In Brooklyn, Uber is now bigger than taxis
toddwschneider.com
toddwschneider.com
In reality though, taxis need to fix a few issues:
1. I don't need to be able to hail a cab anywhere--I can't really hail Ubers, either. But if I call a cab, I'd like to have them show up within, say, 15 minutes. The reality is that the explicit promise given by dispatchers is usually an hour, and after an hour, the taxi often doesn't show up. And if I am in an inconvenient area, the time I most need to call a cab, that increases the chances of lateness or no-shows. This could be fixed by fining taxis for lateness or no-shows.
2. Auto-playing ads in taxis. The last thing I want after a long day is a screen yelling at me about some TV show I would rather have a root canal than watch. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that Uber will add ads than that taxis will get rid of them, and I don't see a way to prevent this. Advertising ruins everything.
3. Taxis that will actually take you somewhere inconvenient without a fight. When I lived in Flatbush, most cab rides started off with me having to threaten to call 311 to get them to take me home.
4. Racism. As a white person in a black neighborhood, I've watched black people try to flag cabs and almost universally the cabs just drive past empty. I've gotten in the habit of flagging cabs for black people, and even after the cab stops, sometimes when they realize that it's a black person getting in the cab instead of me, they drive off.
Good on you. This is terrible - I've never been to NYC but I always hear from black people down there how difficult it is to flag a cab. Wasn't aware that it was still happening to this extent in 2016. The fact that the cab stops and then it drives away right after they find out it's not you entering is disgusting. To be honest I'd rather they drive away than I give my hard earned money to a person or corporation that clearly looks down on me and hates me to such an extent that they are willing to NOT take my money. You say Uber offers a solution to this - what is it? Meh, maybe I'm pessimistic but I don't believe any company (not even AirBnb) can provide enough incentives to mitigate this kind of stuff happening.
With Uber/Lyft/Juno etc, there's at least some accountability for the driver. NYC's 311 process isn't enough to deter cabbies that just don't want to pick up black people.
Drivers don't get to pick and choose their fares, and canceling a fare after assignment counts against the driver - do it too much and you get kicked off Uber completely.
Uber does some incredibly dodgy things, but on this front they are an absolute and unalloyed improvement over the previous status quo.
They can't stop it altogether, but certainly they can and will mitigate it. We can't stop murder and rape, but we do work hard to mitigate them.
This is actually one of most convincing pro-Uber comments I've ever seen.
You also got the business aspect totally backwards. Very few taxi drivers own their own medallions so the money almost always flows to a rent-seeking corporation anyways, and at least Uber drivers don't have to rent the medallion each day - if they want to leave early they aren't under any penalty. Taxi drivers pay ~$200 a day to rent their medallion - if they don't make more than that, they've worked all day for a loss.
If you support taxi companies you're abusing the drivers by perpetuating a broken system.
That's half of what I said. I also described why I want to support the current system.
> Taxi drivers pay ~$200 a day to rent their medallion - if they don't make more than that, they've worked all day for a loss.
So is the solution to that reform of the medallion system, or is it switching over to a silicon valley startup which will likely become just as exploitative if it isn't already?
> If you support taxi companies you're abusing the drivers by perpetuating a broken system.
If you support Uber, you're abusing the drivers by replacing a broken system with another broken system.
I don't want to support taxi companies, I want to support taxi drivers.
I'll say it again: if you remove all the nuance from what I'm saying, you can use my words to support anything, but I'm not really interested in engaging in this hamfisted debate.
Right "Local business owners". But Taxi drivers aren't. They're contractors without any of the benefits of being an employee, or of owning the business. Uber drivers meet all those criteria and more.
Taxi drivers pay to rent their medallion, guaranteeing the rent-seeking owner their profits even on days when the poor driver goes negative. Uber drivers don't even get in their cars until the app lights up. Taxi businesses are clearly predatory and wouldn't be allowed if they were proposed today.
I'm not saying the rent seeking is good--on the contrary, I think it's very bad. But the fact is that your views on which is better for drivers are not shared by drivers. You're also only looking at the current situation--I have a lot more trust that taxi laws can be reformed than that a large amoral corporation whose business is built around loopholes in regulation will self-regulate against their own interests. Even if you think Uber is better for drivers now, I doubt that will be the case for long.
Taxi companies are large amoral corporations too. And if we were going to reform Taxi law (not to build higher walls, but to help drivers) we'd have done it a century ago, so I question that trust.
