurance for any registered vehicle), or change all insurance schemes to grade the vehicle by real time risk, i.e. km driven in a period. Why should a car be perfectly fine insurance wise to drive on the road and then suddenly not be fine when it's carrying another passenger?

My home has perfectly fine accident damage for when I invite friends and family over, so why do I need public liability insurance if I then choose to run a business from it that involved people coming over?

Hint - when you aren't doing something for profit, that is taken into account in liability cases. The moment you intend to make a profit from the action, your liability changes and so you need additional insurance to cover it. When running a business in both your own and my examples, the standard that you are held to changes dramatically, even when there is a comparable non-business version of your actions.

Re: should be banned or regulated

[thegarbz]

Oh they do correlate. In most cases "specially licensed" drivers truly are "special" when it comes to their ability to drive.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[thegarbz]

You tried to apply my analogy and just proved my point. In both cases the system itself is broken or meaningless.

In my country we don't have restaurant licenses. We already have laws governing food safety which amongst other things allow for random inspections and sanctions placed on businesses, but every idiot who makes something for someone else and gets a dollar for it doesn't need a license to do so.

The insurance case is a bit different. Home insurance does not cover injury to your family, and public liability insurance would not cover a made rave ruining your home. They are two completely different products. If you had liability insurance or home insurance to cover either situation then the only difference is the number of people, however that does not change in the case of a car. A car can carry a set number of passengers, and I see no value or difference in having 5 family members in my house covered by such as policy vs 5 strangers.

On the other hand if I drive a car with a passenger how come I need a different form of insurance if I drive a car with a passenger who pays me $5 for the trip? I agree some insurance is needed but our local laws already cover that with vehicle registration after which the only difference between a taxi and a car is the number of km travelled per year, and I know of several people in various travel related jobs (sales, couriering etc) which put taxis to shame in this regard, yet taxis need some kind of magic insurance.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[thegarbz]

Forgot to reply to your hint as well. If that's how it works in the states than so be it. In much of the rest of the world turning a profit has absolutely zero impact on your liability to others. You can sue your family member for slipping on spilled water in their kitchen just as easily as you can do it to a supermarket. Your friends and family are just *usually* more polite than that.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[IamTheRealMike]

Do you ever wonder why with this completely paranoid culture we have today why no one ever really worries about getting into a random car driven by a complete stranger in a dark alley in a city in a major US city? Well, it's because the medallion that driver carries is worth several hundred thousand dollars in most cases.

It's because people who are in the habit of assaulting or raping random strangers who get into their cars are extremely rare, and hunted down by experienced law enforcement professionals with great efficiency. It has nothing to do with taxi medallions which 99.99% of people who take taxis cannot possibly authenticate as genuine, being as they are non-experts in taxi licensing. Indeed, most taxis I've been in have visible licenses that are so basic (just a piece of paper with a logo and a photo/name on it) that forging them would be beyond trivial. And if you're the sort of person who drives around trying to entice strangers into your death-cab then printing out a Photoshopped license isn't going to stop you.

Indeed it's only a few US cities that have this crazy medallion system. In most parts of the world taxi licenses are expensive but not THAT expensive. So it can't be medallions that keep people safe.

In general I'm not against carefully thought out laws that have strong and clear justifications for them. I am not some anti-government zealot. A good, solid piece of scientific analysis showing that the costs of such laws are outweighed by their benefits would convince me, ideally backed by studies between areas where taxis are unlicensed vs areas where they are licensed. But I've found that the lawmaking process is very rarely driven by any kind of scientific process like that.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Attila Dimedici]

Why? Perhaps some of the regulations were enacted exactly because there were problems? Perhaps some regulations have prevented problems?

Perhaps. However, would you care to list what those problems were and which regulations eliminated them. Your answer may be correct, but without knowing what the specific issues were we cannot determine if the regulations did what they were created to do, or if they are still necessary. In addition, some of the "problems" the regulations were created to fix, may no longer be things we would consider problems.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Richard_at_work]

I'm in the UK - thats how public liability works here. You can sue anyone you want over anything, but as a business you are required to have that liability covered, while as an individual you are not.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Thagg]

In a city like NYC or perhaps London, I agree that the number of daily rides is a pie that will be subdivided differently. In a town like Los Angeles or even San Francisco; not so much. The number of Uber rides in LA will exceed the pre-Uber number of taxi rides soon, if it hasn't already -- it's a real game changer. Many more people are taking Uber rather than taxis, yes -- but even more people are taking Uber than used to drive.

In LA, the taxi service will suffer; but also (and maybe more so) the rental car business. It's cheaper to UberX around the city (especially if you use mass transit when you can) than renting a car; and more convenient too because you don't have to worry about parking.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

Yes. Because people are fucking assholes. Yes.

