Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't really see coop payment networks in wide use although, and Uber is more like a Visa or Ebay than they are a bank.
The entire US payments system is a co-op payment network[1]. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks and they handle clearing for some absurdly large number of transactions. They use a slightly different nomenclature, but pragmatically it's a member owned co-op. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
The Drivers Cooperative
321–330 of 333 posts
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
A local coop doesn't have to go worldwide to be meaningful. Not all businesses shall grow indefinitely. If they can get a core customer base and hold it steady, it'd be much more valuable and impressive over time. They try to make a living, not to dominate the world for money.
I still can't quite grasp why local governments haven't taken the hint and reworked their local bus systems. Uber&Lyft have shown how much better app and on demand service is. But we're still circulating buses and spending billions on heavy rail.
Most, if not all rail is electric. Buses are transitioning to electric in Europe. Geneva has a very nice battery-less (supercap based) bus fleet which carry a lot of people continuously.
No car based transportation can reach the same density.
Taxi has its uses (speed, precise location, etc.), but is no replacement for mass transportation.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still can't quite grasp why local governments haven't taken the hint and reworked their local bus systems. Uber&Lyft have shown how much better app and on demand service is. But we're still circulating buses and spending billions on heavy rail.
I don't think buses and rail systems should be phased out in cities. In every city I've seen, buses and rail carry a lot of people in a much more cleaner and efficient manner. Most, if not all rail is electric. Buses are transitioning to electric in Europe. Geneva has a very nice battery-less (supercap based) bus fleet which carry a lot of people continuously. No car based transportation can reach the same density. T…
I'm not talking about taxis. Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues. Putting 200 cars of people into 30 shuttle buses is good enough.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think buses and rail systems should be phased out in cities. In every city I've seen, buses and rail carry a lot of people in a much more cleaner and efficient manner. Most, if not all rail is electric. Buses are transitioning to electric in Europe. Geneva has a very nice battery-less (supercap based) bus fleet which carry a lot of people continuously. No car based transportation can reach the same density. T…
Few places need the theoretical density that buses provide and even less need the level that rail provides. Most of the time they're running at 10-20% capacity. Or at least that's what happens in my city. I'm not talking about taxis. Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues. Putting 200 cars of people into 30 shuttle buses is good enough.
That's not what I've seen in Amsterdam, Geneva, Stockholm, Barcelona, Istanbul and my hometown. They work at least 30% capacity all day long, and when the demand is low, the bus numbers drop in all lines, but you never wait more than ~15 minutes for a new one, in most lines. They also reduce the number of trains on rail systems when the demand is low.
> Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues.
It's not a traffic issue. In modern Europe, it's not about solving the traffic. The governments focus on providing ways people to reach where they want. When you enable it, people doesn't crave for their cars, they use the cheapest and most practical way. In Barcelona, you're almost always walking distance from a underground station so, you don't need a car most of the time.
In my city, due to its geography, it's not possible to have an underground network that dense (at least where I live) and my office is not on a easy to reach place via public transport. If it was the opposite, I'd happily leave my car at home, but I can't.
OTOH, all the public transit lines are working at least 50% capacity all day long, carrying people around the city, and in some places you can literally go from door-to-door using public transit only.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
App provides value, global brand has some value. There is absolutely no reason for ride hailing app to get 10-20% markup per ride. I suspect that after the competition really kicks in, Uber/Lyft must settle for 1-3% per ride or less.
Global brand definitely provides value. Whenever I'm traveling (or rather, back when travel was possible) I always use Uber because I know that I can pay buy credit card (rather than cash) and if the driver takes a huge detour or some other common taxi scam, I can just contact Uber's customer service, and they'll refund me.
This often gets cited as an advantage of Uber but in my person experience I've been driven 3 sides of a square and Uber hasn't refunded me when I've complained.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
A local coop doesn't have to go worldwide to be meaningful. Not all businesses shall grow indefinitely. If they can get a core customer base and hold it steady, it'd be much more valuable and impressive over time. They try to make a living, not to dominate the world for money.
