Insurance, parking, fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and random events add up. If you don't need it for commuting, most of the recurring rideshare costs vanish.
If you need to make an extra long occasional trip, car rental for a day or two outweighs ownership.
Edit: To be clear, anything other than a car is cheaper for many (not all) people. (e)Bike, shared scooter, walking, trolley, Uber/Lyft, taxi, carpooling, etc. Cities are expensive and small towns are small.
On average, ~50% of car trips are under 2 miles. A car is not required for most of those in most locations.
Also not all public transit trips take twice as long as a car. In many urban places (which is where any of this scenario makes sense) at rush hour a trip on public transit is often about equivalent to driving if not shorter.
Riders only have themselves to blame if they made life choices around a service that was clearly unsustainable, Movie Pass style.
I’m in a unique position to do this, because i put myself in that position. i moved near my work and live in an urban area.
even if it cost $400 a month, i would still do it this way. i read when i’m in the car, i wouldn’t trade that for staring at the road.
I’m happy that you’ve found a good situation for yourself and I don’t mean to disparage it. I just don’t think the comparison you’ve made is quite complete.
If one enjoys the lifestyle, spending less on transportation and shifting that spending to housing is a net win. That's how I did it, and for about eight of my eleven years in the Bay, I wouldn't have had it any other way.
I left the Bay in 2018 because I got a remote job and didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth from the city life. Pretty clearly, in 2020, much of what makes city living good is gone, but it will come back; whether that's a matter of years or decades is very much an open question.
But I think it's rare during commute hours that a ride share driver will drop someone off downtown and immediately find another fare, he's going to have to leave downtown to get his next passenger. So that Uber driver is worse than a single occupant vehicle, he's made 2 trips for one passenger (once to drop me off, once to leave downtown to pick up his next fare).
In off hours, sure, the driver brings someone in, then doesn't have to search far to find someone else looking for a ride, but during commute hours I don't think that's true.
Not sure how to handle the fact that this de-facto subsidizes the Peninsula. But it would be a start.
That said, I will concede I'm in a unique position. This legislation isn't completely onerous on me.
Public transit for everyday commute to work, plus Uber/Lyft for trips outside of common commute hours or off the beaten path where public transit is less reliable, can definitely be cheaper than car ownership.
Public transit isn't an option for all people, particularly in low income communities, that have to get from home to work in rural and suburban areas. They aren't dense enough for public transit.
And this is a city that's only 7 miles wide -- I used to be able to bike downtown in less than than I spent waiting on the bus on most days (since I didn't just have to wait for one bus, I had to wait for a bus that wasn't already full to take on passengers)
Last I heard, public transit had greatly reduced service in San Francisco, but I'm not sure of the current status.