The depth and clarity of your analysis is astounding.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

Okay, what were the problems and how did the regulations address them? This is precisely the point. Unless we can determine how/why the regulations are (or are not?) useful for taxis, we can't really decide whether or not they should apply to Uber and Lyft.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

Serious question. Forget about questions of fairness, step back and look at first principles and evaluate whether the regulations are of value to society. Were these rules ever necessary? If so, why? Do the same reasons apply to Uber and Lyft?

Some are clearly necessary. Others not so much.

Which ones, and why? What problems do they solve? Why do those apply or not apply to Uber and Lyft?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[jbengt]

You are not correct.
My home insurance will cover accidents that visitors have on my property, but will not cover customers if I'm using it as a place of business - that'd be a whole different level of risk for the insurance company.
Similarly, insuring a taxi driver is a much larger risk for an insurance company than insuring a private driver, even for the same number of miles.
Why should I, as a private driver, pay for the same insurance that covers the larger risks of taxi drivers?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[jbengt]

Being a business or not might not have much impact on liability for a particular incident, but the insurance actuaries know that business insurance is riskier.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[OneSmartFellow]

Why would covering a "customer" (aka person) be any more expensive than covering a "family member" (aka person).

Don't you ever have "strangers" (aka persons) on your property - like your plumber, electrician, meter reader, gardener ?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Anrego]

I think it comes down to frequency increasing the risk (and thus adding liability).

Sure, I may cook for friends and family once in a while, which carries some risk, which society and the law have decided is acceptable without any special licensing or insurance. If I cook for tends or hundreds of people every single day, the risk increases greatly.

The same can be said about driving with passengers. Sure I might give someone a lift occasionally, and we've decided that this carries a low enough risk that standard personal drivers licensing and insurance covers that risk, but if I do it many times a day every day on a continuous basis, that risk goes up.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[ganjadude]

your points do nothing to show the need for more regulations, if anything they show that the regulations are nothing but a money grab by the state locality.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[ganjadude]

simple. it doesnt. they assume "customers" means more foot traffic, and therefore more risk. when in the end none of that matters to anyone but the state or insurance company trying to get more money out of people

Re:should be banned or regulated

[nbauman]

Lyft and Uber drivers should have to follow the same not-free regs as taxi drivers.

Why?

Serious question. Forget about questions of fairness, step back and look at first principles and evaluate whether the regulations are of value to society. Were these rules ever necessary? If so, why? Do the same reasons apply to Uber and Lyft?

We went through this debate in the 19th Century. People got tired of buying milk from tuberculosis cows.

Give me the name of a real-world country without regulations that you'd like to live in.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Rakarra]

Why would covering a "customer" (aka person) be any more expensive than covering a "family member" (aka person).

Because you have more of them (unless you're a terrible restaurant), leading to more chances of incidents.
Also, a family member is less likely to sue you, though on the flip side, you wouldn't just be able to shrug off medical bills as easily with someone you live with.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Dahamma]

It's not about the *customer* authenticating anything, it's about the driver having a vested interest in not committing a crime. In general people who have steady employment and are licensed at a trade, put down deposits, whatever (yes, medallions are just an extreme example), are not the ones committing violent crimes against others while they work. I'd imagine even the serial-killer-taxi-drivers out there will do their serial-killing on their own time, since they still gotta put food on the table.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be regulations. I'm arguing that the regulations should exist for actual, important reasons not "just because that's they way we've always done it", which is essentially what people arguing that Lyft and Uber should have to follow the taxi regs are saying.

Step back a moment and think. What are the regs supposed to accomplish? Do they solve actual problems in the new context?

I notice that no one who has responded to my questions actually even tried to answer them.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

Right. So part of the reason for medallions, etc., is that they provide a reputation system that allows riders to trust the vehicle and driver. Uber and Lyft provide alternative reputation systems. Is there some evidence that those systems are not working?

Re:should be banned or regulated

[nbauman]

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be regulations. I'm arguing that the regulations should exist for actual, important reasons not "just because that's they way we've always done it", which is essentially what people arguing that Lyft and Uber should have to follow the taxi regs are saying.

Step back a moment and think. What are the regs supposed to accomplish? Do they solve actual problems in the new context?

I notice that no one who has responded to my questions actually even tried to answer them.

You are creating a straw man. Who says, regulations should exist "just because that's the way we've always done it"? I don't say that. Nobody here said that. I don't know of anybody who said that. I challenge you to find someone who did. Atlas Shrugged doesn't count.

The parent gave you the regulations that Uber should follow: "displaying a hack lic, certification of insurance or bonding, and penalties for systematic race discrimination."

