8 ms·

The solution is reliable public transport. The way i see it, Uber is half price because it is sustained by VC money and ever-decreasing pay for drivers. Taxis

by mtw 10y ago

The solution is reliable public transport. The way i see it, Uber is half price because it is sustained by VC money and ever-decreasing pay for drivers. Taxis or Ubers are in theory your own private vehicle or limo. It should be special occasions. Because you're late to the meeting. Or have to go the airport. Or because you had a drink too much. Having a private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury and it shouldn't be an easy or sustainable option. Unless you are wealthy.

cmdrfred 10y ago
This only works in what, 5 - 15% of the US? Public transport isn't viable for commuting in most of the country. If you factor in time and the raise in tax required to subsidize it there it is likely that it is more cost effective to own and maintain a used car.
- whafro 10y ago
  Perhaps not for most of the country by surface area, but far more than 5-15% of the population could be effectively served by better public transportation.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. These people are marginalized already and can't take a hit like that so their more wealthy counterparts in the cities can have a higher standard of living. It can only really be implemented at the city level in a fair manner, thus it isn't really a national solution.
    - naravara 10y ago
      >I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        > Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? > And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. My point exactly, this is how it should be but municipalities are rather cash strapped at the moment so you likely won't see increased spending on anything. Thus "more public transit" isn't really possible without federal intervention. > Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure. This ignores the positive impacts. If only local roads existed very little trade would be able to take place vastly lowering GDP. Can the system be run in a more cost effective manner, certainly but that would require pushing out the public sector unions that demand unrealistic wages. Pick your poison.
        Retric 10y ago
        If only local roads existed: Trains would have continued to serve most locations cheaply. The federal highway system did great damage to the far more efferent but far less subsidized train network. Trans take less land, less capital, fewer workers, less fuel, and cause fewer deaths.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I suggest you look into the history of that. Rail lines created massive monopolies that had a stranglehold on American businesses until the creation of highways. Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Are business owners simply dumb?
        Retric 10y ago
        > Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.
- palmer 10y ago
  Well, lots more people live in those small areas you refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...
devy 10y ago
I totally concur with the OP and the solution is NOT public transit. Public transit is designed to maximize the service to cover majority of the population but NOT 100% of the use cases and population due to the limited funding and resources governments are allowed to allocate to public transit. I've been to 20 out of 30 world's mega cities. None that I've seen has a "reliable public transportation" that covers all the edge cases like what OP raised and yet have more than decent availability and punctuation. NYC's the closest and best of the bunch with 24/7 MTA subway/bus services together with LIRR/Metro North rail services. However, there are tons of pockets of places where public transit doesn't reach or VERY inconvenient to get to. This is true for tourists and visitors as well as regular commuters. I've been a commuter riding America's third largest public transit system NJ Transit bus/rail for almost 14 years. And I have many many stories to tell you that public transit is far from perfect and it NEVER WILL BE. But for the 80% of the time when it functions well and punctuate it gets the job done. When it doesn't, I picked the lowest fair of ride for hail service, be it Uber or Lyft or anyone else who can help me get my commute's last-mile problem done. That's the consumer's perspective.
- Nadya 10y ago
  For all of your mega city visits, have you been to Tokyo? If so what did you find unreliable about it? The one criticism I can see is when transport is slowed/halted due to typhoons. I found that the public transportation in most of Japan was well enough, such that I never thought to myself "If only I had a car/rental right now..." Not to mention how punctual the transportation is. Compared to where I live, where delays of 10-45+ minutes are expected, the trains in Japan would apologize for being even a single minute late. The three weeks I took the JP Rail I never had a single train be late. On the Yamanote Line, the longest I had to wait to catch a train to another part of town was 4 minutes. To me, that's absurd. My local station only runs a train once every few hours and if you miss your train you're waiting 3-4 hours for the next one to arrive. Missing a train in Tokyo is a mild inconvenience instead of a waste of most of your day.
  - pm90 10y ago
    How can these trains possibly be profitable with that kind of schedule? In fact I remember reading somewhere that they lose money... Which made me wonder whether that kind of loss is OK and can be waived off as a govt. benefit in lieu of private car ownership. I don't know how the economics would work out, but it would be interesting to see how they compare.
accountface 10y ago
Uber's pricing is definitely too low. I paid $3.75 for a 20 minute ride at one point and decided to stop using it entirely because that just seems like exploitation. I'm completely willing to pay more to give workers better wages. Lyft (and other competitors) not only charge more, but drivers keep more of it.
- dmalvarado 10y ago
  Isn't Uber heavily subsidizing fares with capital funding? I thought that was part of their monopoly strategy.
  - accountface 10y ago
    Yeah they've slashed fares and a huge part of their losses are driver subsidies. It's all a farce.
  - cmsj 10y ago
    Yes, yes they are. You are only currently paying about 40% of what each ride actually costs, overall.
- jrjf940 10y ago
  yes it's too low but if it were higher pretty much no one would use it. that's why it's unsustainable.
wlll 10y ago
The solution to some problems is reliable public transport, and I am all for improvement, but not a solution to all transport problems. For instance "I want to get from A to B when I want and in comfort" is not one of those problems in a large number of cases. Public and private transport have different tradeoffs. I use both when the venn diagram of my requirements and the provision of the transport variety overlaps most. Eg. Car to the next town because a bus would be too slow/costly (once you own a car in the NW England busses cost a lot) Train when I go to Manchester (faster, parking is a problem) Train when I go to London (faster, though perhaps more expensive, comfortable, parking again) Car when I go climbing. I don't have much gear, but I do tend to not know in advance exactly when I want to go. Taxi when I stay out past my last train in Manchester. You can make public transport better, but it's going to be very hard to make it on-demand, or with the same comfort level as a private car.
gist 10y ago
> Having a private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury and it shouldn't be an easy or sustainable option. Unless you are wealthy. What? There are plenty of people living in the suburbs (in the US) that own a car (even 2) and use it for daily commuting and they are not 'wealthy'. And public transportation isn't even an option in those places.
manigandham 10y ago
> private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury This is called a car and the vast majority have one. Ride-sharing is actually less luxurious than your own car. It's still shared transit, designed to lower costs and increase affordability by pooling resources and increasing total utilization. It is not meant for only the wealthy.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  > This is called a car and the vast majority have one. Not if the vast majority don't live in the USA. I got by with taxis for the last 9 years before moving back to the states.

