Ube Goldberg
August 28, 2015 2:47 PM   Subscribe

New Uber Service Sounds Suspiciously Like a Bus — New Uber "Smart Routes" feature offers passengers fare discounts in exchange for pick-ups along predetermined high-ridership routes. Rather than trying to compete with public transit, FiveThirtyEight points out that Uber and public transit can complement each other. Meanwhile, the yellow cab industry is trying to fight back against Uber with an Uber-like smartphone app for NYC passengers.
posted by tonycpsu (61 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
I like how the article says that it's basically a bus but then admits that it's nothing like a bus at all.
posted by I-baLL at 2:52 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


The second article doesn't mention the seemingly relevant fact that Uber in NY does this already: there's an option called UberT which hails a yellow/green cab to your location. You then pay the metered fare directly to the driver, just like if it were a street hail. The only drawback is that Uber charges two bucks for it, which makes it kind of a ripoff, so it's nice to see that there'll be an alternative.
posted by Itaxpica at 2:52 PM on August 28, 2015


The Uber Endgame
One of the more subtle underlying issues with the rise of Uber is the company’s slow siphoning of the political will to fix existing—or build new—public transit infrastructure in major cities. In Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton Professor of Politics Martin Gilens shows that—as he put it in an article with Northwestern Professor of Decision Making Benjamin Page—“economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” As the wealthy—and, as the prices of Uber and Lyft fall, the slightly less so—essentially remove themselves from the problems of existing mass transit infrastructure with Uber and other services, the urgency to improve or add to it diminishes. The people left riding public transit become, increasingly, the ones with little or no political weight to demand improvements to the system.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:57 PM on August 28, 2015 [40 favorites]


SF used to have "jitneys" that did more or less this:

http://missionlocal.org/2014/06/up-until-the-1970s-muni-had-competition/

They were banned so that MUNI could run those lines as profitable bus routes. It seems Uber has as much deference toward that law as they do toward other laws.

We'll see if this actually hurts MUNI, and if so, by how much. My guess is that the impact will be perceptible but small.
posted by andrewpcone at 2:57 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


This is less like a bus, as in MUNI, and more like a bus, as in a guy with a minibus in Nairobi or countless other cities.

I think a little competition for the transit authorities is probably not a bad thing. They still have the advantage of big subsidies (which are a good idea). Maybe the Uber minibus service, if such a thing comes to pass, can teach us something about what people want from transit.
posted by ssg at 3:02 PM on August 28, 2015 [8 favorites]


It shows that people are willing to pay to share vehicles but don't want to be around the poor.
posted by Small Dollar at 3:05 PM on August 28, 2015 [42 favorites]


This "lol it's like a bus" thing is willfully misunderstanding the product. I've seen it smugly repeated on Twitter and it's the lede for many articles, including this Metafilter post. But as the fine article linked here says
Pickup locations are flexible along the route, and the drop-off can still be wherever the rider chooses.
So it's really not much like a bus at all.

Here's Uber's own description of Smart Routes.
We’ve also begun experimenting with Smart Routes, where POOL riders have the option of walking a couple blocks to a few popular routes in San Francisco (so that drivers can make fewer detours) to catch a ride for less.

For example, recently during one of the busiest music festivals at Golden Gate Park, we tried out Smart Routes to tackle the perennial problem of congestion at events and major intersections. Not only did thousands of concert goers who walked a couple of blocks benefit from smoother pickups and cost savings, but uberPOOL rides also had an incredible match rate of over 90%!
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what Uber is actually doing. Mischaracterizing its product offerings is not helping the conversation.
posted by Nelson at 3:23 PM on August 28, 2015 [8 favorites]


What small dollar said. Ugh.
posted by Wretch729 at 3:24 PM on August 28, 2015


Bravo on the post title!
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:25 PM on August 28, 2015


This is pretty much how things work in Beirut already (and probably plenty of other cities I expect).
posted by howfar at 3:30 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


The second article doesn't mention the seemingly relevant fact that Uber in NY does this already: there's an option called UberT which hails a yellow/green cab to your location. You then pay the metered fare directly to the driver, just like if it were a street hail. The only drawback is that Uber charges two bucks for it, which makes it kind of a ripoff, so it's nice to see that there'll be an alternative.

Wait, is hailing a cab in NYC so difficult that it's actually worth it to pay an extra $2 just to have one come directly to you? I thought all you had to do to get a cab in Manhattan (adjusting for well-established socioethnic factors) was stand on the curb and wave.

Then again, I don't understand Uber's business model at all anyway. In a city with good public transit and taxis, why would anyone ever use this? Are people really grossed out by the idea of riding on a bus that much?
posted by Strange Interlude at 3:45 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I like how the article says that it's basically a bus but then admits that it's nothing like a bus at all.

So it's really not much like a bus at all.

It has many bus-like features. Characterizing it as "nothing like" or "not much like" a bus seems rather silly. It functions in the same way a bus does, with predefined routes, multiple independent passengers getting on and off at different origins / destinations, etc. At that point, aside from the more flexible endpoints, the differences are basically the size of the vehicles and the fact that one's run by municipalities and one's not.

Here's Uber's own description of Smart Routes.

[...]
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what Uber is actually doing. Mischaracterizing its product offerings is not helping the conversation.


I'm not really sure what part of Uber's description contradicts anything said in the FPP links.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:45 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


I don't think "not being around the poor" is a major motivation for Uber users. Speed, reliability, predictability, and ease of payment seem to be the the thing.

As far as NYC transit, it doesn't cover the whole thing well. Only a few lines run all night, and very infrequently. Much of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island aren't served by rail, and the busses are often slow or unreliable.

As far as NYC taxis, the drivers are routinely dangerous or verbally abusive. That is less often true with Uber. Also, it isn't easy to get a cab in the outer boroughs. Uber is also usually cheaper than NYC taxis, so there's that.
posted by andrewpcone at 3:50 PM on August 28, 2015 [10 favorites]


Wait, is hailing a cab in NYC so difficult that it's actually worth it to pay an extra $2 just to have one come directly to you? I thought all you had to do to get a cab in Manhattan (adjusting for well-established socioethnic factors) was stand on the curb and wave.