> the fact is that your views on which is better for drivers are not shared by drivers.
> Even if you think Uber is better for drivers
Which drivers? The Uber drivers I've talked to have liked the easy hours and no-hassle shift selection - including the ability to wait for surge pricing. They love the risk-free factor in that they get a percentage of every dollar earned, without having to hit a minimum like a cabbie. (Not to mention the concept of going in the hole.) None of them considered themselves a career driver, they all have a reason for being between other jobs.
I've spoken to two groups of cabbies, those who rent a medallion, and those who own (a share of) a medallion. The owners dislike Uber in the same way they'd dislike a new competitor coming in and doubling the number of cabs in the city. The renters see Uber/Lyft/etc as just another boss.
I've never talked to an employee driver who was upset by ridesharing companies.
I'd just like to another: The confidence of knowing that the driver will get me where I need to go. I have, on more than one occasion, gotten in a cab in Williamsburg (which is in Brooklyn), asked to go to Park Slope (also in Brooklyn) and after staring at my phone for a while, looked up to find myself on a bridge headed to Manhattan (not in Brooklyn and not on the way between the two).
With Uber, I punch in my destination before even getting in the car and they just follow GPS. No cabbies that don't know the city making mistakes and no sitting in unnecessary traffic jams that technology could have helped me avoid.
Now when I'm in a proper cab, I have to be on constant high alert to make sure that they're going the right way if not giving them turn-by-turn directions on my own.
I had an Uber in SF make a wrong turn onto the bridge to Oakland so he stopped the "meter" and at least I didn't have to pay for it.
With a Taxi it'd be my word against theirs, and the police would take their side. I'd be out the extra fare until I could sue the taxi company and I'd have to hope they didn't delete the video which is my only proof. No thanks.
Uber is often locally-owned to the same extent. In both cases, the driver is your neighbor. Uber takes its cut, but the taxi medallion owner who rents the car to the driver might be taking a much bigger cut. Every driver I've met who has made the switch from taxi to Uber/Lyft says they're happier now and earning more.
The only folks you should feel sad about are the drivers who decided to take a loan to buy their own medallion. Those are the folks who need a hand because of the catastrophic collapse of their investment. But hey, that's what bankruptcy is for. Do you feel like failed restauranteurs deserve a bailout?
This was true initially, but is no longer true. Many drivers are switching back, or switching to Gett.
> The only folks you should feel sad about are the drivers who decided to take a loan to buy their own medallion. Those are the folks who need a hand because of the catastrophic collapse of their investment. But hey, that's what bankruptcy is for. Do you feel like failed restauranteurs deserve a bailout?
Medallions are form of corruption mandated by the city. That's a little different from a failed restaurant.
Must be a different city. I've never heard of that one.
> different from a failed restaurant
Depending on the city, a liquor license can cost hundreds of thousands, much like a taxi medallion. Seems about the same to me.
Before ridesharing became common, I had the same experience flagging cabs for black people. One time I watched several cabs drive past a young black woman with a child in a stroller. I stood slightly up the block from her, and flagged a cab for her. The cabbie drove off with their trunk open after they realized that I had flagged them for the mother rather than for myself.
I've actually experienced problems getting Ubers and Lyfts in my neighborhood as well though. I live close to a highway, and I'll often get drivers who are on the highway heading westbound, towards one of the wealthiest suburbs in the Chicago area. I'll watch on my map as they "miss" several exits in a row and keep heading west. I've kept my map open long enough to watch them get off on the exit for the nice suburb. With Lyft and Uber, I have a recourse though, because I know their name, and I can watch where they actually end up.
I've noticed that as time has gone on, more and more of the drivers are from my neighborhood or other similar neighborhoods nearby. This has become one of my favorite things about ride sharing. My neighborhood has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the United States. In certain areas, more than half of the young adult males are unemployed. Lyft and Uber, and the gig economy, have created access to economic opportunities that they wouldn't have otherwise had.
That being said, I think "gig employment" is a poor replacement for normal (W4) jobs, since they don't come with the same legal protections and benefits.
Only as long as drivers are needed.
This is an interesting read on the medallion/leasing system if anyone is interested:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/taxicab-med...
Out of curiosity, who are you calling that has these long response times? This reads strangely since you're saying cab/taxi, yet there's no way to call for an NYC yellow cab on the phone... only car services, which are independent companies.
