Passenger Trains > Uber's Denver transit experiment

The NY Times reports on Uber and Lyft connections to rail transit systems. In Denver, Uber integrates with the transit agency app. You can order your car to be at the station.

It mentions that connecting bus service may cost $15 per rider. Uber gets less than $5

Some agencies are concerned about giving Uber access to their customers, others believe that Uber has already captured customers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/technology/uber-train-bus-public-transit.html

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/19 06:17 by Lackawanna484.

IF the entire trip time is close to the same, i would just take the uber/lyft for the entire trip.............

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF the entire trip time is close to the same, i
> would just take the uber/lyft for the entire
> trip.............
>
> 66

And probably pay more too. But, it's your money.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF the entire trip time is close to the same, i
> would just take the uber/lyft for the entire
> trip.............
>
> 66

In my area, Uber/Lyft is the popular choice. They offer "competitive rates" as they are building marketshare, willing to use loss-leader tactics.

Once they become the transportation monopoly (even less public transit like buses), then the rates will go up. If they can't raise the rates, they'll have the dumb "shareholders" subsidize their profitability like how most e-commerce businesses grew. 

I'm sure Uber/Lyft will be demanding a cut for selling train tickets in their app. A subsidized mode funneling some of their revenues to prop up a "for profit" operation. I might have heard the scam before somewhere...

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And probably pay more too. But, it's your money.

Our automobile culture already made walking "obsolete" so this is the next logical step. Who wants to walk to the nearest bus stop?

I don't recall drug addicts complaining about costs. :-)

exactly cchan06................

66

Uber/Lyft are clogging our roads. Around half of the cars run with no fares and the low paid independent contractors drive around awaiting a call. Those companies do nothing to mitigate the congestion they create.

Posted from Android

apparently, their services are in demand...........

66

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > IF the entire trip time is close to the same, i
> > would just take the uber/lyft for the entire
> > trip.............
> >
> > 66
>
> And probably pay more too. But, it's your money.


Exactly. would you pay for a 45 minute uber ride to xyz, or take Metra/subway/xyz-train for 40 minutes and an uber for 5 minutes, the latter of which would cost significantly less?

1976 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. would you pay for a 45 minute uber ride
> to xyz, or take Metra/subway/xyz-train for 40
> minutes and an uber for 5 minutes, the latter of
> which would cost significantly less?

I know quite a few people who combine public transit and rideshare (Uber/Lyft) for their trips. One reason to do it might be to avoid a bus transfer from a local route to a longer distance route. Just ridershare to the bus stop of the longer distance route (Rapid Bus 522 in Silicon Valley, for example). Right now, though, majority of people I know still drive their own cars.

Except for people on fixed income (retiree, unemployed), I don't see people doing detailed cost calculations for their trips. They tend to go for what's "convenient" and view the Uber/Lyft's cost estimates as guidelines. If it looks affordable (even if might not be the most cost effective), they'll likely choose that option. I mention this, because we get caught up on quasi-thinktank-ish cost analysis to argue on the behalf of the people, which sometimes is ridiculous.

In Tokyo, good % of people (50% or more based on one report) take public transit, usually bus + train. Those who have lived there, or stayed long term can understand why, as it's a short walk to a bus stop, subway, and train station. Walking to those locations seems convenient.

In western Tokyo, almost all train and subway routes run East/West. so buses and even driving is more convenient going North/South in that area. I know colleagues who do that (drive) for that reason, well, because it's convenient. No detailed cost analysis involved here.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uber/Lyft are clogging our roads. Around half of
> the cars run with no fares and the low paid
> independent contractors drive around awaiting a
> call. Those companies do nothing to mitigate the
> congestion they create.

Uber/Lyft congestion has made the news in places like entertainment centers, airports, downtowns, and other central locations. Out in the suburbs, which includes most of Silicon Valley, their impact is minimal on wide residental streets laid out in near perfect grids from our Automobile Culture Central Planning.

I know a few people who moonlight as Uber/Lyft drivers. One of them has a strategy, where he turns on his app to accept rides on his long commute home (1.5 hours minimum). He doesn't wander around waiting for the call, he keeps driving home if he gets no call. Other moonlighters park somewhere and do the Smartphone addiction while waiting for the call. A common sight to see Uber/Lyft signed cars with the driver doing so.

Maybe parking lot congestion will become a future problem?

Keep in mind that Uber has the "carpool" option where riders get discounts, if they are willing to accept other passengers and extra stops during the trip.

Since UBer/Lyft is taking the rider's car out of traffic, I think it's false to accuse them for adding to congestion. However, public transit can carry far more people per space taken than taxis and ridershares, so you can certainly argue that it's not the best way to reduce congestion.

Denver has done a lot for rail transit in the past 20 years. Extensive light rail, heavy rail, airport connections.

Bringing Uber into the mix makes sense.

Posted from Android

being an uber driver on your long commute home is brilliant...........

66

I guess it’s one of those “Your mileage may vary” experiences. I recently took Lyft for a 60 mile trip to a large airport in Southern California with inconvenient public transportation. At the start: European electronic dance music was on the radio. Can you turn the radio down? “If I turn the radio down I can’t hear the GPS. You understand?” 