Depends on many factors, including but certainly not limited to time of day, day of week, location, weather (dear God the weather), holidays, etc. I have absolutely used Uber T in the rain or in Soho at 3 AM when the moment you think you're about to get a cab a drunken person will upstream you and ride away laughing into the night.
posted by telegraph at 3:55 PM on August 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


The Uber Endgame

I really dislike the argument that we should be concerned about Uber and other cab-like companies siphoning support for public transit.

For one, reliable cab service can be complementary to public transit, as mentioned in the FiveThiryEight post above. There are plenty of transit riders (like me!) who would own a car if they couldn't rely on cabs for the occasional trip. These people are more likely to support public transit because of Uber, not less.

Second, transit in nearly every American city has been awful since long before the recent wave of ridesharing services. Even if I'm wrong and Uber's net impact on the political will to build and maintain transit is negative, we have pretty good historical evidence that American transit systems without Uber are still terrible. If you're concerned about the state of American public transit (and you probably should be!) there are many issues that are much more important than ridesharing companies.

(disclaimer: none of this should be read as implying that Uber isn't a super sketchy company in a lot of ways)
posted by ripley_ at 3:57 PM on August 28, 2015 [15 favorites]


I don't understand Uber's business model at all anyway

In general? It's nearly always cheaper and more predictable than a cab.

In this particular case? Sounds like it will be cheaper than a taxi and quicker than a bus. I usually get a train from work. Sometimes I'm forced to take a bus 6 miles because London Midland are arseholes. It takes about 90 minutes at 6:00pm, versus a 25 minute drive at the same time. This service would only add a few minutes to the journey and potentially save a considerable amount. So...what's not to understand?
posted by howfar at 3:59 PM on August 28, 2015


I'm currently working on two concurrent streaks. I have had 3 consecutive Lyft drivers volunteer that they drove for Lyft rather than Uber because Lyft is less strict about driving experience and background checks. One even went so far as to tell me that they didn't care about his record because it was only a possession charge (I tend to agree that's likely not a huge deal, but still). However, at the same time, I have had 2 consecutive Uber drivers who, after asking and hearing that I have primarily used Lyft in the past, told me that they used to drive for Lyft, until they were let go due to moving violations received on the job. At least with a taxi they have the good sense not to tell me this shit.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:06 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


I once had a Cardiff black cab driver tell me about setting one of a rival company's cars on fire. I think I fell back on "Well...that's one way of approaching things...".
posted by howfar at 4:18 PM on August 28, 2015 [6 favorites]


I really dislike the argument that we should be concerned about Uber and other cab-like companies siphoning support for public transit.

Seconding every point in your post ripley_. The idea seems to be that there was some political will for better public transportation that was building, but now that there's a service that is proving useful for folks, that will is dwindling.

Show me evidence of any of this please!

Too, it seems this argument is a version of the ol' lefty canard that only once the system gets bad enough will folks be motivated to fix it, will actual change happen (vote for Trump!). Yes, it's best if we have great public transportation. In the meantime (until this previously-unseen political will manifests itself …) is it really a problem that folks can get around their cities more easily?
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:18 PM on August 28, 2015 [5 favorites]


it's funny how jitneys and dollar vans already exist, but this whole parallel system has to be invented because fancy people won't ride them.

oh wait haha did I say funny I actually meant racist
posted by threeants at 4:18 PM on August 28, 2015 [19 favorites]


Then again, I don't understand Uber's business model at all anyway. In a city with good public transit and taxis, why would anyone ever use this? Are people really grossed out by the idea of riding on a bus that much?

I used Uber the other night in Manhattan. My SO took out her phone, messed with it for a second, and we walked out the front door of a restaurant and got in the car with just enough time to say goodnight to our hosts. Shortly thereafter we were at the subway stop we needed, and we got on a train in time because the bill was already paid and we could just jump out of the car and run for it. I couldn't help contrasting this whole experience with times I've been desperately tired and walking for ages, unable to get a cab because of weather or looking in some wise unsavory or, fuck, I dunno, the alignment of the stars.

Meanwhile in the region where I actually live, public transit is laughable by comparison to NYC, but it exists, and I have spent a lot of hours on the bus or waiting for it (like 3-4 hours a day for the better part of a year a lot). The bus sucks. I don't say that because I'm grossed out by poor people and minorities. I say it because the schedules are sparse, the routes are massively inconvenient, sometimes the bus doesn't show up at all, and it's often an environment rich in creepy, deranged assholes.

I'm an advocate of robust public transportation. I bus, bike, train, and walk just about any time I have the practical option. But I kind of don't think it takes some huge effort of projection to understand Uber's business model. Public transit most places comes with a set of substantial inefficiencies and miseries, and so there is a market for avoiding those experiences. I worry about the long-term outcome of this, but it's not exactly a mystery why people go "fuck it, let's get an uber" in a bunch of different situations.
posted by brennen at 4:30 PM on August 28, 2015 [18 favorites]




Someone I know is a beta tester for the cab industry's Arro app and I've seen it in action a few times. The interface is a little clunkier than Uber's, but it's decent enough. The biggest issue is that they don't seem to have bothered to inform the drivers about it, so they show up all, "Who are you? I got this weird message? How did you summon my car?" One guy asked if we were some sort of VIPs and whether he was supposed to charge us or not.
posted by retrograde at 4:52 PM on August 28, 2015 [9 favorites]


I take the bus to and from work almost every day. Right now, though, I'm in an uber pool bc it's hot as hell outside and this saves me some of the waiting and walking in the heat that I'd have to do if I took the bus. If uber weren't around, I probably would have driven to work today.

So yeah, +1 for uber and public transit being complementary.
posted by heisenberg at 4:55 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


Wait, is hailing a cab in NYC so difficult that it's actually worth it to pay an extra $2 just to have one come directly to you? I thought all you had to do to get a cab in Manhattan (adjusting for well-established socioethnic factors) was stand on the curb and wave.

