6 ms·

So wait, we should have late shift workers depend on companies that subsidizes its rates relying on a "greater fool" theory of access to capital (VC, now Wall S

by entee 7y ago

So wait, we should have late shift workers depend on companies that subsidizes its rates relying on a "greater fool" theory of access to capital (VC, now Wall Street), exploits its labor force (drivers) and uses far less energy efficient vehicles (cars)? Oh and btw most of these shift workers can't afford to ride Uber/Lyft much less if the fare is surging. A $7 ride is what, half an hour of minimum wage work? That's pretty steep. Maybe we have WMATA reimburse the worker, but who hasn't had a large gap between filing a receipt and getting reimbursed? Now add being potentially financially precarious, doesn't seem ideal. If only we had a service that could transport large numbers of people using electricity to pre-defined locations so that they could have a far cheaper final leg of their trip. Oh wait...

rayiner 7y ago
It costs metro $45 per ride to stay open late. It’d be much cheaper to just have WMATA subsidize an Uber.
- entee 7y ago
  I'd guess that late at night an Uber ride from downtown DC to Shady Grove will run you close to that. It definitely will cost more after say, a late night game at Nationals Park. Uber isn't public transit, it serves a different purpose and shouldn't be seen in the same way as public infrastructure. When I lived in DC, I loved taking the metro but I couldn't rely on it when it got late. If I were king for a day, I'd force the creation of a new ring-type line and make the system run late with far more trains. This would cost money, it would be subsidized. It will make life better for all DC area residents and reduce the terrible traffic in the area. It would also may help mitigate downtown housing prices and slightly increase housing prices out in the suburbs. An enormous number of lives would be improved for a relatively small $35-$40 subsidy per ride.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Public infrastructure should still be subject to cost-benefit analysis, just like everything else. That doesn’t mean it can’t be subsidized, but it must still achieve the necessary results at the lowest cost. A $40 Uber is what it costs to get me all the way to Annapolis late at night. That’s not a “small” subsidy, its an insane waste of money that could be put to better use. If the concern is really low-income late night workers, it’d be cheaper to just lease those people an EV. A ring-type line in DC would also be a terrible idea and would do nothing to reduce traffic. Any ring would run through mostly low-density areas where neither the starting point nor end point would be walkable to the train station. (The possibility has been studied.)
    - entee 7y ago
      There's zero reason to say that a ring line must through low density areas. You can place the ring (or partial ring) underground at a variety of locations that would be higher density, you could have it be further out from downtown as a mix of above and below ground, it's just about what we are willing to pay. Obviously, an all-above-ground follows-the-beltway route would be pretty low density. As you know, the DC Metro has several U shaped lines. It takes a ridiculously long time to get from say, College Park to Dupont Circle. Or from the stadium to Silver Spring. A few linker lines would make the downtown system far quicker internally and also accelerate those kinds of trips, even if it doesn't create a full ring. The goal should be much like the NY system: I can get anywhere in DC relatively easily using only the Metro. I think the way you've phrased the cost-benefit is exceedingly narrow. Operating a train is a fixed cost, if it's highly utilized the cost goes down. As such, making the service more useful can shift the cost-benefit. Also, there are benefits (for example fewer cars on the road) which don't seem to be taken into account. Finally a key assumption here is that Uber's price is real. I personally don't think Uber's current prices are sustainable. They are either 1.) subsidized by investor capital or 2.) dependent on paying drivers essentially minimum wage (maybe even less) or 3.) both. If you didn't have Uber around would your analysis shift? (genuine question) In the past I doubt we'd have said, "Taxis are a replacement for public transit." We should be careful of making a similar argument today. Re. low wage workers, it's a concern. You make some good points, but I'm not sure I buy that the answer is Uber or leasing EVs. How many have access to a charger for that EV? How many can get a driver's license? The poor often live precariously, they may not be able to park that car a month or two from now, or who knows what other problems might come up. In short, I think focusing on top line cost-per-ride is a very incomplete way to look at infrastructure. p.s. $40 from downtown DC to Annapolis, wow Uber is cheaper out there than here in the bay area.

by entee 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

It costs metro $45 per ride to stay open late. It’d be much cheaper to just have WMATA subsidize an Uber.

entee 7y ago
I'd guess that late at night an Uber ride from downtown DC to Shady Grove will run you close to that. It definitely will cost more after say, a late night game at Nationals Park. Uber isn't public transit, it serves a different purpose and shouldn't be seen in the same way as public infrastructure. When I lived in DC, I loved taking the metro but I couldn't rely on it when it got late. If I were king for a day, I'd force the creation of a new ring-type line and make the system run late with far more trains. This would cost money, it would be subsidized. It will make life better for all DC area residents and reduce the terrible traffic in the area. It would also may help mitigate downtown housing prices and slightly increase housing prices out in the suburbs. An enormous number of lives would be improved for a relatively small $35-$40 subsidy per ride.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Public infrastructure should still be subject to cost-benefit analysis, just like everything else. That doesn’t mean it can’t be subsidized, but it must still achieve the necessary results at the lowest cost. A $40 Uber is what it costs to get me all the way to Annapolis late at night. That’s not a “small” subsidy, its an insane waste of money that could be put to better use. If the concern is really low-income late night workers, it’d be cheaper to just lease those people an EV. A ring-type line in DC would also be a terrible idea and would do nothing to reduce traffic. Any ring would run through mostly low-density areas where neither the starting point nor end point would be walkable to the train station. (The possibility has been studied.)
  - entee 7y ago
    There's zero reason to say that a ring line must through low density areas. You can place the ring (or partial ring) underground at a variety of locations that would be higher density, you could have it be further out from downtown as a mix of above and below ground, it's just about what we are willing to pay. Obviously, an all-above-ground follows-the-beltway route would be pretty low density. As you know, the DC Metro has several U shaped lines. It takes a ridiculously long time to get from say, College Park to Dupont Circle. Or from the stadium to Silver Spring. A few linker lines would make the downtown system far quicker internally and also accelerate those kinds of trips, even if it doesn't create a full ring. The goal should be much like the NY system: I can get anywhere in DC relatively easily using only the Metro. I think the way you've phrased the cost-benefit is exceedingly narrow. Operating a train is a fixed cost, if it's highly utilized the cost goes down. As such, making the service more useful can shift the cost-benefit. Also, there are benefits (for example fewer cars on the road) which don't seem to be taken into account. Finally a key assumption here is that Uber's price is real. I personally don't think Uber's current prices are sustainable. They are either 1.) subsidized by investor capital or 2.) dependent on paying drivers essentially minimum wage (maybe even less) or 3.) both. If you didn't have Uber around would your analysis shift? (genuine question) In the past I doubt we'd have said, "Taxis are a replacement for public transit." We should be careful of making a similar argument today. Re. low wage workers, it's a concern. You make some good points, but I'm not sure I buy that the answer is Uber or leasing EVs. How many have access to a charger for that EV? How many can get a driver's license? The poor often live precariously, they may not be able to park that car a month or two from now, or who knows what other problems might come up. In short, I think focusing on top line cost-per-ride is a very incomplete way to look at infrastructure. p.s. $40 from downtown DC to Annapolis, wow Uber is cheaper out there than here in the bay area.