[boarsofcanada]

$30/mo is slightly mind boggling for this.

I’ve enjoyed the ~70 or so Waymo rides I have taken but to me Waymo, Uber, and Lyft are methods of last resort.

My feet, BART, and SFMuni are my primary methods of transportation and for $104/mo I can take an unlimited number of trips, usually very conveniently.

[arjie]

The biggest advantage with public transit is that your mind is not engaged driving. But at some point, the speed advantage is overwhelming. And eventually the price advantage dominates. Taking my family and grandparents to the airport is $40 by car^W rideshare and $45 by BART and twice the amount of time for me: I live upstairs from a T-train / Caltrain stop. I'd invite anyone to price out the difference themselves.

Inside San Francisco, using public transit except for directly between BART stops is incredibly slow. For almost all journeys e-bikes dominate the speed discussion, and cars are second. The biggest constraint for us that made us take public transit is that our child was too young for a bike and we'd still only take it to Union Square.

I spent over a decade on a bicycle plus Muni/BART Fastpass and it's pretty good for the price if you're single and stay inside the city. As such a person I could crack open a book and a 15 min from Glen Park to Montgomery St. was the same as a 1 h from Montgomery to El Cerrito (the latter even preferable).

But the various policy choices popular in San Francisco (intentionally high labour usage, ill and violent people in public spaces, low cleaning capacity) do act against transit being a good choice. By comparison, I have family in Vancouver, BC where the politics are similar but the policy is different and the trains run very often and are fast (these are the most important things - made possible by removing labor from the equation) and are relatively clean. People will offer you a seat when you hop on with your stroller, elevators are functional and relatively clean, and it's overall a lot more usable as a family.

[laurencerowe]

> Inside San Francisco, using public transit except for directly between BART stops is incredibly slow. For almost all journeys e-bikes dominate the speed discussion, and cars are second. The biggest constraint for us that made us take public transit is that our child was too young for a bike and we'd still only take it to Union Square.

Buses are fairly fast where bus lanes exist. With the kid I now take the bus far more often rather than walking 15 minutes to the Bart station and spending an extra 5 minutes each end navigating Bart’s incredibly poorly located lifts at each end.

I bought an e-bike once the kid was 2 and it has been pretty great. It would be absolutely wonderful if San Francisco created a network of real separated bike lanes or slow streets.

[nfw2]

Bart seems much more cleaner and safer now than in years past. I don't know if free mental space is the main benefit of transit. During rush hour, you can't do much outside of listen to something, which you can do while driving too.

Not having to deal with parking and the fact that driving is actually very dangerous seem like stronger points in transits favor.

Fwiw, driving also has some negative je ne sais quoi for me that goes beyond the functional advantages. Maybe it's the aesthetic onslaught of ugly concrete, noise, heat and smell of sitting in traffic for an hour on the highway. Maybe there's something about getting around on your feet that makes me feel viscerally connected to the city. Maybe it's just the exercise that compounds over time. But I hate driving.

[nradov]

Driving is actually not "very dangerous" if you're sober, not distracted, and driving a properly maintained modern car. Like most any activity the risk isn't zero but you can cut it down a lot.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...

[nfw2]

Drunk people hit sober people, most people get distracted sometimes, and oil changes don't make your car safer.

Driving is very dangerous compared than transit. It is not very dangerous compared to knife fights or getting cancer.

[nradov]

I do stuff for fun that's more dangerous than driving so I guess perspectives vary.

[laurencerowe]

Driving is very safe at city speeds for those inside the big metal box. Less so for the pedestrians and cyclists on the outside.

[TylerE]

I know this goes against the HN groupthink, but a lot of those accidents are not the car or the drivers fault. I live in a small college town. We have huge problems with students just walking right off the curb, especially when drunk.

[borski]

The pedestrian is not the one driving the weapon. It is your fault if you hit a pedestrian, even if they walk right off the curb, even if they’re drunk.

Unless they intentionally jump in front of your car in an attempt to commit suicide, it is always on you to ensure you can stop and respond to an emergency, and a pedestrian is such a thing, imho.

