5 ms·

People prefer an Uber to public transportation.

by mimikatz 5y ago

manigandham 5y ago
Often public transportation isn't available, isn't reliable, or still requires last mile coverage from rideshares.
- bluGill 5y ago
  According to their medical doctor: the vast majority of people would be better off if they walked the last mile. I don't even need to be a medical doctor to make that obvious statement. There are a small minority who cannot walk that far, and so yes we should provide something for them. However that is a tiny minority.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    "Last mile" is a term referring to the final connection from the transport hub to the destination; it doesn't mean a literal mile. A major problem with public transport in many cities is that this "last mile" segment is often several miles which would be hours of walking and therefore necessitates ridesharing/vehicle travel.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      No, if it is more than a mile there is no public transit to those people at all. Don't try to pretend there is, just subtract all such people from the transit roles. There is one exception: a park and ride lot can work in some cases. though then the last mile is solved. In general I don't like park and ride, but they have their place.
      - manigandham 5y ago
        Public transit is shared transport for the general public. It's not defined by how close it is to people, however last-mile logistics is a common reason for lack of usage. All of this is covered in my original comment. Your replies are nonsensical and add nothing to this discussion. It seems you're replying just to argue and I'm not interested.
mjevans 5y ago
My own opinion as well as speculation: IN THE US: Public transit suffers from under funding and a general lack of civic planning (at least at macro-scales). Public transit and all other public _spaces_ also suffer from lack of social safety nets at a national level. Defacto, they are where the displaced and under-served end up, because they are unable to go anywhere else. Everyone else with options either doesn't need to travel, or uses personal transport when they do. This exacerbates the issue of lack of funding through lack of use. In the United States there is, an accurate, perception that on public transport someone is more likely to be exposed to crime, unwanted scents from the unwashed or the uncouth in personal hygiene (too much Axe (which is any), etc), or particularly during the pandemic, unavoidable social mingling. In urban cores this might be different given the lack of cars and denser service. However around them the only well serviced customer are business persons who commute down town early, and then back in the evening. In the suburbs and outlying areas there's either service far too infrequent to be a reliable choice or none at all; and often that service cuts off too early in the evening.
- roamerz 5y ago
  In my area public transportation is over funded. Watching all the near empty busses going from stop to stop is disgusting.
harpratap 5y ago
*in certain countries Here in Japan public transport in unanimously preferred over Uber & Taxis
standardUser 5y ago
Just got back from a trip to the Bay Area and BART was closing at 9pm! Even during normal hours it closes far too early, forcing people to find alternatives, and strongly bolstering the case for ride share companies. But this was extra ridiculous and forced me to take Uber/Lyft when I would have preferrer to take public transit. Now imagine how it works in the next 50 largest US cities that have worse public transit than the Bay Area. Then think about how it works in the thousands of small cities and towns where many bars and restaurants are a 20 minute driver and public transit barely exists.
- wankerrific 5y ago
  > BART was closing at 9pm! Yeah. There’s this COVID thing going around. Have you heard about it?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    In France, even during the first and hardest lockdown, public transportation continued to run, just with a slightly less dense schedule. Why? Because essential people ( think medical personnel, grocery store workers, etc.) need to still be able to get around as per usual.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    In NYC the subway never stopped running before midnight, and we were hit way, way harder than SF. How are people supposed to get to/from work without a train running? Not all essential workers earn a lot of money and can pay for car rides to and from work everyday.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
In London, public transportation is usually faster than driving (except during early morning or late night) for most journeys. You can get close to most places you'd want to go, without needing a car for the last mile. In Beijing, cars are faster for many journeys, and public transportation doesn't quite reach everywhere you'd want to go, without a lot of changes. But the reach and density of public transportation (particularly the subway system) is growing fast. And the last mile is served by ubiquitous shared bikes. In San Francisco, which has a fraction of the population (maybe 10% of London's, and <5% of Beijing's), almost all journeys seem to be faster by car, than they are by public transport. A small section of the city is served by BART but, even then, wait times are a significant proportion of total journey times for short journeys. I prefer to walk, cycle or take public transport, than to drive. But I'll drive if it cuts the journey time in half, which it often does. For example, my son's preschool is 10 mins' drive away. 2 return trips per day is 40 minutes. Switching to Muni (bus) would add an extra 90 minutes each day. Perhaps it's the low population density, perhaps it's lack of funding, perhaps mismanagement. Or perhaps we're stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium in which people don't use public transport for $good_reasons, and the lack of ridership means that improvements cannot be justified.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Apparently BART stands specifically for the Bay Area's BRT line[0], thought you misspelt BRT (bus rapid transit[1]). 0: https://www.bart.gov/ https://www.bart.gov/ 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    BART is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail rather than a bus. In San Francisco it’s a subway line, in the suburbs it’s elevated and makes one or two stops per town.
