4 ms·

Big supporter of public transit, but this is apples to oranges. Nine times out of ten, the Uber is going to get you where you want to go a lot faster, unless em

Big supporter of public transit, but this is apples to oranges. Nine times out of ten, the Uber is going to get you where you want to go a lot faster, unless embarkation and destination are both on the same public transit line.

bunderbunder 8y ago
I suppose it varies by city, but to me we're not talking about comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about exchanging apples and oranges for bananas, just in different ratios. I lived carfree in Milwaukee for a while (picking that as an example of a city that only has bus service), and the time savings really didn't seem that bad once I got used to it. A trip to one of the shopping malls on my side of town was about the worst-case scenario, and there it typically took ~40m on the bus, versus ~20m by car. I like reading and I had a Nintendo DS at the time, so that ~20m difference was spent doing what I would have probably done with the extra time, anyway. I was just doing it without a cat in my lap. An easy trade, I thought, considering that I was typically spending no more than $10 a week on bus fare. Often more like $0, especially in the summer, when it was more fun to get around by bike. Owning a car or using a taxi service for my main way of getting around would have cost thousands per month. That's quite a few fewer apples, and not a whole lot more oranges.
peterwwillis 8y ago
The author of the linked analysis specifically says they do not mind trips taking longer (Uber Pool is not nearly as fast as Uber X) considering how much money they are saving. I am doing the same comparison: public transit takes longer than Uber Pool, but you save something like 50%. So I think this is apples to apples.
solidr53 8y ago
True, that 1 in 10 where you are faster is in cities like New York or Tokyo. And its not "a little faster".
iambateman 8y ago
And there are also thousands of metro areas for which public transport isn’t viable for some reason or another. We technically have a bus system, but it’s a joke.

bunderbunder 8y ago

I suppose it varies by city, but to me we're not talking about comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about exchanging apples and oranges for bananas, just in different ratios. I lived carfree in Milwaukee for a while (picking that as an example of a city that only has bus service), and the time savings really didn't seem that bad once I got used to it. A trip to one of the shopping malls on my side of town was about the worst-case scenario, and there it typically took ~40m on the bus, versus ~20m by car. I like reading and I had a Nintendo DS at the time, so that ~20m difference was spent doing what I would have probably done with the extra time, anyway. I was just doing it without a cat in my lap. An easy trade, I thought, considering that I was typically spending no more than $10 a week on bus fare. Often more like $0, especially in the summer, when it was more fun to get around by bike. Owning a car or using a taxi service for my main way of getting around would have cost thousands per month. That's quite a few fewer apples, and not a whole lot more oranges.

peterwwillis 8y ago

The author of the linked analysis specifically says they do not mind trips taking longer (Uber Pool is not nearly as fast as Uber X) considering how much money they are saving. I am doing the same comparison: public transit takes longer than Uber Pool, but you save something like 50%. So I think this is apples to apples.

solidr53 8y ago

True, that 1 in 10 where you are faster is in cities like New York or Tokyo. And its not "a little faster".

iambateman 8y ago

And there are also thousands of metro areas for which public transport isn’t viable for some reason or another. We technically have a bus system, but it’s a joke.