It's really not worth the fee, which is why I almost exclusively use UberX instead (which, even without the fee, is cheaper than a yellow cab by about 15%). But yes, it IS that hard to hail a cab outside of Manhattan. Or in certain parts of Manhattan north of like 125th.
posted by Itaxpica at 4:59 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


As far as NYC taxis, the drivers are routinely dangerous or verbally abusive.

Agreed, I've had horrible taxi drivers in DC too. But I have had one Uber driver in a small city who literally did not know how to drive, or how to read a map, or what the streets were named in his town. When he dropped us off I was actually worried he might run us over accidentally. Inexplicably he had a 3 star rating -- out of pity perhaps.

(OTOH I've read that new Lyft drivers are screened by more experienced Lyft drivers, so that may improve their driver quality.)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:02 PM on August 28, 2015


I really dislike the argument that we should be concerned about Uber and other cab-like companies siphoning support for public transit.

The arguments and points about Uber vs. public transport are beginning to sound like FedEx/UPS vs. USPS. And Republicans have been trying pretty darn hard to maim or even kill the post office in the last decade at least. One big difference is that the USPS is basically a federalized business, so it can stand up to global giants like FedEx. Uber, which as above mentioned is in China (among numerous other countries) is a giant against the weird patchwork of town/city/county/state transportation agencies. So, I can readily imagine at least in some smaller cities, local Republicans attempting to kill public transport and justifying it that the private sector has already created a better system in the form Uber and Lyft.

But I kind of don't think it takes some huge effort of projection to understand Uber's business model. Public transit most places comes with a set of substantial inefficiencies and miseries, and so there is a market for avoiding those experiences.

You forgot the other part of their business model: Having their drivers work as contractors so Uber doesn't have to pay or maintain their car, or their health care or auto insurance. And also the part of their business model that uses a smartphone to order up a car and only offers credit card as a form of payment, which acts as a way to filter out some people that Uber might not want to cater to anyways.
posted by FJT at 5:17 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


You forgot the other part of their business model: Having their drivers work as contractors so Uber doesn't have to pay or maintain their car, or their health care or auto insurance. And also the part of their business model that uses a smartphone to order up a car and only offers credit card as a form of payment, which acts as a way to filter out some people that Uber might not want to cater to anyways.

I didn't, actually. I just didn't treat them as material to the question of whether there's a market for what Uber sells, though I'm sure they're relevant to both why Uber is apparently valued at a gazillionty dollars and why the labor market as a whole is so increasingly damaged.

I guess if you've noticed a real trend of unsavory labor practices damaging the marketability of goods and services lately, I'd love to hear about it.
posted by brennen at 5:27 PM on August 28, 2015


I'm glad this isn't an actual bus, as there are already plenty of assorted leeches who use public bus stops like some resource they have the right to exploit, as opposed to a large space needed to safely board and disembark a ton of passengers from 60' long accordion buses.

It's a douche move to make 80 people wait, while some libertarian-minded parasite blocks the bus zone.

(Yes, I am talking about you, Google Bus. Keep that crap up, and I hope that MUNI starts mounting long spikes and chain guns to the front of their buses.)
posted by markkraft at 5:39 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


But I have had one Uber driver in a small city who literally did not know how to drive, or how to read a map, or what the streets were named in his town.

UGH. I very, very occasionally have used Uber, so let me admit here I'm part of the problem.

But the glut of Uber/Lyft/Sidecar drivers in Chicago is becoming a real issue in terms of safety on the roads. I typically get around by bike, and believe me, regular taxis are no saints when it comes to behaving around cyclists on the road. But last week I had to ride through a busy neighborhood on a Friday night and it was RIDICULOUS. Multiple times within the span of like two blocks I got cut off or almost side swiped by a car share driver (you can tell by the passengers in the back seat and the phone in a holder on the dashboard, even if they don't have the bumper sticker or pink mustache) pulling over to pick up or drop off passengers. It was so bad.

At least taxis are visible and I know to be on my guard around them. With these car share services you can't even tell that something like that could happen because from afar they look like normal cars. And they're being driven by people without the experience to know you have to fucking look for bikes in the bike lane before pulling over, or by people who have no idea where they are going and are paying more attention to the virtual map on their phone than to the actual road.

I can usually avoid the worst neighborhoods/intersections when I'm riding on a weekend night. But the other day I got cut off (in a bike lane) by a car share driver at 7:30 am as I was commuting to work. And there's no way to report them, because you can't even tell what company they work for (let's pretend the companies would give a fuck). I can't call the cops because they're off for their next fare before I get my phone out of my bag, and unlike taxis I can't call 311 with an easily seen from all sides identification number and go through that reporting process.

I completely understand the reasons why people use car sharing services like Uber--like I said, I've been known to use it too. But there has got to be a better way to regulate the services and the people who drive for them. Right? idk.
posted by misskaz at 5:43 PM on August 28, 2015 [7 favorites]


We can talk all we want about Uber's "business model," but as it stands now the company is running at a loss. The reason Uber is cheaper is because it's dodging the regulations, insurance, and other costs it should legally be paying to operate; AND, it is spending its VC money to subsidize rides to make itself look "cheaper." In some markets, where regulation may never have to be an issue for them (probably outside the US or Europe), they have a chance at one day becoming a real, profitable, sustainable business. In the U.S., however, I think they're banking on the emergence of driverless cars. They cannot make a profit otherwise, if they are forced to become regulated as some cities are threatening to do now.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 6:29 PM on August 28, 2015 [9 favorites]


The political will for better and more expansive public transportation is very strong amongst poor, marginalized, working class or aging urban populations. No-one with any political power gives a fuck that the poor and marginalized people need extensive, reliable, affordable transit and have a desire for it. No-one gives a fuck about anything they need and they're so busy fighting for housing, decent wages, PTO, and everything else, transit falls to the bottom of a long dreary list. But believe me, people who make subsistence wages would love to have reliable transportation to their shitty jobs, especially if it was not four transfers and 2 hours to get from home to their job.

