5 ms·

In SF a bus ride used to cost 2.25$, and I think it’s now 2.50$. Lyft line most of the time is 4$ + 1$ for an extra passenger. Uber is probably similar and per

In SF a bus ride used to cost 2.25$, and I think it’s now 2.50$. Lyft line most of the time is 4$ + 1$ for an extra passenger. Uber is probably similar and perhaps cheaper, I don’t know. In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore.

nowarninglabel 9y ago
It's actually $2.75 now unless you are using Clipper.
- thatfrenchguy 9y ago
  Or your mobile phone.
ProAm 9y ago
> In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore. Except these rides are still heavily subsidized and are more expensive than the bus at this subsidized rate.
- cdoxsey 9y ago
  Buses are subsidized too.
  - so33 9y ago
    Buses are indeed subsidized. But which routes? I bet that the most popular bus routes, the ones that are always packed to the gills, make money. What buses are subsidizing are the unpopular bus routes, the ones whose goal is to increase mobility for those who would otherwise not have it, such as night routes or relatively infrequent peak-hour commuter routes. Those cost a lot to run, and ride-hailing has the luxury of not having to run those routes. I think in the discussion about costs we forget that public transit is, first and foremost, a public service.
    - criddell 9y ago
      > Those cost a lot to run, and ride-hailing has the luxury of not having to run those routes. It might make sense for some cities to stop running buses on those routes and instead pay a private company. Imagine being able to book an Uber or Lyft ride and still only paying the $2.50 fare. Maybe it would be cheaper for the city and more convenient for users?
  - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
    Not everywhere, though. My town (population just 3,000) in the UK has an hourly bus to Oxford and an almost-hourly bus to two medium-sized local towns. (Stagecoach S3 and Pulhams X9, for completeness.) None of these buses are subsidised, and this in an entirely rural area. It's been proved that buses _can_ work without subsidy. It hasn't yet been proved that Uber and Lyft can.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    Are they subsidized to 55-60%???
- harigov 9y ago
  Yeah but they are more convenient and comfortable. Doesn't that say something about current public transit thinking? Some People are willing to pay a little bit more if it is convenient and comfortable.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    When the subsidies end, will people be willing to pay $10 +1 for the exact same ride vs public transit?
    - harigov 9y ago
      Subsidies are here to accomplish economies of scale. And when they have that scale, the cost of ride will also decrease dramatically (run buses instead of cars, electric cars/buses?), so my bet is that there will be an increase in price but it won't be order of magnitude more than current price.
      - ProAm 9y ago
        Subsidies here are not for economies of scale, but for market share. Your bet is a risky one vs proven methodology.
        harigov 9y ago
        It depends on what you consider as market in which Uber/Lyft operate. If it's entire personal transportation market, then one can think of them as in a zero-sum game with other players. I believe that the ride share market (even if you include taxis) is a growing market. Sure, it is very competitive so there is some struggle to gain market share, but there is also incentive to grow so as to get that economies of scale because whoever has that can price extremely competitively and be the winner.
        jasonbarone 9y ago
        But they are for economies of scale. Product like UberPool, LyftLine, and UberEats were born from it. The business gets more efficient, and as the network keeps evolving it’ll open up new business opportunities that’ll drive prices down.
- moduspol 9y ago
  People keep saying this, and I'm sure there are ways to estimate, but drivers are typically getting 80% of the cost to the customer [1], with Uber keeping 20%. Suggesting Uber's only able to price this way to due to investors subsidizing the price is to suggest the corporate side of the business can't make a profit from that 20% alone, which seems difficult to believe. If public transit advocates are expecting this is just a speculation-filled bubble, they might want to re-assess. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-cut-does-Uber-take-from-the-total-fare-cost-of-a-ride-Do-they-subtract-a-flat-fee-for-each-dispatch-or-a-percentage-Are-there-initiation-monthly-fees-to-be-a-driver https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-cut-does-Uber-take-fro...
bjacokes 9y ago
As others have pointed out, the rideshares are subsidized in many ways. Monetarily, not just by VCs, but also by drivers who don't get benefits or salary guarantees. Road infrastructure provided by the city that isn't fully supported by gas taxes. Externalities like constantly-blocked bike lanes and congestion that inconvenience others in the city. $4 doesn't get you far in SF, but if you do pay that rate to go across town, just know that you're not paying your fair share to support the driver, maintain the roads, and are probably inconveniencing other drivers and cyclists more than if you were using a bus. Which is fine — but if you then go and argue that this is a reason to never support public transportation, you're just buying into the Lyft/Uber marketing.
bromuro 9y ago
it still does have benefits. environmental and social benefits. the problem is when people think about their individual benefits and not those of a whole community.
smsm42 9y ago
Besides prices, there's also time. If I need to get somewhere in the city - especially somewhere I'm not familiar with - I have a choice of getting there in an hour or more with two transfers (one of which may be going underground and no map or site explains that, so not being familiar with the city you just spend time looking for a stop that isn't there) and that assuming everything runs on schedule - or paying the price of a cup of coffee or a glass of beer extra and getting a here-to-the-door half-hour ride comfortably resting on the backseat of the car and not worrying about a thing. I think the choice is not very hard here.
pdx6 9y ago
The cost is indexed, so the price really hasn’t changed. Don’t forget that there is a flat rate pass, and most 50+ person companies offer the passes pre-tax. In addition, TNC pricing doesn’t have federally mandated discounts for seniors, disabled, youth, and low income.
z6 9y ago
In SF you also get free transfers for 90 minutes which is a nice benefit. Lyft line / uber pool is closer to $6+ if you're going around the city, unless of course you only go 2 blocks. If you're going somewhere for an appointment and can get back within 90 minutes it's $2.50 vs. over $12. The bus-only lanes are also beneficial if they exist on your route as traffic has gotten a lot worse, in part due to ridesharing. In addition to that, because traffic is horrible, line/pool rides take forever if you're going anywhere downtown during the day and the driver needs to pick up additional riders who aren't exactly along your route (even 1 block away can add 10 minutes). So if you are time-sensitive, you'll likely need a solo-ride which is more like $15+ one-way. The big downside is obviously the poor experience with public transport... lots of homeless / crazy people taking free rides, dirty buses/trains, cramped spaces, too many stops, etc.
usaar333 9y ago
> In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore. There's several benefits I find that lead me to favor buses more often than not: 1. Bus is far cheaper than what you listed as you can use pre-tax money. Many companies offer a transit subsidy, making it free. 2. Buses can be faster depending on wait time, going out of the way overhead, and dedicated bus lanes. 3. Legal to transport a toddler on a bus without bringing a car seat.

