8 ms·

SF people, you are hypocrites using services like Uber and Lyft

87 points by fesja 12y ago

benzoate 12y ago
I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that Uber is cleaner compared to other forms of transport, just merely more convenient than normal taxi services. I also don't think switching to pure public transportation is a viable solution in a lot of circumstances. Yes it can be very good when you're travelling between common destinations, but once your destination is more than 10 minutes walk from the train/bus station, the journey time quickly starts becoming burdensome. It's also nice to have a redundant system in place for the rare occasion that the public transport network fails (line upgrades, malfunction, bomb scares, etc).
kordless 12y ago
> Public transportation in San Francisco doesn't suck. Moments later... > The BART sucks. That's a bit of cognitive dissonance right there. It's understandable given utopian transportation won't arrive overnight, ESPECIALLY in San Francisco. When I first moved here, I was totally blown away by the lack of a major highway connecting the North Bay to the South Bay. Yup, you gotta take Van Ness! The fact there is massive inertia on infrastructure change in San Francisco is part of our moral system here, like it or not. That doesn't make me, or others like me, hypocrites, nor does it mean others aren't working on solving the problem. Personally, I'm working on implementing morality in other systems in which I have experience.
ehartsuyker 12y ago
As someone who lived in SF for a while, I found that SF public transit was utter shit. Muni delays could be as bad as 20 minutes in the tunnel between two stop or a line showing up 45 minutes late. Or even catching everything on time getting from the middle of the Sunset to the middle of the Richmond took over an hour. On the other hand, I've never had Bart break on me or be delayed (in SF itself). So yes, when people have be money and want to take a cab, it's usually a better bet.
- doff 12y ago
  If you've never had Bart break on you or be delayed, then you weren't taking it enough. SF public transportation is limited in its geographic coverage and the fact that it's not 24 hours. And that sucks. But San Francisco is also a much smaller city then Madrid, New York, Chicago, and the other places listed. Add a couple more million people to SF, South SF, and East Bay, and you can bet that public transportation will improve.
  - PinguTS 12y ago
    Sorry, but that is BS. SF too small? Really. Go and visit other countries in the world. Public transportation works pretty well also in smaller cities with a couple 100.000 people. Go look to Nuremberg, Germany with about 500.000 people. Go look to Jena, Germany with about 100.000 people. Cities in France or Spain or Estland or Lithuania. Look in Denmark or Sweden. The reason in the US is simple: you love cars.
    - kordless 12y ago
      We love cars simply because of the fact we could fit all of Europe INSIDE the US and still have room left over for Japan, the Philippines and a few other Asian countries. It's about the only way to get around if you are traveling from one state to another - which we frequently do. Also, ~330M people.
      - arethuza 12y ago
        That's kind of odd as Europe (the Continent - 10,180,000 km2) is actually larger in area than the United States (the Country - 9,826,675 km2). I take it you mean the EU - which covers less than half the area of Europe?
        kordless 12y ago
        Yes, you are correct. I pulled up a map off Google that overlayed 'europe' over the continental US. That map omitted Ukraine and Turkey, which are included in Europe (among other non-EU countries).
ars 12y ago
> really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted. Wow. Talk about thinking everyone is exactly like you, and only your transportation needs need to be met. What about the elderly? (Who can't walk the last mile from the bus.) Or young children? What about a large family that needs a full car load of groceries - you're going to put that on a bus? And somehow carry it home? Inevitably every single person who writes about public transportation is young and single, or at least no kids, and they think: No more cars, problem solved. News flash: The entire world is not like you. Getting rid of cars is a complete non-starter for a HUGE segment of the population.
- gglanzani 12y ago
  This. A thousand times. My work gives me a (hybrid) car. Almost (~95%) every day I let it home and take the train to get to work. But I have three kids and my wife is pregnant, so there's no way she could do almost anything without having a car.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - megablast 12y ago
    Sure, it is harder without a car, but it not impossible. Somehow we have survived for a long time before cars.
    - Evgeny 12y ago
      We have also survived without electricity for a long time, so I'm not sure it's a convincing argument.
      - eevilspock 12y ago
        Yes, but one has lots of environmental and societal costs, while the other doesn't. If electricity were bad overall for society, his argument would apply to it too.
oskarth 12y ago
The central assumption of his whole argument: > If you had to think what the transport systems would be on a sustainable modern city, I'm sure you would think that the solution would be a really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted. (my emphasis) is mere opinion. I like libraries and think the are great, but I still want my own books. There's no contradiction there. Additionally, the title is inflammatory by calling people hypocrites instead of trying to understand why people use the services mentioned.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Not everyone wants to ride in a bus. In fact, in my country people are stopping using buses, and doing some kind of car sharing, because it's much more convenient (available when you need it), they charge the same, and even though it's not much better space wise, a lot of people prefer riding with 3 others, than 20 others. This has been a growing trend, and I think it's inevitable that it will happen everywhere in the world. Also, this is exactly the kind of service self-driving cars would offer in the future.
  - couchand 12y ago
    The funny thing is opinions like this are basically just fashion, they tend to change pretty quickly. For example, just fifty years ago in the US the new buses were viewed as a high-class affair and train travel was left for the lower classes. That position is basically completely reversed now. Also, I find it hard to believe that a vehicle for hire could possibly charge the same as mass transit for a comparable journey. I don't know which country you live in but that's certainly not the case anywhere I've been.
    - hershel 12y ago
      Not as same, but relatively close: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339
  - hershel 12y ago
sidcool 12y ago
I appreciate the sentiment of the post, but cannot quite relate it to the Silicon Valley ethos. Isn't it the natural progression that we are seeing here?
asg 12y ago
Of course this article is a lot of hyperbole, and whether you agree or not depends on your worldview. But one bit I couldn't agree more. Uber and Lyft are NOT examples of the sharing economy. Just adding an element of technology to good old fashioned capitalism does not a sharing economy make.
- jey 12y ago
