4 ms·

> among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive. What's been the alternative? Regular taxis? Aren't

> among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive. What's been the alternative? Regular taxis? Aren't they just as expensive?

rainyMammoth 7y ago
Let me ask you the question in another way. What did you do before Uber? Why do you see it as an essential service now? To answer your question: I bike, use my car or use electrical scooters. I still use Uber but when I really have to (maybe once every two weeks)
ivalm 7y ago
Your own car? If I go somewhere where it's a pain to park occasionally I will use Uber instead. Similarly, if I go out I could make a choice of being very conscientious about how much I drink (and thus drive) or take an uber and not worry about being too buzzed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
asdfman123 7y ago
In my city the alternative is designated drivers. Uber is what you take when you want to get drunk.
toasterlovin 7y ago
There’s a reason nobody cares about the taxi industry before ride sharing: it was small because it was too expensive for most people to use outside of special circumstances.
- bsder 7y ago
  I disagree. Expense was never really an issue for me. My issue was always summoning the taxi. I was generally operating in secondary markets like Las Vegas off-strip, San Diego, or Pittsburgh. You couldn't schedule your trip to the airport because you never knew when the stupid taxi would show up. While I hate many things about Uber/Lyft/ridesharing, they changed the customer service expectation of the whole field. Even if the prices go back to taxi levels, that's a massive improvement.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    You have to realize how small the group of people is who can regularly afford to hire other people to perform services for them (which is what a taxi is). You're in that group, so the problem for you is convenience of hailing. But most people just can't afford to hire others to perform services for them on a regular basis. And that will never change, since it's inherent to the distribution of incomes in the population.
    - georgeecollins 7y ago
      I think what the poster is saying is that there are places and times when you used to hire a limo or rent a car, because Taxi service is unpredictable. A lot of those cases can be replaced with Lyft / Uber. I know there are business trips where I used to rent a car and now use Lyft / Uber. I think Uber is replacing a lot of car rental for business travelers.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        Fair enough. I'll add to that that it seems like taxi utilization for drunk people has probably gone way up as a result of ride sharing services. But the case that all the bulls were putting forward was that Uber was going to transform personal transportation. But now it's merely a taxi company which can encroach on some adjacent industries. And one that doesn't seem like it will end up with a monopoly the way AirBnB did.
        bsder 7y ago
        > And one that doesn't seem like it will end up with a monopoly the way AirBnB did. I think you are confusing "monopoly" and "barrier to entry". "Monopoly" would imply some state where every person using your system makes it harder on your competitors. If, however, your system needs to reach a minimum level to be useful, but doesn't have a feedback loop above that--you have a "barrier to entry"-a fixed cost that must be paid on entry to the space, but doesn't automatically get bigger when your competitor adds customers. AirBnB doesn't really have a monopoly but they do have a barrier to entry--they perpetuate mostly by continuing to turn a blind eye to the violations of law. If someone stood up a site and used VC money to reimburse listers in New York and San Francisco, AirBnB would lose most of their revenue and you'd have an Uber/Lyft duality. The barrier to entry is that they are already in the space and there doesn't seem to be enough money floating in the space once laws start getting actually enforced for VC's to be willing to throw money into the ring. Uber and Lyft also have a barrier to entry--a network of drivers. I can pop open the Uber application and know that there is probably a driver within 5-10 minutes of me. Nobody other than Uber or Lyft has that coverage so I'm not going to use another service. Could someone else build that network? Yes, they could--that's a fixed cost that must be surmounted, but once on the other side of that cost adding more drivers or riders doesn't really have an effect that makes it harder on your competitors.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xvedejas 7y ago
In my case, since nobody else has replied with public transit: SF has a really great bus system that, if you're traveling along any of the frequent lines with bus lanes, is usually the same speed as an uber once you factor in the wait. It's just $2.50 for 3 hours of free transfers, and 24/7 service.
- shartshooter 7y ago
  Not on New Year’s Eve or any other major drinking holiday. Try hailing a cab or finding a spot on the bus when you’re in the mission trying to make it to the marina or pac heights at 1:30am. I’ve seen buses filled with people just skip stops because they’re too full. Ridesharing has helped immensely with that excess demand even with surge pricing. Also, not all buses run 24/7
  - xvedejas 7y ago
    I live on the other side of the mission, so YMMV. Though I would suggest that surge pricing is one of ridesharing's strengths, and public transit could learn from it.
    - shartshooter 7y ago
      For public transportation I don’t love surge pricing. It’s such a great resource for the poor and taking that away because it’s St Patty’s day doesn’t sit well with me
      - xvedejas 7y ago
        Muni already has a fare system for low-income riders.
Tiktaalik 7y ago
In Vancouver where Uber/Lyft has never been allowed car sharing services Car2go and Evo (local) are very popular. Open an app, reserve a car parked nearby, get directions to it, then drive it to where you want to go. Park it wherever. There's also (gasp) public transit (and bike share).