nowarninglabel 9y ago

It's actually $2.75 now unless you are using Clipper.

thatfrenchguy 9y ago
Or your mobile phone.

ProAm 9y ago

> In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore. Except these rides are still heavily subsidized and are more expensive than the bus at this subsidized rate.

cdoxsey 9y ago
Buses are subsidized too.
- so33 9y ago
  Buses are indeed subsidized. But which routes? I bet that the most popular bus routes, the ones that are always packed to the gills, make money. What buses are subsidizing are the unpopular bus routes, the ones whose goal is to increase mobility for those who would otherwise not have it, such as night routes or relatively infrequent peak-hour commuter routes. Those cost a lot to run, and ride-hailing has the luxury of not having to run those routes. I think in the discussion about costs we forget that public transit is, first and foremost, a public service.
  - criddell 9y ago
    > Those cost a lot to run, and ride-hailing has the luxury of not having to run those routes. It might make sense for some cities to stop running buses on those routes and instead pay a private company. Imagine being able to book an Uber or Lyft ride and still only paying the $2.50 fare. Maybe it would be cheaper for the city and more convenient for users?
- Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
  Not everywhere, though. My town (population just 3,000) in the UK has an hourly bus to Oxford and an almost-hourly bus to two medium-sized local towns. (Stagecoach S3 and Pulhams X9, for completeness.) None of these buses are subsidised, and this in an entirely rural area. It's been proved that buses _can_ work without subsidy. It hasn't yet been proved that Uber and Lyft can.
- ProAm 9y ago
  Are they subsidized to 55-60%???
harigov 9y ago
Yeah but they are more convenient and comfortable. Doesn't that say something about current public transit thinking? Some People are willing to pay a little bit more if it is convenient and comfortable.
- ProAm 9y ago
  When the subsidies end, will people be willing to pay $10 +1 for the exact same ride vs public transit?
  - harigov 9y ago
    Subsidies are here to accomplish economies of scale. And when they have that scale, the cost of ride will also decrease dramatically (run buses instead of cars, electric cars/buses?), so my bet is that there will be an increase in price but it won't be order of magnitude more than current price.
    - ProAm 9y ago
      Subsidies here are not for economies of scale, but for market share. Your bet is a risky one vs proven methodology.
      - harigov 9y ago
        It depends on what you consider as market in which Uber/Lyft operate. If it's entire personal transportation market, then one can think of them as in a zero-sum game with other players. I believe that the ride share market (even if you include taxis) is a growing market. Sure, it is very competitive so there is some struggle to gain market share, but there is also incentive to grow so as to get that economies of scale because whoever has that can price extremely competitively and be the winner.
      - jasonbarone 9y ago
        But they are for economies of scale. Product like UberPool, LyftLine, and UberEats were born from it. The business gets more efficient, and as the network keeps evolving it’ll open up new business opportunities that’ll drive prices down.
moduspol 9y ago
People keep saying this, and I'm sure there are ways to estimate, but drivers are typically getting 80% of the cost to the customer [1], with Uber keeping 20%. Suggesting Uber's only able to price this way to due to investors subsidizing the price is to suggest the corporate side of the business can't make a profit from that 20% alone, which seems difficult to believe. If public transit advocates are expecting this is just a speculation-filled bubble, they might want to re-assess. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-cut-does-Uber-take-from-the-total-fare-cost-of-a-ride-Do-they-subtract-a-flat-fee-for-each-dispatch-or-a-percentage-Are-there-initiation-monthly-fees-to-be-a-driver https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-cut-does-Uber-take-fro...