The reason we require insurance coverage for cabs is that we had many accidents in which people were severely injured, including pedestrians who never contracted with the cab driver, and it turned out that the cab driver didn't have enough insurance to cover them. If a pedestrian loses a leg, $100,000 insurance won't even cover the medical and rehabilitation costs. So the regulations required them to have a larger amount of insurance. There were stories about that in the New York Times in the last few years. An underinsured Uber driver had a major accident already.

The reason we require a hack license is that, among other things, we want cab drivers to go through a police check to make sure they haven't committed crimes in the past. Customers don't want to be alone in a cab and dependent on drivers who have been convicted of violent crimes. Many women want to take a cab home from a bar after they've had too much to drink. They don't want to be raped by the driver. Maybe you think they're wrong, but that's the decision they make in the free market and through the democratic process. Uber claims they screen their drivers but it's up to them to convince us that they screen them as well as the hack bureau does.

That's what the regulations are supposed to accomplish.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[swillden]

The reason we require insurance coverage for cabs is that we had many accidents in which people were severely injured, including pedestrians who never contracted with the cab driver, and it turned out that the cab driver didn't have enough insurance to cover them.

Which is why Uber now provides a $1M policy covering all of their drivers. Does that address that issue?

The reason we require a hack license is that, among other things, we want cab drivers to go through a police check to make sure they haven't committed crimes in the past.

Okay, but is there any evidence that actually accomplishes anything? Assuming that there is, and that it's useful, then why not just require a background check?

Uber claims they screen their drivers but it's up to them to convince us that they screen them as well as the hack bureau does.

Is there any evidence their screening is inadequate?

And what about a medallion? Bonding? And is race discrimination a problem at Uber or Lyft (or in any cab company these days)?

I do have to give you that you're the first to even attempt to dig into the underlying issues, though. Kudos for that.

Re:should be banned or regulated

[nbauman]

The reason we require insurance coverage for cabs is that we had many accidents in which people were severely injured, including pedestrians who never contracted with the cab driver, and it turned out that the cab driver didn't have enough insurance to cover them.

Which is why Uber now provides a $1M policy covering all of their drivers. Does that address that issue?

Not quite. Cities have established local insurance requirements, and they require cab drivers to provide certain standards of proof that they meet the requirements. For example, NYC has a certain standard policy that all cab drivers have to buy. They get a certificate, with an expiration date, to demonstrate that they've bought that policy.

In NYC Uber could meet that requirement by hiring only licensed cab drivers with that insurance certificate, which I think they do. Otherwise, there's no assurance that they have equivalent coverage, and they probably don't. They could say they have equivalent coverage, but how do we know?

For example, as I recall the case, an Uber driver in California killed a child, and Uber said they had no liability because the driver wasn't carrying a passenger or picking up a passenger, he was waiting for a call. Company lawyers always come up with things like that. Then, as a result of the bad publicity, Uber decided to cover it after all.

The purpose of auto liability insurance is to make sure injured people are compensated under all reasonably forseeable circumstances, and one of the reasons we have insurance regulators is to examine those policies and make sure they do cover them.

New York City personal injury lawyers can tell you of lots of cases in which a taxi horribly injured a passenger or a pedestrian, the cost of medical expenses alone exceeded its $100,000 liability policy, the driver didn't have assets to cover it, and went bankrupt, or went back to Pakistan or the Dominican Republic. They can tell you about insurance companies where somebody committed fraud and they didn't have enough assets to cover their claims. The reason we have regulations is to make sure that people who are injured by others will get compensation.

In the U.S., insurance is complicated, because every state, and every jurisdiction, has its own requirements. That's the price we pay for local choice. (The alternative is a national dictator.) Uber probably can't come up with one national insurance policy that will satisfy the requirements of every jurisdiction. (Hertz has a large insurance department, and a large litigation department.) Uber can't just say, "Oh, we're transformational, we'll just ignore local laws and do it our own way." Driving people from A to B is easy. Convincing local jurisdictions that you meet their insurance and other requirements is the hard part.

The reason we require a hack license is that, among other things, we want cab drivers to go through a police check to make sure they haven't committed crimes in the past.

Okay, but is there any evidence that actually accomplishes anything? Assuming that there is, and that it's useful, then why not just require a background check?

Evidence, in the way that in medicine we have randomized controlled trials to prove that lowering blood pressure saves lives? No, but we seldom have that kind of evidence in public policy. (Or even in medicine.) It seems reasonable that if we put people in jail for robbing grocery stores, they'll be less likely to rob grocery stores, but there's no randomized trials to prove it. It isn't perfect, but it seems reasonable, and we have to do something to keep crime as low as possible, so we do it.

I am often reminded of the way women are concerned about safety. There are several cases in the newspapers which a woman took a cab (or an unlicensed ride) home from a bar because she was drunk, and was sexually assaulted. I guarantee you that women overwhelmingly don't want to take

Re:should be banned or regulated

[Dahamma]

Well, it may be anecdotal and hyper-focused on "the new kid on the block" but there are plenty of items in the news these days about incidents with Uber drivers...