[throwaway2037]

    > Bart seems much more cleaner and safer now than in years past.

Did you ride in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and (early) 2000s? It was fine. How narrow is your "years past"?

[nfw2]

My point is Bart feels safe now and that it seems to be trending up not down. I am talking about the trend I have observed living in the bay area for the past 15 years. Why would not including the 70s in my window of comparison invalidate my point?

[throwaway2037]

Can you explain your math behind "$40 by car"?

[bhelkey]

I assume that is the typical Uber/Lyft prices. It would likely be a lot cheaper if another family member does drop off/pickup.

[iririririr]

if you are parking in SF, make that $60 total.

[jbmchuck]

It seems to me a lot of people just really don't like to be associated with public transit or anything associated with anything remotely underclass.

It's a class marker to be driven around in an autonomous 6000lbs tank rather than move your legs a bit.

[boredatoms]

Be serious. Its not a class marker, its a nessesity. Even the poor have cars

People clearly chooses the convenience and predictability of cars, and pay significantly to do so

In places where there is greater convenience/predictability from pubilc transit, they choose it. See london/ny

[elmomle]

It is also a class marker. I intentionally lived without a car in West Coast city as a younger man, and I learned to be very selective about whom I told. The vast majority of people would assume that the only reason for not having a car is not being able to afford one, and would judge me accordingly.

[cik]

I have the same situation here. We live intentionally without a car, and our quality of life is fantastic. People assume poverty, given the lack of car, as opposed to I just don't see the value, and value controlling my time (the walks are force exercise, a win for me). I learned along time ago to not play other peoples games.

[steveklabnik]

I only recent got my driver's license again, at 40, after it expired a decade ago. Having a car just didn't make financial sense to me (and still doesn't, I just want the option to be able to drive one sometimes).

I had to learn pretty quick that, if this trivia topic came up, I'd need to mention "I lived in NYC so long that I just never used it and didn't realize it expired" because otherwise people would assume that I lost it because of too many DUIs.

[hecanjog]

I chose not to drive as a teenager (public transit even in my smallish city seemed fine, I wanted to spend my money on a computer not a car) and it was interesting to watch the assumptions go from "you are incapable / afraid" to "you must be too poor or have a DUI" over the last 30 years.

It's inconceivable to most people that it could be a choice.

[HDThoreaun]

Because living in west coast cities without a car sucks. They see a decision you made, question why you made it, and can only conclude it's because you cant afford the other one. People in areas where public transit is good dont come to the same conclussion.

[s1artibartfast]

We judge a lot of our friends who dont have cars, or worse licenses. It can be annoying to drive a 30 or 40 something adult around like a toddler.

Increasingly, we just stopped inviting them to select activities. It is like inviting the gluten free vegan to dinner parties.

If I am hosting an event, I'm not interested is spending a disproportionate ammount of time or effort to accommodate one person.

[socalgal2]

West Coast cities (or pretty much all cities in the USA except maybe NYC and Chicago and sometimes SF) suck without car. Yes, you can do it. It will be a chore.

That attitude and class marker disappears in big cities in much of Asia and Europe

[hamdingers]

Are cars convenient? Drivers are constantly complaining about inconveniences. Parking, storage, maintenance, repairs, citations, congestion, construction, registration, insurance, the toil of driving itself, negative interactions with other drivers, etc.

Are cars predictable? According to google maps, my route to downtown Los Angeles could be 30 to 150 minutes depending on the time of day, the train is always 50.

It seems you would have to be unaware of alternatives to make those claims.

[nradov]

This is very much location dependant. Cars are convenient, predictable, and affordable in most of the USA. People just drive to their destination and park in one of the abundant free spaces without worrying about it. There are only a handful of dense cities where traffic and parking are a huge hassle. Public transit can sometimes be a great option and we should build more of it, but realistically most people will continue to rely on cars (possibly autonomous) in our lifetimes.

[drnick1]

> Cars are convenient, predictable, and affordable in most of the USA. People just drive to their destination and park in one of the abundant free spaces without worrying about it.

