As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Uber]: Disrupting Livery Service (And Ethics)

17576777880

Posts

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Really the only thing that really seems like a problem is the start up/shut down cleans. Either some trusted (preferably licensed) third party does it (Cloudkitchens itself/sub contractors) or else it duplicates the effort. I don't see how you can walk in and assume that the last client cleaned to food safety standards without some sort of verification.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Ketar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Cool.
    Sounds like a food health and safety nightmare, and the enablers of ghost/dark kitchens (CloudKitchens, UberEats) should be shut down.

    Huh?

    Shared kitchens aren't a new thing, and those that operate them as well as those that use them are required to adhere to all food safety regulations and the normal inspection process.

    Is this the case with a CloudKitchens and UberEats kitchen?
    I tried looking at the CloudKitchens website to find any licensing requirements, but I was unable to easily locate these, and I doubt UberEats moderates delivery places that list menus through their app sufficiently.

  • KetarKetar Come on upstairs we're having a partyRegistered User regular
    Really the only thing that really seems like a problem is the start up/shut down cleans. Either some trusted (preferably licensed) third party does it (Cloudkitchens itself/sub contractors) or else it duplicates the effort. I don't see how you can walk in and assume that the last client cleaned to food safety standards without some sort of verification.

    The same way as any other shared kitchen (which have existed for decades, at a bare minimum)? If someone comes in to use the space they've reserved and it's not clean, they'll report it to the owners of the kitchen who will have a policy that will lead to whoever left it dirty being banned from the space if they repeat as offenders. Since the businesses using this space will be operating out of it on a nightly basis (or close to it) they have a vested interest in not being banned from the space, and not being able to actually sell their food and make money.

    I'm sure there's more in place than that - again, shared kitchens are a thing that have existed for decades. Whatever standard procedures have worked just fine for those decades will continue to work now.

    It's not the responsibility of a delivery service like UberEats to moderate kitchen cleanliness, and it shouldn't be. As long as they have some basic standards for operating partners (like possession of a business license and tax ID number and so on) that's fine. Kitchen moderation should be solely the responsibility of local health departments.

  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    I mean there’s a lot more to food safety than cleaning up afterwards, so the “keep using the space” incentive is not nearly enough.

    I imagine it is a lot harder for the health department to keep on top of kitchens which vanish and move periodically.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    The kitchens do not vanish and move periodically.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/seamless-restaurant-grubhub-fake-eatery-unregulated-kitchen-investigation-i-team-new-york-city/2013699/
    Julie Menin, the city's Consumer Affairs Commissioner, said her office has also found ghost restaurants using unregistered names and false addresses. She believes some of the Seamless and GrubHub ads may actually be fronts for unregulated kitchens.
    The I-Team found a kitchen on 44th Street registered to a non-retail commissary operated by Green Summit Group LLC. The kitchen sold Latin food, barbecue and gluten-free meals from a least six different Seamless and GrubHub menus. None of the menu names appeared in the Health Department restaurant database because commissaries aren't considered restaurants and don't get grades.

    A spokeswoman for the Health Department said commissaries are not allowed to deliver straight to consumers.

    To be fair, this was back in 2015, and Grubhub and Seamless pledged to fix the problems. My point with this is more that, while the actual kitchens don't move around, the use of a virtual kitchen to prepare food means the customer doesn't know where the food was really prepared. That can cover up a lot of problems, and requires the platform to be working with regulators to insure nobody is doing anything they shouldn't. (They have little financial incentive to actually do this.)

  • KetarKetar Come on upstairs we're having a partyRegistered User regular
    VishNub wrote: »
    I mean there’s a lot more to food safety than cleaning up afterwards, so the “keep using the space” incentive is not nearly enough.

    I imagine it is a lot harder for the health department to keep on top of kitchens which vanish and move periodically.


    Remember when I talked about standard procedures that have worked just fine for shared kitchens for decades?

    Here's the website for a shared kitchen in Chicago: http://kitchenchicago.com/faq

    They require you to sign a user agreement, provide a copy of your City of Chicago Food Service Sanitation Certificate, and provide proof of liability insurance with Kitchen Chicago added as an additional insured. They also require a valid Shared Kitchen User license from the City if Chicago (though that requirement is listed on a different part of the site and not in the FAQ).

    The FAQ also specifies that users are expected to wash their dishes, wipe down work surfaces and equipment, and sweep and mop. The kitchen provides cleaning supplies and handles periodic deep cleans.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I mean, there are also restaurants that just ignore food standards.

  • KetarKetar Come on upstairs we're having a partyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I mean, there are also restaurants that just ignore food standards.

    I had a relative who was the chief health inspector for a suburb of Chicago for years. The much beloved award-winning pizza and Italian restaurant that always used to get written up in the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times when they would do pieces about pizza in the area? Filthiest restaurant in town, by far. Nobody else got cited anywhere near as much as they did, and some of the things he told me put me off eating there entirely even though I loved their pizza. Cleanest restaurant in town, year after year? Fucking Wendy's.

    Stories I could tell from kitchens I've been in, or even more so about popular places all around Chicago that I've heard about from former pastry school classmates who've worked there, would disgust people. Most people have absolutely no idea what's going on in a restaurant kitchen, or in their food storage areas. Putting out a good or popular product doesn't tell you anything about what's actually happening in the places the public can't see.