bjacokes 9y ago

As others have pointed out, the rideshares are subsidized in many ways. Monetarily, not just by VCs, but also by drivers who don't get benefits or salary guarantees. Road infrastructure provided by the city that isn't fully supported by gas taxes. Externalities like constantly-blocked bike lanes and congestion that inconvenience others in the city. $4 doesn't get you far in SF, but if you do pay that rate to go across town, just know that you're not paying your fair share to support the driver, maintain the roads, and are probably inconveniencing other drivers and cyclists more than if you were using a bus. Which is fine — but if you then go and argue that this is a reason to never support public transportation, you're just buying into the Lyft/Uber marketing.

bromuro 9y ago

it still does have benefits. environmental and social benefits. the problem is when people think about their individual benefits and not those of a whole community.

smsm42 9y ago

Besides prices, there's also time. If I need to get somewhere in the city - especially somewhere I'm not familiar with - I have a choice of getting there in an hour or more with two transfers (one of which may be going underground and no map or site explains that, so not being familiar with the city you just spend time looking for a stop that isn't there) and that assuming everything runs on schedule - or paying the price of a cup of coffee or a glass of beer extra and getting a here-to-the-door half-hour ride comfortably resting on the backseat of the car and not worrying about a thing. I think the choice is not very hard here.

pdx6 9y ago

The cost is indexed, so the price really hasn’t changed. Don’t forget that there is a flat rate pass, and most 50+ person companies offer the passes pre-tax. In addition, TNC pricing doesn’t have federally mandated discounts for seniors, disabled, youth, and low income.

z6 9y ago

In SF you also get free transfers for 90 minutes which is a nice benefit. Lyft line / uber pool is closer to $6+ if you're going around the city, unless of course you only go 2 blocks. If you're going somewhere for an appointment and can get back within 90 minutes it's $2.50 vs. over $12. The bus-only lanes are also beneficial if they exist on your route as traffic has gotten a lot worse, in part due to ridesharing. In addition to that, because traffic is horrible, line/pool rides take forever if you're going anywhere downtown during the day and the driver needs to pick up additional riders who aren't exactly along your route (even 1 block away can add 10 minutes). So if you are time-sensitive, you'll likely need a solo-ride which is more like $15+ one-way. The big downside is obviously the poor experience with public transport... lots of homeless / crazy people taking free rides, dirty buses/trains, cramped spaces, too many stops, etc.

usaar333 9y ago

> In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore. There's several benefits I find that lead me to favor buses more often than not: 1. Bus is far cheaper than what you listed as you can use pre-tax money. Many companies offer a transit subsidy, making it free. 2. Buses can be faster depending on wait time, going out of the way overhead, and dedicated bus lanes. 3. Legal to transport a toddler on a bus without bringing a car seat.