And I can tell you second hand (I have a couple friends or acquaintances who have passed the Uber X "checks") that it's a trivial process that almost never gets rejected. The taxi licensing process in the US isn't all *that* hard, but it's still a lot more strict - and government regulated and *public*, not controlled at the whim of a private company with a vested interest to hide problems and doesn't need to publish its process or data.

But I'm not even really knocking Uber's system, the original comment just asked: "Forget about questions of fairness, step back and look at first principles and evaluate whether the regulations are of value to society. Were these rules ever necessary? If so, why? Do the same reasons apply to Uber and Lyft?"

And I think the answer is, whatever method is used to check and enforce them, yes, taxi/rideshare/whatever regulations are absoluately a value to society and were (and still are) necessary (in some form).

Re:should be banned or regulated

[thegarbz]

Because if you hire a negligent cab driver with no personal assets and no insurance who kills or maims a passenger insurance you or your family is basically screwed.

Why should it be any different from any other profession/company (doctor, airline, etc) where you put your life in someone else's hands?

Remove the word cab from your sentence and you'll see it straight away. Your fundamental problem is that someone is perfectly ok doing something in one scenario but not ok doing something in another.

Are you saying it's ok for a normal driver with no personal assets and no insurance to kill and maim a passenger, but it's not ok for it to happen if the passenger paid? I have a far more important question to ask you, why would it be ok for a person to drive a car at all without liability insurance?

Remove the word cab, and replace the word passenger with friend. Is it ok now to maim your friend? Why does one require two different licenses (we are assuming that the person is licensed to drive a car here and that some mythical additional licence will keep him safe if the car has yellowcabs written on the side), but the other is ok with only one licence.

To continue that example I would not let a friend drive me if they didn't already have a licence, I would not let them operate on me without a medical degree, I would not let them fly me without a pilots licence. But the notion of a fully qualified person being rendered safe by an additional piece of paper / licence fee is absolutely absurd.

If you aren't in a position to carry a passenger on the road you should not be on the road to begin with.

This may be a good thing ...

[MacTO]

Cities that offer good transit service don't have to worry about the competition. Those transit services already offer fast and reliable service at a reasonable price.

On the other hand, cities that offer horrible transit service need the competition. They need to realize that poor coverage, poor scheduling, unreliable service, and drivers with poor safety records are unacceptable. If they don't realize that it is unacceptable, then maybe they should shutter their doors and let the private sector take over. (This coming from someone who normally supports a strong public sector.)

To give you an idea of what I mean: I work two jobs in a city with poor transit service, so I decided to sit down and do some math one day. The end result is that taking the bus cost significantly more than taking a taxi. That's a single person in a regulated cab, and not the shared-ride service mentioned here. Yes, a great part of the cost was from lost income. Yet it was real lost income in my case because I had to negotiate my work hours around transit. For other people, the loss of income will come in other forms: being unable to accept a job due to transit coverage or scheduling, or losing a job because unreliable service results in an unreliable employee. For other people it will result in a diminished quality of life, simply because much of their time is spent waiting for or being in transit.

(To give you an idea of how inefficient transit is in my city: if it takes 30 minutes to walk somewhere, you may as well walk since the bus is going to take longer. If you have to be somewhere at a particular time, you can usually increase that 30 minute walking radius to 1 hour because that bus that "arrives 10 minutes early" will end up arriving 10 minutes late so frequently that you will end up unemployed.)

Re:This may be a good thing ...

[Shados]

Generally what happens in cities with poor transit, is that people stop using them. Then the transit authorities look at their statistic dashboard, see "oh, bus route XYZ is almost empty. Means we can cut it!" and things just get worse.

Happened in my hometown. There was a bus that would get me straight to the subway, and during peek hour it would come every 3 minutes (ie: the buses were often back to back). They were all jam packed, too.

They eventually made changes to the route to "optimize" things. The route was split in 2 somewhat different routes, and came half as often. They forgot that not everyone went to the subway (so going from midpoint to midpoint was no longer possible, as the routes didnt link) and that 6 minutes during peek hour was ok, but it meant 1 HOUR wait off peek time.

During peek hour, since the routes were not longer as useful unless you wanted to hit the subway, half or so of the riders just stopped and used alternatives. Off peek hour you were lucky to see 1 person in either bus.

Eventually they just cut one of the routes and the second one was only running during peek hour at 30 minutes interval for lack of riders. It became totally useless.

Re:This may be a good thing ...

[flopsquad]

During peek hour

That's one hell of a way to get people to ride public transit!

Wait, I'm getting something... PedantryBot, are you trying to tell me Shados meant "peak hour"?

