6 ms·

Lyft to use only electric cars by 2030

63 points by crakenzak 6y ago

Animats 6y ago
Lyft doesn't own the cars; the drivers do. (Mostly; Lyft has a side hustle in the rent a car business.) So this doesn't mean much. In the more advanced countries, things are further along. Shenzhen has 100% electric taxis now.
- paulgb 6y ago
  The announcement includes privately owned cars. > This includes cars in the Express Drive rental car partner program for rideshare drivers, our consumer rental car program for riders, our autonomous vehicle program, and drivers’ personal cars used on the Lyft platform.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  What happens is that it introduce a middle layer where big pockets know a lot of people want to be drivers so they buy fleets of high end vehicles to act as a lubricant between lyft and drivers.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Shenzhen has 100% electric taxis because the government heavily subsidized it.
speedgoose 6y ago
Myself to find a cure to all cancers by 2030. Please invest.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Can you work with practitioners and issue a specific type of bond to finance the work? If so, do it! In Lyft's case, they can acquire capital cheaper than individuals for mobility assets, at a lower cost ("green bonds"). For example, this was very much the Solar City model: They were not a solar install company, they were a financial engineering company that could go to the capital markets to finance your rooftop solar to make it affordable until the price of solar came down to where purchase is now the superior option. Lyft can encourage, finance, and work with local jurisdictions to install EV charging stations where the data shows drivers need them. They can sign a PPA (power purchase agreement) for those charging stations to purchase renewable energy for the EV fleet keeping costs under control (versus volatile petroleum costs). And most importantly, this halves the per mile costs of a vehicle (versus internal combustion), allowing Lyft and a driver to capture more revenue than they already are. Do I think Uber and Lyft are viable businesses? Absolutely not, but I'm not going to throw shade on legitimate climate change mitigation efforts. That doesn't respect the people who are championing these efforts, or their leadership above who have to take the leap to get buy in from the business and push them forward. There is real work and hard conversations behind these efforts.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  This seems like a snarky comment. It's good they've got an ambition, a plan, and a realistic chance of doing it. You're just sitting there being nasty about it.
  - speedgoose 6y ago
    It's a snarky comment. A 10 years plan to go electric is engaging only the people who believes in it. By the way to give a scale, Lyft is 8 years old. The Nissan Leaf is 10 years old. Today you have tons of different eletric cars on the market. They could go electric a lot sooner if they were forced.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > It's a snarky comment. Well that's specifically against the site rules here so please don't post snarky things.
      - speedgoose 6y ago
        True. My snarky comment wasn't directed towards another member but I guess being snarky with corporations being lame is not allowed by the rules.
jsnider3 6y ago
Big, if true.
- Zhenya 6y ago
  How is this big? Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle. They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years. This is a big fat nothingburger.
- dumbfounder 6y ago
  According to this article: https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-sales-growing-faster-expected https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-sales-growing-fa... It is expected that more than half of new cars sold will be EV by 2030. This will by federal incentives no doubt, and also by the further disruption of the car industry by the pandemic. Still, it seems low to me. And, I would expect by 2030 it will be the better choice to go electric for Lyft/Uber drivers due to decreased maintenance and overall cost per mile compared to ICE. The problem right now is availability of reasonably priced options, but that will be solved in the next 10 years almost certainly. So, without the proclamation of a mandate my gut says 90%+ of Lyft/Uber drivers would go electric because it's the better business choice for them. So I don't think it's "Big", I think it's a calculated risk with good intentions to grab some news headlines. But that's ok, maybe it will encourage others to make bolder bets, which would be good. Not quite "Big" in my opinion.
kamakazizuru 6y ago
hmm - I wouldn't be too surprised if Tesla has their electric self driving fleet of cabs out well before that.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I will be neither surprised if they do nor if they don’t. Tesla have ~ten billion miles of experience, so at this point I think the question is “how long will it take to figure out a data-efficient algorithm?” rather than “can it be done?” Back in 2009 I was expecting this to be available before 2019, and I didn’t have in mind anything as limited as either the “motorways only” autopilot of Tesla nor the (single?) heavily mapped city system of Waymo.