This. I don't know what places people have in mind when they say that driving is inconvenient. Even in NYC driving isn't as bad as people claim, except perhaps in Lower Manhattan where there just aren't any parking spots. In most other places, a car takes you from door to door cheaper and faster than any alternative.

[themafia]

> Even the poor have cars

Poor, relative to whom?

[frankfrank13]

This is a huge difference between NYC and SF. There are certainly some in NYC who would prefer Waymo (direct route, no driver chitchat), but I don't think many New Yorkers would be proud of taking Waymo's. Most people feel embarrassed to admit they took an Uber somewhere!

[throwaway2037]

    > Most people [in NYC] feel embarrassed to admit they took an Uber somewhere!

High income women (or women married to high income men) -- of all ages -- not at all. Most women under 30 with a good job expected to be "Uber'd" home from a date. As a joke, if you are very high income, you would be embarrassed to ride Uber because your car and driver were diverted for an unexpected repair.

[lanthissa]

in nyc any car based transportation is slower than subways often, but everyones so narrow minded they just think about their own life. if you're old in nyc cabs/ubers/waymo are a big deal, without them you're stuck walking to a bus stop or subway and that gets hard in your 70s and 80s.

[TulliusCicero]

Public transit in the US just mostly sucks. It tends to be sparse, slow, unreliable, and yeah sometimes there are crazies who make the environment feel dangerous.

You send Americans over to visit Tokyo and they have zero problems taking the train. The problems isn't with individual Americans.

[drnick1]

Americans don't want to live in dense neighborhoods, so public transit is not viable (the operating costs would be too high). Foreigners are often amazed by the quality of life in American suburbs relative to what they experience at home for this reason. Our homes, cars, stores, cafes, are a lot more spacious for example.

[TulliusCicero]

Americans actually like decent, walkable neighborhoods. But there's no cultural momentum behind actually zoning for such; quite the opposite, really.

[b33j0r]

If you are talking about a city where this makes sense like Phoenix, the public transportation is very poor. It can take 90 minutes to cover the distance you could drive in 20.

They have a light rail, but it only goes between downtown and a few suburbs. Your other option is several bus transfers.

If you’re thinking of cities like New York or London, public transport is more practical in many cases.

[jpitz]

Not to mention how hostile Phoenix can be to walking.

[nradov]

The HN commentariat skews young and male so opinions seen here are often disconnected from average people in the real world. Many women feel unsafe riding on US public transit because other riders act out in antisocial ways. We can argue about whether this perception is rational based on crime statistics or whatever but you're not going to convince them to ride until the police and transit system operators start enforcing basic rules of behavior and cleanliness.

[rustystump]

Can confirm. My partner has had far too many bad encounters on bart. I had a female coworker say she saw a guy get murder with a hammer on bart.

Obviously everyone’s experience is different but public transit had a bad rep for a reason and it had nothing to do with class/status and almost all to do with safety. Uber/lyft is getting a bad rep too due to safety.

[Brendinooo]

Not saying you're 100% wrong, but there are tons of markets where Uber is robust enough to rely on and get you where you need to go, and public transit absolutely is not. (I'm half an hour outside of Pittsburgh.)

[outside2344]

Yes, and this is a policy failure.

[Brendinooo]

...that's a totally different argument right?

[stbtrax]

More like want to avoid being in an enclosed space with mentally ill, people smoking meth, people that smell of petrified urine, with uncomfortably hot temperatures and crowding.

[throwaway2037]

Are people really "smoking meth" on SF Muni buses or trains? I doubt it. On a bus/train, the driver would stop and call the police.

    > uncomfortably hot temperatures

The SF Muni trains and diesel-powered buses have air conditioning. What am I missing here?

[bcatanzaro]

I have been in an SF muni car with someone actively smoking something that was not marijuana or a cigarette. I think it was fentanyl but I’m not sure. This was about two years ago. I hope this is tolerated less now than it has been.

[Rebelgecko]

Idk about SF but in LA I've definitely seen people with pipes doing the fent lean at train stations

[isatty]

San Francisco public transportation is neither reliable or safe enough for my family. The only thing that’s remotely decent is Caltrain, but that has the last mile problem.

