3 ms·
It's the latter. Lyft and Sidecar started in SF, a city in which it is notoriously difficult to catch a cab. The goal isn't to help the environment but to cre
by postnihilism 13y ago
It's the latter. Lyft and Sidecar started in SF, a city in which it is notoriously difficult to catch a cab. The goal isn't to help the environment but to create a marketplace to allow drivers and passengers to easily connect. When they began they were both cheaper than cabs; from my personal experience they now cost about the same. They do make catching a ride far easier though.
- socillion 13y agoI'm curious, is it a popular service because of a dearth of other options like public transit (buses), or because people prefer cab-style transportation despite the higher cost?
- potatolicious 13y agoA bit of both, but more column A than column B IMO. SF's transit is pretty notoriously bad - dirty buses and trains, never on time, very slow, stops (too) frequently, and there's a (probably well-founded) perception of danger on some routes to boot. Mass transit coverage (see: BART or MUNI light rail) is also non-existent in the vast majority of the city, making sketchy, infrequent buses the only alternative. This is combined with an extremely corrupt taxicab lobby that has successfully prevented the growth of the cab fleet despite an increasing population, making SF a notoriously difficult city to get a cab during busy times (Thurs, Fri, Sat nights). Taxicabs are also poorly regulated, quite often picking up a passenger on the way to another fare and simply abandoning the request, as well as sketchiness with accepting and processing credit cards. SF is really the perfect storm of regulatory and governmental failure that has allowed the rise of Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, etc.