csours 6y ago
2030 seems way too late. 2025 would be a meaningful goal.
- ryanmcbride 6y ago
  I believe the issue there is that they wouldn't realistically have enough drivers with electric cars by 2025. If they entirely managed their own fleet they could make that happen, but most lyft drivers likely don't make enough money to buy an electric within the next 5 years.
zffr 6y ago
This seems like a great change, but I wonder what impact it would have on the drivers who have bought a car to use for Lyft. Would they have to sell their car in the next 10yrs to remain on the platform? What if they don't have a way to charge an electric car where they live? 10 Years is a long lead time, but I can imagine that some Lyft drivers might not be very happy with this news.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  If someone bought a car to use for Lyft, they are probably driving full-time. Full time drivers I've spoken with go through cars a LOT faster than 10 years. Some don't even make it to the 3 year mark before needing a new car. Lyft and Uber have always had requirements on the maximum age of a vehicle too. I don't think any car on the road today will be eligible in 10 years anyway.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Zhenya 6y ago
So much excitement here for what? Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle. They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years. This is a big fat nothingburger.
- cryptoz 6y ago
  > So much excitement here for what? Corporate action on climate is needed. Also I don't see _any_ excitement in this thread, mostly negativity and lukewarm reaction, sarcasm, etc. > Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle. Not to me, do you have anything to back this up? Why would Lyft care about the news cycle? > They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years. The meaning is pretty clear. > This is a big fat nothingburger. This kind of namecalling and negative attitude really doesn't belong on HN. You have copy+pasted this comment all over the thread, why? I've flagged and downvoted
  - Zhenya 6y ago
    I posted it twice. And I will go line by line: Corporate action in 10 years by a company that encourages the disuse of public transport. News cycle: Uber/Lyft volume is very low. Get in the news and get folks to start using Lyft as restrictions end. "we are good, we are saving the climate" What's the meaning? Is it binding? Is it legal? Or is it just words that they can walk back at any moment for any reason or just forget the made this claim. It's not name calling; I'm pointing out this is fluff and pretty much does not mean anything. Thanks for your input and vote.
    - cryptoz 6y ago
      > Corporate action in 10 years by a company that encourages the disuse of public transport. I don't understand your point here. Lyft also discourages car ownership. What should any of this matter? Why does it matter what their customers incentives might be when discussing their corporate climate action? Are you stating that lyft is bad for the environment and climate change overall, and would still be bad after this change? I just don't get how these things are related. > News cycle: Uber/Lyft volume is very low. Get in the news and get folks to start using Lyft as restrictions end. "we are good, we are saving the climate" People are just desperate to get out and do things. I don't think that lyft making headlines online or on TV is going to matter much for that and I don't think their marketing department would think so either. This sounds like a conspiracy theory that Lyft does not operate in good faith and is rather trying to trick everyone all the time. It just seems unfounded and weird. > What's the meaning? Is it binding? Is it legal? Or is it just words that they can walk back at any moment for any reason or just forget the made this claim. I'm sure it is binding. If they do not make strong efforts towards meeting these goals, surely the shareholders would sue? I would! > It's not name calling; I'm pointing out this is fluff and pretty much does not mean anything. "big fat nothingburger" is the definition of name calling and rude behavior. It just doesn't belong here. You also didn't address that there is literally 0 excitement here. There are 0 comments that I would rank as any level of "excited". I don't want to accuse you of lying, but, can you source what you mean by "excitement here"? It just doesn't seem real to me.
derision 6y ago
I'm also committing to use only electric cars by 2030. Please invest
hogFeast 6y ago
I shall be giving $100bn to charity in 2030. It will be a great year. ...srs, this is The Michael Scott Foundation. Admire the balls but everyone knows that Lyft have no control over this (I am sure they would do this today if they could, but the issue is that no-one has electric cars...not Lyft's failure to make this pledge).
