4 ms·

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

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.

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.