15 ms·

The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One se

The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One sense). It picks you up whenever you want, wherever you want and drops you off exactly where you need to go. I agree that buses are more ecological, but doesn't this just mean that we should combine Uber and public transport? In the future I see a fleet of larger vehicles combined with a Uber Pool type app working really well. And even further in the future these vehicles would be self driving.

charlesdm 10y ago
Very true. If you can pay €250-350 for a month of uber-ing, vs €100 for bus tickets, and you don't mind spending the money, why not go for the Uber?
_benedict 10y ago
It depends on the city and the route you're taking. If there are dedicated bus lanes, or other dedicated forms of transport (trains, metros), taking an uber can be slower than taking transport. Certainly in London, unless you're taking a route that cuts across the city in one of the outer districts, during quiet times of day, these services are rarely materially faster than public transport. If the traffic info is inaccurate you can end up in a journey that's many times slower, without expecting it. It's still great as an option; it expands the utility of taxis tremendously, since previously the arrival latency was unknown and potentially quite high. With a mature marketplace, the QoS for taxis as a whole goes up tremendously. But really it's a simple competition with the QoS of the local public transport, and in my experience (in the UK) the Uber QoS is somewhat correlated with the QoS of the local public transport, so it is rarely (if ever) objectively better. It just offers different characteristics that are sometimes worth the cost.
humanrebar 10y ago
> In the future I see a fleet of larger vehicles combined with a Uber Pool type app working really well. This already exists. Or it existed anyway. NYC used to have "Chinatown buses" that ran underserved routes for a fraction of the price. NYC and the MTA prosecuted them and got rid of them. Furthermore, innovation and competition in busing is great in Latin America. But we're waiting on regulations to change, not for innovation to happen. I agree that a fleet of self driving mini buses sounds great for efficiency and even housing prices (the pool of commutable properties goes up and the price of rent goes down). Even a fleet of buses with drivers that are allowed to innovate on the business model (monthly subscriptions? scheduled pickup windows? flex pricing?) would be better than what the U.S. has now.
- macNchz 10y ago
  'Dollar vans' are still very much a thing in NYC, you'll see them often if you know what to look for: http://projects.newyorker.com/story/nyc-dollar-vans/ http://projects.newyorker.com/story/nyc-dollar-vans/
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    Right. They should be legitimized and licensed so companies like Lyft can provide different features (wifi, extra clean vehicles, scheduled rides, all-you-can-ride plans, etc.) and different lines.
- objclxt 10y ago
  > NYC used to have "Chinatown buses" that ran underserved routes for a fraction of the price. NYC and the MTA prosecuted them and got rid of them The implication in your comment seems to be that the MTA went after the Chinatown buses because they were anti innovation and competition. I'm not sure if you ever took the Fung Wah bus from Boston to NYC, but one reason the DoT and MTA worked so hard to get rid of them was they had a tendency to burst into flames by the side of the road.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    And yet people in outer burroughs and Jersey still have really long commutes and unacceptable bus service. NYC and the MTA weren't as interested in replacing the Chinatown buses with safer options or otherwise improving the safety standards.
wcummings 10y ago
If you live in a congested city taking the train can be faster than Uber for some trips. I don't like paying $15-$20 for the privilege of sitting in traffic when the same trip would have cost me $2-$3 on public transit.
- xyzzy_plugh 10y ago
  But there is a convenience factor to consider. Trains run on a schedule; they get crowded, you may have to stand; they depart from and arrive at predetermined locations. They may travel faster and more efficiently, but do they actually get you to your destination quicker? Do you spend effort planning your schedule around the train? In my experience Uber is vastly superior than all other available transportation options.
  - tetraca 10y ago
    In my experience it's only preferable to: 1. parking/driving downtown, which is more expensive and 2. not being late for work because I lack the will to get up some days. The express bus line here will pick me up reasonably close to my house and drops me off across the street from my building, and can drive in exclusive lanes, such that Uber/Lyft often takes longer and significantly more expensive. I do not live in a dense enough area to really care about how packed the bus is and I certainly don't care about whether I need to sit or stand.
dllthomas 10y ago
> the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport Taking the bus from my home to work, I get to skip the bridge toll plaza, I get a nicer view (being up higher than an individual car), and I can get a seat with space enough to comfortably get work done. Taking BART home is substantially faster than waiting in traffic out of the city, whoever is driving. Uber, Lyft, et al are often a better user experience on balance than public transit. Calling them "strictly better" is an exaggeration.
naravara 10y ago
>The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One sense). A bus can transport about 60 people in footprint of 2-3 cars (which would transport about 15). There is no way a transportation system that revolves around everyone getting into cabs is going to match that sort of efficiency. The "user experience' of such a service that ignores externalities like forcing people to sit in traffic (raising travel times and prices) is not a good analysis. Also, many people don't think that having to walk a few blocks as part of a journey is some kind of crazy physical burden.
- surrealize 10y ago
  > There is no way a transportation system that revolves around everyone getting into cabs is going to match that sort of efficiency. If _everyone_ used lyft line/uber pool, the vehicles could be larger and more efficient. Uber/Lyft know where people are going; at scale ("everyone") they can aggregate rides more extensively.
  - naravara 10y ago
    >If _everyone_ used lyft line/uber pool, the vehicles could be larger and more efficient. That's called a bus. If I have to ride in an efficiently routed, high capacity vehicle I'm essentially just riding a bus service with an app that tells me when the next bus is coming. What you're describing is just an upgrade to a public transportation system. There is no reason a well administered city government couldn't do all of this. Hell, a city could develop an app for getting around in it that serves multi-modal transit. You could have an app or a card that works as a single interface for riding buses and trains, renting out a car-share or bike-share, and hailing cabs. There is no concrete benefit to tying their city transit to the whims of a private corporation when they don’t have to. >Uber/Lyft know where people are going; at scale ("everyone") they can aggregate rides more extensively. Not "everyone." Just people with smartphones at the moments when they happen to have smartphones with them. It’s also dubious to claim we would realize that many benefits from eking out microefficiencies in aggregating rides. What's the real upside there? Well maintained bus lines in walkable city plans do just fine enough on their own.