In my experience, nearby Brooklyn car services send cars in 5 to 10 minutes in neighborhoods closer to Manhattan, or maybe around 15 minutes in more far-flung neighborhoods where the car services have smaller fleets. You just have to figure out which car services are physically located in the neighborhood you're in. e.g. call Arecibo from Park Slope where they're based, but don't call them from Coney Island because it's unlikely any of their drivers are there at the moment.
There's just no comparison here.
Recommended pickup locations -> No longer door to door?
Assigning next rides before the previous one has completed -> No longer "feeling like a baller" while your driver is fielding calls from other customers with you still in the car
Wait times have been getting demonstrably worse all over Manhattan, probably elsewhere too
General quality of car/driver has been in decline since Uber started, in part precisely because of their putting cabs out of business. What's your cab driver going to do when he decides it's not worth driving a cab anymore because of Uber? Duh, work for Uber.
There's no comparison right now, but there will be soon.
I'm never going to use Uber again except for business travel due to their nice tie-in with business accounts. Personal travel? Nope. In NYC I use Juno and elsewhere I'll use Lyft, Hailo, or any number of local alternatives.
> There's no comparison right now, but there will be soon.
The things that I just listed are the things that are already happening, and their VCs haven't even started demanding their money back. And this is all if everything goes swimmingly for them. No massive regulatory hits, no demands for insurance, no declaration that drivers are employees, etc.
Taxi drivers less frequently ask me overly personal questions. Taxi drivers in general don't seem to give a fuck about their customers, and I've come to appreciate that. When I'm hailing a ride, chances are I'm not interested in exchanging life stories, or being impressed by how cool my driver is.
In a crowded city, the distance is welcome.
edit: one more thing -- Taxi drivers invariably know the roads better. Sometimes that doesn't matter. But in the event of traffic problems, or if you're really in a rush, it helps tremendously.
Above is applicable only if you use UberPool. It's a great way to save money.
To be clear, I'm not talking about someone joining your UberPool ride. I'm cool with that, I chose Pool after all. I'm talking about how now, Uber will assign your current driver to his next rider before your ride has ended. As in, he will drop you off and he will already have been assigned the next rider to pick up.
I like the optimization, I don't like the fact that then the next rider will start calling the driver asking where he is/why he's going this direction/why he's taking so long etc.
The UI does show you if the driver is finishing a ride near you, but it doesn't tell you to meet him at their dropoff point. It also tries to recommend known "visible" pickup locations along the street where you're calling from, but you can always specify your own location.
Do either of these things sound like what you're thinking of...?
Ever consider what that means on the opposite end? Let's say you're an inpatient person (not a rarity in Manhattan). What happens when you call your Uber driver? Shockingly, he must now answer a call with another rider in the car. Effectively: making the ride less safe, making the ride less personal, cutting off any conversation, cutting off last minute "drop off" instructions like "under this red sign on the left" and generally degrading the entire experience.
And yes it is currently a recommended pickup spot for UberX. Thus why I said "Recommended pickup locations." Do you think it will stay that way? Given all the aforementioned stressors on Uber's monetization strategy, I highly, highly doubt it.
> Recommended pickup locations -> No longer door to door?
is not currently true for uberX. If you're inferring that uber is headed that way, well, maybe. But it's not so presently.
Then, when I was approaching my destination, some other people on the sidewalk were looking at their phone, and signaled to the driver. The driver pulled over next to them, I got out, the other people looked slightly confused someone was getting out of their Uber, and they got in.
That's barely different from the usual experience where the driver is jabbering away in Kreyol or Punjabi on his headset while the customer is in the back seat trying to tune it out.
UberBlack is fine as always, you get what you pay for.
Drivers are getting consistently worse - both in knowledge of streets and in general behavior. I'm a bit sympathetic - they're getting squeezed hard by Uber and the system can be draconian - but the reality is that I get more asshole behavior from UberX drivers nowadays than I do from yellow cabs, which are at least consistent in their mediocrity.
I feel like UberX is going to go down as a brief, glimmering moment when ridehailing was cheap and good, before economic reality picked one of the above, not both.
They're becoming just like the cabs they replaced, just without the brightly colored paint jobs.
Self-driving taxi legislature, on the other hand, will be a different can of worms.
In our current economic system, no city in its right mind will be interested in seeing robots funnel money directly from its residents to a VC fund.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BK0z7oZgOia7zfdlJ4ygJqEDBW8e17lq...