However, rich venture capitalist fucks can litigate to support their business model, or get legislators to listen to them and make the changes to regulations they need for their exciting new expensive *carpool* service because people with political will like them can't be bothered to use it for the public good.
posted by crush-onastick at 8:45 PM on August 28, 2015 [12 favorites]


In the U.S., however, I think they're banking on the emergence of driverless cars.

I wouldn't say "emergence" -- that makes it sound like something passive, when they just poached almost half of the Carnegie Mellon robotics department to build them. This is absolutely their plan.
posted by vogon_poet at 9:31 PM on August 28, 2015


Honestly, better public transport would be great for all, and I doubt that even the boogeymen tech bros that are hated around here would deign to use it- in fact, doubtless many already do in San Francisco, because for all of the gentrification and income equality, techies are still laborers getting screwed by management.

The problems with the MTA and Bay Area transportation seem to be less directly the fault of tech, but more of dysfunctional municipal bureaucracies, coupled by lack of will from voters to improve the situation (NIMBYism and classism). Certainly, the existence of Uber and Lyft can be exploited by such forces to go "see, we don't need BART expansion when we already have ride sharing", but if anything I think the main fault of these tech companies aren't that they exist as alternatives, but rather that they haven't used their immense resources to lobby for public infrastructure improvements. And that goes for all Bay Area tech companies, not just those involved in this space.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:35 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


I was just wondering the other day why LA doesn't have private jitney networks. Not uber, but companies that just do that.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:34 PM on August 28, 2015


it's funny how jitneys and dollar vans already exist, but this whole parallel system has to be invented because fancy people won't ride them.

oh wait haha did I say funny I actually meant racist


Well to be fair, for those of us who live outside NYC, these things never existed or if they did it was a long time ago. There isn't anything like that in seattle, for instance. Or portland. If you step outside the context of SF/NYC they are bringing something new to the table here that for whatever reason, didn't exist in a lot of cities.

I also kind of bristle at the from-the-hip "people just don't want to be around the poor" comment. I don't know anyone who takes an uber/lyft, or only very rarely, if they could just take the bus. It's late at night when the buses run on stupid schedules or not at all, or when a silly amount of transfers or walking would be required. Nobody is avoiding the poor at 2am, at least here. Because unless you live in a narrow band of neighborhoods, you're totally SOL on transit after midnight or a bit later.(which is dumb as fuck and needs to be fixed, but for now, thems the breaks)

I completely understand the reasons why people use car sharing services like Uber--like I said, I've been known to use it too. But there has got to be a better way to regulate the services and the people who drive for them. Right? idk. (and this whole comment)

Ugh i completeeely agree with this. This kind of shit happens constantly. And that's the whole problem in a capsule; even if the cops are right there they won't do shit.

These drivers seem to know they have essentially zero accountability. They're flat out fucking dangerous, most of the time. Always pushing and running lights, pulling over aggressively without looking(and often without signaling, all kinds of aggressive right-on-red stuff, overtaking parking cars super aggressively, and just all manner of oblivious dumb shit.

I don't really know what to say or do about this, but they REALLY need to be forced to put some kind of unique identifier on their cars that shows both what service they're working for(or services) and some kind of ID number.

The only time i've ever seen cops bother them is when they very first came to town, and cops would stop them and ticket/hassle them for picking up fares. Now? Mad max.
posted by emptythought at 5:04 AM on August 29, 2015 [7 favorites]


I can't remember who said, "Every man sees the world from the bell tower of his own village," but I'll borrow that and say that every commenter here sees transit from the bell tower of their own metro area. For me, the magic of Uber/UberX/Lyft is that they'll show up very quickly and they'll go places cabs won't. It is difficult/impossible in my metro to get a cab without either going to a known cab stand (like a hotel), or scheduling in advance. I'm not entirely sure how much Uber is competing here because when I use it, it is in situations where I wouldn't be able to get a cab anyway. Nate Silver's 538 blog recently did a story about how Uber is servicing the outer bouroughs of New York City better than cabs are.

I see this same difference in the Uber bus/not-a-bus story we are commenting on. There are other services like Uber Smart Routes already, Bridj comes to mind. The magic here for Bridj is that they are analyzing all of their rider data to figure out the routes in real time. Uber Smart Routes appears to plan to do the same thing. A couple of people mention dollar buses and jitneys as already having solved this problem. From the bell tower of my metro, we don't have anything like that and my experience with the bus service we do have doesn't work for me - it takes too long to catch bus, get where I'm going, maybe make a long transfer. So I'm not regularly riding the bus anyway. If Smart Routes came to my city, I would certainly give it a try.
posted by kovacs at 6:35 AM on August 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


There are a lot of moving parts to this conversation, and a lot of historical baggage that colors our perceptions of what the underlying problems are. It's true that public transit was languishing in many cities long before Uber and friends came along, and there are many reasons for that. We know that the US auto industry successfully conspired to undermine public transit throughout the 20th century, and though there were other factors -- among them the fact that Americans simply fell in love with their cars and the freedom that they provide -- it's clear that the deck has for a very long time been stacked against transit-oriented development and the public funding streams that would enable these systems to flourish.

It seems far-fetched to think that these private services aren't going to exacerbate this situation by undermining the demand for increased roll-out of public transit lines. In the short term that's good because more people are served, but with very little oversight, we know that the private sector can't be trusted to do anything other than pursue its profit motive, so the question is which people get served, and whether they could be served better by increased public investment.

I think the USPS vs. FedEx/UPS analogy FJT makes above is on point. USPS's public mission to serve every address, no matter how rural, makes it difficult to be profitable, and when a public need can't be profitable, the government has an interest in either subsidizing it or taking over that responsibility entirely from the private sector. Likewise, public transit has to answer to the people, not the VCs or shareholders, and as such, can be expected to serve the public better than a patchwork of private services can. At some point, if we're not regulating these services as strictly as we regulate public utilities, we know what will happen -- those with means will have access to them, those who don't will not.

