231–240 of 458 posts
tl;dr People use ridesharing mostly to go out to eat and drink (62% of trips). Riders are actually more likely to own cars. They don't want to drive when they're going out because they don't want to deal with parking or drive drunk. They don't ride the bus because it's too slow, unreliable or unavailable. If ridesharing didn't exist, two fifths of the time they'd walk, bike or use public transit instead, and a fifth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I calculate a different way. Right now it's $322 to fly SFO to JFK for a trip of 5172 miles that's 3.1¢/mile. Compare a $8.25 trip Mountain view to San Francisco round trip at 20.6 ¢/mile. Are trains so inefficient that it's cheaper to fly than to ride? Excuse me while I create a commuter airline between cities in the bay area.
You realize that there are a lot of fixed cost overheads, right? Surely the cost per mile from SFO to LAX is already much higher than what you quoted for SFO to JFK, and it's reasonable if local transit is even more expensive per distance.
A train is something like 10 times more fuel efficient per passenger. It's a much less complicated machine, and carries something like 10 times as many passengers per vehicle.
It's not reasonable that a train is more expensive. It doesn't have to accelerate to 550 mph 6 miles up. Piloting it doesn't require years and years of training. Compare SFO to your local caltrain station and tell me which one has a bigger impact on ticket price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stopped using the BART recently because it's dangerous. Several people I know personally have been held up at gunpoint on the BART, or in the station. That's not counting the various news reports, like one [1]. I'll go back when it's safe, but not before then. [1]: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50...
Unfortunately many of these crimes will go unsolved because BART refuses to release videos. Apparently, releasing the videos “could lead to stereotypes” https://www.google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. Space on the street is a valuable, limited resource, especially at peak times. And it should be priced accordingly. We also need competition in bus service, not government-run, subsidized monopolies. Then we'd see many more transportation options. We should look at how these problems are solved in other countries. Or all of the innovation we had here in the US when cars first became practical, before the…
> We also need competition in bus service, not government-run, subsidized monopolies. Then we'd see many more transportation options. No local transportation system in America covers its operating costs using fare revenue. Most local bus agencies in America only cover about 20% of opex with fares; the best agencies (e.g. BART) might get to 70%. This doesn't even consider capital costs. Good luck getting a private ent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Austin, Texas Capital Metro does at least have an app that you can pay through. But I do agree that small transactions like that should be easier. Especially when a ride is $1.25. It's plausible that I might have a dollar on hand, but who carries around quarters these days?
You're probably supposed to use the contactless "smart" card to board. In many systems this card is linked to your bank account and tops you off at a certain amount each time your balance reaches a certain minimum threshold (e.g. once your balance is $10, it takes out $40 from your bank account).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> because they don't want to deal with parking or drive drunk. That's what my friends use it for. It's a shame, because in the smaller midwestern towns, we don't really have Uber yet so it can't be used. Drunk driving here isn't even given a second thought.
In the UK drunk driving is a big social no-no, however this has led to country pubs really struggling and many going out of business. If uber or some similar easy to use taxi was available where I lived I'd be quite happy to pay to go to them Instead it means more and more people drink at home, rather than out, actually leading to increased alcohol consumption! Automated taxis will make such a change to the fabric of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That all seems like a net positive to me, especially in major urban areas that a very car dependent like Los Angles, Atlanta, Houston... In LA, driving drunk was just the way of life, and it was a real problem. Now, I don't know anyone who prefers driving over ridesharing given the option. Uber Pool makes getting from the east side to the west side faster that public transit for about $10-15, which is less than 1 dri…
$10-15 for a drink? Of liquid gold?
I also mentioned Atlanta and Houston. Both of those are within 10%. I'm picking these because they are large, urban, car-dependent areas that, at least in my opinion, are more livable with ridesharing than without it.
A quick addition: the numbers will be higher in NYC and SF, but I don't get a lot of value from Uber in either. Uber in SF proper is slow and expensive, and the transit is pretty good. Cabs are better than rideshare in New York, and the transit is also good. Rideshare is nice for for the outskirts of either city, but, anecdotally, it certainly hasn't changed my behaviors in either. Rideshare totally changed the game in LA.
Transit systems in the US need some payment technology upgrade. On a couple of occasions, I haven't been able to board a bus due to not having exact change. Once, I was with kids & family visiting NYC. We were planning to take a public bus from a suburb to the city. The fare turned out to be $16 for all of us, but I had $11 and some $100 bills. Guess what, I couldn't board the bus as they can't return change. The bus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$10-15 for a drink? Of liquid gold?
Pretty typical price range for a cocktail in a major (or even not so major) city. Even a beer is, outside of happy hour prices, getting near $10 with tip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fifth of those trips that don't happen sounds bad to me. Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries because they can't carry all of that on a bicycle or a bus? From the article, "Ride-hailing users have higher personal vehicle ownership rates than those who use “transit only”: 52% versus 46%." This point seems like a non-point. First, that's not a very big gap. Also, Do richer people…
Probably more like people wouldn’t go out to a cross-town bar or restaurant if they couldn’t take a taxi or lyft/uber to get there. For example, if mass transit is prohibitive (two buses at 1 am) and they don’t want to drive drunk. Easy access to quick transportation is a general economic benefit for everyone. That’s not support for uber or lyft specifically, but if people can easily get around town, they’re more lik…
The reality, in LA, is that if you're not going via Uber/Lyft, you're driving drunk. Not going is not even on the table. This is FOMO capital of the world.