[jhuckestein]

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.

[_benedict]

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]

> 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]

'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/

[humanrebar]

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]

> 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]

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.

[dllthomas]

> 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]

>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]

> 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]

>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.

[surrealize]

The bus doesn't necessarily go where I want to go, when I want to go there. Uber/Lyft do. At scale, they can do both demand-dispatching and ride-aggregation.

> There is no reason a well administered city government couldn't do all of this.

It would be great if they did, but I'm surely not holding my breath for everyone to get a well administered city government. In the hypothetical that we're discussing (uber/lyft usage that's high enough for most rides to be aggregated) the cost of using uber/lyft would be much lower per-rider. In that world, cities would be better off giving residents subsidies for private ride-hailing use.

As long as there's a competitive market with multiple entrants, the cities wouldn't be at the mercy of the private corps. The concrete benefit of the private companies is much more competent technology development, and the option to switch if they're not giving you what you want.

> Not "everyone." Just people with smartphones at the moments when they happen to have smartphones with them.

"Everyone" was the premise of the comment I was replying to. But seriously, smartphone penetration is quite high. And how many smartphone users don't carry their phone with them when they go out?

Buses aren't a good choice for "everyone" either--they only help people whose trips align with bus lines and schedules.

[naravara]

>The bus doesn't necessarily go where I want to go, when I want to go there. Uber/Lyft do. At scale, they can do both demand-dispatching and ride-aggregation.

Hail a cab? You can even use a cab-hailing app? There is nothing magic about Uber/Lyft's service that a municipal taxi service couldn't use.

And an aggregated bus service through Uber isn't going to be any better. Once the VC funding subsidy runs dry and the dream of cheap, point-to-point ride hailing is going to die. You're going to have to learn to walk a few blocks every now and then.

>As long as there's a competitive market with multiple entrants, the cities wouldn't be at the mercy of the private corps.

If you're talking subsidization then it will have to be. Administering tax subsidies or credits for using ride-hailing in lieu of actual public transit would be a nightmare to implement if the market is truly open to any entrant to the market. And there is no reason a city government should want to allow a private corp to skim off the top either.

>But seriously, smartphone penetration is quite high. And how many smartphone users don't carry their phone with them when they go out?

More than you would think. Young people, old people, poor people, mentally handicapped people, people who have been away from power outlets for a while. Foreigners who don't have domestic SIM cards yet.

>Buses aren't a good choice for "everyone" either--they only help people whose trips align with bus lines and schedules.

Bus lines and schedules aren't exogenous. They're put together based on estimations of where the demand for the bus line is. You think people aren't at the mercy of Uber and Lyft's schedules? You call a car and it says you're waiting 15 minutes for the next ride, that's no different than going to the bus stop and seeing that you'll be waiting 15 minutes for the next bus.

[surrealize]

> Hail a cab? You can even use a cab-hailing app? There is nothing magic about Uber/Lyft's service that a municipal taxi service couldn't use.

Are you arguing for or against ride-hailing apps, here? The original comment you replied to was that ride-hailing (as exemplified by uber/lyft) is a much better experience than existing public transit.

> And an aggregated bus service through Uber isn't going to be any better.

Compared to existing public transit (on a set schedule/route), uber/lyft are better because they're demand-dispatched based on where people want to go and when.

> Young people, old people, poor people, mentally handicapped people, people who have been away from power outlets for a while. Foreigners who don't have domestic SIM cards yet.

Many of those people will also have a hard time figuring out which buses (with which combination of transfers) will get them where they want to go. Assuming that public transit even goes where they want to go in the first place.

You're concerned about excluding people, but you're ignoring all the people who are excluded by transit routes/schedules.

> Bus lines and schedules aren't exogenous. They're put together based on estimations of where the demand for the bus line is.

Those estimates are exactly that, estimates, and the resulting routes are subject to lobbying. Plus, the bus lines don't change very often--if they did, it would be very confusing.

But demand-dispatched transportation like uber/lyft know exactly where people are starting from, exactly where they're going, and exactly when. If there's a popular show at a music club, the bus lines aren't going to adapt to that in real time.

> You call a car and it says you're waiting 15 minutes for the next ride, that's no different than going to the bus stop and seeing that you'll be waiting 15 minutes for the next bus.

The difference is that I'm waiting at home rather than waiting at the bus stop. And that the car is going where I want to go, without transfers.

[manigandham]

> More than you would think. Young people, old people, poor people, mentally handicapped people, people who have been away from power outlets for a while. Foreigners who don't have domestic SIM cards yet.

Ride-sharing apps are much simpler and standardized compared to the incredibly complexity of public transit options and schedules when traveling. I've seen first-hand all those people (except those without working phones) have an easier time with uber/lyft.

Poor/affordability is a different issue.

[charlesdm]

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?

[wcummings]

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]

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]

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.