jtms 6y ago
Bold of them to assume they will still exist in 2030
- mulmen 6y ago
  “We will have 0 ICE cars on the road in 2030.”
fenwick67 6y ago
Anyone in the automotive space that says "by 20xx" can be essentially immediately discredited at this point. You can blame Google/Waymo for saying self-driving cars would be available to the general public by 2017.
- jsight 6y ago
  I don't think I understand the 20xx part of that assertion. Should this imply that 21xx or 22xx would be creditworthy? Maybe it should be something like "202[3-9]"?
  - fenwick67 6y ago
    If I had to nail this down I would say anything more than 2 years out.
voz_ 6y ago
Typical empty nothing statement from Lyft. I highly doubt they will exist by then. Uber is falling back to food during coronavirus quarantine, what does Lyft have?
samatman 6y ago
I'll buck the trend: this is fantastic news. Most of the comments in this thread are ignoring how preference cascades work: this kind of purely symbolic action sends a signal. CEOs of car companies see something like this and think "hmm, will it actually be socially acceptable to sell ICE cars in ten years?", and this affects their planning no matter what conclusion they draw from it.
- avbanks 6y ago
  That is the exact same way I'm seeing it.
- Zhenya 6y ago
  Your position is that CEOs of car companies are going to plan their products based on what a US-based car sharing platform that might not exist then "commits" to do? I don't think that's how high capital, low margin businesses make decisions.
  - ksdale 6y ago
    Viewing this event in isolation, I think you're right, but the parent comment mentioned "cascades." With enough commitments like this, even if the average one is unreliable, it becomes part of the zeitgeist, and there is eventually enough certainty for high capital, low margin businesses to make decisions.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Would be nice if this is followed up with something more concrete, like "here's 100 million we've put aside and a platform for lyft drivers to trade in their old cars for a new electric one from these partners, plus low-interest financing for new electric cars that can be paid back in an accelerated way through driving lyft cars." Or just anything that's an actual concrete program that means that tommorow there will be a greater proportion of electric cars driven by lyft drivers than there are today.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  ,, ending our carbon offsets program'' This is the real news hidden in the press release, and it's actually quite sad :(
anamexis 6y ago
I'm curious if today's electric cars would even work. Does a Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Bolt have enough range for the average Lyft shift? Of course, EV range can improve, and Lyft could make logistical changes to allow for charging, but I'm curious if, overnight, Lyft drivers all switched to EVs, would that work?
- DarmokJalad1701 6y ago
  Model 3 SR+ goes 250 miles. Bolt goes 259, Leaf goes ~226. The average Uber/Lyft ride is ~6 miles. The average driver makes ~30 trips per week according to Uber. The gas + maintenance savings would be significant especially if they charge at home overnight.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    > Model 3 SR+ goes 250 miles. I can't speak for the Bolt or Leaf, but I can tell you that the stated range of my Model 3 Performance (299 miles) is not accurate. Sure, I can probably go 299 miles on a full charge if I'm going 55 mph with the climate controls off, but if I'm going 75 mph with the heat running because it's 35F outside, the actual range is closer to 230 miles. I imagine the Model 3 SR+ is the same way. Probably only really ~200-220 miles in real-world conditions.
    - DarmokJalad1701 6y ago
      It averages out IMO. In my Model 3 AWD in the Midwest, I frequently get better than the rated efficiency of ~242 Wh/mi in the summer and Fall and worse in the winter. It is around ~200 Wh/mi in the summer and close to 300 in the winter depending on how cold it gets. So the range could be as low as 250 in the winter and even better than 310 in the summer/fall depending on how I drive and how warm it is.
- pedrocr 6y ago
  At least here in Portugal there are already plenty of Renault Zoe being used for Uber. The running costs are lower and range seems more than enough for city driving. With decent chargers the cars are only idle when the drivers are taking a break. As far as I can tell the only roadblock right now is the price of the cars. With the new models coming out of VW and others I expect EVs to take over these roles actually much faster than the general public. There are no long trips and the running cost advantage pays for the extra cost of the car much easier.
ProAm 6y ago
How many miles does the average driver drive in a day for a ride sharing service? And how many on top of what they normally commute while not driving for Lyft/Uber? Seems like it might be hard to manage charging to live a normal life, drive for one of these companies and still have your car available when you need it?