Reinvesting in owning a market that is literally an app install away from someone else stealing your lunch is not reinvesting. That's just burning cash.
Clever strategy.
What barrier do you think is there?
Why should I waste time tapping on a different app, waiting for it to load, tapping through the destination, etc.? The estimated wait times aren't accurate to the minute, so +/- the error they are almost always equivalent. Enough so that checking the other app feels like a waste of time. In the time it took to load the other app, I could have been waiting for the car to arrive. It's not worth the mental energy to choose.
Further, Uber has a prepay promotion. I pay an amount at the beginning of the month to avoid surge charges and get a discount through the rest of the month. I'm basically locked-in for any month that I prepay.
As mentioned elsewhere, I use Juno almost exclusively in NYC when traveling for personal reasons. How did I end up using Juno?
First, I was offered a steep discount via beta invite. By whom? My Uber driver. Problem 1. I sat on the invite for a few weeks through which I had numerous bad experiences with Uber (long wait times, bad drivers, second riders calling while I was in the car, etc.) Problem 2.
I called an Uber and it gave a 15 minute pickup time. Problem 3. I cancelled, found the Juno invite, downloaded the app, made an account, and was in a car within 10 minutes. Problem 4. The Juno driver and car was better than most recent Uber rides, the app was just as good as Uber's, and it cost me about 70% of the money. Problem 5.
So what exactly is Uber buying with these promotions? Another week of sub-15 minute pickup times by overworking their drivers? They're certainly not buying loyalty, nor any meaningful market share. No matter what they do, I'm <10 minutes from a competitor's car.
As the service degrades in order to meet profitability demands (you do believe in basic finance: money in minus money out, right?), the calculus turns ever towards the competitor's favors. These young competitors are simply doing what young Uber did to the cabs: attract higher quality drivers in higher quality cars and higher quality riders, subsidize the hell out of it, and then figure out what to do.
They probably won't last either, but then none of them have to justify a $50bn valuation with a moonshot bet on technology that's not even close to being able to support the core of their business.
I'm not talking about a give-away. A prepay program is similar to an airline loyalty program. Delta can charge me higher ticket fares than a competing airline on the same route, because it's good for me to consolidate my "miles" with one airline. Now that I'm "elite" they can manipulate my ego and get me to pay more so I have a chance at a "free" upgrade to a fancy seat.
If Uber can convince me to prepay, they don't need to compete on price or wait time for the rest of the month. It only needs to be a good enough value to convince me to prepay again the next month.
Going back to the airlines, that industry is quite similar to Uber's. Sure, there's the capital investment in airplanes, but that can be financed with debt or equity. There's negotiating terminal space, but again, that's just money. No barrier to entry there either. Now, the airline industry is a good example of a place it's tough to make money. "How do you make a million bucks? Start with a billion and start an airline." But the airlines are still around. Not sure why Uber is different from Delta.
I've got a bridge to sell you.
No point in discussing this further, really.
If a barrier to entry is just financial, it's no barrier at all.
Let's think through the dynamics of the situation you describe. You say Uber is doomed because competition is too fierce. Yet you say the competitors are also doomed. Somebody will go bankrupt first. That will reduce competition and profits will go up. Maybe another competitor shows up and it's back to doomed. But then they go out of business, too. Eventually, people will stop entering this doomed industry and if Uber is still around, it'll start turning a profit. Every industry goes through times of competition and times of consolidation.
In the valley this is the most effective way to raise money.
That is what it is, but the larger point I think it inspires, as does your post, is that I can't see how Uber can possibly claim that it's going to be able to generate some kind of monopoly profits from the whole endeavor.
Theoretically the whole point of all this insane fundraising and spending is that Uber will, one day, be in some dominant and unassailable position, and can raise prices. But that doesn't make any sense, they're increasingly making it clear that they have a commodity product at best. How they plan to defend that as a monopoly is a mystery.
And let's talk about self driving cars when there's at least one single car somewhere in the world that actually can drive itself somewhere without a driver present. Until that day, which is likely in the semi-distant future, we're talking about the economics and practical effects of an app based car and driver hailing service.
And lastly, it's probably worth noting the parent commenter posting multiple times in this thread defending the company actually works for Uber, and has a HN posting history almost entirely composed of defending the companies who pay him: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonbarone
Also, every uber driver I had when visiting virginia would ask me how to get where I wanted to go. I would have to tell them that I have no idea, and then we'd get lost.
