4 ms·

>In Ecuador public Transportation and casual truck rental works. In the US, it's quite a bit tougher to exist without a reliable car or truck. We have that. It

by treis 6y ago

>In Ecuador public Transportation and casual truck rental works. In the US, it's quite a bit tougher to exist without a reliable car or truck. We have that. It's called Uber pool/Lyft Line. I argue with people on my city's reddit about this. Ad hoc point to point transit is the future but they want to spend billions on rail that won't be operational for decades.

alanbernstein 6y ago
I'm curious about your arguments for how Uber/Lyft is preferable to rail. I don't presume to know the right answer to this question, but it seems unlikely that Uber/Lyft will continue to exist in their current form indefinitely. Rail, on the other hand, appears to be a proven solution in many large cities.
- treis 6y ago
  > I'm curious about your arguments for how Uber/Lyft is preferable to rail. There's just not the density to support rail at a level to make the system fast an reliable. To make it work you need trains every ~10 minutes or so and enough coverage where people only have one transfer. Otherwise, your commute time becomes too variable based on your luck missing the connection and it becomes too long on average because of transfers. The infrastructure to create that coverage is extremely expensive and only makes sense if you can keep the trains mostly full. It's also sometimes flat out impossible because if you add stops to increase coverage you get slower travel times due to increased stoppage and loading time. In short, to make a rail system work you need ~100 people going from point A to point B at any given time. For an Uber/Lyft style system to work you only need ~10.
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    When I was in Tunisia a while back I experienced the low-tech variant of Uber/Lyft. We wanted to visit another city, and ended up in a kinda bus depot except it was filled with cars. One lane per destination. We paid, got in the first car in "our" lane, and when the car was full the driver headed off. It was cheap (in local terms) and flexible. Waiting time was reasonable, and the driver stopped when people wanted off. Meanwhile back here in Norway they're talking about expanding the railroads around the capital. The projected cost is just insane, and I'm 100% confident the estimates are not at all realistic due to difficult terrain, and politicians not being sure about exact placement of certain track segments yet. Should it go through town, or on the outside?
    - nicbou 6y ago
      The cost of labour in Tunisia is not comparable. The environmental impact is also an issue. Capacity is also an issue.
      - magicalhippo 6y ago
        Of course, it's not close to an apples to apples comparison. But it struck me as being not entirely disimmilar to Uber/Lyft in principle. Don't forget rail is _heavily_ subsidized here. Capacity is certainly a strong point for rail though.
  - alanbernstein 6y ago
    I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant to ask was, how is Uber a better option after they go out of business because their business model is fundamentally unsustainable? If the TNC model eventually reaches some steady state, the cost per mile will be significantly higher than the prices that Uber customers are currently accustomed to. That is not a viable solution for everyone.
    - treis 6y ago
      Uber/Lyft's business model is fine. Both earn money on providing rides and Lyft will probably become profitable this year. Even if their model is not profitable, public transportation in my city is subsidized to the tune of half a billion a year. So there's plenty of room for subsidizing. And even if we end up spending more money it's worth it for a system that people actually want to use. With a viable alternative to car ownership more people will give up their cars and use public transport. That will spur demand and maybe make a train system justifiable in the future.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> We have that. It's called Uber pool/Lyft Line. In big cities where congestion is a problem, you have to look at space efficiency. Cars—including Uber & Lyft—are extremely inefficient in terms of the amount of space required to move a person from one place to another. In a big existing city, it's impossible to add traffic capacity, the roads just can't get wider. The only way to increase capacity is by using more space efficient forms of getting around. Buses, trains, bicycles, scooters, and foot traffic are space efficient. Uber and Lyft are not. Uber and Lyft are also not economical for a lot of people which is one of the other big reasons you don't see them taking off in many places.
- treis 6y ago
  >In big cities where congestion is a problem, you have to look at space efficiency At least in my city we don't need to go from 100 cars -> 1 train to solve the issue. Going from 3 solo drivers -> 1 Uber/Lyft will cut congestion to 1/3-1/2. That's enough to alleviate the worst traffic. >Uber and Lyft are also not economical for a lot of people which is one of the other big reasons you don't see them taking off in many places. The shared services are pretty comparable to what public transport costs in my city. A single bus/train trip costs ~$5 when taking all taxes/fares into account. Most journeys from point A to B require a transfer so the cost is more like $10. $10 in a Uber/Lyft shared ride gets you pretty far. Even if it nets out to be more expensive it's at least something that people will use. The current riders are mostly those too poor to own a car and have no other choice.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > At least in my city we don't need to go from 100 cars -> 1 train to solve the issue. Going from 3 solo drivers -> 1 Uber/Lyft will cut congestion to 1/3-1/2. That's enough to alleviate the worst traffic. This isn't true. Even if you assume every Uber Pool ride is full, you aren't achieving anywhere near a 50% drop in congestion. Legs where there are 3 passengers are offset by legs where the driver is alone. > The shared services are pretty comparable to what public transport costs in my city. A single bus/train trip costs ~$5 when taking all taxes/fares into account. Most journeys from point A to B require a transfer so the cost is more like $10. $10 in a Uber/Lyft shared ride gets you pretty far. I have no idea where you live, but your numbers seem way off. Pretty much everywhere I've lived, bus/ subway/ BART pricing is way cheaper than Uber. I can get an in-town day pass for $3.50 and can to the next town 20 miles away for less than $5. In the California Bay Area, you can take BART from one end of the line to the other for under $8. Uber's fare estimate for that same route is over $50. Oakland to SF? $3.70 versus $26. There is no single route were the prices are remotely close. > Even if it nets out to be more expensive it's at least something that people will use. The current riders are mostly those too poor to own a car and have no other choice. My original point here was that in Ecuador, bus service does work and it's crap in the US.