- mulmen 6y ago
  It doesn’t take much to imagine a model where this works. Lyft already rents cars to drivers. Just stage them around town and when the first shift car battery is dead the driver can park it somewhere, plug in and swap to another car.
BariumBlue 6y ago
My guess: running costs for electric vehicles are lower than for ICE vehicles, meaning either reducing payouts to drivers, reducing customer costs, or both. If I understand it correctly, Uber and Lyft currently have a problem where the customers are unhappy with high costs, drivers are unhappy with their amount of compensation, and yet the margins are too small or negative to achieve company profitability
kyriakos 6y ago
Its possible all new cars sold will be electric by then which makes Lyft's plan not innovative but inevitable.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Possibly a high percentage but there are a lot of use cases that electric cars don't cover. No electric sales has a very high bar even if it's mostly pickups and big SUVs/vans.
mister_hn 6y ago
Hope they will not go bankrupt until 2030
shawnb576 6y ago
Main blocker for EV for rideshare today is TCO of EVs for drivers. Hybrids show that its definitely possible to move in this direction. Drivers need to make money by driving, and for an EV they face several hurdles: - Cost of the cars themselves - Range - Availability of charging stations - Time it takes to charge My understanding is that the TCO of EVs will cross with ICE in ~2025. All of the above will get better over time. I think it's great that Lyft is signalling this but its mostly out of their direct control. In one world, this happens by default because the market has switched. In one it won't happen because the infrastructure still isn't there. I personally think most cars sold in 2030 will be EVs because they are a classic disruptive change product. They gain share due to some attributes that are better then one day the whole market flips because it's clear they're on balance better. For urban usage, I think we aren't too far from that.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  I'm surprised we haven't seen more plug-in hybrids. A plug-in hybrid is essentially an EV for most people's daily commute, but still has an ICE to relieve range anxiety on road trips. And since the batteries are small, they can be recharged overnight easily without installing a charging port. You can charge from a standard household 120v outlet. Now if only more manufacturers making EVs and hybrids would stop putting the batteries in the @#$%ing trunk and follow Tesla's lead in putting them in the floor of the car.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Pretty much every manufacturer puts batteries in the floor of the car. I've yet to see one that doesn't.
saltedonion 6y ago
Am I the only skeptic here? 2030 is a decade away, and lyft needs to figure out how to stay afloat NOW. It is not as well positioned as Uber on some important fronts such as diversifying its product offerings into food, prescription drugs etc... and it really needs to have an answer there. I’m more concerned with if lyft will be able to attract enough capital to stay afloat rather than what kind of cars it will have in 10 years. This seems like a way for the CEO to plant anchoring bias to me, where by displaying it thinks long term, gives the impression that there is nothing to worry about in the short run.
- elhudy 6y ago
  Lyft always says things like this. Part of their marketing strategy is to be the "good guy" vs Uber the "bad guy". I know people who always take Lyft over Uber because it has positioned itself as the rideshare beacon of corporate responsibility.
iphone_elegance 6y ago
not that it's possible but I'd prefer to be making progress towards no cars by then
imtringued 6y ago
I don't understand how this is supposed to work. What prevents drivers from switching to a different app?
jillesvangurp 6y ago
Seems conservative. IMHO taxis and other urban mobility will largely go electric in the next five years already. The only constraint here really is production capacity for cheap EVs and the average sales price. Both are improving rapidly. The EVs currently hitting the market are probably getting there in terms of ASP but the availability is pretty limited, especially in the more affordable segment. Around ~30K (for a decent sized vehicle with leg room in the back) is pretty expensive but if you look at the total cost of ownership for a vehicle that is likely to be used intensively, it's probably not bad. As these prices come down in the next few years, it's only going to get more attractive. I think also, many cities (especially in Europe) will be keen to get ICE cars out of the city and I expect there will be advantages to operating EVs in the form of subsidies, easier to get permits, charging infrastructure, etc. So 2030, seems a long way off. Why wait that long?