There is very little argument against the notion that these private services are filling a need unmet by other options. What's new here is the explicit turn toward a product offering that more closely resembles public transit, but with little or no public sector involvement in the process of ensuring that the services are meeting the needs of the public. That seems worth talking about.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:34 AM on August 29, 2015 [5 favorites]


I find the argument that transit authorities should have some sort of monopoly on transporting a bunch of people at once on a route really difficult to understand. We have public roads, which are obviously subsidized like crazy, and we let people just drive their own cars wherever they want! And then we subsidize parking even more, so they can leave those cars sitting there, taking up precious public space for hours. And then we built freeways so that the people in cars can get places really quickly. We fight wars to ensure continued supplies of cheap oil. We've made private cars incredibly attractive and we've let them shape our cities and our lives in innumerable ways.

In other words, we've allowed cars to compete with public transit. In fact, we've done so in pretty clearly classist and racist ways. We've done so much to make sure wealthier, suburban, generally white people can get in and out of the city without having to share space with anyone they don't want to.

But apparently the issue is that Uber might start a vaguely bus-like system and we can't have any competition for public transit. The reality is that the competition is for transportation in general and public transit is already competing with people walking, biking, taking taxis and Uber, carpooling, and just driving their own cars. So if you want to talk about unfair competition, why not focus on the worst offender, the thing that takes up so much space in our urban landscape, the thing that kills thousands and thousands, the thing that burns an insane amount of fuel per passenger-km: the private automobile. That's the competition that is hurting public transit, hurting our cities, and hurting us.

Let's tax fuel more, charge more for parking, and charge more to use public roads. Let's use that money to make public transit better and make it free (most transit systems only take in about a third of their expenses in fares anyways). There is so much more we can do than get angry because Uber wants to provide a more efficient transportation service for people that looks sort of like a bus if you squint.
posted by ssg at 9:11 AM on August 29, 2015 [11 favorites]


I find the argument that transit authorities should have some sort of monopoly on transporting a bunch of people at once on a route really difficult to understand.

Well, then it's a good thing nobody here has called for anything of the sort.

Let's tax fuel more, charge more for parking, and charge more to use public roads.

I'm all for these changes, but don't see how the public exercising its discretion over who uses the public roads is at odds with any of them. If anything, these are complementary approaches.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:46 AM on August 29, 2015


I'd like to chime in and say the reason I don't take the bus in Baltimore more is not the poor people on the bus, but the fact that taking the bus fucking sucks for most routes. If I want to go to Hampden, a VERY popular area of Baltimore, there is exactly one bus that goes there. And it runs on a twice an hour schedule during work hours and once an hour later on.

Public transit in Baltimore is awful, for the most part, and there is zero political will to change it, starting with the Governor. It's hard to see how anything private industry does will change the already zero interest that state has in improving the bus systems in Baltimore.
posted by josher71 at 11:31 AM on August 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Saying that public transit systems are accountable to the people seems screwy to me. They are accountable to the government, and the government is not the people, and the people do not have a single, well-defined collective will. Countries that think of themselves as democratic often see an equivalence between government and people, but this is more aspirational than descriptive. And it covers up the fact that government is often more a tool of the rich and powerful than a counterpower. This can be seen very simply: most people can not get an appointment with their congressional rep if they call and ask. Anyone above a certain income or prestige can. Always. And that is who runs the government. Elections matter to, but not as much as we are told to think. This is worse in the US than most of Europe, but it is true to some degree everywhere.

It seems similarly screwy to say that Uber is accountable to its shareholders/VCs, and not to the people. Yes, the owners have ultimate authority, but if people don't use the service, it's for naught. Right now, millions of people use Uber. Uber wants millions more to use Uber—if they don't the VCs lose their money. I see no indication that Uber is trying to market to the upper classes, or that an expansion of Uber services would preference the rich. Most major changes Uber has made recently have been tailored toward pushing down its prices. It is now cheaper to use Uber for many people than to own a car. If anything it seems that Uber is trying to cater to lower income clients as much as they can. Three years ago, Uber was an app for rich people to call limos. Now it is an app for anyone with a smart phone to pay $5 for a seat in a Corolla that runs kind of like a bus.

The point about poor people not having smartphones and credit cards seems overplayed. Smartphone ownership has skyrocketed. Prices have plummeted. You can now get a slow but usable Android phone for $60. Data plans have come down in price, though not as fast as one might hope, and they will probably continue to. Some regulation may help, but the market seems to be handling that OK.

As for credit/debit cards, this is also changing. Programs like Bank on SF make sure poor people can open bank accounts. Government benefits and even wages now often come on debit cards. The solution here is not to eliminate reliance on electronic payments, but to ensure that everyone can use them. Technology plays some role here, but so does regulatory change. Political efforts are better spent there than on resisting Uber.
posted by andrewpcone at 12:06 PM on August 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm all for these changes, but don't see how the public exercising its discretion over who uses the public roads is at odds with any of them. If anything, these are complementary approaches.

Sure, but we don't live in that world or one even close to it. The argument about how Uber Smart Routes fits into a wonderful, healthy, sustainable transportation system might be sort of interesting in the abstract, but it doesn't have much bearing on the current situation.

I think that pretty much anything that can entice people away from private car ownership is probably a pretty good thing. If we are shutting down other options in favour of forcing people to ride the bus if they want to ride cheaply, even when the bus sometimes really sucks, we are just pushing people back towards private car ownership. Let's make the bus better so that people want to ride it, not shut down other options so that people have to ride it.
posted by ssg at 12:46 PM on August 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Something i forgot to add, in response to the public transit comparison, is that at least from my Belltower, there IS massive support for transit and everyone has voted for it over and over... But that stuff doesn't happen instantly. It takes months of planning and leadup at a MINIMUM to even be started, and the real changes require serious infrastructure buildouts that are going to take half or even a whole decade. People here are cheering that an underground lightrail tunnel that connects a couple neighborhoods on one route is about to be finished. That's seen as a huge victory.

This isn't taking support away, the support is there. The problem is that a lot of times fixing bad public transit is like ordering a big flat of toilet paper online when you need to wipe your ass right now. You still gotta go to the bodega and buy a 6 pack of rolls to tide you over.

