5 ms·

Did you catch my sentence where I suggested that Uber is even better in the suburbs where taxi service is even worse? Did you read the post's suggestions that

by pbreit 12y ago

Did you catch my sentence where I suggested that Uber is even better in the suburbs where taxi service is even worse? Did you read the post's suggestions that Uber (and ZipCar, RelayRides, etc) enable getting rid of secondary or even primary cars (in fact, it's already happening)?

rayiner 12y ago
Yes, I read them and they are ridiculous. In the suburbs where my parents live, its a 10 mile round trip to go to the drug store. Over $20 on Uber X in DC. The only reason anybody uses cabs in the suburbs is to go to the airport. I can imagine Uber taking over that market, but its not going to grow it and take market share away from personal autos. Again, your post is highly myopic to the unusual situation of San Francisco. Its a place that's dense enough for people to mostly forgo cars but without sufficiently good transit to allow them to forgo a car entirely. In the vast majority of the country, you'd have to reduce Uber's costs by an order of magnitude to compete with personal autos. And you're not doing that without self-driving cars. You could get there with self-driving cars, but I don't see Uber uniquely positioned to capture that market. The companies developing the technology, like Google, will make all the money in that space.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Wow, you're still missing the point. Uber is already working fantastically in hundreds of markets, including many considered suburbs. The author gives perfect examples of where Uber is already a great choice in the suburbs: evenings out, kids, elders, etc. I've experienced this myself in the suburbs where Uber works even better than in cities. With $6000 per year average cost of auto, a $20 average fare already covers 300 trips. Easily enough to forego a second car. And you don't have to engage in the biggest time-waster of all time: driving.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    No, you're making a very confused argument based on extrapolating from your premise that Uber is better than taxis in the suburbs (undoubtedly true), to the conclusion that Uber can replace personal cars in the suburbs (highly unlikely). Yes, Uber is better than cabs in the suburbs. But hardly anyone takes cabs in the suburbs. The only people who don't own cars in the suburbs are people who can't afford them and have to rely on the bus. Your example about forgoing a second car totally misses the mark. Families have multiple cars in the suburbs for one of three reasons: 1) householders need them to commute; 2) stay at home spouses need them for school drop-offs and errands; and 3) teenagers need them to go to school, friends' houses, and after school activities. Uber is not a practical replacement for any of these core functions. The average commute in Metro Atlanta is 17.5 miles and 30 minutes, or $30 each way on Uber X. A stay at home spouse will generally make shorter trips, but more of them. Two trips per weekday to pick up/drop off kids at school, and potentially several more for errands and after-school activities. Moreover, most of these will be multi-hop: drop the kids at school then drive to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription, then drive to the Costco to get groceries, then drive to Giant to get stuff you don't need to buy in bulk, etc. Teenagers with cars will take several trips per day as well, to/from school and to after-school activities. There's a reason that the U.S. has almost as many personal autos as people old enough to drive them. In most of the U.S. you can't even leave the house without driving, and unless you only leave the house once every other day to go to a place within 10 miles (which is nothing in terms of suburban distances), you'll spend vastly more on Uber than on a personal auto.
    - pbreit 12y ago
      No one said replace outright. First it will eat into some of the secondary autos and perhaps delay car ownership for teens. And it will continue in that direction until you see some real impact on car ownership. You're right, no one said it will replace a lot of commuting (although I know of a number of people who do commute via Uber). I know lots of families that have 3 cars and only 2 drivers with the third car serving for certain functions. I can easily see Uber nipping into that situation.
  - incision 12y ago
    >'Wow, you're still missing the point.' Not really. You just seem to be taking half a dozen suggestions by a 'Series A investor and board member at Uber', some of which are anecdotal, 4 out of 6 of which hinge on the San Francisco or NYC and treating them as universally applicable facts while trying to boil a whole range of human preference down to simple math. It's all pretty myopic, just as the parent suggests.
    - pbreit 12y ago
      Did you miss that this person, who while admittedly is biased is also quite credible and has infinite more information than we do, described Uber having meaningful usage from South San Jose to Napa? You might have a look at Uber's open job list. This service is going to (continue to) work in a huge number of locales. https://www.uber.com/jobs/list https://www.uber.com/jobs/list