ehnto 5y ago
Most people I talk to much rather take public transport. Uber is way too expensive for everyday travel, and you have the same schedule variance as if you had driven a car in. One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion.
- asdff 5y ago
  >One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion. Many brand new American train networks run at grade with car traffic, so even aboard the train you can't escape. For example, it takes 15 minutes aboard the expo line in Los Angeles to go between USC and downtown LA. The distance is 2 miles; you could out run the train if you ran directly on the track and didn't have to stop at red lights like the train does. Most new transit construction in the US seems to be this half measure LRT that has many at grade crossings with cars, and is rarely given signal priority (there should be no reason for an at grade train to stop at an intersection at all).
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Yes that sounds like a really poor network design. I've never heard of trains stopping for car traffic before, usually cars are required to stop at level crossings and wait for the train. Not just for the strain on the stock and rails but thinking about it like a societal ethos, public transport should have right of way to individuals in their cars as public transport efficiently serves the commons. I still think atomic individual transport is important and will stick around, but surely it's important to not undermine the efficacy of a network that supports hundreds of people at a time. Edit: I forgot, there's a light tram line in my city that stops at a handful of car intersections, but it's mostly above grade anyway and those stops are accompanied by a platform as well. So the tram technically stops at the platform first, then begins again once the road lights cycle.
heavyset_go 5y ago
I'd much rather take a bus, subway or train.
- asdff 5y ago
  Depends on how accessible these are to you. In my city, with 1400 miles of bus routes and 100 miles of rail, transit is still the slowest option by usually at least two fold. The fastest bus lines come every 10 minutes. It might take you 15 minutes to walk out your door to a bus stop, another 10 minutes to get on the bus, then you sit in traffic and crawl at about 2/3 the speed of a car on the given stretch of road, thanks to the stops, then you walk to your destination which might be another 10-15 mins from the stop, assuming your destination is even on a direct route to you. If you need to transfer lines, factor in more time waiting for the next bus to show or time walking to another stop. If it's over 90 degrees and there is zero shade, as there frequently is, this can become unbearable to deal with. One day I forgot my water bottle during a heat wave and the bus was late, and I was feeling faint by the time it came to me. So much time taking transit is spent waiting around rather than moving. I only rely on the train to go to work, and for my ~50 minute commute door to door, only 15-20 minutes or so are spent actually riding the trains (1 transfer). And I'm lucky enough to live relatively convenient to work. Many apartments I was looking at in my price range were still within 5-10 miles of work, but with bus commutes hovering around 2 hours one way thanks to transfers across the street grid and a lack of diagonal serving bus routes. For many people who might not be able to afford to be choosy about where they live, it can be difficult to land a practical apartment transit wise to your work, and it can be hard to land a job where there is even good transit opportunities to begin with. Suddenly a $2000 car that can turn your 2 hour bus commute into 18 minutes seems like the best investment money can buy, no matter what job you have, especially when you have a family who you want to see, or maybe even another job to get to across town. People in this city sooner give up a roof over their head than their car when money gets tight.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Yeah, transit planning sucks in most cities. It should be better.
swebs 5y ago
People just want to get from A to B as quickly and painlessly as possible. Maybe the public sector should take the hint and come out with their own ridesharing services.
- bluGill 5y ago
  They already have it. What they need is to take the hint and make the local bus system useful. It shouldn't be more than 10 minutes from when you get to the bus stop until a bus arrives. The bus should go a straight line. This can be either the downtown transfer point, or a grid - either with timed transfers so that when you arrive at a transfer you get on the other bus just before it leaves, or if you are continuing on you don't wait very long. Either way, a bus system can do much better than most do.
  - swebs 5y ago
    No, it doesn't compare at all. There is no bus line that goes straight from the bar to my apartment. Hell, after 11:00PM, there are barely any bus lines running at all due to low ridership at that hour. And this is in a major European city. It just doesn't make sense to run a bus when it will only have 1 or 2 riders throughout its route. That's why it makes sense to have an individual car service. That's why taxis/Uber are doing so well.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      In the middle of the night it makes sense to not run buses/trains and just a dial-a-ride. It will not make money, but the peace of mind for the few times you need it is worth it. Transfers should be normal. We need to make them quick and easy.