I guess I assume that these drivers would eventually get weeded out thanks to the rating system, but since the system isn't anonymous, I think most people rate 5 stars no matter what.
They don't know who rated them what. All they know is their average over the last 500 riders.
"Uber operating at huge losses... service worse and worse." I don't agree here, the service is much better than before. Even with the introduction of uberpool, the service has stayed nearly the same for me in NY, and especially here in SF, while the cost has cut over 50% or more. If you follow Uber closely you can see they're investing into the company to continue to grow. You can see them experimenting with new products and services. UberEATS [1] (leveraging the same tech and driver network), San Francisco flat rate subscriptions [2], and self-driving cars [3]. Lyft and other competitors are followers at this point and are trying to compete by burning capital on huge ad-buys. Uber is significantly ahead.
"No longer door to door." This is to better connect both parties in the pickup and drop off. I've been using this non-stop in SF, it's more efficient and safe for the rider. It's also safer for the driver and helps them avoid getting tickets that ruin a driver's week.
"Feeling like a baller." There are still other products for these if you want privacy and better service. If your driver isn't giving you the expected service you can rate them accordingly.
"General quality has been declining." This shouldn't be the case. Uber has strict vehicle requirements in all cities that drivers must follow. Uber also connect drivers to fleet partners, rental partners and new and pre-owned vehicles during the signup process. If anything, the cars will get even better as they deprecate older models.
"What's your cab driver going to do...?" He will work for Uber, but again he will follow Uber's vehicle requirements.
Also worth asking: Are the price reductions you've seen real, or the result of burning dumpsters of cash in the price war with Lyft?
Agreed that the cab experience is about half as good, but for about the same price.
Really a no-brainer. Everyone here uses AND loves Uber. I and a lot of my friends spend at least $100/mo outside of work commute costs.
source: I'm a black person in Brooklyn.
Maybe its different in the boroughs?
Anecdotally I'd estimate there's a 1 in 3 chance of the driver either driving off/refusing the route, having a "broken meter/card machine", but will take (a large amount of) cash or (if you appear to be from out of town) taking a ridiculously long route.
I got the broken credit card at least twice, both in a yellow cab and green cab coming into Manhattan. I had cash on me and didn't complain until I later found out they're not supposed to do that.
I'm surprised you haven't gotten dirty cabs. I'm certainly not the type that has to be in some spotless car, but I honestly can't remember seeing a clean cab back in NY. The days following a rain storm are the absolute worse too as the floors and seat backs often covered in mud. I think the worst are broken A/C or window-down cabs in 90 degree summer. Those things smell horrible.
Again, I'm not picky by any means but using Uber was better in almost every way for me in NY and I stopped using cabs immediately.
If convenience, comfort, and customer service are not a priority, and I just need to get somewhere fast, the taxi is still the way to go.
I never imagined navigation apps could suck like that! I have no love for Uber, but I always imagined any navigation app will on average outperform even a knowledgeable driver.
I remember this one time in an uberX where the driver missed the Manhattan Bridge onramp turnoff 3 times in a row and had to circle around. The GPS directions were good, but inexperience also includes being unprepared to execute the directions given to you.
> I always imagined any navigation app will on average outperform even a knowledgeable driver.
On average, probably. Worst case and on-average aren't the same thing, though.
The iPhone and higher end Samsung devices definitely have more accurate GPS chipsets built in and were doing a way better job of keeping track of where we were.
A knowledgeable driver might know to make a right turn at an earlier intersection, whereas the navigation apps do not always account for this.
The cab driver doesn't want a bad-smelling, filthy cab either; they work in it, it affects their income, and the great majority are responsible, reasonable people.
Why would anyone believe otherwise? I think there's some class-based stereotyping here - maybe not in the parent comment, but in these comments generally - cabs are working class, Uber is professional class. Working class is the 'other' to many professional people; something foreign, unknown, and scary.
Green taxis, a new category, are only permitted to pick up hails outside of lower Manhattan. They're useful for going between outer boroughs but are reluctant or unwilling to take you to lower Manhattan because they can't pick up a hail there.
