Lyft/Uber. They had a strategy of eliminating their taxi company competition by flooding the market with such low fares that the taxis couldn’t compete. That said, the taxi companies had a miserable reputation in many cities. They often came late or not at all, they usually required a phone call to dispatch, and they were quite expensive. But still, the tactics Lyft and Uber used to gain market dominance was dirty and monopolistic.
The flip side of this is that I can avoid the trap of car ownership, with all of its problems and expenses.
the drivers (who are sub-contracted, legally-unassisted, and underpaid)
and the passengers (surge pricing).
Even worse - those companies SEEK to replace drivers with self-driving vehicles. They will terminate their entire sub-contracted workforce (the drivers… the people who do the actual work), without obligation.
I guess I’m more concerned about the short term well being of the drivers than anything else. Surge pricing at least has a purpose, to attract drivers to an area. And with self-driving cars, I like the idea of using them as a solution to the last mile problem in transit.
I do 99% of the time, but public transportation is often either very slow or not present at all. Take going out to see my aunt. Luckily I can take a light rail train most of the way. However, I then have to get on an infrequent bus. It can mean a trip taking an hour and a half, both ways. And that’s in a relatively good transit city for its size and being in North America. Late night also tends to not be great for transit, though I can bike just fine then.
Basically, I rely on bike and bus for most of my transportation, but use Uber/Lyft to fill in for the times when those preferred options won’t cut it.
Lyft/Uber. They had a strategy of eliminating their taxi company competition by flooding the market with such low fares that the taxis couldn’t compete. That said, the taxi companies had a miserable reputation in many cities. They often came late or not at all, they usually required a phone call to dispatch, and they were quite expensive. But still, the tactics Lyft and Uber used to gain market dominance was dirty and monopolistic.
The flip side of this is that I can avoid the trap of car ownership, with all of its problems and expenses.
That’s true.
Lyft and Uber are taking advantage of both:
Even worse - those companies SEEK to replace drivers with self-driving vehicles. They will terminate their entire sub-contracted workforce (the drivers… the people who do the actual work), without obligation.
This has been their goal from the start.
I guess I’m more concerned about the short term well being of the drivers than anything else. Surge pricing at least has a purpose, to attract drivers to an area. And with self-driving cars, I like the idea of using them as a solution to the last mile problem in transit.
Why not use public transportation ?
I personally think that public transportation is peak efficiency.
I do 99% of the time, but public transportation is often either very slow or not present at all. Take going out to see my aunt. Luckily I can take a light rail train most of the way. However, I then have to get on an infrequent bus. It can mean a trip taking an hour and a half, both ways. And that’s in a relatively good transit city for its size and being in North America. Late night also tends to not be great for transit, though I can bike just fine then.
Basically, I rely on bike and bus for most of my transportation, but use Uber/Lyft to fill in for the times when those preferred options won’t cut it.