by mtw 10y ago

cmdrfred 10y ago

This only works in what, 5 - 15% of the US? Public transport isn't viable for commuting in most of the country. If you factor in time and the raise in tax required to subsidize it there it is likely that it is more cost effective to own and maintain a used car.

whafro 10y ago
Perhaps not for most of the country by surface area, but far more than 5-15% of the population could be effectively served by better public transportation.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. These people are marginalized already and can't take a hit like that so their more wealthy counterparts in the cities can have a higher standard of living. It can only really be implemented at the city level in a fair manner, thus it isn't really a national solution.
  - naravara 10y ago
    >I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      > Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? > And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. My point exactly, this is how it should be but municipalities are rather cash strapped at the moment so you likely won't see increased spending on anything. Thus "more public transit" isn't really possible without federal intervention. > Federal taxes paid for a bloated highway system that negatively impacts many people even though we have long since hit the point of diminishing returns on more highway infrastructure. This ignores the positive impacts. If only local roads existed very little trade would be able to take place vastly lowering GDP. Can the system be run in a more cost effective manner, certainly but that would require pushing out the public sector unions that demand unrealistic wages. Pick your poison.
      - Retric 10y ago
        If only local roads existed: Trains would have continued to serve most locations cheaply. The federal highway system did great damage to the far more efferent but far less subsidized train network. Trans take less land, less capital, fewer workers, less fuel, and cause fewer deaths.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I suggest you look into the history of that. Rail lines created massive monopolies that had a stranglehold on American businesses until the creation of highways. Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Are business owners simply dumb?
        Retric 10y ago
        > Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.
palmer 10y ago
Well, lots more people live in those small areas you refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