by treis 6y ago

alanbernstein 6y ago

I'm curious about your arguments for how Uber/Lyft is preferable to rail. I don't presume to know the right answer to this question, but it seems unlikely that Uber/Lyft will continue to exist in their current form indefinitely. Rail, on the other hand, appears to be a proven solution in many large cities.

treis 6y ago
> I'm curious about your arguments for how Uber/Lyft is preferable to rail. There's just not the density to support rail at a level to make the system fast an reliable. To make it work you need trains every ~10 minutes or so and enough coverage where people only have one transfer. Otherwise, your commute time becomes too variable based on your luck missing the connection and it becomes too long on average because of transfers. The infrastructure to create that coverage is extremely expensive and only makes sense if you can keep the trains mostly full. It's also sometimes flat out impossible because if you add stops to increase coverage you get slower travel times due to increased stoppage and loading time. In short, to make a rail system work you need ~100 people going from point A to point B at any given time. For an Uber/Lyft style system to work you only need ~10.
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  When I was in Tunisia a while back I experienced the low-tech variant of Uber/Lyft. We wanted to visit another city, and ended up in a kinda bus depot except it was filled with cars. One lane per destination. We paid, got in the first car in "our" lane, and when the car was full the driver headed off. It was cheap (in local terms) and flexible. Waiting time was reasonable, and the driver stopped when people wanted off. Meanwhile back here in Norway they're talking about expanding the railroads around the capital. The projected cost is just insane, and I'm 100% confident the estimates are not at all realistic due to difficult terrain, and politicians not being sure about exact placement of certain track segments yet. Should it go through town, or on the outside?
  - nicbou 6y ago
    The cost of labour in Tunisia is not comparable. The environmental impact is also an issue. Capacity is also an issue.
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      Of course, it's not close to an apples to apples comparison. But it struck me as being not entirely disimmilar to Uber/Lyft in principle. Don't forget rail is _heavily_ subsidized here. Capacity is certainly a strong point for rail though.
- alanbernstein 6y ago
  I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant to ask was, how is Uber a better option after they go out of business because their business model is fundamentally unsustainable? If the TNC model eventually reaches some steady state, the cost per mile will be significantly higher than the prices that Uber customers are currently accustomed to. That is not a viable solution for everyone.
  - treis 6y ago
    Uber/Lyft's business model is fine. Both earn money on providing rides and Lyft will probably become profitable this year. Even if their model is not profitable, public transportation in my city is subsidized to the tune of half a billion a year. So there's plenty of room for subsidizing. And even if we end up spending more money it's worth it for a system that people actually want to use. With a viable alternative to car ownership more people will give up their cars and use public transport. That will spur demand and maybe make a train system justifiable in the future.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> We have that. It's called Uber pool/Lyft Line. In big cities where congestion is a problem, you have to look at space efficiency. Cars—including Uber & Lyft—are extremely inefficient in terms of the amount of space required to move a person from one place to another. In a big existing city, it's impossible to add traffic capacity, the roads just can't get wider. The only way to increase capacity is by using more space efficient forms of getting around. Buses, trains, bicycles, scooters, and foot traffic are space efficient. Uber and Lyft are not. Uber and Lyft are also not economical for a lot of people which is one of the other big reasons you don't see them taking off in many places.

treis 6y ago
>In big cities where congestion is a problem, you have to look at space efficiency At least in my city we don't need to go from 100 cars -> 1 train to solve the issue. Going from 3 solo drivers -> 1 Uber/Lyft will cut congestion to 1/3-1/2. That's enough to alleviate the worst traffic. >Uber and Lyft are also not economical for a lot of people which is one of the other big reasons you don't see them taking off in many places. The shared services are pretty comparable to what public transport costs in my city. A single bus/train trip costs ~$5 when taking all taxes/fares into account. Most journeys from point A to B require a transfer so the cost is more like $10. $10 in a Uber/Lyft shared ride gets you pretty far. Even if it nets out to be more expensive it's at least something that people will use. The current riders are mostly those too poor to own a car and have no other choice.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > At least in my city we don't need to go from 100 cars -> 1 train to solve the issue. Going from 3 solo drivers -> 1 Uber/Lyft will cut congestion to 1/3-1/2. That's enough to alleviate the worst traffic. This isn't true. Even if you assume every Uber Pool ride is full, you aren't achieving anywhere near a 50% drop in congestion. Legs where there are 3 passengers are offset by legs where the driver is alone. > The shared services are pretty comparable to what public transport costs in my city. A single bus/train trip costs ~$5 when taking all taxes/fares into account. Most journeys from point A to B require a transfer so the cost is more like $10. $10 in a Uber/Lyft shared ride gets you pretty far. I have no idea where you live, but your numbers seem way off. Pretty much everywhere I've lived, bus/ subway/ BART pricing is way cheaper than Uber. I can get an in-town day pass for $3.50 and can to the next town 20 miles away for less than $5. In the California Bay Area, you can take BART from one end of the line to the other for under $8. Uber's fare estimate for that same route is over $50. Oakland to SF? $3.70 versus $26. There is no single route were the prices are remotely close. > Even if it nets out to be more expensive it's at least something that people will use. The current riders are mostly those too poor to own a car and have no other choice. My original point here was that in Ecuador, bus service does work and it's crap in the US.