There's multiple trips you can make right now that are over an hour on the bus, but a 15-20 minute drive that would be less when the light rail is finished(and the buses revamped/increased, which they're also working on). But it's like... are you supposed to take really inefficient long trips just to reaffirm your status as a good supportive liberal? idgi. By the "if some people can't afford this, then we shouldn't have it" logic we should all donate our computers to charity and get off of metafilter. It's complete self flagellation.
posted by emptythought at 1:08 PM on August 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


andrewpcone: Saying that public transit systems are accountable to the people seems screwy to me. [...] It seems similarly screwy to say that Uber is accountable to its shareholders/VCs, and not to the people.

Neither is an absolute, but is there any argument that the level of accountability of a municipal transit agency to the public as a whole isn't higher than that of a for-profit enterprise? No matter how indirect the democratic process or how much one believes in letting the market decide, it's obvious that public transit operators have more of an obligation to serve the public than a company trying to make a buck. The notion that pursuit of profit can't possibly skew things in a way that doesn't line up with public preferences is one that isn't even worth engaging.

ssg: Sure, but we don't live in that world or one even close to it. The argument about how Uber Smart Routes fits into a wonderful, healthy, sustainable transportation system might be sort of interesting in the abstract, but it doesn't have much bearing on the current situation.

Wait, what? You're the one who raised the prospect of a healthy, sustainable transportation system (arrived at via nearly unthinkable increases to taxes and tolls) as a reason why we should curtail our skepticism about Uber competing with public transit. Either political realities matter or they don't.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:51 PM on August 29, 2015


While I can totally buy that Uber is seeking a monopoly through an Amazon-like strategy (run at a huge loss until everyone else goes out of business, then jack up prices), and I agree that prospect is scary, the "eroding support for effective public transit" thing strikes me as more truthy than true. A lot of people who rely heavily on transit still use cabs and ride-sharing services to fill in the gaps. I think it was on MeFi that I learned that it's actually pretty common for people who can't afford cars to use cabs to get their groceries home (something I do all the time, because I can afford a $10 cab way easier than gas, insurance, and a car payment -- but I thought I was weird for doing it until I read that). There are certainly libertarian douchelords who love Lyft/Uber unreservedly despite/because of their aggressive disdain for workers' rights, but those guys probably weren't in support of public transit in the first place.

That said, a bigger problem with ride-sharing in UberPOOL/Lyft Line in SF is that... it's actually often isn't that much better than Muni! I've experimented with both, and often the time savings are marginal for the increased price, and that price can still be major if you're going cross-town (Muni is $2.25 for any distance, but a cross-town Lyft Line can be $12). The transit time in particular is very high-variance, because you don't know where the second pick-up (if there is one) is going to be; even if the route you're taking is clear, you could still end up wasting 20 minutes going two blocks to pick up another passenger, because of course traffic is not uniform in all directions.

This means that the total travel time is very hard to predict, and unpredictability is death in terms of transit usefulness. If I don't know whether I'm going to get somewhere in 15 minutes or 40 minutes, I'm probably better off taking something that I know will take 30 minutes but costs way less, because then I can at least plan appropriately. And if my expected time savings is 10 minutes, is that really enough to justify spending literally five times as much (more if there's surge pricing)? Maybe Smart Routes will be better, but it seems like it has the same combined advantage/Achilles heel of route flexibility, so I'm skeptical.

I will admit that in certain situations this kind of ridesharing can be great, and unsurprisingly those are precisely the situations in which transit is awful: e.g., getting home at 2 am in SF or Boston, when you're tired and buses/trains are running either on very low-frequency timetables or not at all. Or connecting the dots between places that transit just plain doesn't go very often.

But ultimately, smart routes can't do much to fundamentally improve transportation within cities. Even ignoring their other problems (like unequal access), all they can do is put more vehicles on the road. But one of the main obstacles for effective transportation is actually congestion! And neither company has the power to, for example, restrict lanes of traffic to shared transit only. Neither company can build new infrastructure, like bridges and tunnels that allow transit. Neither company can set policy that gives people other options besides driving through the city center. Those are things that make huge impacts on transit, and they are things only government can accomplish.

I think it's worth remembering that carpooling and even self-driving cars will never have even a patch on a simple bus's "number-of-people-moved / space-taken-up-on-road" ratio. (And a subway train's ratio of course approaches infinity because it uses no road space, but even counting the length of the tunnel it's still even better than a bus's.) If self-driving cars started replacing buses I'd actually expect congestion to be substantially worse, simply because the amount of road space needed per individual would go up. Again, this seems like a problem that private industry cannot solve, even with a complete monopoly.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:33 PM on August 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


toncpsu:
Is there any argument that the level of accountability of a municipal transit agency to the public as a whole isn't higher than that of a for-profit enterprise?

Yes. Uber is directly accountable to its customers, who will pay them only if they like the service. That is a huge and very direct form of accountability. I wouldn't be *too* surprised if more people in SF had the Uber app installed than routinely vote. I concede that reliance on willingness to buy a service is not the *only* important kind of accountability, but it is a big one, which public transit comparatively lacks.

But that's not all. Uber also can be legislated out of existence if popular opinion turns against them. They exist at the pleasure of the political system, and while they have shown a willingness to disregard laws, they have gotten away with it only because laws restricting Uber enjoy essentially no popular mandate.

Compare to government-run transit. In some transit systems, the board of directors is elected. In most, it is appointed. Never are routes, policies, or fares decided by democratic process. Service changes are especially undemocratic. They are often announced on remarkably short notice, with no input from communities and only internal reports considering impact. Sometimes communities are offered alternatives and given the opportunity to comment. These meetings rarely impact policy, and are usually a venting/legitimizing fest.

That transit agencies are run by the government make them democratically accountable.
posted by andrewpcone at 5:42 PM on August 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


If we could subject California's public transit system to the same sort of insane referenda that we apply to the rest of the state government, hell yeah we should.

I think, along with the rest of the civil service, government bureaucracies are only in theory accountable to the people. But there's so many administrative layers between the voting booth and the actual regulatory agencies responsible, that it might as well not be democratic. And those agencies, not unlike private corporations, have their own agendas that seek self-perpetuation.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:34 PM on August 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Uber. Don't be Evil.