I still can't quite grasp why local governments haven't taken the hint and reworked their local bus systems. Uber&Lyft have shown how much better app and on demand service is. But we're still circulating buses and spending billions on heavy rail.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think buses and rail systems should be phased out in cities. In every city I've seen, buses and rail carry a lot of people in a much more cleaner and efficient manner. Most, if not all rail is electric. Buses are transitioning to electric in Europe. Geneva has a very nice battery-less (supercap based) bus fleet which carry a lot of people continuously. No car based transportation can reach the same density. T…
Few places need the theoretical density that buses provide and even less need the level that rail provides. Most of the time they're running at 10-20% capacity. Or at least that's what happens in my city. I'm not talking about taxis. Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues. Putting 200 cars of people into 30 shuttle buses is good enough.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed credit unions in the US are like this. They are generally locally operated, but they have formed networks so that you can e.g. go into a branch in Maryland and perform transactions on your account held in Georgia. They have also banded together to develop credit union apps, since banking apps are essentially universal in function. Reaching critical mass for these ride hailing apps would be a challenge, b…
We don't really see coop payment networks in wide use although, and Uber is more like a Visa or Ebay than they are a bank.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still can't quite grasp why local governments haven't taken the hint and reworked their local bus systems. Uber&Lyft have shown how much better app and on demand service is. But we're still circulating buses and spending billions on heavy rail.
On-demand service is drastically less efficient than fixed-route service. That's the main reason Uber/Lyft is already several times more expensive than bus or train service for the same route, and it would be even more expensive if Uber/Lyft drivers made the same total comp per hour as bus drivers including benefits, fuel, vehicle depreciation/wear and tear, insurance, etc. Not to mention the additional congestion an…
It looks dramatically different because buses are subsidized while Uber/Lyft is taxed and for profit. To continue using my city as an example, farebox recovery rate is ~30% and that doesn't include capital expenses. The difference is made up by tax revenue. On the other hand out of my fare, ~10% is sales tax, Uber/Lyft take another 20-40%, leaving 50-70% to go to paying the driver for the ride.
The problem ultimately is coverage. If you want to provide frequent service to all parts of the city you end up running a bunch of near empty buses. That kills the efficiency benefits of the buses and when you look at the system as a whole it ends up being about the same as on demand.
Re: The Drivers Cooperative
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think buses and rail systems should be phased out in cities. In every city I've seen, buses and rail carry a lot of people in a much more cleaner and efficient manner. Most, if not all rail is electric. Buses are transitioning to electric in Europe. Geneva has a very nice battery-less (supercap based) bus fleet which carry a lot of people continuously. No car based transportation can reach the same density. T…
Few places need the theoretical density that buses provide and even less need the level that rail provides. Most of the time they're running at 10-20% capacity. Or at least that's what happens in my city. I'm not talking about taxis. Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues. Putting 200 cars of people into 30 shuttle buses is good enough.
Almost every major urban city and metropolitan area needs buses and rail service to function effectively, the population density requires it, and it is the proven, mature, and scalable solution to providing high capacity transport. Massive roads used by primarily single occupant vehicles, is the non-scalable, inefficient solution.
> Most of the time they're running at 10-20% capacity. Or at least that's what happens in my city.
Just because you see a bus, at some time of the day being underutilized, is not indicative of much. That same bus on the same day/shift could be at or near capacity, earlier or later in day carrying commuters, or students that got out of class, etc. making it worthwhile.
Capacity planning for a transportation network/system means it has to be sized for its maximum or peak demand (typically during commute hours), so it also makes sense to use its excess capacity during off-peak hours given it is largely paid for to meet peak demand (buses and trains sitting around midday depreciating, and operators being paid a full shift to do nothing, is a poor use of high value assets and resources). This is similar to other systems like energy, telecom, etc.
> I'm not talking about taxis. Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues. Putting 200 cars of people into 30 shuttle buses is good enough.
Same point above about sizing for peak. Additionally this does not match modern fleet management best practices, which would strive to minimize the number of vehicle types in the fleet. Typically this is a standard ~40 foot single level bus. Possibly with additional types (longer articulated or double decker) for lines with higher demand/passenger loads, if needed. A common fleet type minimizes driver and mechanic training, makes buses and personnel more interchangeable and operable across the entire route network, creating efficiencies and economies of scale. These are the same reasons why Southwest Airlines and Ryanair exclusively fly B737s.
Upwards of 80% of the cost structure of providing bus or train service (the marginal cost of running an additional bus/train) is dominated by labor costs in the USA and other developed countries, where labor is expensive and capital, broadly defined, is cheap; so capital replaces labor where possible (developing countries tend to be the opposite). Or to put it another way, 20-40% of the cost structure is the cost of the vehicle. Using smaller, cheaper, low capacity vehicles does not significantly reduce the underlying cost structure, and in fact will increase inefficiencies and costs elsewhere in the system.
An excessive number of small vehicles instead of a reasonable number of large vehicles, where each vehicle requires a driver, will maximize inefficiencies and create diseconomies of scale, resulting in higher overall system costs, lower transport capacity, and higher congestion and pollution in space constrained urban areas. Efficient use of space in constrained urban areas is key attribute of transportation systems [0][1][2].
[0]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gl3bVsV3Kcl_RfIFsJ8iZ7dEEEg... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_load_factor#/media/F... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_load_factor#/media/F...