>Are you arguing for or against ride-hailing apps, here? The original comment you replied to was that ride-hailing (as exemplified by uber/lyft) is a much better experience than existing public transit.
I never said to ban hailing apps. I said they’re not useful as cornerstones of a transit system. You’re bringing up edge cases to argue against transit when, in fact, the edge cases are where the alternative options make sense. But they’re edge cases. You don’t build general infrastructure around edge cases.
And once the subsidization schemes end, those services will wind up being prince according to the real cost, illustrating just how much of an edge it is.
>Compared to existing public transit (on a set schedule/route), uber/lyft are better because they're demand-dispatched based on where people want to go and when.
You’re comparing existing public transit to a hypothetical future ridehailing service. Of course it doesn’t have problems, not existing has that advantage. If you wanted apples to apples, you should compare it to an idealized future public transit system, which winds up looking very similar, except without some Silicon Valley VCs skimming significant amounts of money off the top.
>Many of those people will also have a hard time figuring out which buses (with which combination of transfers) will get them where they want to go. Assuming that public transit even goes where they want to go in the first place.
And yet they do. Have you ever lived in or near a transit-oriented city before? It sounds like you haven’t.
>You're concerned about excluding people, but you're ignoring all the people who are excluded by transit routes/schedules.
This is some weird pretzel logic here. I'm talking about building out transit to include more people.
>Those estimates are exactly that, estimates, and the resulting routes are subject to lobbying. Plus, the bus lines don't change very often--if they did, it would be very confusing.
People make their decisions about where to live based on transit access. This is why people like fixed-rail streetcars over buses where routes can be changed. The permanence is a feature, not a bug. It raises housing values for the people near it since they can plan their lives around it being available to them.
>But demand-dispatched transportation like uber/lyft know exactly where people are starting from, exactly where they're going, and exactly when. If there's a popular show at a music club, the bus lines aren't going to adapt to that in real time.
It’s becoming extremely clear that you have no experience of a transit oriented city. In most cities, the baseline capacity is generally enough outside of rush-hour to accommodate moderate increases in traffic from local events. For larger ones that fill up a part or stadium the transit systems generally know when large events are happening and increase capacity accordingly. They can do this because those things require organizers to book reservations and file for permits weeks or months in advance to alert them.
I don’t know why you think having 2 minutes of warning when people start booking rides are going to enable ride hailing apps to be more dynamic than the actual municipal government’s permitting data. No system is dynamic enough to respond that quickly except with hand-fisted nonsense like surge pricing.
>The difference is that I'm waiting at home rather than waiting at the bus stop. And that the car is going where I want to go, without transfers.
As long as you’re okay with spending $11 instead of $4 there is no reason both options can’t exist. But for most people’s everyday travel, they’ll settle for the $4 instead of expecting technology to solve all the issues by magic.