63 points by crakenzak 6y ago

Lyft doesn't own the cars; the drivers do. (Mostly; Lyft has a side hustle in the rent a car business.) So this doesn't mean much. In the more advanced countries, things are further along. Shenzhen has 100% electric taxis now.

paulgb 6y ago
The announcement includes privately owned cars. > This includes cars in the Express Drive rental car partner program for rideshare drivers, our consumer rental car program for riders, our autonomous vehicle program, and drivers’ personal cars used on the Lyft platform.
agumonkey 6y ago
What happens is that it introduce a middle layer where big pockets know a lot of people want to be drivers so they buy fleets of high end vehicles to act as a lubricant between lyft and drivers.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Shenzhen has 100% electric taxis because the government heavily subsidized it.

speedgoose 6y ago

Myself to find a cure to all cancers by 2030. Please invest.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Can you work with practitioners and issue a specific type of bond to finance the work? If so, do it! In Lyft's case, they can acquire capital cheaper than individuals for mobility assets, at a lower cost ("green bonds"). For example, this was very much the Solar City model: They were not a solar install company, they were a financial engineering company that could go to the capital markets to finance your rooftop solar to make it affordable until the price of solar came down to where purchase is now the superior option. Lyft can encourage, finance, and work with local jurisdictions to install EV charging stations where the data shows drivers need them. They can sign a PPA (power purchase agreement) for those charging stations to purchase renewable energy for the EV fleet keeping costs under control (versus volatile petroleum costs). And most importantly, this halves the per mile costs of a vehicle (versus internal combustion), allowing Lyft and a driver to capture more revenue than they already are. Do I think Uber and Lyft are viable businesses? Absolutely not, but I'm not going to throw shade on legitimate climate change mitigation efforts. That doesn't respect the people who are championing these efforts, or their leadership above who have to take the leap to get buy in from the business and push them forward. There is real work and hard conversations behind these efforts.
chrisseaton 6y ago
This seems like a snarky comment. It's good they've got an ambition, a plan, and a realistic chance of doing it. You're just sitting there being nasty about it.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  It's a snarky comment. A 10 years plan to go electric is engaging only the people who believes in it. By the way to give a scale, Lyft is 8 years old. The Nissan Leaf is 10 years old. Today you have tons of different eletric cars on the market. They could go electric a lot sooner if they were forced.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > It's a snarky comment. Well that's specifically against the site rules here so please don't post snarky things.
    - speedgoose 6y ago
      True. My snarky comment wasn't directed towards another member but I guess being snarky with corporations being lame is not allowed by the rules.

jsnider3 6y ago

Big, if true.

Zhenya 6y ago
How is this big? Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle. They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years. This is a big fat nothingburger.
dumbfounder 6y ago
According to this article: https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-sales-growing-faster-expected https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-sales-growing-fa... It is expected that more than half of new cars sold will be EV by 2030. This will by federal incentives no doubt, and also by the further disruption of the car industry by the pandemic. Still, it seems low to me. And, I would expect by 2030 it will be the better choice to go electric for Lyft/Uber drivers due to decreased maintenance and overall cost per mile compared to ICE. The problem right now is availability of reasonably priced options, but that will be solved in the next 10 years almost certainly. So, without the proclamation of a mandate my gut says 90%+ of Lyft/Uber drivers would go electric because it's the better business choice for them. So I don't think it's "Big", I think it's a calculated risk with good intentions to grab some news headlines. But that's ok, maybe it will encourage others to make bolder bets, which would be good. Not quite "Big" in my opinion.

kamakazizuru 6y ago

hmm - I wouldn't be too surprised if Tesla has their electric self driving fleet of cabs out well before that.

ben_w 6y ago
I will be neither surprised if they do nor if they don’t. Tesla have ~ten billion miles of experience, so at this point I think the question is “how long will it take to figure out a data-efficient algorithm?” rather than “can it be done?” Back in 2009 I was expecting this to be available before 2019, and I didn’t have in mind anything as limited as either the “motorways only” autopilot of Tesla nor the (single?) heavily mapped city system of Waymo.