devy 10y ago

I totally concur with the OP and the solution is NOT public transit. Public transit is designed to maximize the service to cover majority of the population but NOT 100% of the use cases and population due to the limited funding and resources governments are allowed to allocate to public transit. I've been to 20 out of 30 world's mega cities. None that I've seen has a "reliable public transportation" that covers all the edge cases like what OP raised and yet have more than decent availability and punctuation. NYC's the closest and best of the bunch with 24/7 MTA subway/bus services together with LIRR/Metro North rail services. However, there are tons of pockets of places where public transit doesn't reach or VERY inconvenient to get to. This is true for tourists and visitors as well as regular commuters. I've been a commuter riding America's third largest public transit system NJ Transit bus/rail for almost 14 years. And I have many many stories to tell you that public transit is far from perfect and it NEVER WILL BE. But for the 80% of the time when it functions well and punctuate it gets the job done. When it doesn't, I picked the lowest fair of ride for hail service, be it Uber or Lyft or anyone else who can help me get my commute's last-mile problem done. That's the consumer's perspective.

Nadya 10y ago
For all of your mega city visits, have you been to Tokyo? If so what did you find unreliable about it? The one criticism I can see is when transport is slowed/halted due to typhoons. I found that the public transportation in most of Japan was well enough, such that I never thought to myself "If only I had a car/rental right now..." Not to mention how punctual the transportation is. Compared to where I live, where delays of 10-45+ minutes are expected, the trains in Japan would apologize for being even a single minute late. The three weeks I took the JP Rail I never had a single train be late. On the Yamanote Line, the longest I had to wait to catch a train to another part of town was 4 minutes. To me, that's absurd. My local station only runs a train once every few hours and if you miss your train you're waiting 3-4 hours for the next one to arrive. Missing a train in Tokyo is a mild inconvenience instead of a waste of most of your day.
- pm90 10y ago
  How can these trains possibly be profitable with that kind of schedule? In fact I remember reading somewhere that they lose money... Which made me wonder whether that kind of loss is OK and can be waived off as a govt. benefit in lieu of private car ownership. I don't know how the economics would work out, but it would be interesting to see how they compare.

accountface 10y ago

Uber's pricing is definitely too low. I paid $3.75 for a 20 minute ride at one point and decided to stop using it entirely because that just seems like exploitation. I'm completely willing to pay more to give workers better wages. Lyft (and other competitors) not only charge more, but drivers keep more of it.

dmalvarado 10y ago
Isn't Uber heavily subsidizing fares with capital funding? I thought that was part of their monopoly strategy.
- accountface 10y ago
  Yeah they've slashed fares and a huge part of their losses are driver subsidies. It's all a farce.
- cmsj 10y ago
  Yes, yes they are. You are only currently paying about 40% of what each ride actually costs, overall.
jrjf940 10y ago
yes it's too low but if it were higher pretty much no one would use it. that's why it's unsustainable.

wlll 10y ago

The solution to some problems is reliable public transport, and I am all for improvement, but not a solution to all transport problems. For instance "I want to get from A to B when I want and in comfort" is not one of those problems in a large number of cases. Public and private transport have different tradeoffs. I use both when the venn diagram of my requirements and the provision of the transport variety overlaps most. Eg. Car to the next town because a bus would be too slow/costly (once you own a car in the NW England busses cost a lot) Train when I go to Manchester (faster, parking is a problem) Train when I go to London (faster, though perhaps more expensive, comfortable, parking again) Car when I go climbing. I don't have much gear, but I do tend to not know in advance exactly when I want to go. Taxi when I stay out past my last train in Manchester. You can make public transport better, but it's going to be very hard to make it on-demand, or with the same comfort level as a private car.

gist 10y ago

> Having a private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury and it shouldn't be an easy or sustainable option. Unless you are wealthy. What? There are plenty of people living in the suburbs (in the US) that own a car (even 2) and use it for daily commuting and they are not 'wealthy'. And public transportation isn't even an option in those places.

manigandham 10y ago

> private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury This is called a car and the vast majority have one. Ride-sharing is actually less luxurious than your own car. It's still shared transit, designed to lower costs and increase affordability by pooling resources and increasing total utilization. It is not meant for only the wealthy.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
> This is called a car and the vast majority have one. Not if the vast majority don't live in the USA. I got by with taxis for the last 9 years before moving back to the states.