Yeah. We know how that worked out the last time.
posted by Beholder at 4:14 AM on August 30, 2015


. I don't know anyone who takes an uber/lyft, or only very rarely, if they could just take the bus.

I do! Plenty of people who will catch an Uber, or will take the Microsoft Shuttle, but wouldn't be caught dead in a bus.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 6:46 AM on August 30, 2015


Uber is directly accountable to its customers, who will pay them only if they like the service. [...] I concede that reliance on willingness to buy a service is not the *only* important kind of accountability, but it is a big one, which public transit comparatively lacks.

True story: people also pay to ride public transit. Fares generally only cover on average about 35-40% of the operating costs in the US (down in recent decades due to sprawl that reduces ridership per mile of travel), but if you're counting willingness to pay to ride for Uber, you have to factor that into the equation for public transit as well.

laws restricting Uber enjoy essentially no popular mandate.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I'm going to have to ask for a cite here. A recent poll in NYC showed a hostility toward a cap on the number of Uber drivers and a general feeling that de Blasio is biased against them due to contributions from the yellow cab industry, but results in Florida show a preference for more regulation. Meanwhile, a poll in Illinois that showed a preference for letting Uber operate with less regulation than yellow cabs was found to be a push poll commissioned by Uber with questions designed to provoke a pro-Uber response. If you have more evidence of your position that the public is hostile to regulating these services, please share it, but from what I've seen, the public's opinion toward Uber looks murky at best, and as such, your sweeping statement reeks of extrapolation from a data point or two that aligned with your first principles rather than a fair reading of the available facts.

Compare to government-run transit. In some transit systems, the board of directors is elected. In most, it is appointed. Never are routes, policies, or fares decided by democratic process. Service changes are especially undemocratic. They are often announced on remarkably short notice, with no input from communities and only internal reports considering impact. Sometimes communities are offered alternatives and given the opportunity to comment. These meetings rarely impact policy, and are usually a venting/legitimizing fest.

This is a mix of truths, half-truths, wild exaggerations, and falsehoods. It's true that boards are often appointed, making them less democratic. It's false that reports are only internal -- I only have experience in two cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) but in both cases, the municipal transit systems have made reports public in justifying service changes. It's true that the changes these boards make often go against the wishes of the public, but the boards are often responsive to public comment. Furthermore, the reason the boards are often acting in ways contrary to the public's wishes is that the public isn't funding them enough to sustain the levels of service the public wants. Given a choice between what the public is willing to pay for and what they want, the agencies obviously have to go the direction that keeps their budgets balanced.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:26 AM on August 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


If anything, I think you could argue that the problem with transit policy in SF is that it requires too much consensus to get anything effective done, and that individuals have too much veto power (e.g., Muni improvements being watered down because of opposition to removing parking spaces).
posted by en forme de poire at 12:27 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


And of course, to totally plagiarize stuff I read on Jarrett Walker's blog that I thought made a lot of sense, transit agencies often have to serve their communities in two separate ways, which can compete with each other: improving people's access to transit, and making transit more reliable/effective/fast. This is just intrinsically a tough problem to solve democratically -- for example, sometimes transit lines would be faster or more reliable if routes were altered or stops were removed, but in either case, some people are going to be negatively affected.

My bias is that lower-income people especially need transit to be reliable and fast. But of course, it definitely sucks for people with limited mobility to suddenly find themselves or their workplaces further away from their most-relied-on routes. Paratransit exists, but is way more of a pain in the butt than the local bus -- in SF you have to reserve it up days in advance and they only schedule pick-ups within an hour window -- so that's unlikely to be a solution for the people who are directly affected by route changes. ugh idk everything is hard.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:51 PM on August 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


I was messing around with the concept of ad-hoc busses a few years ago ... I got stuck trying to come up with a way to simulate a decent size of transport network. But basically the idea is similar to Uber but with more computational complexity:

You say to the service "I need to be at the airport at 11:00am" and the server says back to you "If you want to leave home at 09:00 and don't mind changing buses twice that'll cost you $20. If you want to leave at 10:30 and don't want to change at all, that'll cost you $100. Or various options in between."

So basically a continuum, from something that looks like a public bus which just happens to go past your house when you need it, through to a (perhaps shared) point-to-point taxi service.
posted by nickzoic at 10:38 PM on August 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


tonycpsu:

I did not claim the public was hostile toward regulating Uber. I claimed that laws restricting it enjoy essentially no popular mandate. In the examples you cite, people want to regulate Uber. I guess any regulation is in some sense restriction, but nothing in those links indicate that people want less of Uber's services. They just want Uber to be safe an accountable. Of course they do—that is sensible. I was referring to things like Portland's ban on Uber, or Seattle or NYC's attempt to cap the number of Uber licenses. These measures did not enjoy public support, and the politicians who came up with them ultimately backed down.

My experience with public transit comes mainly from Chicago, where service was slashed system wide in 2009 with only a few months notice and essentially no community process. People complained like crazy. I soon afterward went to two "community meetings" held by the CTA, one about service in the area generally, and another about a proposed rail line. At the meetings, no one was even so much as taking notes. CTA and CDOT officials responded to public comments, even very reasonable ones, with pre-canned answers and a sort of "you're stupid and I don't care" look on their faces. Lots of shouting. Then everyone left and as far as I know nothing changed.

It is true that the uglier service cuts are often the result of funding pressures. But that does not mean the process by which they are decided is democratic or publicly accountable. And the funding processes themselves are not particularly democratic. Capital expenditures usually involve the USDOT, which, while *ultimately* hired by the president and funded by Congress, is not a democratically responsive body at all. Transit funding at the state level is typically complicated and mired in political compromise, and empirically most of the voting public does not follow or understand it. So I don't think it can be called democratic, or presumed responsive to the public interest or will.

