4 ms·

At a certain point the comparison breaks down. Yes, public transit is subsidised. But it isn't subsidised in such a way that it is expected to eventually becom

by untog 9y ago

At a certain point the comparison breaks down. Yes, public transit is subsidised. But it isn't subsidised in such a way that it is expected to eventually become self sustaining - tax-payer funding is expected to continue in perpetuity. That's not the case with Uber and Lyft. VCs are subsiding their rides on the expectation that eventually the company will dominate the market enough to not require subsidy any more.

criddell 9y ago
> That's not the case with Uber and Lyft. I mentioned this elsewhere, but I wonder if maybe cities should run light rail and buses along the most used routes then subsidize private companies (like Lyft and Uber) to service people outside of those routes. I used to ride #43 Taylor's Ferry in Portland twice a day and I was sometimes on the bus by myself or with three or four other people. I bet it would have been far cheaper for the city to put us in a cab (this was before Uber) than to pay a driver to operate a giant, empty bus. I bet the bus was way worse from an emissions point of view as well.
- untog 9y ago
  There's definitely something to that. IIRC some municipalities partnered with Lyft on "last mile" transport from regional train services. Makes a lot more sense than park and ride, but I'm not sure what ever happened to it. I'd argue that there's no reason transport agencies couldn't do this kind of intelligent routing/hailing themselves. The problem is usually that government is actively punished when they don't go for the cheapest possible alterative, so rather than hire a team of skilled, innovative developers, they out source to a lowest cost bidder. As a result it looks like private enterprise is the only place where innovation happens. It's a shame.
- acdha 9y ago
  I think that deserves consideration, along with the related category of access-impaired riders. In a major city it might easily be cheaper to pay for years of door to door service than make an ADA retrofit for a subway station in an old building.
- nhaehnle 9y ago
  IIRC, Switzerland actually has some on-demand minibus routes. Basically, you have to call a number N minutes in advance, and the minibus will show up. This could easily be appified as well (and maybe it already is today, it's been a while).
- jogjayr 9y ago
  Why can't the city just run smaller vehicles, like minivans or airport shuttles, on less popular routes? Sub-contracting may be cheaper for the city but would make for terrible PR. Since driver salaries are the biggest cost, the only way private companies could make these routes profitable is by doing the very same things Lyft/Uber are criticized for: low wages, no benefits etc. EDIT: Reading some of the other replies, I suppose making rides on these routes on-demand instead of fixed timetable services may change the economics of less popular routes.

by untog 9y ago

criddell 9y ago

> That's not the case with Uber and Lyft. I mentioned this elsewhere, but I wonder if maybe cities should run light rail and buses along the most used routes then subsidize private companies (like Lyft and Uber) to service people outside of those routes. I used to ride #43 Taylor's Ferry in Portland twice a day and I was sometimes on the bus by myself or with three or four other people. I bet it would have been far cheaper for the city to put us in a cab (this was before Uber) than to pay a driver to operate a giant, empty bus. I bet the bus was way worse from an emissions point of view as well.

untog 9y ago
There's definitely something to that. IIRC some municipalities partnered with Lyft on "last mile" transport from regional train services. Makes a lot more sense than park and ride, but I'm not sure what ever happened to it. I'd argue that there's no reason transport agencies couldn't do this kind of intelligent routing/hailing themselves. The problem is usually that government is actively punished when they don't go for the cheapest possible alterative, so rather than hire a team of skilled, innovative developers, they out source to a lowest cost bidder. As a result it looks like private enterprise is the only place where innovation happens. It's a shame.
acdha 9y ago
I think that deserves consideration, along with the related category of access-impaired riders. In a major city it might easily be cheaper to pay for years of door to door service than make an ADA retrofit for a subway station in an old building.
nhaehnle 9y ago
IIRC, Switzerland actually has some on-demand minibus routes. Basically, you have to call a number N minutes in advance, and the minibus will show up. This could easily be appified as well (and maybe it already is today, it's been a while).
jogjayr 9y ago
Why can't the city just run smaller vehicles, like minivans or airport shuttles, on less popular routes? Sub-contracting may be cheaper for the city but would make for terrible PR. Since driver salaries are the biggest cost, the only way private companies could make these routes profitable is by doing the very same things Lyft/Uber are criticized for: low wages, no benefits etc. EDIT: Reading some of the other replies, I suppose making rides on these routes on-demand instead of fixed timetable services may change the economics of less popular routes.