csours 6y ago

2030 seems way too late. 2025 would be a meaningful goal.

ryanmcbride 6y ago
I believe the issue there is that they wouldn't realistically have enough drivers with electric cars by 2025. If they entirely managed their own fleet they could make that happen, but most lyft drivers likely don't make enough money to buy an electric within the next 5 years.

zffr 6y ago

This seems like a great change, but I wonder what impact it would have on the drivers who have bought a car to use for Lyft. Would they have to sell their car in the next 10yrs to remain on the platform? What if they don't have a way to charge an electric car where they live? 10 Years is a long lead time, but I can imagine that some Lyft drivers might not be very happy with this news.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
henryfjordan 6y ago
If someone bought a car to use for Lyft, they are probably driving full-time. Full time drivers I've spoken with go through cars a LOT faster than 10 years. Some don't even make it to the 3 year mark before needing a new car. Lyft and Uber have always had requirements on the maximum age of a vehicle too. I don't think any car on the road today will be eligible in 10 years anyway.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Zhenya 6y ago

So much excitement here for what? Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle. They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years. This is a big fat nothingburger.

cryptoz 6y ago
> So much excitement here for what? Corporate action on climate is needed. Also I don't see _any_ excitement in this thread, mostly negativity and lukewarm reaction, sarcasm, etc. > Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle. Not to me, do you have anything to back this up? Why would Lyft care about the news cycle? > They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years. The meaning is pretty clear. > This is a big fat nothingburger. This kind of namecalling and negative attitude really doesn't belong on HN. You have copy+pasted this comment all over the thread, why? I've flagged and downvoted
- Zhenya 6y ago
  I posted it twice. And I will go line by line: Corporate action in 10 years by a company that encourages the disuse of public transport. News cycle: Uber/Lyft volume is very low. Get in the news and get folks to start using Lyft as restrictions end. "we are good, we are saving the climate" What's the meaning? Is it binding? Is it legal? Or is it just words that they can walk back at any moment for any reason or just forget the made this claim. It's not name calling; I'm pointing out this is fluff and pretty much does not mean anything. Thanks for your input and vote.
  - cryptoz 6y ago
    > Corporate action in 10 years by a company that encourages the disuse of public transport. I don't understand your point here. Lyft also discourages car ownership. What should any of this matter? Why does it matter what their customers incentives might be when discussing their corporate climate action? Are you stating that lyft is bad for the environment and climate change overall, and would still be bad after this change? I just don't get how these things are related. > News cycle: Uber/Lyft volume is very low. Get in the news and get folks to start using Lyft as restrictions end. "we are good, we are saving the climate" People are just desperate to get out and do things. I don't think that lyft making headlines online or on TV is going to matter much for that and I don't think their marketing department would think so either. This sounds like a conspiracy theory that Lyft does not operate in good faith and is rather trying to trick everyone all the time. It just seems unfounded and weird. > What's the meaning? Is it binding? Is it legal? Or is it just words that they can walk back at any moment for any reason or just forget the made this claim. I'm sure it is binding. If they do not make strong efforts towards meeting these goals, surely the shareholders would sue? I would! > It's not name calling; I'm pointing out this is fluff and pretty much does not mean anything. "big fat nothingburger" is the definition of name calling and rude behavior. It just doesn't belong here. You also didn't address that there is literally 0 excitement here. There are 0 comments that I would rank as any level of "excited". I don't want to accuse you of lying, but, can you source what you mean by "excitement here"? It just doesn't seem real to me.

derision 6y ago

I'm also committing to use only electric cars by 2030. Please invest

hogFeast 6y ago

I shall be giving $100bn to charity in 2030. It will be a great year. ...srs, this is The Michael Scott Foundation. Admire the balls but everyone knows that Lyft have no control over this (I am sure they would do this today if they could, but the issue is that no-one has electric cars...not Lyft's failure to make this pledge).

jtms 6y ago

Bold of them to assume they will still exist in 2030

mulmen 6y ago
“We will have 0 ICE cars on the road in 2030.”