People prefer an Uber to public transportation.

manigandham 5y ago

Often public transportation isn't available, isn't reliable, or still requires last mile coverage from rideshares.

bluGill 5y ago
According to their medical doctor: the vast majority of people would be better off if they walked the last mile. I don't even need to be a medical doctor to make that obvious statement. There are a small minority who cannot walk that far, and so yes we should provide something for them. However that is a tiny minority.
- manigandham 5y ago
  "Last mile" is a term referring to the final connection from the transport hub to the destination; it doesn't mean a literal mile. A major problem with public transport in many cities is that this "last mile" segment is often several miles which would be hours of walking and therefore necessitates ridesharing/vehicle travel.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    No, if it is more than a mile there is no public transit to those people at all. Don't try to pretend there is, just subtract all such people from the transit roles. There is one exception: a park and ride lot can work in some cases. though then the last mile is solved. In general I don't like park and ride, but they have their place.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      Public transit is shared transport for the general public. It's not defined by how close it is to people, however last-mile logistics is a common reason for lack of usage. All of this is covered in my original comment. Your replies are nonsensical and add nothing to this discussion. It seems you're replying just to argue and I'm not interested.

mjevans 5y ago

My own opinion as well as speculation: IN THE US: Public transit suffers from under funding and a general lack of civic planning (at least at macro-scales). Public transit and all other public _spaces_ also suffer from lack of social safety nets at a national level. Defacto, they are where the displaced and under-served end up, because they are unable to go anywhere else. Everyone else with options either doesn't need to travel, or uses personal transport when they do. This exacerbates the issue of lack of funding through lack of use. In the United States there is, an accurate, perception that on public transport someone is more likely to be exposed to crime, unwanted scents from the unwashed or the uncouth in personal hygiene (too much Axe (which is any), etc), or particularly during the pandemic, unavoidable social mingling. In urban cores this might be different given the lack of cars and denser service. However around them the only well serviced customer are business persons who commute down town early, and then back in the evening. In the suburbs and outlying areas there's either service far too infrequent to be a reliable choice or none at all; and often that service cuts off too early in the evening.

roamerz 5y ago
In my area public transportation is over funded. Watching all the near empty busses going from stop to stop is disgusting.

harpratap 5y ago

*in certain countries Here in Japan public transport in unanimously preferred over Uber & Taxis

standardUser 5y ago

Just got back from a trip to the Bay Area and BART was closing at 9pm! Even during normal hours it closes far too early, forcing people to find alternatives, and strongly bolstering the case for ride share companies. But this was extra ridiculous and forced me to take Uber/Lyft when I would have preferrer to take public transit. Now imagine how it works in the next 50 largest US cities that have worse public transit than the Bay Area. Then think about how it works in the thousands of small cities and towns where many bars and restaurants are a 20 minute driver and public transit barely exists.

wankerrific 5y ago
> BART was closing at 9pm! Yeah. There’s this COVID thing going around. Have you heard about it?
- sofixa 5y ago
  In France, even during the first and hardest lockdown, public transportation continued to run, just with a slightly less dense schedule. Why? Because essential people ( think medical personnel, grocery store workers, etc.) need to still be able to get around as per usual.
- standardUser 5y ago
  In NYC the subway never stopped running before midnight, and we were hit way, way harder than SF. How are people supposed to get to/from work without a train running? Not all essential workers earn a lot of money and can pay for car rides to and from work everyday.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

In London, public transportation is usually faster than driving (except during early morning or late night) for most journeys. You can get close to most places you'd want to go, without needing a car for the last mile. In Beijing, cars are faster for many journeys, and public transportation doesn't quite reach everywhere you'd want to go, without a lot of changes. But the reach and density of public transportation (particularly the subway system) is growing fast. And the last mile is served by ubiquitous shared bikes. In San Francisco, which has a fraction of the population (maybe 10% of London's, and <5% of Beijing's), almost all journeys seem to be faster by car, than they are by public transport. A small section of the city is served by BART but, even then, wait times are a significant proportion of total journey times for short journeys. I prefer to walk, cycle or take public transport, than to drive. But I'll drive if it cuts the journey time in half, which it often does. For example, my son's preschool is 10 mins' drive away. 2 return trips per day is 40 minutes. Switching to Muni (bus) would add an extra 90 minutes each day. Perhaps it's the low population density, perhaps it's lack of funding, perhaps mismanagement. Or perhaps we're stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium in which people don't use public transport for $good_reasons, and the lack of ridership means that improvements cannot be justified.