> among my friends we all stopped using Uber (unless we really have to). It simply became way too expensive. What's been the alternative? Regular taxis? Aren't they just as expensive?

rainyMammoth 7y ago

Let me ask you the question in another way. What did you do before Uber? Why do you see it as an essential service now? To answer your question: I bike, use my car or use electrical scooters. I still use Uber but when I really have to (maybe once every two weeks)

ivalm 7y ago

Your own car? If I go somewhere where it's a pain to park occasionally I will use Uber instead. Similarly, if I go out I could make a choice of being very conscientious about how much I drink (and thus drive) or take an uber and not worry about being too buzzed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

asdfman123 7y ago

In my city the alternative is designated drivers. Uber is what you take when you want to get drunk.

toasterlovin 7y ago

There’s a reason nobody cares about the taxi industry before ride sharing: it was small because it was too expensive for most people to use outside of special circumstances.

bsder 7y ago
I disagree. Expense was never really an issue for me. My issue was always summoning the taxi. I was generally operating in secondary markets like Las Vegas off-strip, San Diego, or Pittsburgh. You couldn't schedule your trip to the airport because you never knew when the stupid taxi would show up. While I hate many things about Uber/Lyft/ridesharing, they changed the customer service expectation of the whole field. Even if the prices go back to taxi levels, that's a massive improvement.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  You have to realize how small the group of people is who can regularly afford to hire other people to perform services for them (which is what a taxi is). You're in that group, so the problem for you is convenience of hailing. But most people just can't afford to hire others to perform services for them on a regular basis. And that will never change, since it's inherent to the distribution of incomes in the population.
  - georgeecollins 7y ago
    I think what the poster is saying is that there are places and times when you used to hire a limo or rent a car, because Taxi service is unpredictable. A lot of those cases can be replaced with Lyft / Uber. I know there are business trips where I used to rent a car and now use Lyft / Uber. I think Uber is replacing a lot of car rental for business travelers.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Fair enough. I'll add to that that it seems like taxi utilization for drunk people has probably gone way up as a result of ride sharing services. But the case that all the bulls were putting forward was that Uber was going to transform personal transportation. But now it's merely a taxi company which can encroach on some adjacent industries. And one that doesn't seem like it will end up with a monopoly the way AirBnB did.
      - bsder 7y ago
        > And one that doesn't seem like it will end up with a monopoly the way AirBnB did. I think you are confusing "monopoly" and "barrier to entry". "Monopoly" would imply some state where every person using your system makes it harder on your competitors. If, however, your system needs to reach a minimum level to be useful, but doesn't have a feedback loop above that--you have a "barrier to entry"-a fixed cost that must be paid on entry to the space, but doesn't automatically get bigger when your competitor adds customers. AirBnB doesn't really have a monopoly but they do have a barrier to entry--they perpetuate mostly by continuing to turn a blind eye to the violations of law. If someone stood up a site and used VC money to reimburse listers in New York and San Francisco, AirBnB would lose most of their revenue and you'd have an Uber/Lyft duality. The barrier to entry is that they are already in the space and there doesn't seem to be enough money floating in the space once laws start getting actually enforced for VC's to be willing to throw money into the ring. Uber and Lyft also have a barrier to entry--a network of drivers. I can pop open the Uber application and know that there is probably a driver within 5-10 minutes of me. Nobody other than Uber or Lyft has that coverage so I'm not going to use another service. Could someone else build that network? Yes, they could--that's a fixed cost that must be surmounted, but once on the other side of that cost adding more drivers or riders doesn't really have an effect that makes it harder on your competitors.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

xvedejas 7y ago

In my case, since nobody else has replied with public transit: SF has a really great bus system that, if you're traveling along any of the frequent lines with bus lanes, is usually the same speed as an uber once you factor in the wait. It's just $2.50 for 3 hours of free transfers, and 24/7 service.

shartshooter 7y ago
Not on New Year’s Eve or any other major drinking holiday. Try hailing a cab or finding a spot on the bus when you’re in the mission trying to make it to the marina or pac heights at 1:30am. I’ve seen buses filled with people just skip stops because they’re too full. Ridesharing has helped immensely with that excess demand even with surge pricing. Also, not all buses run 24/7
- xvedejas 7y ago
  I live on the other side of the mission, so YMMV. Though I would suggest that surge pricing is one of ridesharing's strengths, and public transit could learn from it.
  - shartshooter 7y ago
    For public transportation I don’t love surge pricing. It’s such a great resource for the poor and taking that away because it’s St Patty’s day doesn’t sit well with me
    - xvedejas 7y ago
      Muni already has a fare system for low-income riders.

Tiktaalik 7y ago

In Vancouver where Uber/Lyft has never been allowed car sharing services Car2go and Evo (local) are very popular. Open an app, reserve a car parked nearby, get directions to it, then drive it to where you want to go. Park it wherever. There's also (gasp) public transit (and bike share).