The heat was on high. Can you turn down the heat? “If I turn down the heat the window fogs up. You understand?”

At the end the driver asks: “How much did they quote you for the ride? I need to know how much money I made.”

Makes a bad bus ride more appealing, or tolerable, than ever. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/19 18:58 by MirandaDepot.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> apparently, their services are in
> demand...........
>
> 66

Got one interesting Uber story. I ran into an elderly lady at Starbucks one day, waiting for her Uber ride. When a rider orders a ride, GPS coordinates from your Smartphone tells the driver where you are. The driver apparently objected to the location, maybe due to convoluted access (middle of a shopping mall) so he contacted her and requested to meet her about a city block away. Well, she wanted to be picked up near the Starbucks, because she's elderly, and she didn't want to walk.

Fortunately, she was able to cancel that driver, and requested another driver who was able to pick her up where she was.

Maybe ridersharing will create and escalate a War of the Entitled, driver vs. rider? :-)

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know a few people who moonlight as Uber/Lyft
> drivers. One of them has a strategy, where he
> turns on his app to accept rides on his long
> commute home (1.5 hours minimum). He doesn't
> wander around waiting for the call, he keeps
> driving home if he gets no call.

My understanding is that there is no "call" on Uber/Lyft. Normally, ride requests are displayed and a potential driver can click on them, is shown the approximate drive time (but no the destination), and choose to accept or decline the ride. If this is the case (please correct if I'm mistaken), I hope your friend is using some sort of "scheduled ride" option, because if the requested destination is off of his route, he could wind up turning his long commute into a very long commute home.


> Since UBer/Lyft is taking the rider's car out of
> traffic, I think it's false to accuse them for
> adding to congestion.

It's not false if there is an additional empty trip for each trip taken. Then it's replacing one single-occupancy-vehicle-trip with one dual-occupancy- and one single-occupancy-vehicle trip, thereby obviously adding to congestion (which is what the recent CityLab article concluded).

> However, public transit can
> carry far more people per space taken than taxis
> and ridershares, so you can certainly argue that
> it's not the best way to reduce congestion.

Agreed, and one could go further that it is very much counterproductive, if the person in the Uber/Lyft would otherwise have been on a bus or train, which certainly does not simply cancel its trip if one or many of its riders choose rideshare instead.

pennengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding is that there is no "call" on
> Uber/Lyft. Normally, ride requests are displayed
> and a potential driver can click on them, is shown
> the approximate drive time (but no the
> destination), and choose to accept or decline the
> ride.

You would be correct and thanks for the details. I chose to simplify because most people ignore what I say since I tend to ramble on here on TO.

> It's not false if there is an additional empty
> trip for each trip taken. Then it's replacing one
> single-occupancy-vehicle-trip with one
> dual-occupancy- and one single-occupancy-vehicle
> trip, thereby obviously adding to congestion
> (which is what the recent CityLab article
> concluded).

That is true especially in cities, and I think I pointed that out. It doesn't seem to be the case in the suburbs where I live and commute. At least for now, ridersharing is also replacing taxis. Taxis probably roam and congest more than ridershares do. However, that point will be moot once Uber/Lyft become a monopoly, and I made sure to mention the word monopoly in my first reply for a reason.
 

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Denver has done a lot for rail transit in the past
> 20 years. Extensive light rail, heavy rail,
> airport connections.
>
> Bringing Uber into the mix makes sense.

Seemingly off topic, but most people welcomed what we call "Big Tech" a decade and two ago. "Made sense" in society's naivete regarding data and control. Regulating their control is a big political topic this year.

Not to me, because I already knew a victim of Big Tech 9 years ago, and funny the information he found (which was deleted from the search engine soon after) is back in the news again this year.

Smartphone is an intergral part of using Uber/Lyft, even though it's possible to use rideshare without it. Regardless of that, Uber/Lyft will have massive amounts of data on people who use their services, thanks to the unwitting addicts of the electronic devices.

People should worry when Uber/Lyft become a monopoly, and not just the public transit agencies which will ultimately have to downsize when that happens. I didn't friviously drop the word addiction in this thread. It should be obvious now that despite my observations that seem to support ridesharing, I'm definitely not an advocate.

I'm not sure why they call it ridesharing, since the driver has no plans or intent to go to where he/she is transporting the passenger.

It's a TAXI SERVICE, folks, pure and simple.  Just adding (for some) a more convenient way of hailing a vehicle.  And the computer replaces the human dispatcher, and the money transfer is also done via computer instead of handing cash or credit card across the front seat.

One big difference: the UBER/LYFT drivers don't get a a regular salary, health benefits, etc.  At least, AFAIK.   And aren't they putting all of these miles driving around on their OWN car, instead of some COMPANY car?

I have used these services once, when I was under time pressure to make an appointment from an airport.   Yes, it was convenient as an alternative to my regular transit on the city bus service.   But it still was at least four times more expensive than the city bus.

The clowns driving for Uber/Lyft don't really know where they're going. All dependent on a GPS device to dumb down a location. A recent call had a jackass driver within a block of my pickup point only to cancel because he couldn't figure out how to read an address number. A job for people with no marketable skills.

Posted from Android