fenwick67 6y ago

Anyone in the automotive space that says "by 20xx" can be essentially immediately discredited at this point. You can blame Google/Waymo for saying self-driving cars would be available to the general public by 2017.

jsight 6y ago
I don't think I understand the 20xx part of that assertion. Should this imply that 21xx or 22xx would be creditworthy? Maybe it should be something like "202[3-9]"?
- fenwick67 6y ago
  If I had to nail this down I would say anything more than 2 years out.

voz_ 6y ago

Typical empty nothing statement from Lyft. I highly doubt they will exist by then. Uber is falling back to food during coronavirus quarantine, what does Lyft have?

samatman 6y ago

I'll buck the trend: this is fantastic news. Most of the comments in this thread are ignoring how preference cascades work: this kind of purely symbolic action sends a signal. CEOs of car companies see something like this and think "hmm, will it actually be socially acceptable to sell ICE cars in ten years?", and this affects their planning no matter what conclusion they draw from it.

avbanks 6y ago
That is the exact same way I'm seeing it.
Zhenya 6y ago
Your position is that CEOs of car companies are going to plan their products based on what a US-based car sharing platform that might not exist then "commits" to do? I don't think that's how high capital, low margin businesses make decisions.
- ksdale 6y ago
  Viewing this event in isolation, I think you're right, but the parent comment mentioned "cascades." With enough commitments like this, even if the average one is unreliable, it becomes part of the zeitgeist, and there is eventually enough certainty for high capital, low margin businesses to make decisions.
vikramkr 6y ago
Would be nice if this is followed up with something more concrete, like "here's 100 million we've put aside and a platform for lyft drivers to trade in their old cars for a new electric one from these partners, plus low-interest financing for new electric cars that can be paid back in an accelerated way through driving lyft cars." Or just anything that's an actual concrete program that means that tommorow there will be a greater proportion of electric cars driven by lyft drivers than there are today.
xiphias2 6y ago
,, ending our carbon offsets program'' This is the real news hidden in the press release, and it's actually quite sad :(

anamexis 6y ago

I'm curious if today's electric cars would even work. Does a Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Bolt have enough range for the average Lyft shift? Of course, EV range can improve, and Lyft could make logistical changes to allow for charging, but I'm curious if, overnight, Lyft drivers all switched to EVs, would that work?

DarmokJalad1701 6y ago
Model 3 SR+ goes 250 miles. Bolt goes 259, Leaf goes ~226. The average Uber/Lyft ride is ~6 miles. The average driver makes ~30 trips per week according to Uber. The gas + maintenance savings would be significant especially if they charge at home overnight.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  > Model 3 SR+ goes 250 miles. I can't speak for the Bolt or Leaf, but I can tell you that the stated range of my Model 3 Performance (299 miles) is not accurate. Sure, I can probably go 299 miles on a full charge if I'm going 55 mph with the climate controls off, but if I'm going 75 mph with the heat running because it's 35F outside, the actual range is closer to 230 miles. I imagine the Model 3 SR+ is the same way. Probably only really ~200-220 miles in real-world conditions.
  - DarmokJalad1701 6y ago
    It averages out IMO. In my Model 3 AWD in the Midwest, I frequently get better than the rated efficiency of ~242 Wh/mi in the summer and Fall and worse in the winter. It is around ~200 Wh/mi in the summer and close to 300 in the winter depending on how cold it gets. So the range could be as low as 250 in the winter and even better than 310 in the summer/fall depending on how I drive and how warm it is.
pedrocr 6y ago
At least here in Portugal there are already plenty of Renault Zoe being used for Uber. The running costs are lower and range seems more than enough for city driving. With decent chargers the cars are only idle when the drivers are taking a break. As far as I can tell the only roadblock right now is the price of the cars. With the new models coming out of VW and others I expect EVs to take over these roles actually much faster than the general public. There are no long trips and the running cost advantage pays for the extra cost of the car much easier.