[throwaway2037]

I am on the fence about this comment. Without doxxing yourself too much, what neighborhood do you live and where do your children and (I assume) wife work? I would disagree for about 50% of the city in the "western zones". Sure, it is slow, but it is reliable and safe (both trains and buses).

[calebio]

The L-Taraval, at least historically, was not reliable between downtown and the outer sunset (past Sunset Blvd).

[HDThoreaun]

Wealthy people in NYC have no problem with the subway. When the service is better than alternatives people use it.

[throwaway2037]

    > Wealthy people in NYC have no problem with the subway.

No trolling: I gotta ask: Is this humor? If so, hat tip. Else: "Wealthy people in NYC (Manhattan)" have a car and driver. They don't care about the subway.

What I do believe: People that earn 200K to 400K in NYC/Manhattan still frequently ride the subway to work. Why? They rent/buy an apartment on an extremely convenient subway line to their office. They are not quite rich enough to have a car and driver.

[HDThoreaun]

> People that earn 200K to 400K in NYC/Manhattan still frequently ride the subway to work. Why? They rent/buy an apartment on an extremely convenient subway line to their office.

Sure, this is mostly what I was referring to. The overwhelming number of people in SF would never dream of choosing where to live based off public transit access. I cant speak to billionaires, but the upper middle class of NYC(imo these people are all wealthy but we can change that word if you like) are mostly happy or at least open to public transit. Its not a class thing until you get to billionaire level. Therefore the reason people don't use public transit isn't because it's associated with the underclass, it's because almost all of it in the US is objectively worse than other transportation options.

[throwaway2037]

    > The overwhelming number of people in SF would never dream of choosing where to live based off public transit access.

I want to push back on this idea. Why would Manhattan (and the very selective group of people that I discussed) be any different than San Francisco? Think about it: Imagine that you work for Uber/Twitter/Google/Meta in San Francisco and earn 200K to 400K total comp. It is very unlikely that you drive to work. (Let's assume your office is downtown or SoMa.) You ride Muni Metro or BART. Where do you think these people live? Just like the junior bankers/lawyers in Manhattan, they live in a neighborhood with excellent access to Muni Metro or BART to make their commute as convenient as possible. I don't say it often here on HN, but if you live in the Northeast Quadrant of San Francisco, it is quite reasonable to live without a car. The best mass transit options are overwhelmingly in that quadrant of SF.

[surajrmal]

I use public transit but it comes with a lot of inconvenience. You need to stand on a moving vehicle more often than not, it takes more time, there are panhandlers, you might not feel safe, transfers don't generally seem to time well, going up and down multiple flights of stairs is a fair bit of exercise, some people don't shower as often as you'd hope, etc. People generally pay for convenience. I certainly would if I could budget for it. I couldn't care less about status or class.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

I'm much less likely to get randomly harassed or robbed or stabbed or catch COVID in a car where I am the sole occupant. I'm happy to pay extra to drop the chances of those things down to 0.00%.

If that makes me some kind of class supremacist in your silly world, then guilty as charged.

[donkers]

How often do you think that happens to transit riders? Your concerns seem overblown. And by driving, your odds of getting hurt or dying in a car accident go way up. You’re trading one set of risks for another, not eliminating risk entirely.

[TulliusCicero]

This response is part of the problem.

People feel uncomfortable about others who look really crazy/shady for public transit or in parks, and in response they're told, "have you considered that maybe you're just overthinking it?"

Instead of fixing the problem, we blame those who have the audacity to notice.

[donkers]

Both things can be true. People can have exaggerated fears about the dangers of transit (especially compared to driving, which people seem to pretend is relatively risk-free), and the crazy / shady folks on transit can still be a problem and still need to be addressed.