charlesdm 10y ago

Very true. If you can pay €250-350 for a month of uber-ing, vs €100 for bus tickets, and you don't mind spending the money, why not go for the Uber?

_benedict 10y ago

It depends on the city and the route you're taking. If there are dedicated bus lanes, or other dedicated forms of transport (trains, metros), taking an uber can be slower than taking transport. Certainly in London, unless you're taking a route that cuts across the city in one of the outer districts, during quiet times of day, these services are rarely materially faster than public transport. If the traffic info is inaccurate you can end up in a journey that's many times slower, without expecting it. It's still great as an option; it expands the utility of taxis tremendously, since previously the arrival latency was unknown and potentially quite high. With a mature marketplace, the QoS for taxis as a whole goes up tremendously. But really it's a simple competition with the QoS of the local public transport, and in my experience (in the UK) the Uber QoS is somewhat correlated with the QoS of the local public transport, so it is rarely (if ever) objectively better. It just offers different characteristics that are sometimes worth the cost.

humanrebar 10y ago

> In the future I see a fleet of larger vehicles combined with a Uber Pool type app working really well. This already exists. Or it existed anyway. NYC used to have "Chinatown buses" that ran underserved routes for a fraction of the price. NYC and the MTA prosecuted them and got rid of them. Furthermore, innovation and competition in busing is great in Latin America. But we're waiting on regulations to change, not for innovation to happen. I agree that a fleet of self driving mini buses sounds great for efficiency and even housing prices (the pool of commutable properties goes up and the price of rent goes down). Even a fleet of buses with drivers that are allowed to innovate on the business model (monthly subscriptions? scheduled pickup windows? flex pricing?) would be better than what the U.S. has now.

