3 ms·

> If usage of taxis and buses decreases Buses are way cheaper than Uber. Until it's cheaper for me to use Uber, there's still a good place for a city bus.

pdonis 9y ago
> Buses are way cheaper than Uber. Only because they're subsidized, so that the price you pay per ride is well under the operating cost.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Uber and Lyft current pricing is currently subsidized by VC's.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    Even if this is true (which it might well not be--VC investment money for a startup usually goes to build infrastructure, not to enable under-cost pricing; the former increases your runway while the latter decreases it), it's only for the short term; if Uber and Lyft don't start operating at a profit at some point in the near future, the VC investment will be gone and they will have a hard time getting more. Public transportation, by contrast, has been subsidized for decades, because it doesn't have to answer to market forces, only political ones.
twblalock 9y ago
It's not just about price. It's also about speed and convenience. An Uber can go anywhere a car can go, and get there a lot faster. That's a better experience, and better experiences are worth more money than lesser ones. My commute to work is about 7 miles. I could get there faster on a bicycle than I could on a bus.
eatbitseveryday 9y ago
> there's still a good place for a city bus. Not if bus routes don't go where you need them to, they are late, congestion makes bus rides impractical, etc. Mostly this is perhaps outside of the center of a city. Even in suburban areas where there is an influx of residents, buses are the last option because you could bike where you need to faster than taking the bus during rush hour. What if a short distance meant having to transfer? If the wait is 10-20 minutes, and if the bus comes too early, then that just compounds time wasted using the bus. If bus rides take a long time, nearly zero of them have wifi to enable work to be done. And if they don't drop you off or pick you up near your source / destination, you spend twice as much time walking. It's just impractical until localities start taking this seriously. Cities and surrounding suburbs really need to increase bus lines (accessibility), and buses per line (frequency). In many places I've lived, buses were what the poor and disadvantaged rode.
- ccozan 9y ago
  Seriuously, you don't have 4G in the cities? Why share a painfully slow Wifi connection when I can have my one private channel and fast enough to do almost any work? And with the hotspot option on smartphones, is even simpler...
  - eatbitseveryday 9y ago
    > share a painfully slow Wifi connection This is the problem. Having WiFi available does not mean it's availability is implemented well. If a bus provides WiFi, it should not suck; if it does, it's effectively not available. I don't want to use my 2 GiB cellphone data plan on work-related emails and files (together with my phone's usage, can exceed 2 GiB), and draw all the power from my phone everyday doing so.

pdonis 9y ago

> Buses are way cheaper than Uber. Only because they're subsidized, so that the price you pay per ride is well under the operating cost.

stevenwoo 9y ago
Uber and Lyft current pricing is currently subsidized by VC's.
- pdonis 9y ago
  Even if this is true (which it might well not be--VC investment money for a startup usually goes to build infrastructure, not to enable under-cost pricing; the former increases your runway while the latter decreases it), it's only for the short term; if Uber and Lyft don't start operating at a profit at some point in the near future, the VC investment will be gone and they will have a hard time getting more. Public transportation, by contrast, has been subsidized for decades, because it doesn't have to answer to market forces, only political ones.

twblalock 9y ago

It's not just about price. It's also about speed and convenience. An Uber can go anywhere a car can go, and get there a lot faster. That's a better experience, and better experiences are worth more money than lesser ones. My commute to work is about 7 miles. I could get there faster on a bicycle than I could on a bus.

eatbitseveryday 9y ago

> there's still a good place for a city bus. Not if bus routes don't go where you need them to, they are late, congestion makes bus rides impractical, etc. Mostly this is perhaps outside of the center of a city. Even in suburban areas where there is an influx of residents, buses are the last option because you could bike where you need to faster than taking the bus during rush hour. What if a short distance meant having to transfer? If the wait is 10-20 minutes, and if the bus comes too early, then that just compounds time wasted using the bus. If bus rides take a long time, nearly zero of them have wifi to enable work to be done. And if they don't drop you off or pick you up near your source / destination, you spend twice as much time walking. It's just impractical until localities start taking this seriously. Cities and surrounding suburbs really need to increase bus lines (accessibility), and buses per line (frequency). In many places I've lived, buses were what the poor and disadvantaged rode.

ccozan 9y ago
Seriuously, you don't have 4G in the cities? Why share a painfully slow Wifi connection when I can have my one private channel and fast enough to do almost any work? And with the hotspot option on smartphones, is even simpler...
- eatbitseveryday 9y ago
  > share a painfully slow Wifi connection This is the problem. Having WiFi available does not mean it's availability is implemented well. If a bus provides WiFi, it should not suck; if it does, it's effectively not available. I don't want to use my 2 GiB cellphone data plan on work-related emails and files (together with my phone's usage, can exceed 2 GiB), and draw all the power from my phone everyday doing so.