I can only speak from my own experience riding transit in Seattle for 9 years. I've never had any issues. Sure, there are sketchy characters, but I've never been bothered, and never had anyone bother me. I definitely see news stories about bad shit happening on transit, but when you look at the number of people riding transit vs the amount of bad things that happen, and you look at the number of people driving and how many people die or get seriously injured in the city daily from car-related accidents, it's a no brainer. You don't see people dying on transit every day, but car-related fatalities are a daily occurrence.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

Yes I am trading one set of risks for another based on my judgement of which risks I prefer to bear, as it is my right to do. Simply leaving my house entails a set of risks. I get to choose how I want to handle and prioritize those.

The point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with "class".

[rustystump]

I have been puked on when riding the bart and know several people who have seen a person die or get murdered. This dismissal of the very real problems of public transport is why public transport has the reputation it does.

[hamdingers]

You are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a car than you are in a transit vehicle.

[chairmansteve]

Try living in Phoenix without a car...

[IncreasePosts]

Do you think people avoid the underclass because it depletes their aura, or because they like avoiding clearly mentally ill people, or people with no ability for personal hygiene, or people who need to smoke meth on the bus?

The first two are what I experienced today on a bus in SF, and the guy smoking meth was about 6 days ago

[markbao]

I don’t think this is entirely wrong, in that there is a ‘class thing’ about riding the bus, but it’s more practicality than a class marker for a lot of people.

- In SF you can either walk 1-10 minutes to the bus, wait 0-15 minutes for the bus, tap on (while watching most other passengers evade the fare), get dropped off, and then walk 1-10 minutes to your destination… or spend an additional $5-10 to get Ubered door to door at a third of the time. First and last mile are real costs.

- In SF I Uber, unless Muni/BART is a straight shot. In NYC I take the subway. It’s not really a class thing. In NYC it takes longer to Uber much of the time and it costs several more times than the subway. You still have a 1-5 minute first and last mile problem, but headways on trains is decent and above ground taxis are incredibly inconsistent with traffic.

That about matches up with the experience with social groups in similar classes in these areas too. Most of my SF friends Uber. Most of my NYC friends take the subway.

[throwaway2037]

This comment is legit! So many of these comments here are wildly biased to people's own personal experiences (usually the male/female Karens are the most noisy). You make many good points here.

My question(s): Why do you think Uber works so well in SF? Why don't they get trapped on Market Street with crawling speeds?

I lived in NYC (Manhattan) many years ago and I always felt that when I needed a taxi (cold/snow/rain), they were hard to get. As a result, I almost never took a classic yellow cab in NYC/Manhattan.

[socalgal2]

When it's as bad as SF's then yes, trams/trains/busses can often suck. I used them but it was rarely plesant. Other cities (Europe, Asia) are much better.

[ctoth]

> It's a class marker

> autonomous 6000lbs tank

Hmmm. The meta here made me chuckle. Calling cars tanks is certainly a class marker.

[throwaway85825]

Nonsense. This is just the "last mile problem"

[gopalv]

> me Waymo, Uber, and Lyft are methods of last resort.

Most of my Waymo rides were from or to a BART station - the real utility of these services is to pull a last mile when I don't have a car.

There's no better way of getting out of Powell out of the traffic deadlock at 5 PM than BART.

But once you get south of Daly City, there's no timed connections for the surface streets.

If you need to go to Brisbane from Powell, the 2 mile car ride is worth the effect.

[throwaway2037]

This is a great post. Very practical.

This part:

    > If you need to go to Brisbane from Powell, the 2 mile car ride is worth the effect.

I checked Google Maps. I don't see any BART stations that are only 2 miles (3 km) from downtown Brisbane (California). What I am missing? Or are you taking Caltrain, then getting an Uber from 4th and King Caltrain terminal to Powell?

[throwaway2037]

Don't tell me... you are a man? I guess so. How many middle class women and above want to ride SFMuni after dark? Few.

The future of self-driving taxis is women (customers) who want to live in a big city, but don't want to ride mass transit, nor ride in a ride-hailing services (Uber, etc.) with a human driver... because most drivers are men.

[seizethecheese]

This kind of gender politics is tiresome. You could easily point out that for women public transit is untenable after dark instead of bringing the OP’s identity into it.

[themafia]

> This kind of gender politics is tiresome.

I think they're trying to convey that this kind of gender ignorance is equally tiresome.