There is also another, long-standing category known as "car service", where a central dispatcher reached by phone sends you a towncar/minivan/SUV either at a scheduled time (say, for an early flight or your regular work commute), or as soon as possible. Like Uber, they may have an "account" for you so you don't need to provide payment information to the driver, but nowadays many of them have Stripe too. Prices are arguably better for airport rides than cabs.
I live in Central Brooklyn and my impression is that there are far more Uber "U"s than any of the other categories, at least in my neighborhood.
Manhattan 2006: http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-2475317-stock-footage...
Manhattan now(ish): http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.12078243.1469201706!/ht...
If you were to teleport a Manhattanite from 2006 to 2016 I think they'd be shocked to see the large number of non-yellow cabs on NYC streets.
Regardless of how you feel about Uber-the-entity, the mark it's made on NYC streets is undeniable.
"If you were to teleport a Manhattanite from 2006 to 2016 I think they'd be shocked to see the large number of non-yellow cabs on NYC streets."
They would be shocked? Shocked to see the presence of something that didn't even exist a decade earlier?
What might "astonish" a Manhattanite is the fact that there are there are so many more taxis on the street now than there were is 2006, and this increase is year over year for the last decade. Example in 2014 there 48,580 taxis in 2015 the last year for which there is data there were 63,261 taxis. It's never been easier to get a cab.
source city data: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/hail_market_analys...
Worse, there's a $1 'gas surcharge' for every single ride that was voted in a few years back when gas prices got high. So, a 8 block ride in a Prius means I have to pay an extra $1 in gas? Its incredible how corrupt the entire system is, especially considering how the meters here run on both time and distance and a tip is expected. What should be a $5 ride via a sharing service like uber, turns out to be $10+ with tip and charges. That's on top of inconveniences like loud auto-playing ads in the back of the taxi and constantly being pressured to pay cash or with the driver's swipe account on their personal cell phone (not sure if this is easily read by card reader apps, but shortly after I do this I often have fraud warnings).
Thus far our uber rides have been pretty low stress and problem-free. Its mostly younger people from the suburbs looking to make some extra cash. I think driver screening and taking complaints seriously is something uber can do to differentiate itself. I'd say a good 25% of cab drivers in the city have serious mental health issues, if not are wanna-be criminals, and should not be allowed behind the wheel. I think the narrative of safety is often ignored with the cab vs uber debate, but its important to many.
"October 12, 2015 marked the first day that Uber made more pickups in Brooklyn than yellow and green taxis combined."
First of yellow cabs don't operate in Brooklyn, the only way to get a yellow cab in Brooklyn is to happen to catch one who just finished dropping someone off on a Manhattan to Brooklyn fare and happens to have his "on duty light on." The will generally on put this light on if they aren't too far into Brooklyn as they don't want to continue further in.
Yes there are geen "Boro cabs" that were introduced in 2013 but even these underserve much of the outer boroughs so again this says less about Uber and more about the Boro Taxis failings in Brooklyn. Source:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/new-yorks-green-cabs-stay...
When I was in Miami, I decided to use a cab from the airport instead of an uber, because the cab was already there. The seatbelts in the back seat didn't work, which the driver assured me was legal in miami. It is legal, but definitely not preferable. He drove me to my hotel, told me the price was 35 dollars, which seemed a little steep, so I checked the meter and found that he hadn't run it. I guess he drove me to the hotel and thought to himself "That felt like about 35 bucks".
When I took an uber from my hotel to the airport a few days later, it was 10 dollars, and the seatbelts worked fine.
The second one, just a few weeks ago, is only related to price. Richmond airport taxi ride to short pump, 70 dollars. Uber from short pump back to the airport? 30.
I understand that uber is operating at a loss, but that still makes it cheaper for users, so just because it's likely going to cost more in the future, isn't going to stop me from using it now.
For one it usually costs less. And two, depending on where you live there is no guarantee a taxi is around the corner. Uber is more convenient.
Exactly. You go to a warehouse party in East Williamsburg and it's 5 AM and feel like going home. The public transit situation in Brooklyn would make that trip take a while (wait 20 minutes for the L, get off, wait 20 minutes for the G, or alternatively wait an hour for the next bus). And what kind of yellow cab is going to hang around an industrial district waiting for a fare? Uber wins every time.
It's the density thing. The taxi model works well enough in Manhattan because there are enough people around the hot spots to provide off-the-street fares. A lot of things that work in Manhattan don't always transfer easily to the lower-density reality of the rest of the city/country.