Public transit does not have to make money

[manu0601]

The goal of public transit is not to make money. Money paid from passengers may not pay the trip, and taxpayers money may be used to fill the gap.

If Uber widens the gap, when why not tax it? Uber benefits are just taken from taxpayer money use to finance public transit, after all.

Re:Public transit does not have to make money

[MacTO]

Many transit authorities have profitable bus routes, particularly in higher density areas. They bleed money on suburban routes, where it's difficult to fill a bus. Perhaps a better option would be to fund companies like Uber with taxpayer money in order to eliminate those suburban busses that transport few, if any, passengers.

(I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek, since such a system would be rife with abuse by both operators and customers. Still, there are cases where it could be cheaper if you could magically make abusing the system disappear.)

Re:Public transit does not have to make money

[zippthorne]

If uber can come in at lower cost without subsidy, then the question, I think, is what is public transportation doing wrong?

Re:Public transit does not have to make money

[Aighearach]

They're not even cheaper than taxis, contrary to the strange marketing claim otherwise that dice is pushing. They're definitely not going to come out cheaper than public transit.

Re:Public transit does not have to make money

[zippthorne]

Then.. what's the fear here?

Re:Public transit does not have to make money

[Aighearach]

Fear, what fear? It is blatant click-bait, not the reporting of actual "fear," or even "policy concern."

Notice the actual story is at Forbes magazine. A magazine for rich people. Speculating about competition with public transit, and of course, not making any attempt to understand public transit. Their rough theory seems to be that in the area of transportation to/from airports, app-taxis will reduce ridership. And I agree. But public transit isn't paid for primarily through the fares, it is heavily subsidized by the community, and so routes to/from the airport are busy routes, but they are generally under-served except in communities that get a lot of tourism. Having full buses isn't as important to transit planners as moving people to/from work and play. If buses are full on commuter routes, that calls for increased service on those routes. Full buses to the airport is less of a problem. Having less riders on buses to the airport actually saves the community money, because transit is subsidized. Any growing city (which is most cities) will still have increased demand for public transit, even if there is less demand on the airport route.

Forbes understands that buses go the airport. It is the one time their readers might actually take a bus, too. But the needs and lives of the rich and powerful just don't have that much impact on public transit. Sorry guys.

Re:Public transit does not have to make money

[manu0601]

If uber can come in at lower cost without subsidy, then the question, I think, is what is public transportation doing wrong?

They grab the profitable lines, leaving the unprofitable to public transport. This means public transport deficit increase and must be funded. Since the gap was created by Uber's benefit, it makes sense to tax them to fund unprofitable lines.

Alternatively, Uber could be mandated to operate both profitable and unprofitable lines, but since the sum is not profitable...

who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously don't understand why Uber and Lyft are getting so much flak, it seems to be an agreement between two private individuals, government has no right interfering with such an arrangement.

No!

[superdude72]

Threads like these always leave me flabbergasted at how people who have never lived in a big city just really, really don't get how cities work.

Re:No!

[thegarbz]

And then there's people who do live in the cities who think that their situation applies to all other residents.

You say No! well scroll up since there are people who already do what you say No! to, and they do live in the big city.

I too would take uber over public transport. It costs about $3.50 more, doesn't become almost worthlessly difficult at 11pm, doesn't require me to change platforms with a 15min delay, and even if it didn't it's faster so I can go on and do things with my life other than be stuck in transit.

Re:No!

[Locando]

Hey now, some of us live in big cities but still think Uber and Lyft are not how things are supposed to work. They're symptomatic of a crappy public trans system more than anything, if you ask me.

Re:No!

[thegarbz]

I fully agree with this. But at least it's something for cities where councils / governments don't invest or spend so much time bickering instead of investing.

Re:No!

[swb]

How many "big cities" in the US have a really good public transportation system that enables convenient and timely transit? Usually it seems to boil down to "how many cities have a subway system?"

In those places without a built-up subway system, you're stuck with the bus. Passable for short trips provided the schedule is frequent (which it usually isn't) or for suburban-downtown express services (provided that's actually your trip).

These bus systems are usually unusable for anything else. Commute times for basic, in-city transportation can run to an hour of combined riding and waiting times for car trip times that run 20 minutes. Ad-hoc trips or multiple-destination trips can end up taking a whole day.

Years ago I used to ride the bus to the University located in the city I lived -- it was often an hour trip on the bus and 20 minutes by car. Even the express to downtown from where I live (again, in the city) was an 8 block walk to the stop and then a 35 minute ride. All told I was out nearly an hour and a half in bus time for what amounted to 40 minutes of driving.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Then insure them

[tepples]

Why are they becoming illegal rather than becoming insured?

Re:Why would it matter?