[throwaway2037]

You hit the nail on the head.

[saghm]

I imagine that Uber can also be somewhat sketchy but with a different risk profile (getting into the car with a stranger, often a man, and needing to trust that they'll drive you to the right location), which means that self-driving taxis would be a potential safety upgrade over that as well.

[throwaway2037]

1000%. Ask any women who uses ride-hailing services: Have you ever had a situation where the driver made you uncomfortable or fear for your safety? I would conservatively estimate 100% of women. I think men just do not understand how much women are willing to pay to guarantee they can avoid this situation.

[saghm]

I definitely was not aware of this when I was younger, but after years of learning to be a better listener and learn about experiences outside my own, my perception is that there are unfortunately quite a lot of situations that most men would consider quite mundane but pretty much all women will have had to fear for their safety in. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised that when others have trouble conceiving of this phenomenon given how long I went without picking up on it, but now that I'm aware of it it's impossible not to see it everywhere.

[throwawaytea]

Not a single woman has even asked or cared if I felt uncomfortable at a gas station at night, or ATM, or walking down the street. Yet data shows men are more likely to be physically assaulted and/or killed by strangers.

[saghm]

This framing ignores the fact that most people who commit crimes like the ones you mention are men. A man encountered in one of those situations alone is a lot more likely to be a threat, so I'm not sure why you'd expect that a woman would try to initiate conversation with him.

[throwawaytea]

? I'm not saying women are supposed to chat up random men. I'm saying of the women I know well, not one has ever cared about the danger non criminal men face in the world. All they talk about is the danger women face.

[waterhouse]

Uber and Lyft both provide an option for women to request female drivers. In both cases, they say they can't guarantee it and that they may end up matched with a male driver. (In Lyft's case, they group "nonbinary" with women.) I suppose you could cancel if you see it's a man, and if that's rare enough, maybe that's workable. (Though, it seems, that would happen only if there aren't any female drivers available, and thus you'd have to fall back to other transportation.)

https://help.uber.com/en/riders/article/women-preferences-fa...

https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/all/articles/9030680293-Women...

[CobrastanJorji]

Yeah, but imagine you live in Phoenix, AZ, and you can't/won't drive for whatever reason, you've got to get to work every day. Phoenix has buses, but they're not going to be convenient for lots of possible daily commutes. Daily taxi/Uber/Waymo rides are probably a pretty good choice.

Or imagine that you work a professional travel job and you're flying to/from the airport on a weekly basis. Your employer will pay for your ride to the airport, so why would you take public transit? Now you're doing at least 3-4 taxi/uber/waymo rides a week.

[hamdingers]

I have a job where I fly frequently, my employer pays my way to/from the airport, and I take transit whenever possible because uber/lyft/taxi services seem to select horrible drivers.

I'd certainly consider a Waymo if I was flying to an airport they serviced though.

[cheeze]

Or LA

[solenoid0937]

I would gladly pay this much for Waymo, Waymos are so much nicer than taxis and public transit.

[nonethewiser]

Can someone help me put this into context?

$30/month is way cheaper than $104/month.

How would you compare the base metrics?

Time to start traveling, average walk amount per trip, total trip duration, coverage parity, etc.

I suspect you can get into a waymo quicker and with less walking than a subway, unless you live very close. I imagine total trip time is pretty variable. Coverage parity is hard to guess about - in theory a waymo can go anywhere but I suspect public transport has longer "tendrils."

[crooked-v]

It's $30/month for these extras. You're still paying per trip, just with a de facto 10% off.

[shostack]

10% off is practically nothing and also irrelevant because it is the total cost of the trip that matters and they can easily increase that over time behind the scenes in a way that makes up for that 10% and then some once they determine the price elasticity of these premium customers which I imagine is quite higher.

[nonethewiser]

Oh I missed that. Thanks for clarifying.

[boarsofcanada]

For just the two daily BART trips that I do within SF, it would be $1200+/mo for Waymo/Uber/Lyft. So from that perspective perhaps the extra $30/mo for the small convenience of getting priority and being able to cancel a few rides could be seen as “cheap” by comparison.

