[erispoe]

Uber will never outlast urban public transit. Because bigger vehicles and fixed routes are simply more efficient at transporting a lot of people in dense environment.

It can easily replace inefficient minibus lines in the suburbs though, and riding your own car to real public transit (in this case, the train). That's potentially a significant market, but I doubt it's as big as the taxi market they're trying to take over.

[erikpukinskis]

> bigger vehicles and fixed routes are simply more efficient at transporting a lot of people in dense environment

Sure, for the most heavily travelled routes. Some fraction of trips—those where you're going to the same place, from the same place, at the same time as a bunch of people—fall in that category. Daily commute from a dense suburb to a metropolitan city center. Weekend trips from a dense city to a popular beach.

But for the majority of trips, a giant empty bus running several blocks away in the slightly wrong direction is far from the most optimal transport method, especially if you have a fleet of various sized driverless cars.

Centralized routes and large fixed vehicle size are generally not going to be a good thing for efficiency once we have autonomous driving.

[droopyEyelids]

You're not thinking of 'externalization'

Externalization is the key to Uber disrupting mass transit. It doesn't matter how much more efficient busses and trains are if Uber can continue to push the costs of its operations onto the environment, taxpayers, and the less wealthy who drive for the company.

(I know this article isn't about that directly, just wanted to chime in)

[erispoe]

It's about basic geometry, not cost. You simply cannot fill the streets of San Francisco, Seattle or New York with all the people who would take the bus (not even speaking about trains), with 4 people per car max (often 1 or 2), and not expect streets to be clogged to death. It takes way less space to transport people by public transit.