[PPH]

Well, for some people, public transport is a mechanism for social control. Want people to shop in your mall? Slip a few bucks to planners to provide transportation there and not to your competitor's mall. Same for where people live, go to school, work and recreate.

Things like private cars, cabs, Uber and Lyft undermine the central planner's control agenda by allowing them to go where and when they want. So they are evil and must be stopped.

So what if they do?

[Lord Kano]

Public transit is a necessary evil.

It turns an 8:30 work day into a 10-12 hour work day.

LK

Re:So what if they do?

[Aighearach]

If you learn to read, you might find that those are usable hours where you don't have to pay attention to the subject of your work, or complete useful actions on behalf of your boss. With a modern electronic device you don't even need to be able to read, you just need a link to youtube and you're ready to start clicking on kittens. Headphones recommended.

Re: So what if they do?

[iluvcapra]

In Los Angeles buses and trains will add about 30 minutes total to the commute, mainly because the trains avoid the freeways. If you drive 10 miles around LA in the morning, you're just going to end up in a car for 60 minutes, it's unavoidable. I noticed this fall we hit sort of a tipping point and my public transit trips to work were actually occasionally FASTER than driving my own car, the freeways are that atrocious.

I use Uber too, for short hops or to get to train stations I can't get an express bus. But Uber doesn't do anything about traffic congestion, and in most dense cities congestion is one of the main problems they're trying to solve.

Re:So what if they do?

[Lord Kano]

I can read quite well, I'm just not going to do it on a bus full of strangers. I read to learn and relax, I can't focus on learning or relax when I'm surrounded by screaming children, unshowered hipsters and the downtown oddballs who frequent public transportation in this area.

LK

Re: So what if they do?

[Lord Kano]

That makes me feel better about the traffic situation in my city. I live 15 miles from the heart of downtown and on evenings, it's a 20-25 minute trip. Though, I only really go downtown for work.

In the morning it's a 35-45 minute drive. If I took the bus, it would be come a 75-90 minute trip. I have no desire for that nonsense.

LK

Re:So what if they do?

[Aighearach]

That sounds pretty... silly. You can't find anything useful to do with your time on a bus, because you're surrounded by such awful people that you're only willing to pay attention to... those people you dislike. To the complete exclusion of activities that would distract you from them, or be otherwise useful tasks.

It sounds like you have very little experience with public transit, and are just making up reasons to dislike it. Or, you really really disliked it when you tried it... because you were paying attention to the other passengers, instead of just using it for transportation.

BTW, most commuter routes in urban areas don't have many examples of the stereotypes you list.

My recommendation is to get either a "music player" or a "tablet computer" if you don't have a "smart phone." Then you can plug in headphones and not even listen to them at all. At a minimum you should be able to do some electronic recreation with the time, even if you can't bring yourself to do anything productive in the presence of the Unwashed.

Re:So what if they do?

[Lord Kano]

BTW, most commuter routes in urban areas don't have many examples of the stereotypes you list.

I don't care what most commuter routes are like. Where I live, that's how they are.

My recommendation is to get either a "music player" or a "tablet computer" if you don't have a "smart phone."

No thank you. I have an automobile.

LK

Your ancient rules make little sense

[SuperKendall]

things like displaying a hack lic,

This makes no sense. Remember they are not sitting there waiting for you to get in - you summon them via app which automatically means they have been vetted by the service, and you have info about them beforehand before you even selected them.

Perhaps taxi drivers should start with regulations requiring you to be able to see reviews from past customers?

certification of insurance or bonding

Again - all taken care of or else they would not be on the service.

penalties for systematic race discrimination

They come and pick you up. It's funny you bring this up with zero evidence of this being a problem, while we know cabs do this from time to time. If you've not solved it for cabs forget about solving it for Uber.

Undercutting these is not a good idea.

None of that is undercut. Only price, convenience, shiftiness of drivers, and car quality are undercut (or enhanced).

Re:Your ancient rules make little sense

[steelfood]

You're relying an awful lot on the service to do the vetting and the work of ensuring passenger (your) safety. Are you sure they're actually doing what they say they're doing?

A lot of regulations are preventative in nature, rather than reactive in the same sense that a metal gate is preventative, but a closed circuit camera is reactive. You seem to think it's sufficient to just have reactive measures in place.

Re:Your ancient rules make little sense

[SuperKendall]

You're relying an awful lot on the service to do the vetting and the work of ensuring passenger (your) safety.

No more than I am with a "real" cab company, which you seem awfully comfortable trusting. Inherently you are going to be trusting one company to do the vetting, cab companies are no better and indeed often worse because there is no financial penalty for bad vetting.

A lot of regulations are preventative in nature

Yes - as in, preventing competition to the current monopoly. If you think they are usually "preventative" for customer harm, you are more delusional than I thought.

