In SF a bus ride used to cost 2.25$, and I think it’s now 2.50$.
Lyft line most of the time is 4$ + 1$ for an extra passenger. Uber is probably similar and perhaps cheaper, I don’t know.
In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore.
Lyft line most of the time is 4$ + 1$ for an extra passenger. Uber is probably similar and perhaps cheaper, I don’t know.
In short, there’s no benefit in using busses anymore.
$4 doesn't get you far in SF, but if you do pay that rate to go across town, just know that you're not paying your fair share to support the driver, maintain the roads, and are probably inconveniencing other drivers and cyclists more than if you were using a bus. Which is fine — but if you then go and argue that this is a reason to never support public transportation, you're just buying into the Lyft/Uber marketing.
Except these rides are still heavily subsidized and are more expensive than the bus at this subsidized rate.
What buses are subsidizing are the unpopular bus routes, the ones whose goal is to increase mobility for those who would otherwise not have it, such as night routes or relatively infrequent peak-hour commuter routes. Those cost a lot to run, and ride-hailing has the luxury of not having to run those routes.
I think in the discussion about costs we forget that public transit is, first and foremost, a public service.
It might make sense for some cities to stop running buses on those routes and instead pay a private company. Imagine being able to book an Uber or Lyft ride and still only paying the $2.50 fare. Maybe it would be cheaper for the city and more convenient for users?
It's been proved that buses _can_ work without subsidy. It hasn't yet been proved that Uber and Lyft can.
Suggesting Uber's only able to price this way to due to investors subsidizing the price is to suggest the corporate side of the business can't make a profit from that 20% alone, which seems difficult to believe. If public transit advocates are expecting this is just a speculation-filled bubble, they might want to re-assess.
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-cut-does-Uber-take-fro...
If you're going somewhere for an appointment and can get back within 90 minutes it's $2.50 vs. over $12. The bus-only lanes are also beneficial if they exist on your route as traffic has gotten a lot worse, in part due to ridesharing. In addition to that, because traffic is horrible, line/pool rides take forever if you're going anywhere downtown during the day and the driver needs to pick up additional riders who aren't exactly along your route (even 1 block away can add 10 minutes). So if you are time-sensitive, you'll likely need a solo-ride which is more like $15+ one-way.
The big downside is obviously the poor experience with public transport... lots of homeless / crazy people taking free rides, dirty buses/trains, cramped spaces, too many stops, etc.
There's several benefits I find that lead me to favor buses more often than not:
1. Bus is far cheaper than what you listed as you can use pre-tax money. Many companies offer a transit subsidy, making it free.
2. Buses can be faster depending on wait time, going out of the way overhead, and dedicated bus lanes.
3. Legal to transport a toddler on a bus without bringing a car seat.