judge2020 5y ago
Apparently BART stands specifically for the Bay Area's BRT line[0], thought you misspelt BRT (bus rapid transit[1]). 0: https://www.bart.gov/ https://www.bart.gov/ 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  BART is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail rather than a bus. In San Francisco it’s a subway line, in the suburbs it’s elevated and makes one or two stops per town.

ehnto 5y ago

Most people I talk to much rather take public transport. Uber is way too expensive for everyday travel, and you have the same schedule variance as if you had driven a car in. One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion.

asdff 5y ago
>One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion. Many brand new American train networks run at grade with car traffic, so even aboard the train you can't escape. For example, it takes 15 minutes aboard the expo line in Los Angeles to go between USC and downtown LA. The distance is 2 miles; you could out run the train if you ran directly on the track and didn't have to stop at red lights like the train does. Most new transit construction in the US seems to be this half measure LRT that has many at grade crossings with cars, and is rarely given signal priority (there should be no reason for an at grade train to stop at an intersection at all).
- ehnto 5y ago
  Yes that sounds like a really poor network design. I've never heard of trains stopping for car traffic before, usually cars are required to stop at level crossings and wait for the train. Not just for the strain on the stock and rails but thinking about it like a societal ethos, public transport should have right of way to individuals in their cars as public transport efficiently serves the commons. I still think atomic individual transport is important and will stick around, but surely it's important to not undermine the efficacy of a network that supports hundreds of people at a time. Edit: I forgot, there's a light tram line in my city that stops at a handful of car intersections, but it's mostly above grade anyway and those stops are accompanied by a platform as well. So the tram technically stops at the platform first, then begins again once the road lights cycle.

heavyset_go 5y ago

I'd much rather take a bus, subway or train.

asdff 5y ago
Depends on how accessible these are to you. In my city, with 1400 miles of bus routes and 100 miles of rail, transit is still the slowest option by usually at least two fold. The fastest bus lines come every 10 minutes. It might take you 15 minutes to walk out your door to a bus stop, another 10 minutes to get on the bus, then you sit in traffic and crawl at about 2/3 the speed of a car on the given stretch of road, thanks to the stops, then you walk to your destination which might be another 10-15 mins from the stop, assuming your destination is even on a direct route to you. If you need to transfer lines, factor in more time waiting for the next bus to show or time walking to another stop. If it's over 90 degrees and there is zero shade, as there frequently is, this can become unbearable to deal with. One day I forgot my water bottle during a heat wave and the bus was late, and I was feeling faint by the time it came to me. So much time taking transit is spent waiting around rather than moving. I only rely on the train to go to work, and for my ~50 minute commute door to door, only 15-20 minutes or so are spent actually riding the trains (1 transfer). And I'm lucky enough to live relatively convenient to work. Many apartments I was looking at in my price range were still within 5-10 miles of work, but with bus commutes hovering around 2 hours one way thanks to transfers across the street grid and a lack of diagonal serving bus routes. For many people who might not be able to afford to be choosy about where they live, it can be difficult to land a practical apartment transit wise to your work, and it can be hard to land a job where there is even good transit opportunities to begin with. Suddenly a $2000 car that can turn your 2 hour bus commute into 18 minutes seems like the best investment money can buy, no matter what job you have, especially when you have a family who you want to see, or maybe even another job to get to across town. People in this city sooner give up a roof over their head than their car when money gets tight.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Yeah, transit planning sucks in most cities. It should be better.

swebs 5y ago

People just want to get from A to B as quickly and painlessly as possible. Maybe the public sector should take the hint and come out with their own ridesharing services.

bluGill 5y ago
They already have it. What they need is to take the hint and make the local bus system useful. It shouldn't be more than 10 minutes from when you get to the bus stop until a bus arrives. The bus should go a straight line. This can be either the downtown transfer point, or a grid - either with timed transfers so that when you arrive at a transfer you get on the other bus just before it leaves, or if you are continuing on you don't wait very long. Either way, a bus system can do much better than most do.
- swebs 5y ago
  No, it doesn't compare at all. There is no bus line that goes straight from the bar to my apartment. Hell, after 11:00PM, there are barely any bus lines running at all due to low ridership at that hour. And this is in a major European city. It just doesn't make sense to run a bus when it will only have 1 or 2 riders throughout its route. That's why it makes sense to have an individual car service. That's why taxis/Uber are doing so well.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    In the middle of the night it makes sense to not run buses/trains and just a dial-a-ride. It will not make money, but the peace of mind for the few times you need it is worth it. Transfers should be normal. We need to make them quick and easy.