Can coexist

[SuperKendall]

I have been in plenty of places where mass transit made a ton of sense to a specific place in a city, but then a car made a lot of sense to get 10-20 blocks to your final destination that had either very infrequent or no buses.

You also should not underestimate the vast service Uber serves in getting people home safe after public transport shuts down for the night. I've been caught off-gaurd a few times by public transport coming times, and it was great to have that safety net.

Short trips?

[advocate_one]

"If you're traveling with multiple people over short distances, Lyft Line and UberPool can be quite affordable, but it's still not cheap enough."

You should be using a bicycle for short trips of 2 miles or less...

Will a dodgy headline hurt this story?

[mnt]

Yes, it will.

Another Gated Community

[cmholm]

I don't begrudge Lyft and Uber as an experiment in alternative transport. I think the growing sharing culture is a symptom of middle class economic stagnation, such that people are "driven" to monetize the spare capacity in their personal transport, their homes, etc.

What concerns me is that they are likely cherry picking transportation consumers. Those who can normally afford to spring for Lyft are then less likely to use public transport, and become alienated to its broader utility, much as those who live in gated communities aren't as concerned about addressing the crime rate in the surrounding community.

Re:Why would it matter?

[Locando]

Because "lessen demand for public transport" usually implies "increase demand for cars," which in turn has historically resulted in "get stuck in more traffic" and "replace more of the city with parking lots." It also runs the significant risk of indirectly leading to "screw over the poor and other transit-dependent people."

Re:Why would it matter?

[Locando]

I'm actually genuinely curious if you know that some of us out here who have owned a car in the past find it genuinely liberating to live without one. (Never heard of the scenario in your first paragraph actually happening, by the way — got a citation? I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened at least once, but as a widespread tool, I don't see how you'd expect someone to believe that one without evidence.)

Good for them.

[Charcharodon]

More power to them. If they can do it cheaper/better (and far cleaner) than public transportation, then fuck public transportation.

Personally I find the obsession to living in cities to be more than a little strange. Right now I'm living on the outskirts of Tampa, which is almost too close for me. Being stuck in DC or NY or San Fran again makes my teeth ache.

The fact that I am out in farm country with a triple digit symmetrical FIOS connection just tells me life is can be very good living even out in the boonies.

Could help public transport

[ssam]

I live and work in a big city, so I cycle and use public transport for about 98% of my journeys. The remaining few percent I take a taxi, which is expensive but rare enough that its not an issue. If it were 5% journeys that I could not do by bike/bus/train then I would probably have to get a car, in which case probably 90% of my journeys would be by private car.

So if you make taxis cheaper, then maybe there are a lot of people who would no longer need a car for those occasional journeys where public transport or bike is not a good option. They can then use public transport most of the time, and taxis occasionally. In cities a bus is always going to be the cheapest (unless the price of fuel and labour drops to zero)

What really hurts public transit...

[Lumpy]

Elected government officials are what hurts public transit.

Exactly the opposite! Enhances Public Transport!

[Thagg]

I use Uber in Los Angeles; as many people do.

Los Angeles has very limited subway service. It exists, it's pretty quick, but it doesn't go too many places. So, I use Uber to get to and from the subway stops closest to where I want to go; and use the train for the bulk of the transport.

Now, if I was going with a group of people instead of by myself, I'd Uber the whole way; the subway charges per person and Uber per car. But for traveling by yourself; Uber and mass transit is a great combo.

You are kidding, right?

[Necron69]

In order for Uber/Lyft to be a challenge to public transportation, you first need a public transportation system that is actually useful to a significant number of people. I'm glad folks in Europe, or the US East and West Coasts have good public transit, but the vast majority of people in the US drive their own cars out of necessity.

We've made great strides here in Denver, CO, but I've lived here for almost 40 years and I can count on two hands the number of times I've taken a bus, and my light rail/train rides still stand at zero. Three years from now, the NW light rail line will finally open in the direction I need to go, yet it will still end many miles short of my office.

I know of only one friend who has ever used Uber in Denver, and her New Year's Eve ride across town caused her extreme heartburn at the price. Uber/Lyft are fancy cab services for rich people. They aren't going to put a dent in public transportation (where it exists) anytime in the next decade, if ever.

Necron69

Have taxis hurt public transit?

[Kevoco]

(NO)

Re:Don't make me laugh

[IamTheRealMike]

Your whole post is reasonable and articulate, and written from an entirely US centric point of view. But taxis are regulated in most parts of the world (perhaps everywhere), and government isn't always as dysfunctional as in the states.

Re:Why would it matter?

[PPH]

Never heard of the scenario in your first paragraph actually happening, by the way â" got a citation?

