Live data from Hacker News

Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

citylab.com

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#51
post #8

Here's a super depressing mathematical proof of why the services fail in the burbs: First the assumption is a car is necessary for living in general. I am very happy for the 0.1% of the population who live in an urban hugbox where they don't need a car, but this is a general argument for 99% of the population or a unicorn sized middleman app. My garage costs perhaps $50K lifetime, including land, maint, all added tog…

Point to point transport may be necessary for living in general, but a personal car certainly isn't. A more realistic comparison would be selling your car, cancelling your insurance, repurposing your garage, and comparing it with pooled ridesharing. I'm not sure why you think car pooling has to take a lot of time. Services like uberPOOL guarantee you will only be matched with someone going a very similar route -- oth…

Just curious as to which suburb you live in that supports uber? As I live in a suburb of Philly, and uber doesn't exist around here.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#52

Hush. You're ruining my discount with math the companies should have done already. (= I'm getting discounts on all my rides from home by using the carpool feature. In the last 3 months, I have had 0 people opt to share a ride with me from my house to downtown Austin. I'm 8 miles away from the city center.

Consider the MoPac toll lane that's supposed to open in a year or so. It's priced based on demand to keep the lane free-flowing at all times (barring an accident in the lane itself). You'll be able to shave significant time off your commute by paying extra, or you can pay less by sharing a ride with other people.

Demand pricing will make shared rides take off even in low density cities.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person calls for an Uber and rides alone, there's no less congestion because there is no reduction in commuter-vehicle trips. Just an increase in raw vehicle occupancy. In addition, unless the Uber is already in the commuter's driveway and waits at the curb until the commuter is ready to leave and parks in the commuter's driveway overnight, the use of an Uber increases traffic overall.

The previous person was talking about pooled ridesharing. In my case car pooling was only convenient when going to work. It was much harder to coordinate the afternoon/evening trip home. Services like Uber make it a lot easier for 3-4 people to carpool one way and then use different methods to get home.

Possibly. That effectively assumes that it's far enough (or parking costs are high enough, etc.) for it to be worthwhile to coordinate a carpool in the morning yet it's still viable to take an Uber/cab/etc. home in the evening. That seems like a pretty specific scenario.

>In my case car pooling was only convenient when going to work.

I suspect this is why, anecdotally, I don't hear much about carpooling in my circles any longer. Not that it's ever been all that common. Hours at the end of the day are probably more variable for a lot of people than they used to be.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#54
post #4

The article has two insights, which are kinda related in an surprising way. One is tangentially mentioning that car poolers almost always know each other and will not go with random strangers; I thought to myself, yes, I am not young and I cannot remember ever hearing or seeing first hand a "hitchhiker" style car pool although coworkers helping each other out (critically, without a dedicated app/service middleman) is…

Hitchhiker-style carpooling is alive and well in DC. http://www.slug-lines.com/ All the major arteries into DC from Virginia have HOV lanes. At many major interchanges, there are parking lots. If you want a ride that doesn't take 2+ hours, you park at the interchange and hop in a stranger's car.

Also alive and well in Alameda, CA, heading in to San Francisco (or at least it was last I visited in 2010). Because drivers get a reduced (free?) fare when crossing the bridge passengers queue at random corners that have been established over time, hop into strangers’ cars, and head in to the city. I thought it was one of the coolest things ever.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#55

Enough with the fancy vans and apps. Russia has already solved this problem: http://www.st-petersburg-essentialguide.com/marshrutka.html They're private, cheap and ubiquitous and make getting around anywhere in Russian cities easy. Without these, buses from the burbs can't work.

Marshrutki don't really run in the suburbs. Even if they do, these "suburbs" are high-rise developments with 10+ story apartment buildings. Not comparable to American one family/house low-density suburb at all.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0.1% really? I live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 25% of households here have no car, and we don't have the world's best transit system. Per http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/21/vital-signs-more-h... it's over 9% of households that don't have a car- and of course the average size of a household is above 1, so your fake statistic is two orders of magnitude off from reality. You're welcome to be hyperbolic, but esp…

Isn't this article about suburban ride-sharing? Car ownership in the suburbs is 100%. I don't think anyone disputes that a lot of people live in cities and don't own cars.