One exception here is transit bond issues, which are often voted on by the communities they will impact. I would agree that is a democratic process. Other things about government run transit, less so.
posted by andrewpcone at 10:34 AM on September 1, 2015




I did not claim the public was hostile toward regulating Uber. I claimed that laws restricting it enjoy essentially no popular mandate. In the examples you cite, people want to regulate Uber. I guess any regulation is in some sense restriction, but nothing in those links indicate that people want less of Uber's services. They just want Uber to be safe an accountable.

This is nothing more than hair splitting, and flies in the face of everything we know about markets, especially what we're told by folks who want to let the market decide. Complying with regulations, no matter how simple they may be, has a non-zero cost to both the business and the government that has to enforce them, which means that the choice to impose regulations/restrictions/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them is a conscious decision to have less of a good or service in exchange for that good or service being safer, the producers of that good or service more accountable to the public, etc.

If you want to shift the goalposts to "people don't support capping the number of drivers" then that's fine, but you have only one poll done in one city that supports that position, so I would choose to file that under "further study is needed", not the kind of thing one can base sweeping "no popular mandate" claims on.

My experience with public transit comes mainly from Chicago, where service was slashed system wide in 2009 with only a few months notice and essentially no community process. People complained like crazy.

Was it these cuts? If so, that was during the heart of the economic crisis, when tax revenues cratered and the agency lost 30% of its funding. If you're saying that the officials weren't responsive to specific requests to maintain specific routes for people who showed up to the meeting, well, then yeah, it's not that democratic, nor is it clear that it should be that democratic, as en forme de poire alludes to above.

But that does not mean the process by which they are decided is democratic or publicly accountable. And the funding processes themselves are not particularly democratic. Capital expenditures usually involve the USDOT, which, while *ultimately* hired by the president and funded by Congress, is not a democratically responsive body at all.

OK, if you're going to simply declare that the only things in our system that resemble democratic institutions at all aren't purely democratic, then I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had here. The will of the people through the political process is a blunt instrument, but it's all we've got short of letting the market do whatever it wants. I've shown that public transit agencies answer to both the farebox and the ballot box, you've shown that Uber answers to the paying customer but also has to follow rules set by the political process. I maintain that the former is a more genuine form of "democracy" that allows everyone to participate, you seem to lean more toward letting people vote with their dollars. We can go back and forth on this or we can simply agree to disagree, but you really ought to ease up on your sweeping generalizations and your use of the word "empirical" considering you've not bothered to cite any of your claims with anything except a personal anecdote of some meetings you showed up to.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:17 PM on September 1, 2015 [1 favorite]


but you really ought to ease up on your sweeping generalizations and your use of the word "empirical"

The only thing I claimed was "empirical" was that people generally do not follow or understand transit planning. The fact that transit meetings and the like that affect millions are attended by dozens indicates that the process is not widely inclusive or scrutinized. I have seen zero evidence, from you or elsewhere, that most or even many transit users have any idea how funding is allocated, routes are decided, etc, much less how they could participate.

As for the CTA cuts, it wasn't just that the community meetings had no input. It's that the decisions were made with no community input at all. They were simply announced. It was every bit as unilateral as a change in Uber's service.

I've shown that public transit agencies answer to both the farebox and the ballot box

No you haven't. You've simply asserted it. You did give two examples of transit agencies heeding rider input. But this does not prove that the ballot box was the mechanism here. Nor do I see any reason to believe a private operator, motivated by maximizing farebox dollars, would have behaved much differently.

I would be convinced if you could think of any examples in which a transit official, having failed to heed public opinion, resigned or was fired, and then replaced by someone who reversed their decision. I might even be convinced by an example in which a transit official appeared to act out of fear of that happening. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work. I think it sometimes *does* work that way, even in systems as screwy and monied as the US. But that just doesn't seem to be the case with transit.

you've shown that Uber answers to the paying customer but also has to follow rules set by the political process. I maintain that the former is a more genuine form of "democracy" that allows everyone to participate, you seem to lean more toward letting people vote with their dollars.

This "everyone to participate" claim is vastly more sweeping and general than anything I've said. Even if you believe transit agencies are more democratically responsive than private providers, they certainly don't answer to "everyone" (again, consider meeting attendance and comment volume as a fraction of ridership). Even among those who show up, it's pretty clear that some people's "public comments" matter vastly more than others.

But yeah, I think you've accurately characterized the disagreement. I think that market mechanisms operating under prominent (esp local) political scrutiny are often better at delivering popular outcomes than government run agencies. Given that Uber employs, serves, and otherwise tangibly affects a significant share of some cities' population, it seems inevitable that it will continue to face regulatory scrutiny.

My prediction (and hope) is that Uber ends up like a power company: privately operated, but regulated in such a way that major service changes need regulatory review.
posted by andrewpcone at 2:44 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


I didn't say everyone participates, I said everyone has an opportunity to participate, which is simply not the case with Uber, where the only input you have is whether to use the service or not. Nothing in any of your responses refutes my claim that public transit agencies are more democratic, only that they aren't purely democratic, or that not enough people avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in the process.

I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with your demands to support claims that I'm not actually making. With that said, it sounds like we would both be pleased with an end state where Uber operates as a publicly-regulated utility, so let's close on that point of agreement.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:21 AM on September 3, 2015


I think in theory public transit agencies are more democratic, but just like with town hall meetings and the very act of voting there's enough bureaucratic roadblocks and citizen apathy to make them less effective than a high profile private entity that's closely regulated by the government.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:50 PM on September 3, 2015


What Makes Uber Run
I spent five months interviewing dozens of Kalanick’s current and former ­associates—investors, employees, coworkers, friends—and, of course, the man himself, trying to square the Kalanick they know with the avatar for Silicon Valley disruption. Uber and Kalanick’s next-step plans are shocking to contemplate: conquering the world’s biggest and toughest-to-crack markets in India and China; transforming Uber from "everyone’s private driver" into a carpooling service; and then further reinventing itself—and how the world’s cities operate—by introducing a fleet of autonomous vehicles. If you want to get your head around Uber’s wild growth, and its even wilder potential, you have to get to know its wildly ambitious, ever-restless CEO.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:31 PM on September 8, 2015


« Older You have to learn to love the bomb.   |   Watch the skies Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments