5 ms·

> The goal, he said, “is just to reduce prices to the consumer and then help with congestion and the environment.” Like Uber cares about any of these things (p

> The goal, he said, “is just to reduce prices to the consumer and then help with congestion and the environment.” Like Uber cares about any of these things (prices, consumers, congestion, the environment)

MattDamonSpace 1y ago
What do you think they care about
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- meagher 1y ago
  Money
nickff 1y ago
Most of the people running and operating mass transit are motivated by remuneration as well.
- comte7092 1y ago
  Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Anyone with industry experience would tell you your statement is wildly off the mark, beyond perhaps employees desiring a livable wage. Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices, customers congestion and the environment.
  - mentalpiracy 1y ago
    public transportation is a service, a public utility, not a business. it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo.
    - silotis 1y ago
      It doesn't need to be a cash cow (and probably shouldn't be), but public transit should be able to break even because that is the only reliable signal that a service is providing enough value to justify its cost.
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        Roads and highways don't break even. I guess we should stop maintaining those, since they don't justify their cost.
      - vel0city 1y ago
        All roads should become toll roads then. The moment you leave your private drive you should be paying for the roads to break even. Calling the police or fire department should incur service chargers. Libraries should charge rental fees. Schools should all charge tuition, including "public" schools. If they're not at least breaking even, are we sure they're providing any public good?
      - dns_snek 1y ago
        If they're breaking even then what "cost" is there to justify? That's a really roundabout way of saying that public transit doesn't deserve public financing.
      - mentalpiracy 1y ago
        If that is the only reliable signal in this context - what signals of measuring value are available in this context that you feel are unreliable?
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Imagine trying to make roads and highways profitable. Very few people would be able to drive.
    - xnx 1y ago
      > it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo. What is the right way to frame it? Total cost per passenger mile might be good. The transit systems that move the most people efficiently would do well on that metric.
  - xnx 1y ago
    > Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices Not sure how that squares with ~$40 billion high speed rail in California. Most US transit agencies are designed as jobs programs (not necessarily bad, just wasteful) or to transfer tax money to construction firms.
    - comte7092 1y ago
      What does that project have to do with buses? Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc. I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
      - xnx 1y ago
        > What does that project have to do with buses? It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
        comte7092 1y ago
        > Transit systems would rather run empty buses Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point. The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    > Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Far less unprofitable than the road system. Gas taxes & tolls cover a far smaller percentage of road building & upkeep than bus fares cover of transit costs.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  No, but the transit agencies themselves aren't driven by a profit motive.
- pkulak 1y ago
  OP mentioned Uber's motivations, and you countered with workers' motivations. Even admitting that, I'd be willing to bet that essentially no single Uber employee is working that job out of care for environment, or interest in having a healthy transportation system in their city. I know for a fact that's a consideration for many people who work for city transit agencies.
triceratops 1y ago
"Uber" can't care about anything because it's a legal fiction. I'm sure many of the people who work there care.
- 9283409232 1y ago
  I'm sure many of the people who work there can care but the people who make the decisions only care about profit and if anything is decided that will eat into profit they will be overruled.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Uber is in the business of moving people around in exchange for money. They aren't a monopoly in any of the major markets they serve. It follows that profit is directly correlated with their quality of service and price.
    - janice1999 1y ago
      Uber used a VC treasure chest to run at a multiple-billion dollar per quarter loss for years to run rivals out of business (while operating illegally in many market places).
      - triceratops 1y ago
        > to run rivals out of business Did it work?
        9283409232 1y ago
        Yes. Uber and Lyft have driven many taxi companies out of business. SF Yellow Cab and LA Green Cab are the two largest ones. Uber and Lyft ran at losses for years losing billions of dollars to keep prices low and drive people out of business.
        triceratops 1y ago
bko 1y ago
They're providing a good. People have to part with money to use the good. The money someone is willing to pay is necessarily at worst exactly equal to the value they place on it. For instance, I may be willing to pay up to $5 for a slice of pizza, but it only costs me $3 so I get a surplus of $2. That's basically how the market economy works. It's not controversial and it's why we in the industrialized world live in such affluence when compared to centrally planned systems or systems from the past. I find these kind of comments like "corporation doesn't care" are lazy and boring. What's the point? It's a service, that looks pretty cool and is supplementing an often crappy public transportation system. And it won't cost taxpayers anything. In fact, it'll likely be subsidized by rich people who own Uber stock

MattDamonSpace 1y ago

What do you think they care about

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
meagher 1y ago
Money

nickff 1y ago

Most of the people running and operating mass transit are motivated by remuneration as well.

comte7092 1y ago
Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Anyone with industry experience would tell you your statement is wildly off the mark, beyond perhaps employees desiring a livable wage. Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices, customers congestion and the environment.
- mentalpiracy 1y ago
  public transportation is a service, a public utility, not a business. it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo.
  - silotis 1y ago
    It doesn't need to be a cash cow (and probably shouldn't be), but public transit should be able to break even because that is the only reliable signal that a service is providing enough value to justify its cost.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Roads and highways don't break even. I guess we should stop maintaining those, since they don't justify their cost.
    - vel0city 1y ago
      All roads should become toll roads then. The moment you leave your private drive you should be paying for the roads to break even. Calling the police or fire department should incur service chargers. Libraries should charge rental fees. Schools should all charge tuition, including "public" schools. If they're not at least breaking even, are we sure they're providing any public good?
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      If they're breaking even then what "cost" is there to justify? That's a really roundabout way of saying that public transit doesn't deserve public financing.
    - mentalpiracy 1y ago
      If that is the only reliable signal in this context - what signals of measuring value are available in this context that you feel are unreliable?
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Imagine trying to make roads and highways profitable. Very few people would be able to drive.
  - xnx 1y ago
    > it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo. What is the right way to frame it? Total cost per passenger mile might be good. The transit systems that move the most people efficiently would do well on that metric.
- xnx 1y ago
  > Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices Not sure how that squares with ~$40 billion high speed rail in California. Most US transit agencies are designed as jobs programs (not necessarily bad, just wasteful) or to transfer tax money to construction firms.
  - comte7092 1y ago
    What does that project have to do with buses? Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc. I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
    - xnx 1y ago
      > What does that project have to do with buses? It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
      - comte7092 1y ago
        > Transit systems would rather run empty buses Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point. The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  > Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Far less unprofitable than the road system. Gas taxes & tolls cover a far smaller percentage of road building & upkeep than bus fares cover of transit costs.
pavel_lishin 1y ago
No, but the transit agencies themselves aren't driven by a profit motive.
pkulak 1y ago
OP mentioned Uber's motivations, and you countered with workers' motivations. Even admitting that, I'd be willing to bet that essentially no single Uber employee is working that job out of care for environment, or interest in having a healthy transportation system in their city. I know for a fact that's a consideration for many people who work for city transit agencies.

triceratops 1y ago

"Uber" can't care about anything because it's a legal fiction. I'm sure many of the people who work there care.

9283409232 1y ago
I'm sure many of the people who work there can care but the people who make the decisions only care about profit and if anything is decided that will eat into profit they will be overruled.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Uber is in the business of moving people around in exchange for money. They aren't a monopoly in any of the major markets they serve. It follows that profit is directly correlated with their quality of service and price.
  - janice1999 1y ago
    Uber used a VC treasure chest to run at a multiple-billion dollar per quarter loss for years to run rivals out of business (while operating illegally in many market places).
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > to run rivals out of business Did it work?
      - 9283409232 1y ago
        Yes. Uber and Lyft have driven many taxi companies out of business. SF Yellow Cab and LA Green Cab are the two largest ones. Uber and Lyft ran at losses for years losing billions of dollars to keep prices low and drive people out of business.
        triceratops 1y ago

bko 1y ago

They're providing a good. People have to part with money to use the good. The money someone is willing to pay is necessarily at worst exactly equal to the value they place on it. For instance, I may be willing to pay up to $5 for a slice of pizza, but it only costs me $3 so I get a surplus of $2. That's basically how the market economy works. It's not controversial and it's why we in the industrialized world live in such affluence when compared to centrally planned systems or systems from the past. I find these kind of comments like "corporation doesn't care" are lazy and boring. What's the point? It's a service, that looks pretty cool and is supplementing an often crappy public transportation system. And it won't cost taxpayers anything. In fact, it'll likely be subsidized by rich people who own Uber stock