macNchz 10y ago
'Dollar vans' are still very much a thing in NYC, you'll see them often if you know what to look for: http://projects.newyorker.com/story/nyc-dollar-vans/ http://projects.newyorker.com/story/nyc-dollar-vans/
- humanrebar 10y ago
  Right. They should be legitimized and licensed so companies like Lyft can provide different features (wifi, extra clean vehicles, scheduled rides, all-you-can-ride plans, etc.) and different lines.
objclxt 10y ago
> NYC used to have "Chinatown buses" that ran underserved routes for a fraction of the price. NYC and the MTA prosecuted them and got rid of them The implication in your comment seems to be that the MTA went after the Chinatown buses because they were anti innovation and competition. I'm not sure if you ever took the Fung Wah bus from Boston to NYC, but one reason the DoT and MTA worked so hard to get rid of them was they had a tendency to burst into flames by the side of the road.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  And yet people in outer burroughs and Jersey still have really long commutes and unacceptable bus service. NYC and the MTA weren't as interested in replacing the Chinatown buses with safer options or otherwise improving the safety standards.

wcummings 10y ago

If you live in a congested city taking the train can be faster than Uber for some trips. I don't like paying $15-$20 for the privilege of sitting in traffic when the same trip would have cost me $2-$3 on public transit.

xyzzy_plugh 10y ago
But there is a convenience factor to consider. Trains run on a schedule; they get crowded, you may have to stand; they depart from and arrive at predetermined locations. They may travel faster and more efficiently, but do they actually get you to your destination quicker? Do you spend effort planning your schedule around the train? In my experience Uber is vastly superior than all other available transportation options.
- tetraca 10y ago
  In my experience it's only preferable to: 1. parking/driving downtown, which is more expensive and 2. not being late for work because I lack the will to get up some days. The express bus line here will pick me up reasonably close to my house and drops me off across the street from my building, and can drive in exclusive lanes, such that Uber/Lyft often takes longer and significantly more expensive. I do not live in a dense enough area to really care about how packed the bus is and I certainly don't care about whether I need to sit or stand.

dllthomas 10y ago

> the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport Taking the bus from my home to work, I get to skip the bridge toll plaza, I get a nicer view (being up higher than an individual car), and I can get a seat with space enough to comfortably get work done. Taking BART home is substantially faster than waiting in traffic out of the city, whoever is driving. Uber, Lyft, et al are often a better user experience on balance than public transit. Calling them "strictly better" is an exaggeration.

naravara 10y ago

>The thing is, the user experience of Uber, Lyft et al is strictly better than public transport. Some would even say it is 10x better (in the From Zero to One sense). A bus can transport about 60 people in footprint of 2-3 cars (which would transport about 15). There is no way a transportation system that revolves around everyone getting into cabs is going to match that sort of efficiency. The "user experience' of such a service that ignores externalities like forcing people to sit in traffic (raising travel times and prices) is not a good analysis. Also, many people don't think that having to walk a few blocks as part of a journey is some kind of crazy physical burden.

surrealize 10y ago
> There is no way a transportation system that revolves around everyone getting into cabs is going to match that sort of efficiency. If _everyone_ used lyft line/uber pool, the vehicles could be larger and more efficient. Uber/Lyft know where people are going; at scale ("everyone") they can aggregate rides more extensively.
- naravara 10y ago
  >If _everyone_ used lyft line/uber pool, the vehicles could be larger and more efficient. That's called a bus. If I have to ride in an efficiently routed, high capacity vehicle I'm essentially just riding a bus service with an app that tells me when the next bus is coming. What you're describing is just an upgrade to a public transportation system. There is no reason a well administered city government couldn't do all of this. Hell, a city could develop an app for getting around in it that serves multi-modal transit. You could have an app or a card that works as a single interface for riding buses and trains, renting out a car-share or bike-share, and hailing cabs. There is no concrete benefit to tying their city transit to the whims of a private corporation when they don’t have to. >Uber/Lyft know where people are going; at scale ("everyone") they can aggregate rides more extensively. Not "everyone." Just people with smartphones at the moments when they happen to have smartphones with them. It’s also dubious to claim we would realize that many benefits from eking out microefficiencies in aggregating rides. What's the real upside there? Well maintained bus lines in walkable city plans do just fine enough on their own.