More specifically the article is proposing that an uber-for-suburbs is a mathematical non-starter and the comments against that conclusion are primarily non sequiturs along the lines of "I live in an urban area and uber and mass transit work great for me". Cool. Rock on. But that has nothing at all to do with the article's business plan, or the research in the article or my own mathematical model that came to the same conclusion as the author via a different path.

This is also a live example of survivorship bias. Nobody who tries to live in a mass-transit-less uber-less suburb in the current year will last very long. Nobody who can't afford a car can afford a house in the burbs either. Therefore there is a natural self selection such that roughly 0% of potential uber-for-the-burbs startup can physically live at this time in the burbs. If uber-for-the-burbs already existed such that potential customers could be found in the burbs, then a startup could in fact sell to them, although starting up into entrenched competition isn't as much fun as a wide open field. But the geography has self selected such that all potential customers cannot currently live there. It is possibly one of the least possibly fertile areas to sell a service idea. It is like the proverbial trying to sell ice to eskimos. The burbs are multiply mathematically provably possibly the worst place on the entire planet to try an uber-for- startup.

Perhaps the business model for uber-for-the-burbs should bootstrap off little kids and suburban nursing home residents (I mean, who else is left there, to sell to, who isn't already a car owner?). Although little kids have safety issues and nursing homes have privately owned bus routes and taxis are already pretty entrenched in the market. And the little kids and old people might not be the wealthiest residents of suburbia (demand doesn't matter without the cash revenue to back it up). I would guess the best bootstrap would be physically disabled / handicapped but then you run into wheelchair issues and drivers being medically qualified? And how many little kids / disabled / retired / nursing home residents are commuting into the big city to desk jobs anyway?

I edited this post to emphasize that the "startup lesson" of this whole topic is you can't just look at where to sell, you need to think up who to sell. Finding a giant underserved geographic area with plenty of money is utterly useless if by the inherent existence of the area they have no use for it. Hawaii is dramatically underserved with respect to snowshoes, but I would strongly recommend against a startup trying to sell snowshoes in the Hawaiian islands.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#58
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hitchhiker-style carpooling is alive and well in DC. http://www.slug-lines.com/ All the major arteries into DC from Virginia have HOV lanes. At many major interchanges, there are parking lots. If you want a ride that doesn't take 2+ hours, you park at the interchange and hop in a stranger's car.

Yes, but its a context switch. You can't build unicorn for a billion people if the maximum possible market size is actually 10K people, or to be extremely generous, we'll say a couple million absolute tops. That is an interesting sized market for a lifestyle business or maybe a government sponsored non-profit to target. Startup with VC money? Not really.

Someone who looked at the size of the existing taxi and carpool market would have missed how Lyft and Uber significantly increased the number of people willing to take rides with strangers (whether drivers or co-travelers).

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#59
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this article about suburban ride-sharing? Car ownership in the suburbs is 100%. I don't think anyone disputes that a lot of people live in cities and don't own cars.

More specifically the article is proposing that an uber-for-suburbs is a mathematical non-starter and the comments against that conclusion are primarily non sequiturs along the lines of "I live in an urban area and uber and mass transit work great for me". Cool. Rock on. But that has nothing at all to do with the article's business plan, or the research in the article or my own mathematical model that came to the sam…

I'd just add that Uber being fairly successful in a lot of areas in spite of the fact that taxis were already a thing has probably led a lot of people to take away a (somewhat) incorrect lesson--namely that app-ing the taxi experience fundamentally changes the economics.

In fact, Uber has, for example, had a lot less relative impact in Manhattan which already has lots of taxis than in other locales. So the more correct lesson is that taxis were and are pretty broken in a lot of places and that those markets would actually have supported a more functional taxicab system.

Now, one can assume that low-density suburbs and exurbs are also underserved markets but I don't see a lot of evidence that's the case.

Re: Suburban Ride-Sharing Is Mathematically Unlikely

#60
post #16
post #2

Where I live, commuter trains are packed, though (Europe). How can that be? The same logic should apply to commuter trains as to cars?

In Europe, the number of people willing to use public transit is much greater than 10%, for one thing. Another thing is that you don't really need to get matched with someone going the same direction as you: people generally value living close to public transit (which is completely opposite to people living in California, who try to avoid it), and public transit generally gets you where you want to be, possibly with…

I believe that people in the USA would be just as willing to use public transit as people in Europe, if we had public transit systems that were actually worth using. Just look at New York, Boston, or Chicago: they have real transit systems, and people use them.
Post reply on HN