|
|
|
|
|
by sokoloff
2383 days ago
|
|
Uber/Lyft offer an option for someone who is already carrying the fixed costs of owning a depreciating vehicle to come into the market part-time and do some driving for income. They also don't have to commit to set hours. These should have the effect of increasing the supply of drivers (not to the full extent of all ride-share drivers, of course). They also don't have to front the capital cost of a medallion. Ride share prices are sensitive to market demand in near real-time rather than being set by the taxi commission (in some long-term relationship to supply/demand). Combining those effects, I can easily see ride share prices settling somewhere below taxi rates and still leaving profit for all players. |
|
Except depreciation and other costs are pretty heavily a function of miles rather than time. (Especially outside of the snow belt where the number of winters plays a big role in salt damage.)
>They also don't have to front the capital cost of a medallion.
That's true but how many places is that a big factor?
We can argue the details and you're right that it's hard to compare dynamic pricing to long-term negotiated fixed pricing.
But I'm not really making a case for exactly where pricing/costs will end up assuming sustainable ride-share businesses. I'm just saying that taxi fares in most markets are probably a reasonable benchmark whether or not ride-share on average settles a bit higher or a bit lower.