In the past, you had to leave your dwelling to venture out into the streets, looking for the auto-rickshaws ("tuk-tuk"s). Then you had to haggle with them about the price (no one used a meter). Then, only if they felt like it was worth it, they'd agree to take you there.
With uber, you tap the app and the ride appears outside your door. No haggling about the fare. Since Uber pays them by the ride (and not the distance), it's in their interest to get you to your destination faster. And my Uber app that I installed in US worked flawlessly. All in all, it made taking taxis a totally different experience.
Uber offers $5 shared rides anywhere in Manhattan during communing hours.
There is no way that Uber is not losing money on $5 rides.
There was some good discussion on the NYC subreddit when Uber rolled this out, and the general consensus was against it (including people who used it). Manhattan traffic during rush hour is awful - a cab is already likely slower than the train, even without the additional pooled passengers.
Add the pooled passengers and suddenly your commute becomes a full-hour affair - and some users reported exactly this sort of duration just getting from the UES to Midtown.
IMO the (genuine, deserved) popularity of ride-hailing around the US is less a validation of that specific transportation model and more an indictment of our utter failure to produce working mass transit. Where we have effective mass transit (and the MTA isn't even that good) the value proposition of ride hailing starts to fall apart. Ride-hailing is a local maxima, not a global maxima of transportation.
There are parts of Manhattan that are not well served by the subway.
Uber goes out of its way to say it doesn't care about workers, my community, or our rules. Why should I care about them?
Edit: also worth noting that green cab drivers often drive for Uber/Lyft as well. It makes a lot more sense for them since they're typically owner-operators.
Concentration of green cabs scales with gentrification - Brooklyn has gentrified to a greater degree than Queens.
It's also worth noting and evident on the map I linked to that when people talk about Brooklyn in many contexts(uber, hipsters, nightlife etc.) they are only ever talking about a small subset of Brooklyn which is strip generally nearer river that extends from Greenpoint to Redhook. They are almost never talking about the majority of Brooklyn - East New York, Dyker Heights, Canarsie , the Flatlands etc. Brooklyn as the city's largest borough is huge. Brooklyn is actually the 4th largest city in the U.S.
A more interesting comparison would be Uber to Gipsy/black cars. Those are going down in droves as the drivers move on to Uber and Lyft. Not a big impact for the drivers themselves, I suppose, but I've seen a lot of those little, "local" black car telephone stations closing down. No point in calling someone and waiting an indeterminate amount of time for a car when you can use an app and see where the guy is.
That impact is probably just much harder to measure though since everything, especially the payment, is a lot more informal.
These small black car businesses were often very personable if you had an account or even used the same number consistently to book drivers.
I know Uber hired theses sorts of companies to staff in the first few years. I wonder if they realize that by doing that they put themselves out of business, and how much of that capital has left the local economy.
I feel like there has been a post like this on the front page of HN every day for the past couple years.
Also, airport-related taxes are disproportionately paid by visitors, rather than residents.
I wasn't referring to airport-related taxes, I was referring to the taxi surcharge to take a taxi to the airport during rush hours. Of course airport related taxes are disproportionately paid by visitors. Its one of the most visited places in the world. Why is that relevant?
Who pays airport-related taxes is relevant to this conversation - you were talking about residents getting tax-gouged when they had to go to the airport.
And while you can take two trains to get JFK you can take no trains to LaGuardia. So yes a rush hour surcharge to take a taxi to the airport is insulting.
You don't need a separate rail system to take you around Kennedy airport like you do Dallas Fort Worth or Heathrow as its far more compact. A stop within the airport and people movers would have been sufficient. And this proposal of extending into the aiport was on the table at one point within the Port Authority.
The metro has three stations at the airport, and the national railway network also has three. Using either system within the airport is free.
There are shuttle trains to travel within terminal 5. I guess that shows how huge the airport is.
If you use a pay-per-ride metrocard, this can be used for AirTrain. It's only the monthly unlimited that does not.
The E train isn't the only option; the A train connects to AirTrain, as does the J/Z. But personally I take the LIRR -- it's more expensive but much faster and more pleasant. At rush hour it's typically faster than a cab, and more reliable / less variance in travel time.
Yes, you're technically correct that there's no one-seat ride to your terminal. But this is the case in some other cities as well.
Besides, that vote was massively skewed by all the city's propaganda about driver-rape which is less of an issue than choking on party balloons while blowing out birthday candles.