by pbreit 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Yes, I read them and they are ridiculous. In the suburbs where my parents live, its a 10 mile round trip to go to the drug store. Over $20 on Uber X in DC. The only reason anybody uses cabs in the suburbs is to go to the airport. I can imagine Uber taking over that market, but its not going to grow it and take market share away from personal autos. Again, your post is highly myopic to the unusual situation of San Francisco. Its a place that's dense enough for people to mostly forgo cars but without sufficiently good transit to allow them to forgo a car entirely. In the vast majority of the country, you'd have to reduce Uber's costs by an order of magnitude to compete with personal autos. And you're not doing that without self-driving cars. You could get there with self-driving cars, but I don't see Uber uniquely positioned to capture that market. The companies developing the technology, like Google, will make all the money in that space.

pbreit 12y ago
Wow, you're still missing the point. Uber is already working fantastically in hundreds of markets, including many considered suburbs. The author gives perfect examples of where Uber is already a great choice in the suburbs: evenings out, kids, elders, etc. I've experienced this myself in the suburbs where Uber works even better than in cities. With $6000 per year average cost of auto, a $20 average fare already covers 300 trips. Easily enough to forego a second car. And you don't have to engage in the biggest time-waster of all time: driving.
- rayiner 12y ago
  No, you're making a very confused argument based on extrapolating from your premise that Uber is better than taxis in the suburbs (undoubtedly true), to the conclusion that Uber can replace personal cars in the suburbs (highly unlikely). Yes, Uber is better than cabs in the suburbs. But hardly anyone takes cabs in the suburbs. The only people who don't own cars in the suburbs are people who can't afford them and have to rely on the bus. Your example about forgoing a second car totally misses the mark. Families have multiple cars in the suburbs for one of three reasons: 1) householders need them to commute; 2) stay at home spouses need them for school drop-offs and errands; and 3) teenagers need them to go to school, friends' houses, and after school activities. Uber is not a practical replacement for any of these core functions. The average commute in Metro Atlanta is 17.5 miles and 30 minutes, or $30 each way on Uber X. A stay at home spouse will generally make shorter trips, but more of them. Two trips per weekday to pick up/drop off kids at school, and potentially several more for errands and after-school activities. Moreover, most of these will be multi-hop: drop the kids at school then drive to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription, then drive to the Costco to get groceries, then drive to Giant to get stuff you don't need to buy in bulk, etc. Teenagers with cars will take several trips per day as well, to/from school and to after-school activities. There's a reason that the U.S. has almost as many personal autos as people old enough to drive them. In most of the U.S. you can't even leave the house without driving, and unless you only leave the house once every other day to go to a place within 10 miles (which is nothing in terms of suburban distances), you'll spend vastly more on Uber than on a personal auto.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    No one said replace outright. First it will eat into some of the secondary autos and perhaps delay car ownership for teens. And it will continue in that direction until you see some real impact on car ownership. You're right, no one said it will replace a lot of commuting (although I know of a number of people who do commute via Uber). I know lots of families that have 3 cars and only 2 drivers with the third car serving for certain functions. I can easily see Uber nipping into that situation.
- incision 12y ago
  >'Wow, you're still missing the point.' Not really. You just seem to be taking half a dozen suggestions by a 'Series A investor and board member at Uber', some of which are anecdotal, 4 out of 6 of which hinge on the San Francisco or NYC and treating them as universally applicable facts while trying to boil a whole range of human preference down to simple math. It's all pretty myopic, just as the parent suggests.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Did you miss that this person, who while admittedly is biased is also quite credible and has infinite more information than we do, described Uber having meaningful usage from South San Jose to Napa? You might have a look at Uber's open job list. This service is going to (continue to) work in a huge number of locales. https://www.uber.com/jobs/list https://www.uber.com/jobs/list