Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#11

Post by pulisse »

nostromo wrote: post #2

Public transportation can only win by competing with the alternatives. When I'm in Tokyo I don't use Uber because the train system is so clean, fast, and safe; I have no incentive to use an Uber. When I'm in places with slow buses that get stuck in traffic, or operate trains with disgusting facilities, I'm more likely to choose Uber.

Neither Uber nor Lyft is currently profitable. They can't truly be said to be winning a market competition until they're not effectively running on subsidization. Additionally, until more cities implement congestion pricing, they benefit from a negative externality not being priced in.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#12

Post by baddox »

mikejulietbravo wrote: post #5

This kind of ignores the fact that the quality of public transit has been rapidly declining, and had been before Uber/Lyft came into being. Take the DC metro for example - it used to be arguably the best public rail system in the country. Now, through mismanagement and neglect, it's pretty awful. IMO dirty, unreliable public transport created a massive void that Lyft/Uber have filled.

I'll go a bit further and say that, while Uber/Lyft probably contribute to decline in public transit, those companies exist precisely because of how bad public transit was in those service areas.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#13

Post by GlickWick »

drilldrive wrote: post #3

But how about transportation as a whole? Wouldn't people have better transport than ever these days then? I doubt that public transport is ideal anyways.

Public transport would be ideal if there were better ways to manage it. Infrastructure problems and rampant corruption stifle it, so innovators moved in and stole their lunch.

I know it's more complicated than it seems, but check out Tokyo. Their public transit works incredibly well, and a lot of public resources are spent making sure it stays that way. Some of this is due to the fact that Tokyo is an extremely new city in terms of a lot of its infrastructure (due to WW2), but that's not the whole story here.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#14

Post by mattnewton »

vkou wrote: post #4
nostromo wrote: post #2

Public transportation can only win by competing with the alternatives. When I'm in Tokyo I don't use Uber because the train system is so clean, fast, and safe; I have no incentive to use an Uber. When I'm in places with slow buses that get stuck in traffic, or operate trains with disgusting facilities, I'm more likely to choose Uber.

When the wealthy[1] can opt out of having to use public services, those public services tend to be crap. When the wealthy are forced to use public services, all of a sudden, they become interested and politically engaged in improving them. Uber doesn't drive improvements in transit in this sense - it starves it of political capital. The best transit services are ones which are used by a wide swathe of the public. [1]…

Not sure about the ranges on that wealthy comparison- if I wanted to commute to work by bus, it would cost >$6 in bus faires a day in the Bay Area. Splitting a Lyft line in San Francisco often results in math where we actually save money while using a more convenient service. It’s just hard to choose public transit around here when it is unreliable, barely cost competitive and slower.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#15

Post by mikejulietbravo »

dontreact wrote: post #8
mikejulietbravo wrote: post #5

This kind of ignores the fact that the quality of public transit has been rapidly declining, and had been before Uber/Lyft came into being. Take the DC metro for example - it used to be arguably the best public rail system in the country. Now, through mismanagement and neglect, it's pretty awful. IMO dirty, unreliable public transport created a massive void that Lyft/Uber have filled.

Won't systems always generally decline a bit until they need a refresh? But now that refresh won't come because there will be no political pressure to do so.

Sure, but there are degrees of difference. Even 10-20 years ago, taking the tube in London vs. the Subway in NYC was a vastly different experience.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#16

Post by goldcd »

pulisse wrote: post #11
nostromo wrote: post #2

Public transportation can only win by competing with the alternatives. When I'm in Tokyo I don't use Uber because the train system is so clean, fast, and safe; I have no incentive to use an Uber. When I'm in places with slow buses that get stuck in traffic, or operate trains with disgusting facilities, I'm more likely to choose Uber.

Neither Uber nor Lyft is currently profitable. They can't truly be said to be winning a market competition until they're not effectively running on subsidization. Additionally, until more cities implement congestion pricing, they benefit from a negative externality not being priced in.

Neither are the nationalized public transport systems they're competing against.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#17

Post by basil-rash »

GlickWick wrote: post #9

I know it's only an anecdote, but myself (and many other colleagues) in Boston switched to periodically using rideshares to commute due to the decline in public transit quality. The tech boom in the area completely overloaded the system, and when you combine it with the rampant corruption behind the MBTA, this was inevitable. Uber and Lyft have not been the best actors, but someone was going to step in and profit off…

I've found that if you have more than 2 people (sometimes even just 2, if you pool), it is often cheaper and faster to take an Uber. Quite pathetic on MBTA's side.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#18

Post by gouggoug »

Blaming Uber and Lyft for public transportation usage decline sounds exactly the same as blaming piracy for the music industry's decline.

If public transportation was better, I wouldn't use Lyft as much as I do these days.

It'd be interesting to look at countries known for their exceptional public transportation and see if they saw a decline when Uber and Lyft came on the market.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#19

Post by thatfrenchguy »

vkou wrote: post #4
nostromo wrote: post #2

Public transportation can only win by competing with the alternatives. When I'm in Tokyo I don't use Uber because the train system is so clean, fast, and safe; I have no incentive to use an Uber. When I'm in places with slow buses that get stuck in traffic, or operate trains with disgusting facilities, I'm more likely to choose Uber.

When the wealthy[1] can opt out of having to use public services, those public services tend to be crap. When the wealthy are forced to use public services, all of a sudden, they become interested and politically engaged in improving them. Uber doesn't drive improvements in transit in this sense - it starves it of political capital. The best transit services are ones which are used by a wide swathe of the public. [1]…

This, a million times. The metro in Paris is good because upper middle class people take it.

Re: Another Study Blames Uber and Lyft for Public Transit’s Decline

#20

Post by dhh2106 »

GlickWick wrote: post #9

I know it's only an anecdote, but myself (and many other colleagues) in Boston switched to periodically using rideshares to commute due to the decline in public transit quality. The tech boom in the area completely overloaded the system, and when you combine it with the rampant corruption behind the MBTA, this was inevitable. Uber and Lyft have not been the best actors, but someone was going to step in and profit off…

Agreed. This feels like a classic causation v correlation problem.

Of course when a substitute improves, some people will switch. However, the root cause is the declining quality and lack of improvements to the system that even gives a substitute the chance to compete.

I honestly don't understand how 100 years ago nyc was able to build an expansive subway system and today it takes decades to add a new station. I know it's a combination of land costs, labor costs, corruption, regulation, underground congestion (and that the original lines were built by private companies) but I still don't really understand the situation.

Post reply on HN