Hacker News Reader

Comment by Axsuul | Hacker News Reader

It's important to note that Uber also created a brand new market. Many of my friends, and myself included, would've never considered using taxis "back in the day" when doing errands or day-to-day activities. Alternatives would've been to just drive ourselves or take public transportation. Uber and Lyft have made it frictionless and convenient enough for everyday use.

What I'm trying to say is that Uber isn't only cannabilizing the market share of taxis. Yes, they are definitely taking some of that, but more importantly they are differentiating themselves enough to cater to a whole new crowd that wouldn't have ever used taxis in the first place.

View on HN

The existence of Uber literally changes my business travel planning. Previously I'd always pick a hotel within walking distance of the primary purpose of the trip (company office/conference/etc). Since Uber exists, I get to pick any hotel in the city. I literally ran up more in Uber bills in 2 weeks than I've spent on American cabs in 33 years and couldn't be happier with it.

(Anecdata: I actively avoid American cabs because I seem to have a sign printed on my forehead "Please try scamming this kid. He will not escalate and call the cops." Including, relevantly to this article, twice getting into a cab in Manhattan and told that the cab did not service Brooklyn.)

Not all cabs in the US are that terrible, but a lot of them are. To add to the fun, taxicab regulation/licensing is done by the municipalities, which is okay for somewhere like NYC, but in the Valley, Sunnyvale cabs are different from Mountain View cabs or San Jose cabs or Palo Alto cabs. In Boston, Boston cabs are different from Cambridge cabs or Somerville cabs or Brookline cabs or Watertown cabs, and they're all not allowed to pick people up on the street in "foreign" territory. Having one single company to deal with no matter where you are in the metro area or the country or indeed the world makes things so much easier.

Last time I was in the Bay area, I took cabs. Oh what horrible experiences!! I finally took the plunge and used Uber. I was very satisfied until I encountered "surge pricing" when going to the airport at 5am. I'm still a fan but am a bit mixed about relying on it.

For long distance trips from the airport (hour long), I still think Uber is pricey. On my last trip from an airport, a black car would have costed 120-150, with a driver in a suit or an Uber (90ish). Since surge pricing is not predictable (by me), I would go for the black car option since it is certain.

The whole discussion makes me realize there are multiple markets for cabs. Uber definitely rocks the "hail a random cab for an impromptu ride" market. The "planned trip to the airport, etc." is a different market that has yet to be cracked.

Because of stupid protectionist laws as I mentioned above, your (I presume) 40 mile trip to the airport is actually an 80 mile trip for the driver. Because the airport belongs to the City and County of San Francisco, only San Francisco taxis (and now Uber as well) are allowed to pick passengers at SFO, so the driver has to drive back to his home town with no passengers. As for surge pricing... well, presumably the conventional-taxi alternative is no cabs available at all, but its unpredictability does sound annoying.

>Many of my friends, and myself included, would've never considered using taxis "back in the day" when doing errands or day-to-day activities

Absolutely. I would NEVER use a cab to get to/from the airport. But I will use Uber. Doesn't even have anything to do with pricing - far more to do with service.

... which is interesting, because while it demonstrates that cabs are perhaps not as damaged by Uber's business model as they claim they are, it plays into DeBlasio's arguments that Uber increases congestion.

Intuitively, I'd say Ubers spend less time driving around looking for a fare, and a more intelligent dispatching/routing model would decrease fareless miles driven. That said, if it causes a shift from subways, it would increase congestion.

I don't think this is a reason for the government to attack Uber. If traffic is a problem congestion charge type systems would be more effective, as it would 'penalize' all players equally; Uber, Taxis, and private vehicles.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons for them to attack Uber already; the contractor model, the beg-for-forgiveness model, etc.

I've never been to NY, but in other (European) cities that I've lived in, the main issue with congestion are parked cars: commuters have to leave them wherever they can, including at corners where they block traffic a lot more. About half to two thirds of Paris drivable area are taken with parked cars (most streets are one-way three lanes with cars on both sides).

If car commuters use Uber, you relax that source of problem. Not sure how much Uber substitutes for car commuters, though.

I think this is the biggest point taxi companies fail to grasp. I NEVER consider taxis. I would sooner walk than take a taxi. Uber doesn't have the same grody, sketchy perception that taxis do. I have never had to call Uber on an Uber driver, while it seems like I nearly ALWAYS had to threaten to call the cab company on the cabbie ("Cash only", taking some idiotic route, etc). It is WAY too much work to get a ride home from a taxi.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com