Seattle light rail. Back in the planning stages, a route was proposed that would take it near the Southcenter mall area with a stop there. The downtown Seattle business interests practically shit themselves, as one of the purposes of the rail system was to bring shoppers into the downtown shopping area. Not to feed other business/shopping areas. So they moved the route to the other side of I-5, missing Southcenter and making transit connections to that area inconvenient.

Earlier in its planning stages, the light rail system was to be funded by several counties. But the design in Snohomish county (Everett and the big Boeing plant) was to stop the rail line at a park-and-ride south of Everett. When that city proposed extending the line nearer the Boeing plant and into downtown Everett, Seattle business/real estate interests shit themselves and stopped it. The rail line's only purpose is to feed downtown Seattle. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

The same thing is happening with the rail link to the east side (Bellevue). The east end is going to be land-locked in such a way as to make it only practical to commute into Seattle. Not the other way around. To top that off, the transit planners had the opportunity to pick up an abandoned BNRR right of way for a north-south link on the eastside (Southcenter, Renton/Boeing, Bellevue, Redmond/Microsoft). But they actively chopped it up, abandoned sections of it and turned other parts over for use as a bicycle trail. Because transit money is only supposed to feed downtown Seattle businesses. Nothing else.

Depends where: LHR: 191k passengers/ day

[fantomas]

London Heathrow sees 191,000 people arrive and depart per day.

Excluding passengers in transit, that's still going to be an awful lot of people moving in and out of the airport on the edge of London. I can't see you shifting them all in 4 person cars without more traffic jams that already plague the M25 (ok, I suspect from your post you're unhappy with more than 1 to 2 people per car, but in principle car sharing and multiple car passengers is feasible).

Maybe airports can be serviced in small rural areas by cars but in major metropolitan areas mass transit systems are more efficient.

It's only worth it

[krept]

In Arlington VA I take the bus every day. It's not only faster (it takes HOV on 395 which is 10x faster than the regular travel lanes), but I don't have to pay for parking either. The only better alternative I could use for commuting would be to ride my bike, but I really don't have a good solution for my suit. WMATA has its huge flaws, but the buses are usually on schedule, clean, and safe.

chinatown bus

[slew]

This is the next frontier/competitor...

I wonder how many Uber/Lyft customers know about the chinatown bus transportation options...

Uber and Lyft haven't seen real competition like this before... They may not know what hit them if they manage to show these guys a profitable new business...

Re:Why would it matter?

[Locando]

Yeah, I live in Seattle and have heard about the Southcenter deal. Forgot about it when I was reading your earlier comment. I wouldn't necessarily call that social control, but I see what you're saying. That was definitely shady.

The rest of your comment, though, sounds like you're extrapolating from that one deal. ST2 goes up to Northgate, for instance. And have you considered how far Everett is and what the ridership numbers would be like? The ridership question goes for the BNRR right-of-way as well. It doesn't really go through anywhere useful (and I say this passing under the damn thing on my daily commute!). East Link was supposed to go through a useful part of downtown Bellevue, but the Bellevue City Council wouldn't foot the bill for that. There's a whole lot of politicking going on with Sound Transit that isn't merely one party being the big shots. If it were all about what serves Seattle, we'd already be building a Ballard line. Instead, we're shooting North Link off to Lynnwood first and talking about Ballard in the same breath as Federal Way.

Anyhow, all of this is to say that Seattle is special. Public trans isn't the only thing that gets fucked in the planning process here. Wikipedia has a whole entry devoted to it, in fact.

Re:Why would it matter?

[PPH]

And have you considered how far Everett is and what the ridership numbers would be like?

Before Sound Transit's final go-ahead vote in 1996, there was another proposal which included Snohomish County. Sound Transit planners said they only wanted to go as far as a park-and-ride in south Everett, somewhere along Highway 99. The city of Everett wanted the line extended to the Boeing plant and downtown Everett. But when ST nixed that idea, the Snohomish County voters turned it down. It was widely viewed by them as a rail system intended to feed people out of the suburbs and into downtown Seattle. Screw everyone else.

The ridership question goes for the BNRR right-of-way as well. It doesn't really go through anywhere useful

Nothing useful? The Seattle city fathers' propaganda is powerful. BNRR parallels I-405, which is overloaded. People must be going someplace they consider useful.

Some years ago, there was a website (its gone now) that showed the ownership of operating and abandoned railroad rights-of-way. I was surprised to see how much of the abandoned system Sound Transit was buying up (with tax dollars intended for transit) and then tearing out and quit-claiming to other groups. Strange behavior for a group charged with building transportation systems.

The goal should be "destroy public transport"

[wad4ever]

Public transport is primarily funded by taxes. If a free-market alternative meets the needs of the people, why should we try to keep the government-run program alive? In fact, there's a good argument to shutting public transit down completely. If someone wants to go someplace, why should someone else be forced to subsidize the cost?