  Think of it in terms of resource utilization. In the old model, there's tons cars that need to be parked somewhere within SF while completely unused. In the Uber/Lyft model, these cars usually enter the city while they're actively transporting people, then they go back to the suburbs when they need to be parked. Sure, one could easily argue that parking spaces aren't the most pressing resource shortage, but the point is that these types of changes do create value by sharing resources. The same concepts can be applied to more pressing domains as well.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "Think of it in terms of resource utilization. In the old model, there's tons cars that need to be parked somewhere within SF while completely unused. In the Uber/Lyft model, these cars usually enter the city while they're actively transporting people, then they go back to the suburbs when they need to be parked." Didn't we already solve this problem with taxis more than 50 years ago? It was already a 'sharing economy'. Uber/Lyft just made it more convenient.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Sure, the same resource is being utilized by many people. But that's not sharing, as sharing implies either co-ownership or free-use to others other than the owner. It's renting utility of a resource for a fix period of time. Not sharing, or part of a "share-economy". Though I can understand calling it a "share-economy" in order to combat the massive propaganda movement by entrenched taxi lobbies/industries/groups that seem to want to vilify services such as uber/lyft/etc.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
stygiansonic 12y ago
> Is $2.25 for a single ride expensive? Is $76 for the monthly cost of the BART and bus expensive? If you take into account what tech people earn is a ridicoulus price. So price is not a problem for tech people. > Let's be serious, people are paying $12-25 for taking a Uber or Lyft when they could be paying just $2.25. Does it take longer? Yes. So much longer that you willing to pay 4-11x? I don't think so. People are wasting money. Regardless of whether you believe public transit is the solution, the statement that people "are wasting money" is entirely subjective and dependent on what they perceive value to be. In fact, if tech people are indeed earning so much money (as is implied by the first sentence) then the higher they earn, the less of a "waste" the extra cost of private transportation would be be due to the factored in time-savings.
- whichdan 12y ago
  That's how I feel in Boston. I pay $75/mo for an MBTA pass, but usually take Uber/Lyft once or twice a week. To get from Allston to Jamaica Plain, at night, I either need to: take a train into the city, and then a different train out of the city (well over an hour), or, wait up to 15m for one bus, then wait up to 15m for another bus, which means it will take anywhere from 30-60m to get home. In the meantime, I can have a cab reliably get me home in 15 minutes for all of $12. It's quite lucrative when one has work the next day..
tinco 12y ago
This article is misguided. Using a taxi is good for the environment exactly because it is expensive. You use a taxi first of all because you don't have a car. You don't have a car because you either ride public transport or you walk/cycle. Don't get mad at people who use taxis a few times per week for short distances. Get mad at people who clog highways with their polluting owned cars.
- icebraining 12y ago
  With enough income, riding taxis daily becomes feasible. I think the question is distinguishing the two, instead of accusing everyone who uses them.
- collyw 12y ago
  get a bike
Dewie 12y ago
Sure Madrid has pretty good public transportation. But it also has an almost mysterious lack of bicycles. I have maybe seen a handful of them outside of parks. Not that I needed one myself, but it was just surprising to me.
- fesja 12y ago
  finally they are coming in 10 days! You can see some photos of the electric bikes we will have https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=670&q=bicimad&oq=bicimad&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l5.358.1234.0.1777.7.7.0.0.0.0.161.688.0j6.6.0....0...1ac.1.46.img..1.6.686.2V4baRHt0Cg&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1...
thisishugo 12y ago
Hypocrite isn't the word the author is after, but even if it were, effectively just insulting people you disagree with will not bring them around to your view point. Uber and Lyft may well be 10 times the price public transport, but the services are otherwise barely comparable. It absolutely is worth $20 to me versus $2 to get where I'm going in a fast, comfortable, and private manner, in exactly the same way as I don't baulk at a $3 Starbucks, despite being able to brew a coffee myself for 1/20th that price. Public transport is never going to win simply by being a cheaper option, you have to appeal to other motivators, such as sense of social responsibility. As an aside, my "future city" vision of public transport would be publicly available, self-driving, electric "cars" recharged with renewable energy. Not mass-transit. I don't want to be forced into a shared space with strangers, if I can avoid it, thanks.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Public transport is never going to win simply by being a cheaper option, you have to appeal to other motivators, such as sense of social responsibility. Yes, that's what the author is doing: "If we want to live in a walkable and clean city, we have to start acting the same way we think. And in this case is by taking public transportation."
  - thisishugo 12y ago
    My argument is that the author should have made that his leading premise, not a secondary point.
- hershel 12y ago
  Public transport win by costing the same price, for a much better experience and that's where uber is going: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339
antirez 12y ago
The tone of the article is not relaxed, however I'm a bit perplexed of reading here that many don't believe that the author main argument is right, which is: sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public. I don't mean public as necessarily "provided by gov/city", but in which the common routes are handled by busses or trams or similar systems where, unlike cars, the weight of the moved people is not minimal compared to the weight of the moved vehicle. Taxies have their place of course, you can't serve everything via public transports. Also one thing is normal people moving inside SF, another thing is arriving at the SF airport with a business meeting 45 minutes later. But the bulk of how people move, should be, mass-transport systems.
- collyw 12y ago
  > sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public. As I bike owner I would disagree with that.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Bikes can be public too. I've been recently to Budapest, and their public bike networks that was about to open seems excellent. Cheap, with stations everywhere around the city and renting bikes with just a cellphone. If you live in a small place, and you just bike around the city, I'm not sure it's worth buying your own.
    - collyw 12y ago
      We have a public bike network here in Barcelona (I think it was one of the first). Sure public bikes will do, but for me its kind of like the difference between my car and a bus. You have to wait for stations to become free a lot (usually commuting from my house to my work involved getting up half an hour before the crowds took the bikes). The bikes often have slight problems (loose breaks, squeaking, won't go into gear). Most people don't seem too bothered, but as somewhat of a bike enthusiast, I find it frustrating to know that its like just a spanner turn or two (end the bolts are usually non standard to prevent theft). Its a great idea, but not without problems.
moritz 12y ago
Public transport?! European Communist!
malka 12y ago
> You may have to leave your home 10 min earlier, or arrive your home 20 min later; but it's a small price to pay to build the city we want to live in. Given that most people will not take a job that is further than 30 min away[0], that actually makes a big difference [0]http://www.citynews.ca/2013/12/03/commuting-times-key-factor-for-job-selection-among-younger-workers-survey/ http://www.citynews.ca/2013/12/03/commuting-times-key-factor...
joshstrange 12y ago
> Let's be serious, people are paying $12-25 for taking a Uber or Lyft when they could be paying just $2.25. Does it take longer? Yes. So much longer that you willing to pay 4-11x? I don't think so. People are wasting money. Disclaimer: I don't live in SF. Yes, a million times yes it is worth it. The bus system where is I am from is far worse than SF but still, google map from location A to B and toggle between car and bus options. I can get there in less than 15min by car but unless I time it perfectly (and the bus is on time) it will take over an hour to get there by public transit. Not to mention there are times when the busses do not run where I live. The author seems to think it's: busses or lyft/uber (and again that might be the case in SF) but where I am from your options after 11pm is taxis or lyft and I will easily pay more (though the rides so far have been nearly the exact same as the taxis I've taken) for a ride that I know is coming, I don't have to give turn by turn directions to, and I can pay by CC (completely impossible with taxis in my town). So the author's argument of "Lyft/Uber sucks because busses" seems quite BS to me...
rwmj 12y ago
I thought the argument was going to be something like "SF supports restrictive practices in house building and rents, and therefore you should support restrictive practices in taxi service". Instead, it was even more dumb than that argument.
joesmo 12y ago
You're assuming that not getting to your destination on time is an option when taking public transportation around and especially in SF. At any point a MUNI bus/train can stop for extended periods of time with no explanation. Other times, there is an explanation like agents checking tickets and other idiocies. Either way, there's a great chance you're not making that 9am meeting with the VCs to secure funding.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"I'm sure you would think that the solution would be a really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted." This is something I always wondered, WHY? Have you calculated the numbers yourself? I don't believe so. In Europe most people repeat this phrase, without knowing why, or just looking at the numbers. I was born in Madrid, It looks to me like government propaganda too. You find ads on TV that tells you something like "a bus could carry 50 people, if everybody used buses we will be saving that much". But most of the assumptions are wrong, E.g Most of the time the buses or subway are less than half empty. And when they are full, people don't want to use the services. In Madrid, subway trains are designed for 4people per square meter!!! Politicians want people to use public services(while not a single of them uses them). They want to raise taxes, people not being able to buy private cars, but giving the money to politicians in order to make big public works(and enrich themselves by the way, the bigger the amount of money they handle, the easier it is). On the other hand, moving 2 tons for every 0.1 tons person does not make sense. We need individual alternatives like electric motorbikes or something.
- collyw 12y ago
  Yes, but public transport is going to have to cope with elastic demand, so you can't base carriage sizes on the average number of passengers. Here in Barcelona, it seems that the metro starts off quiet at the ends of the line (easy to get a seat), then as you approach the city centre it fills up (difficult to get a seat near these stations). Then it starts to empty on the way back out. Electric bikes makes sense though.
gedrap 12y ago
So following the same thinking, we should burn the restaurants to the ground, because we can all cook, and we pay 10x more. Waste of money. We should also stop buying clothes at more expensive brands, because Primark clothes are also wearable and will keep you warm. What else can we downgrade? Dear OP, people do things because they like conveniences, coolness and everything. If it works that way for you - great! But it doesn't mean everyone has to be the same, have the same values and attitude :) EDIT: Am I saying that because of the tone of the post? maybe. Because, like other people are saying, I don't like tone of this post :)
anubhavashok 12y ago
One case where I use Uber/Lyft over a regular taxi is when I am at places/times where/when taxis are not readily available..Uber/Lyft works well in those situations as the drivers know the exact coordinates to show up at and do so relatively fast.
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
Did he ever travel to the South Bay from San Francisco? I have to doubt it, because I never saw the word "Caltrain." By US standards, yes, SF has good public transit, but its incredibly shitty by the standards of the civilized world. I'm as progressive as you can get, have relied on Bay Area (VTA, Caltrain, MUNI, BART) public transit since 2008, and I'm the first to admit there are major problems with it. I don't think he's lived in SF (or the Bay Area in general) long enough.
spiralpolitik 12y ago
Author misses the point that transportation in SF/Bay area sucks for two reasons: 1) Mismanagement of the infrastructure. MUNI couldn't manage its way out of a wet paper bag, AC Transit tackles increasing ridership by replacing transbay buses with smaller capacity local buses. To get anything done you have to organize across 30+ agencies. Lack of investment in the public infrastructure verses the increasing population. The list goes on... 2) People want public transit just not in their back yard. Witness the central subway debacle of it not going all the way to North Beach/Fisherman's Wharf. Witness Marin voting not to extend BART to their cities. Witness the Marin SMART line first phase not ending at the Larkspur ferry terminal. Witness the high speed rail link mess and the fact that it's impossible to take a train from San Francisco to Sacramento without having to transit through about 3 different systems. So it's no wonder that companies are running their own buses or people are looking to alternative services like Uber or Lyft because it's their only option for getting around, and as a wise man once said "There ain't no getting 'round getting 'round"
smoyer 12y ago
"I'm a young master engineer" I'm an old engineer (electronics and software), and as I age and gain experience I realize I still have a lot to learn. I don't think you can be a "young engineer" and a "master engineer" at the same time - and I think those who truly master engineering have become MORE adept at questioning their abilities. I think the attitude conveyed by his tag-line is repeated (several times) in the article's body ... one mind-set, one "best" and everyone else must be wrong. His ideal seems to be centered around Madrid's transportation systems, but if your (singular) goal is what's good for the environment, I've seen many Asian cities that easily beat buses and trains (with walking and bicycling). If you're living an unhurried continental life, walking to the local market and carrying home your fresh-picked vegetables might be an alternatively to taking the bus/train to a larger grocery store. If you're a hurried SF-based founder, a door-to-door service is optimizing for a limited amount of time. Why does there have to be just one "best"? Here's an example ... suppose Elon Musk flies around the country in a corporate jet while working to promote solar energy at prices that will ultimately lead to a significant decrease in emissions. Should he instead bike across the country so his jet isn't polluting the skies? Or would the duration of each trip simply make it impossible to accomplish his goals?
hershel 12y ago
This guy gets the wrong impression because he doesn't understand that uber is growing to something totally different: 1.Uber recently started to offer it's uberxl suv service, which carries upto 6 passengers and in sf costs $5 base fare + the lowest of ($0.45/minute or $2.15/mile)[1]. 2.Given enough demand, uber can offer a highly efficient personalized route service, which builds optimal routes needed to transport 6 people. Let's assume such routes can be only 25% longer than normal routes , on average[2]. Combine both of those, we can replace 6X30 minutes car trips , with a single 37.5 minute suv trip, which will be charged $21.87 for 6 passengers, or $3.64 per person. If we wanted to have a similar trip in public transportation, it would probably take around 1.5-2 hours , but might cost $2. And if we compare this to a normal car trip, the uber experience could be much better - you could watch a tv episode on your tablet after a long work day and unwind, instead of the stress of fighting traffic. And it's priced pretty closed to the cost of personal transportation. And the secondary effects from shifting so much traffic to highly efficient forms would greatly decrease traffic jams and further increase speed. TL;DR - with it's new offering uber is evolving to be a much better, new mode of public transportation, both cost effective and a great experience. [1]https://www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco https://www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco [2]research of "demand responsive transportation" talks about similar efficiencies.
- couchand 12y ago
  This is a well-reasoned analysis but there are a few weaknesses: - Are those 6 people travelling together (relatively unlikely), or are they being stuck in a shared vehicle with strangers? If it's the latter it seems likely to be much less comfortable than a bus, where there's usually a potential to move around a bit and you go into it expecting to make intermediate stops (and knowing where/when they are!). - After taking plenty of effort to get the dollars right you gloss over the most important issue: routefinding. Mentioning some hypothetical "similar trip" is not all that meaningful. If you live near one stop and work near another on the same line it might be much faster to take transit. If you live in a world built primarily for cars with no regard for other modes, you may find it difficult to find any public transit option for your route. - And a shift in traffic is laudable only if it doesn't serve to induce further demand [0]. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
SnydenBitchy 12y ago
I seem to recall reading that the city of SF (or another municipality?) had conducted a study that found, perhaps counterintuitively, that improving taxi service would actually end up increasing transit ridership and decreasing overall vehicle miles traveled. Improved cab service, it was claimed, would let people get rid of their own cars and begin using more convenient, more sustainable modes of transit for most things, resorting to a now more reliable taxi service as a crutch when necessary. Taxi industry bullshit? I don’t know, because unfortunately I can’t find reference to this study at the moment—does this ring a bell with anyone?
leothekim 12y ago
I live in New York where the subway and bus system is pretty extensive, and taxi and livery cabs are relatively plentiful in Manhattan. I take public transit every day, but I still take cabs and own a car as well. Subways get me to work and home every day. Taxis are nice for me and my wife to have a pleasant evening together. I've even used a Uber on days when the subways are failing me so I can get back home in time to relive my babysitter. The car is nice so my wife and kids can go shopping or take trips out of the city. These are all valid use cases equally applicable to living in San Francisco (where I've lived as well.) I see no hypocrisy here, nor any room for someone else's judgment that I'm a hypocrite.
kator 12y ago
I used to live in Los Angeles (talk about Carmageddon) and I moved to New York 4 years ago. Since then I've sold my car and use subways, trains and my legs to get me to almost everywhere I need and once in a while I use a taxi or car service to get luggage somewhere or if it's late and I just need to get home without subway hassle. I'm deeply considering moving to the Bay Area for reasons I won't go into here but I am really concerned that I will need to buy a car to survive. I spent 10 days there recently and I clocked almost 4 hours a day on the road to various places. In all fairness I had to commute in from up north (think Santa Rosa) for family reasons but I still had flash backs to my life in Los Angeles and the absolute necessity of having a car. I’m doubtful that if I do move that I can find a commute to work as sweet as my current job. I walk (by choice) about 9 blocks and subway 9 more and can make the entire trip in 22 minutes anytime of day I like regardless of other commuters. In SF you have to consider traffic, bus overloading, being in just the right place at the right time to optimize your commute, or just buy a car or just use Uber and get there when you want on your schedule (still fighting traffic but that's the driver's problem). Having grown up in Los Angeles I used to think SF public transportation was pretty advanced, but having lived in New York and the area here I realize trains, subways and the like are just much more effective here. My uninformed guess is because trains where ingrained in the local culture investments in subway, commuter trains and the like where easier to justify. In California the car was able to take hold early because of the sprawling nature of population distribution and since then it’s been near impossible to convince tax payers to build public transportation in face of all the other priorities for public tax dollars. I think the “advent” of the electric car has made people feel they’re “doing the right thing” meanwhile it will not solve traffic issues and will only stall investment in public transportation by another fifty years. I acknowledge the fact that many factors feed into transportation choices (Children, Luggage, Time, Schedules, Costs) but I also think underlying issues in a locality have a greater impact then individual choices. Walt Disney and Ray Bradbury both tried to fight the “good fight” for years in Los Angeles proposing Monorail systems and you can see where they managed to get. To condemn individuals who use Uber and Lyft is like treating the symptom rather then curing the disease. Until we have real plans to make better transportation options available to the public they will continue to solve their daily problems using their own resources however they feel meets their needs. If you doubt this consider how many people ride horses to work these days…
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
zamalek 12y ago
http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/can-you-hear-the-flowers-sing-issues-for-gifted-adults http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/can-you-hear-the-... > Perceptivity: [...] Adults gifted in this way detect and dislike falsehood and hypocrisy. Having issues with hypocrisy (outward or inward) is something that "gifted" people typically have an issue with. Extreme intelligence (which is an indicator of being "gifted") is something that pervades our industry - hence our industry generally has a strong reaction to hypocrisy. Don't believe for one second that the average person (or SFer) cares how hypocritical they are being, don't think for one second that pointing that out to them will change anything. The only way to change their behavior is to the remove or resolve the problem that causes their hypocritical behavior.
stefan_kendall3 12y ago
I was in SF recently. BART is awful. BART to a restaurant took over an hour. 9 minute walk to the stop, 12 minute wait for the train, 30 minute train ride, 15 minute walk. Even in the best case scenario of 0 train time, that's 19 minutes of walking. The restaurant had a huge wait, so I used Uber to get back to where I was staying. 1 minute wait, 19 minute drive. The Uber trip cost $10 more than BART for two people. I don't know how you value your time, but $10 for 50 minutes of time for two people is always worth it.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Really? You can't walk a few minutes, so BART sucks? BART does suck, but for entirely different reasons. Its dirty, worn, loud, pretty much like riding in a cattle car with extra smells.

87 points by fesja 12y ago

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that Uber is cleaner compared to other forms of transport, just merely more convenient than normal taxi services. I also don't think switching to pure public transportation is a viable solution in a lot of circumstances. Yes it can be very good when you're travelling between common destinations, but once your destination is more than 10 minutes walk from the train/bus station, the journey time quickly starts becoming burdensome. It's also nice to have a redundant system in place for the rare occasion that the public transport network fails (line upgrades, malfunction, bomb scares, etc).

kordless 12y ago

> Public transportation in San Francisco doesn't suck. Moments later... > The BART sucks. That's a bit of cognitive dissonance right there. It's understandable given utopian transportation won't arrive overnight, ESPECIALLY in San Francisco. When I first moved here, I was totally blown away by the lack of a major highway connecting the North Bay to the South Bay. Yup, you gotta take Van Ness! The fact there is massive inertia on infrastructure change in San Francisco is part of our moral system here, like it or not. That doesn't make me, or others like me, hypocrites, nor does it mean others aren't working on solving the problem. Personally, I'm working on implementing morality in other systems in which I have experience.

ehartsuyker 12y ago

As someone who lived in SF for a while, I found that SF public transit was utter shit. Muni delays could be as bad as 20 minutes in the tunnel between two stop or a line showing up 45 minutes late. Or even catching everything on time getting from the middle of the Sunset to the middle of the Richmond took over an hour. On the other hand, I've never had Bart break on me or be delayed (in SF itself). So yes, when people have be money and want to take a cab, it's usually a better bet.

doff 12y ago
If you've never had Bart break on you or be delayed, then you weren't taking it enough. SF public transportation is limited in its geographic coverage and the fact that it's not 24 hours. And that sucks. But San Francisco is also a much smaller city then Madrid, New York, Chicago, and the other places listed. Add a couple more million people to SF, South SF, and East Bay, and you can bet that public transportation will improve.
- PinguTS 12y ago
  Sorry, but that is BS. SF too small? Really. Go and visit other countries in the world. Public transportation works pretty well also in smaller cities with a couple 100.000 people. Go look to Nuremberg, Germany with about 500.000 people. Go look to Jena, Germany with about 100.000 people. Cities in France or Spain or Estland or Lithuania. Look in Denmark or Sweden. The reason in the US is simple: you love cars.
  - kordless 12y ago
    We love cars simply because of the fact we could fit all of Europe INSIDE the US and still have room left over for Japan, the Philippines and a few other Asian countries. It's about the only way to get around if you are traveling from one state to another - which we frequently do. Also, ~330M people.
    - arethuza 12y ago
      That's kind of odd as Europe (the Continent - 10,180,000 km2) is actually larger in area than the United States (the Country - 9,826,675 km2). I take it you mean the EU - which covers less than half the area of Europe?
      - kordless 12y ago
        Yes, you are correct. I pulled up a map off Google that overlayed 'europe' over the continental US. That map omitted Ukraine and Turkey, which are included in Europe (among other non-EU countries).

ars 12y ago

> really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted. Wow. Talk about thinking everyone is exactly like you, and only your transportation needs need to be met. What about the elderly? (Who can't walk the last mile from the bus.) Or young children? What about a large family that needs a full car load of groceries - you're going to put that on a bus? And somehow carry it home? Inevitably every single person who writes about public transportation is young and single, or at least no kids, and they think: No more cars, problem solved. News flash: The entire world is not like you. Getting rid of cars is a complete non-starter for a HUGE segment of the population.

gglanzani 12y ago
This. A thousand times. My work gives me a (hybrid) car. Almost (~95%) every day I let it home and take the train to get to work. But I have three kids and my wife is pregnant, so there's no way she could do almost anything without having a car.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- megablast 12y ago
  Sure, it is harder without a car, but it not impossible. Somehow we have survived for a long time before cars.
  - Evgeny 12y ago
    We have also survived without electricity for a long time, so I'm not sure it's a convincing argument.
    - eevilspock 12y ago
      Yes, but one has lots of environmental and societal costs, while the other doesn't. If electricity were bad overall for society, his argument would apply to it too.

oskarth 12y ago

The central assumption of his whole argument: > If you had to think what the transport systems would be on a sustainable modern city, I'm sure you would think that the solution would be a really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted. (my emphasis) is mere opinion. I like libraries and think the are great, but I still want my own books. There's no contradiction there. Additionally, the title is inflammatory by calling people hypocrites instead of trying to understand why people use the services mentioned.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Not everyone wants to ride in a bus. In fact, in my country people are stopping using buses, and doing some kind of car sharing, because it's much more convenient (available when you need it), they charge the same, and even though it's not much better space wise, a lot of people prefer riding with 3 others, than 20 others. This has been a growing trend, and I think it's inevitable that it will happen everywhere in the world. Also, this is exactly the kind of service self-driving cars would offer in the future.
- couchand 12y ago
  The funny thing is opinions like this are basically just fashion, they tend to change pretty quickly. For example, just fifty years ago in the US the new buses were viewed as a high-class affair and train travel was left for the lower classes. That position is basically completely reversed now. Also, I find it hard to believe that a vehicle for hire could possibly charge the same as mass transit for a comparable journey. I don't know which country you live in but that's certainly not the case anywhere I've been.
  - hershel 12y ago
    Not as same, but relatively close: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339
- hershel 12y ago

sidcool 12y ago

I appreciate the sentiment of the post, but cannot quite relate it to the Silicon Valley ethos. Isn't it the natural progression that we are seeing here?

asg 12y ago

Of course this article is a lot of hyperbole, and whether you agree or not depends on your worldview. But one bit I couldn't agree more. Uber and Lyft are NOT examples of the sharing economy. Just adding an element of technology to good old fashioned capitalism does not a sharing economy make.

jey 12y ago
Think of it in terms of resource utilization. In the old model, there's tons cars that need to be parked somewhere within SF while completely unused. In the Uber/Lyft model, these cars usually enter the city while they're actively transporting people, then they go back to the suburbs when they need to be parked. Sure, one could easily argue that parking spaces aren't the most pressing resource shortage, but the point is that these types of changes do create value by sharing resources. The same concepts can be applied to more pressing domains as well.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "Think of it in terms of resource utilization. In the old model, there's tons cars that need to be parked somewhere within SF while completely unused. In the Uber/Lyft model, these cars usually enter the city while they're actively transporting people, then they go back to the suburbs when they need to be parked." Didn't we already solve this problem with taxis more than 50 years ago? It was already a 'sharing economy'. Uber/Lyft just made it more convenient.
- zo1 12y ago
  Sure, the same resource is being utilized by many people. But that's not sharing, as sharing implies either co-ownership or free-use to others other than the owner. It's renting utility of a resource for a fix period of time. Not sharing, or part of a "share-economy". Though I can understand calling it a "share-economy" in order to combat the massive propaganda movement by entrenched taxi lobbies/industries/groups that seem to want to vilify services such as uber/lyft/etc.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

stygiansonic 12y ago

> Is $2.25 for a single ride expensive? Is $76 for the monthly cost of the BART and bus expensive? If you take into account what tech people earn is a ridicoulus price. So price is not a problem for tech people. > Let's be serious, people are paying $12-25 for taking a Uber or Lyft when they could be paying just $2.25. Does it take longer? Yes. So much longer that you willing to pay 4-11x? I don't think so. People are wasting money. Regardless of whether you believe public transit is the solution, the statement that people "are wasting money" is entirely subjective and dependent on what they perceive value to be. In fact, if tech people are indeed earning so much money (as is implied by the first sentence) then the higher they earn, the less of a "waste" the extra cost of private transportation would be be due to the factored in time-savings.

whichdan 12y ago
That's how I feel in Boston. I pay $75/mo for an MBTA pass, but usually take Uber/Lyft once or twice a week. To get from Allston to Jamaica Plain, at night, I either need to: take a train into the city, and then a different train out of the city (well over an hour), or, wait up to 15m for one bus, then wait up to 15m for another bus, which means it will take anywhere from 30-60m to get home. In the meantime, I can have a cab reliably get me home in 15 minutes for all of $12. It's quite lucrative when one has work the next day..

tinco 12y ago

This article is misguided. Using a taxi is good for the environment exactly because it is expensive. You use a taxi first of all because you don't have a car. You don't have a car because you either ride public transport or you walk/cycle. Don't get mad at people who use taxis a few times per week for short distances. Get mad at people who clog highways with their polluting owned cars.

icebraining 12y ago
With enough income, riding taxis daily becomes feasible. I think the question is distinguishing the two, instead of accusing everyone who uses them.
collyw 12y ago
get a bike

Dewie 12y ago

Sure Madrid has pretty good public transportation. But it also has an almost mysterious lack of bicycles. I have maybe seen a handful of them outside of parks. Not that I needed one myself, but it was just surprising to me.

fesja 12y ago
finally they are coming in 10 days! You can see some photos of the electric bikes we will have https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=670&q=bicimad&oq=bicimad&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l5.358.1234.0.1777.7.7.0.0.0.0.161.688.0j6.6.0....0...1ac.1.46.img..1.6.686.2V4baRHt0Cg&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1...

thisishugo 12y ago

Hypocrite isn't the word the author is after, but even if it were, effectively just insulting people you disagree with will not bring them around to your view point. Uber and Lyft may well be 10 times the price public transport, but the services are otherwise barely comparable. It absolutely is worth $20 to me versus $2 to get where I'm going in a fast, comfortable, and private manner, in exactly the same way as I don't baulk at a $3 Starbucks, despite being able to brew a coffee myself for 1/20th that price. Public transport is never going to win simply by being a cheaper option, you have to appeal to other motivators, such as sense of social responsibility. As an aside, my "future city" vision of public transport would be publicly available, self-driving, electric "cars" recharged with renewable energy. Not mass-transit. I don't want to be forced into a shared space with strangers, if I can avoid it, thanks.

icebraining 12y ago
Public transport is never going to win simply by being a cheaper option, you have to appeal to other motivators, such as sense of social responsibility. Yes, that's what the author is doing: "If we want to live in a walkable and clean city, we have to start acting the same way we think. And in this case is by taking public transportation."
- thisishugo 12y ago
  My argument is that the author should have made that his leading premise, not a secondary point.
hershel 12y ago
Public transport win by costing the same price, for a much better experience and that's where uber is going: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339

antirez 12y ago

The tone of the article is not relaxed, however I'm a bit perplexed of reading here that many don't believe that the author main argument is right, which is: sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public. I don't mean public as necessarily "provided by gov/city", but in which the common routes are handled by busses or trams or similar systems where, unlike cars, the weight of the moved people is not minimal compared to the weight of the moved vehicle. Taxies have their place of course, you can't serve everything via public transports. Also one thing is normal people moving inside SF, another thing is arriving at the SF airport with a business meeting 45 minutes later. But the bulk of how people move, should be, mass-transport systems.

collyw 12y ago
> sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public. As I bike owner I would disagree with that.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Bikes can be public too. I've been recently to Budapest, and their public bike networks that was about to open seems excellent. Cheap, with stations everywhere around the city and renting bikes with just a cellphone. If you live in a small place, and you just bike around the city, I'm not sure it's worth buying your own.
  - collyw 12y ago
    We have a public bike network here in Barcelona (I think it was one of the first). Sure public bikes will do, but for me its kind of like the difference between my car and a bus. You have to wait for stations to become free a lot (usually commuting from my house to my work involved getting up half an hour before the crowds took the bikes). The bikes often have slight problems (loose breaks, squeaking, won't go into gear). Most people don't seem too bothered, but as somewhat of a bike enthusiast, I find it frustrating to know that its like just a spanner turn or two (end the bolts are usually non standard to prevent theft). Its a great idea, but not without problems.

moritz 12y ago

Public transport?! European Communist!

malka 12y ago

> You may have to leave your home 10 min earlier, or arrive your home 20 min later; but it's a small price to pay to build the city we want to live in. Given that most people will not take a job that is further than 30 min away[0], that actually makes a big difference [0]http://www.citynews.ca/2013/12/03/commuting-times-key-factor-for-job-selection-among-younger-workers-survey/ http://www.citynews.ca/2013/12/03/commuting-times-key-factor...

joshstrange 12y ago

> Let's be serious, people are paying $12-25 for taking a Uber or Lyft when they could be paying just $2.25. Does it take longer? Yes. So much longer that you willing to pay 4-11x? I don't think so. People are wasting money. Disclaimer: I don't live in SF. Yes, a million times yes it is worth it. The bus system where is I am from is far worse than SF but still, google map from location A to B and toggle between car and bus options. I can get there in less than 15min by car but unless I time it perfectly (and the bus is on time) it will take over an hour to get there by public transit. Not to mention there are times when the busses do not run where I live. The author seems to think it's: busses or lyft/uber (and again that might be the case in SF) but where I am from your options after 11pm is taxis or lyft and I will easily pay more (though the rides so far have been nearly the exact same as the taxis I've taken) for a ride that I know is coming, I don't have to give turn by turn directions to, and I can pay by CC (completely impossible with taxis in my town). So the author's argument of "Lyft/Uber sucks because busses" seems quite BS to me...

rwmj 12y ago

I thought the argument was going to be something like "SF supports restrictive practices in house building and rents, and therefore you should support restrictive practices in taxi service". Instead, it was even more dumb than that argument.

joesmo 12y ago

You're assuming that not getting to your destination on time is an option when taking public transportation around and especially in SF. At any point a MUNI bus/train can stop for extended periods of time with no explanation. Other times, there is an explanation like agents checking tickets and other idiocies. Either way, there's a great chance you're not making that 9am meeting with the VCs to secure funding.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

"I'm sure you would think that the solution would be a really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted." This is something I always wondered, WHY? Have you calculated the numbers yourself? I don't believe so. In Europe most people repeat this phrase, without knowing why, or just looking at the numbers. I was born in Madrid, It looks to me like government propaganda too. You find ads on TV that tells you something like "a bus could carry 50 people, if everybody used buses we will be saving that much". But most of the assumptions are wrong, E.g Most of the time the buses or subway are less than half empty. And when they are full, people don't want to use the services. In Madrid, subway trains are designed for 4people per square meter!!! Politicians want people to use public services(while not a single of them uses them). They want to raise taxes, people not being able to buy private cars, but giving the money to politicians in order to make big public works(and enrich themselves by the way, the bigger the amount of money they handle, the easier it is). On the other hand, moving 2 tons for every 0.1 tons person does not make sense. We need individual alternatives like electric motorbikes or something.

collyw 12y ago
Yes, but public transport is going to have to cope with elastic demand, so you can't base carriage sizes on the average number of passengers. Here in Barcelona, it seems that the metro starts off quiet at the ends of the line (easy to get a seat), then as you approach the city centre it fills up (difficult to get a seat near these stations). Then it starts to empty on the way back out. Electric bikes makes sense though.

gedrap 12y ago

So following the same thinking, we should burn the restaurants to the ground, because we can all cook, and we pay 10x more. Waste of money. We should also stop buying clothes at more expensive brands, because Primark clothes are also wearable and will keep you warm. What else can we downgrade? Dear OP, people do things because they like conveniences, coolness and everything. If it works that way for you - great! But it doesn't mean everyone has to be the same, have the same values and attitude :) EDIT: Am I saying that because of the tone of the post? maybe. Because, like other people are saying, I don't like tone of this post :)

anubhavashok 12y ago

One case where I use Uber/Lyft over a regular taxi is when I am at places/times where/when taxis are not readily available..Uber/Lyft works well in those situations as the drivers know the exact coordinates to show up at and do so relatively fast.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

Did he ever travel to the South Bay from San Francisco? I have to doubt it, because I never saw the word "Caltrain." By US standards, yes, SF has good public transit, but its incredibly shitty by the standards of the civilized world. I'm as progressive as you can get, have relied on Bay Area (VTA, Caltrain, MUNI, BART) public transit since 2008, and I'm the first to admit there are major problems with it. I don't think he's lived in SF (or the Bay Area in general) long enough.

spiralpolitik 12y ago

Author misses the point that transportation in SF/Bay area sucks for two reasons: 1) Mismanagement of the infrastructure. MUNI couldn't manage its way out of a wet paper bag, AC Transit tackles increasing ridership by replacing transbay buses with smaller capacity local buses. To get anything done you have to organize across 30+ agencies. Lack of investment in the public infrastructure verses the increasing population. The list goes on... 2) People want public transit just not in their back yard. Witness the central subway debacle of it not going all the way to North Beach/Fisherman's Wharf. Witness Marin voting not to extend BART to their cities. Witness the Marin SMART line first phase not ending at the Larkspur ferry terminal. Witness the high speed rail link mess and the fact that it's impossible to take a train from San Francisco to Sacramento without having to transit through about 3 different systems. So it's no wonder that companies are running their own buses or people are looking to alternative services like Uber or Lyft because it's their only option for getting around, and as a wise man once said "There ain't no getting 'round getting 'round"

smoyer 12y ago

"I'm a young master engineer" I'm an old engineer (electronics and software), and as I age and gain experience I realize I still have a lot to learn. I don't think you can be a "young engineer" and a "master engineer" at the same time - and I think those who truly master engineering have become MORE adept at questioning their abilities. I think the attitude conveyed by his tag-line is repeated (several times) in the article's body ... one mind-set, one "best" and everyone else must be wrong. His ideal seems to be centered around Madrid's transportation systems, but if your (singular) goal is what's good for the environment, I've seen many Asian cities that easily beat buses and trains (with walking and bicycling). If you're living an unhurried continental life, walking to the local market and carrying home your fresh-picked vegetables might be an alternatively to taking the bus/train to a larger grocery store. If you're a hurried SF-based founder, a door-to-door service is optimizing for a limited amount of time. Why does there have to be just one "best"? Here's an example ... suppose Elon Musk flies around the country in a corporate jet while working to promote solar energy at prices that will ultimately lead to a significant decrease in emissions. Should he instead bike across the country so his jet isn't polluting the skies? Or would the duration of each trip simply make it impossible to accomplish his goals?

hershel 12y ago

This guy gets the wrong impression because he doesn't understand that uber is growing to something totally different: 1.Uber recently started to offer it's uberxl suv service, which carries upto 6 passengers and in sf costs $5 base fare + the lowest of ($0.45/minute or $2.15/mile)[1]. 2.Given enough demand, uber can offer a highly efficient personalized route service, which builds optimal routes needed to transport 6 people. Let's assume such routes can be only 25% longer than normal routes , on average[2]. Combine both of those, we can replace 6X30 minutes car trips , with a single 37.5 minute suv trip, which will be charged $21.87 for 6 passengers, or $3.64 per person. If we wanted to have a similar trip in public transportation, it would probably take around 1.5-2 hours , but might cost $2. And if we compare this to a normal car trip, the uber experience could be much better - you could watch a tv episode on your tablet after a long work day and unwind, instead of the stress of fighting traffic. And it's priced pretty closed to the cost of personal transportation. And the secondary effects from shifting so much traffic to highly efficient forms would greatly decrease traffic jams and further increase speed. TL;DR - with it's new offering uber is evolving to be a much better, new mode of public transportation, both cost effective and a great experience. [1]https://www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco https://www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco [2]research of "demand responsive transportation" talks about similar efficiencies.

couchand 12y ago
This is a well-reasoned analysis but there are a few weaknesses: - Are those 6 people travelling together (relatively unlikely), or are they being stuck in a shared vehicle with strangers? If it's the latter it seems likely to be much less comfortable than a bus, where there's usually a potential to move around a bit and you go into it expecting to make intermediate stops (and knowing where/when they are!). - After taking plenty of effort to get the dollars right you gloss over the most important issue: routefinding. Mentioning some hypothetical "similar trip" is not all that meaningful. If you live near one stop and work near another on the same line it might be much faster to take transit. If you live in a world built primarily for cars with no regard for other modes, you may find it difficult to find any public transit option for your route. - And a shift in traffic is laudable only if it doesn't serve to induce further demand [0]. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

SnydenBitchy 12y ago

I seem to recall reading that the city of SF (or another municipality?) had conducted a study that found, perhaps counterintuitively, that improving taxi service would actually end up increasing transit ridership and decreasing overall vehicle miles traveled. Improved cab service, it was claimed, would let people get rid of their own cars and begin using more convenient, more sustainable modes of transit for most things, resorting to a now more reliable taxi service as a crutch when necessary. Taxi industry bullshit? I don’t know, because unfortunately I can’t find reference to this study at the moment—does this ring a bell with anyone?

leothekim 12y ago

I live in New York where the subway and bus system is pretty extensive, and taxi and livery cabs are relatively plentiful in Manhattan. I take public transit every day, but I still take cabs and own a car as well. Subways get me to work and home every day. Taxis are nice for me and my wife to have a pleasant evening together. I've even used a Uber on days when the subways are failing me so I can get back home in time to relive my babysitter. The car is nice so my wife and kids can go shopping or take trips out of the city. These are all valid use cases equally applicable to living in San Francisco (where I've lived as well.) I see no hypocrisy here, nor any room for someone else's judgment that I'm a hypocrite.

kator 12y ago

I used to live in Los Angeles (talk about Carmageddon) and I moved to New York 4 years ago. Since then I've sold my car and use subways, trains and my legs to get me to almost everywhere I need and once in a while I use a taxi or car service to get luggage somewhere or if it's late and I just need to get home without subway hassle. I'm deeply considering moving to the Bay Area for reasons I won't go into here but I am really concerned that I will need to buy a car to survive. I spent 10 days there recently and I clocked almost 4 hours a day on the road to various places. In all fairness I had to commute in from up north (think Santa Rosa) for family reasons but I still had flash backs to my life in Los Angeles and the absolute necessity of having a car. I’m doubtful that if I do move that I can find a commute to work as sweet as my current job. I walk (by choice) about 9 blocks and subway 9 more and can make the entire trip in 22 minutes anytime of day I like regardless of other commuters. In SF you have to consider traffic, bus overloading, being in just the right place at the right time to optimize your commute, or just buy a car or just use Uber and get there when you want on your schedule (still fighting traffic but that's the driver's problem). Having grown up in Los Angeles I used to think SF public transportation was pretty advanced, but having lived in New York and the area here I realize trains, subways and the like are just much more effective here. My uninformed guess is because trains where ingrained in the local culture investments in subway, commuter trains and the like where easier to justify. In California the car was able to take hold early because of the sprawling nature of population distribution and since then it’s been near impossible to convince tax payers to build public transportation in face of all the other priorities for public tax dollars. I think the “advent” of the electric car has made people feel they’re “doing the right thing” meanwhile it will not solve traffic issues and will only stall investment in public transportation by another fifty years. I acknowledge the fact that many factors feed into transportation choices (Children, Luggage, Time, Schedules, Costs) but I also think underlying issues in a locality have a greater impact then individual choices. Walt Disney and Ray Bradbury both tried to fight the “good fight” for years in Los Angeles proposing Monorail systems and you can see where they managed to get. To condemn individuals who use Uber and Lyft is like treating the symptom rather then curing the disease. Until we have real plans to make better transportation options available to the public they will continue to solve their daily problems using their own resources however they feel meets their needs. If you doubt this consider how many people ride horses to work these days…

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

zamalek 12y ago

http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/can-you-hear-the-flowers-sing-issues-for-gifted-adults http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/can-you-hear-the-... > Perceptivity: [...] Adults gifted in this way detect and dislike falsehood and hypocrisy. Having issues with hypocrisy (outward or inward) is something that "gifted" people typically have an issue with. Extreme intelligence (which is an indicator of being "gifted") is something that pervades our industry - hence our industry generally has a strong reaction to hypocrisy. Don't believe for one second that the average person (or SFer) cares how hypocritical they are being, don't think for one second that pointing that out to them will change anything. The only way to change their behavior is to the remove or resolve the problem that causes their hypocritical behavior.

stefan_kendall3 12y ago

I was in SF recently. BART is awful. BART to a restaurant took over an hour. 9 minute walk to the stop, 12 minute wait for the train, 30 minute train ride, 15 minute walk. Even in the best case scenario of 0 train time, that's 19 minutes of walking. The restaurant had a huge wait, so I used Uber to get back to where I was staying. 1 minute wait, 19 minute drive. The Uber trip cost $10 more than BART for two people. I don't know how you value your time, but $10 for 50 minutes of time for two people is always worth it.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Really? You can't walk a few minutes, so BART sucks? BART does suck, but for entirely different reasons. Its dirty, worn, loud, pretty much like riding in a cattle car with extra smells.