ProAm 6y ago

How many miles does the average driver drive in a day for a ride sharing service? And how many on top of what they normally commute while not driving for Lyft/Uber? Seems like it might be hard to manage charging to live a normal life, drive for one of these companies and still have your car available when you need it?

mulmen 6y ago
It doesn’t take much to imagine a model where this works. Lyft already rents cars to drivers. Just stage them around town and when the first shift car battery is dead the driver can park it somewhere, plug in and swap to another car.

BariumBlue 6y ago

My guess: running costs for electric vehicles are lower than for ICE vehicles, meaning either reducing payouts to drivers, reducing customer costs, or both. If I understand it correctly, Uber and Lyft currently have a problem where the customers are unhappy with high costs, drivers are unhappy with their amount of compensation, and yet the margins are too small or negative to achieve company profitability

kyriakos 6y ago

Its possible all new cars sold will be electric by then which makes Lyft's plan not innovative but inevitable.

ghaff 6y ago
Possibly a high percentage but there are a lot of use cases that electric cars don't cover. No electric sales has a very high bar even if it's mostly pickups and big SUVs/vans.

mister_hn 6y ago

Hope they will not go bankrupt until 2030

shawnb576 6y ago

Main blocker for EV for rideshare today is TCO of EVs for drivers. Hybrids show that its definitely possible to move in this direction. Drivers need to make money by driving, and for an EV they face several hurdles: - Cost of the cars themselves - Range - Availability of charging stations - Time it takes to charge My understanding is that the TCO of EVs will cross with ICE in ~2025. All of the above will get better over time. I think it's great that Lyft is signalling this but its mostly out of their direct control. In one world, this happens by default because the market has switched. In one it won't happen because the infrastructure still isn't there. I personally think most cars sold in 2030 will be EVs because they are a classic disruptive change product. They gain share due to some attributes that are better then one day the whole market flips because it's clear they're on balance better. For urban usage, I think we aren't too far from that.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
I'm surprised we haven't seen more plug-in hybrids. A plug-in hybrid is essentially an EV for most people's daily commute, but still has an ICE to relieve range anxiety on road trips. And since the batteries are small, they can be recharged overnight easily without installing a charging port. You can charge from a standard household 120v outlet. Now if only more manufacturers making EVs and hybrids would stop putting the batteries in the @#$%ing trunk and follow Tesla's lead in putting them in the floor of the car.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Pretty much every manufacturer puts batteries in the floor of the car. I've yet to see one that doesn't.

saltedonion 6y ago

Am I the only skeptic here? 2030 is a decade away, and lyft needs to figure out how to stay afloat NOW. It is not as well positioned as Uber on some important fronts such as diversifying its product offerings into food, prescription drugs etc... and it really needs to have an answer there. I’m more concerned with if lyft will be able to attract enough capital to stay afloat rather than what kind of cars it will have in 10 years. This seems like a way for the CEO to plant anchoring bias to me, where by displaying it thinks long term, gives the impression that there is nothing to worry about in the short run.

elhudy 6y ago
Lyft always says things like this. Part of their marketing strategy is to be the "good guy" vs Uber the "bad guy". I know people who always take Lyft over Uber because it has positioned itself as the rideshare beacon of corporate responsibility.

iphone_elegance 6y ago

not that it's possible but I'd prefer to be making progress towards no cars by then

imtringued 6y ago

I don't understand how this is supposed to work. What prevents drivers from switching to a different app?

jillesvangurp 6y ago

Seems conservative. IMHO taxis and other urban mobility will largely go electric in the next five years already. The only constraint here really is production capacity for cheap EVs and the average sales price. Both are improving rapidly. The EVs currently hitting the market are probably getting there in terms of ASP but the availability is pretty limited, especially in the more affordable segment. Around ~30K (for a decent sized vehicle with leg room in the back) is pretty expensive but if you look at the total cost of ownership for a vehicle that is likely to be used intensively, it's probably not bad. As these prices come down in the next few years, it's only going to get more attractive. I think also, many cities (especially in Europe) will be keen to get ICE cars out of the city and I expect there will be advantages to operating EVs in the form of subsidies, easier to get permits, charging infrastructure, etc. So 2030, seems a long way off. Why wait that long?