If I include the walks of 30+ minutes and bus rides, it’s probably pushing $2k/mo in rideshare costs.

[spiznnx]

If you spend $300 on waymo per month, which is easy if you take it to work 3x a week, it's free after the 10% cash back. I don't see how its mind boggling, it's clearly not for anyone who takes Waymo as a last resort.

[vidarh]

I take public transport a lot and walk a lot (I live 3h walk from central London - I know because I've walked it, for fun), but I still also use Uber regularly because sometimes I simply don't have time. If I lived in the centre I probably would have very little use for it, but for people even slightly outside the core of cities well served by public transport, it's usually nice to have options.

[throwaway2037]

    > I live 3h walk from central London - I know because I've walked it, for fun

This sounds like a great blog post! Or you can collab with https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/

[vidarh]

It wasn't that interesting. I had a healthcare appointment near Victoria and had a half day off and decided to walk home. I regularly do 2h walks, so it wasn't a big stretch... It wasn't a particularly exciting walk - mostly very similar stretches of semi-urban areas after the first 30m or so.

[Brendinooo]

It'll depend on your use cases, probably.

If 15 rides a month averaging $30 a ride can remove your need to own a car, that's $450. In that range the subscription would pay for itself.

Compare that to a car payment, insurance, maintenance, and gas. Pretty favorable!

[Arainach]

For many people this makes sense, but once you reach a level of money where your basic needs are met, most people trade their money for time, and things like this are one of the most obvious ways.

Not long ago I walked from downtown SF up to the Golden Gate and walked across and back. My feet were tired and I didn't want to walk back downtown. It took me long enough to figure out where buses pick up that I missed one; at that point my decision was something like "70 minutes to wait for bus, take bus, transfer or walk to my hotel" or "23 minutes + $20 to get a Waymo" and I consider that a great value for my money.

I am a huge fan of public transit and try to avoid driving whenever I can. When the public transit goes approximately from where you are to where you want to be, or when it comes frequently enough that transfers don't cost you half an hour if you miss a connection, it's great, but there are so many edge cases.

I've never needed to call a taxi/Waymo in London, and in NYC the only time I did was getting from the airport to Manhattan the first time I went (every other time I know how to take AirTrain to public transit). In nearly every other city I've taken a Lyft/Waymo/Taxi at least once because the system isn't good enough to be universal.

[socalgal2]

> most people trade their money for time, and things like this are one of the most obvious ways.

Non-sequitur but that reminds me I lived in Tokyo where the trains stop around 12am to 5am. It is (was?) a commitment to decide to stay out late because I knew I'd have to say out until morning. Eventually though, 4-5 years after living there, I realized $50-$75, 2 or 3 times a month to cab it home at 2am or 3am was better than not going out because I didn't want to stay out until 5am. And even then, my total transportation expenses were below a car.

My current car, owned for 5 years, not including electricity, but including replacing the tires once, and paying car ins, effectively costs $1350 a month, $337 a week. In other words, a train/bus pass + a few cabs/uber/waymo rides is generally less than $337 a week. At 10yrs, assuming no repairs, and no change in car ins, the car would be $216 a week. Remember, that's not including fuel/electricity.

If I used it to commit my fuel bill would be $75 a month currently (short commute) so add that in.

[bbor]

This is for the people who uber to work every day. Yes, they somehow exist. It blew my mind to meet one — he was spending something like $40/day on transport, as a new grad SWE!

[arnonejoe]

It would be nice if they had Bart first class with fast wifi and premium interior. The green vinyl seats are better than the old cloth ones but it’s still pretty gross.

[crooked-v]

"Mind boggling"? I don't see that at all. You still have to pay for each trip, this is a separate cost on top.

[socalgal2]

Works in SF if you are near one. Does not work in Los Angeles (and probably other Waymo cities)

[aeternum]

All hail the exemplary citizen!

(does that satisfy you sir?)

[laweijfmvo]

A Waymo ride once quoted me close to $100 for a couple miles. The same Uber ride ended up being like $21. Surge pricing is real but c’mon.