    Ketar on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    And if the space is rentable on short notice then businesses can scale in such a way to only use the kitchens during high volume times. This reduces the total kitchen space needed for multiple businesses if their peak times are not all at the same time and therefore provides the angle where both businesses can profit from the arrangement.

    It also allows businesses to not have delivery agents tying up their retail front ends as well, which has become a problem as of late.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    I feel like I've seen pizza shops and the like do this for years. I know here in town there's a pizza chain, and some stores are proper ones you can sit down in, while others are nothing but a kitchen and a counter that only do pick-up or delivery.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I feel like I've seen pizza shops and the like do this for years. I know here in town there's a pizza chain, and some stores are proper ones you can sit down in, while others are nothing but a kitchen and a counter that only do pick-up or delivery.

    What we're talking about is one step beyond "literal just takeout/delivery place" but yeah, thay sort of idea.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    I feel like I've seen pizza shops and the like do this for years. I know here in town there's a pizza chain, and some stores are proper ones you can sit down in, while others are nothing but a kitchen and a counter that only do pick-up or delivery.

    It's common in different areas. Carry out lets an entrepreneur open a restaurant far more cheaply and have much lower maintenance and rent costs so they're common in urban and low income areas where either real estate or liquid cash are in short supply.

    But yeah, over the last couple decades they're increasingly common on a larger scale since they have distinct advantages making them popular with customers too. Food is usually cheaper and provided faster than a sit down restaurant.

    I watch too many business history videos.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Did you know that Uber forces its passengers into mandatory binding arbitration agreements? Thankfully, they're too incompetent to do it right:
    When you download Uber’s app, you agree that you’re older than 18, that you’re not using a stolen credit card to pay your driver, and — if you’re like one Philadelphia woman and fracture your spine in a Center City car crash — that you won’t seek a jury trial against the ride-share giant.

    But, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that, because Uber can’t prove that Jillian Kemenosh actually read the company’s terms and conditions before she signed up or rode in the car that ran a red light, she can’t be forced to settle her claims behind closed doors.

    Philadelphia drivers’ lawsuit a risk to Uber as tech giant prepares to go public
    Sitting in the back seat of an Uber in March 2018, Kemenosh was more than halfway home on a four-mile trip from Columbus Boulevard to her Center City apartment when the driver of the 2010 Toyota Highlander ran a red light at 16th and Vine Streets, crashing into another vehicle.

    Suffering a fracture to her spine, concussion, and traumatic brain injury, Kemenosh sued Uber, its local subsidiaries, and the driver, requesting a jury to determine her payout.

    But, Uber argues in court documents, by approving the ride-share’s “terms and conditions” when she downloaded the app in 2013, Kemenosh had already forfeited her right to a jury, agreeing instead to resolve any legal disputes only through binding arbitration, which forces users to waive their rights to sue and settle matters privately.

    Proponents of arbitration say that it’s faster and cheaper than court. But critics say it revokes a consumer’s right to publicly take action against a company.

    “Our entire judicial system is founded on a trial by jury,” said Kemenosh’s lawyer, Joseph L. Messa Jr.

    In a 19-page opinion this month, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Abbe F. Fletman sided with Kemenosh, determining that because the app makes it possible to register for Uber’s services without clicking on a hyperlink to review the company’s terms of service, “the registration process did not properly communicate an offer to arbitrate under Pennsylvania law.”

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It's been a while since we've had purely online livery related news, so we have a study from MIT showing that online livery is causing and/or exacerbating problems with transit:
    The study, titled “Impacts of transportation networks on urban mobility”, was a joint effort conducted by researchers from Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), MIT, and Tongji University. It looks at monthly congestion data from metropolitan areas in the U.S. that had Uber and/or Lyft since 2016, as well as regular public transit ridership reports. Uber accounts for about 69% of the rideshare market, while Lyft accounts for 29%.

    For road congestion, the study found that in 44 cities with relevant data, rideshares resulted in a 0.9% increase in traffic, and that congestion duration increased by 4.5%. Of the 174 cities with regular public transit data, rideshares led to an average 8.9% decrease in ridership. According to the researchers, the “magnitude of this effect” was most dramatic in the first three years after a rideshare company entered a market, before evening out. If a second rideshare company began offering services, the study found that public transit ridership decreased by an additional 2.1 percentage points. Meanwhile, while it would seem intuitive that city dwellers might give up their cars thanks to rideshares, the study found only 1% of the top ten transit cities did so.

    In short, the study found that online livery causes congestion on the roads, lowers use of public transportation, and doesn't actually incentivize people to give up their cars.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    It's been a while since we've had purely online livery related news, so we have a study from MIT showing that online livery is causing and/or exacerbating problems with transit:
    The study, titled “Impacts of transportation networks on urban mobility”, was a joint effort conducted by researchers from Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), MIT, and Tongji University. It looks at monthly congestion data from metropolitan areas in the U.S. that had Uber and/or Lyft since 2016, as well as regular public transit ridership reports. Uber accounts for about 69% of the rideshare market, while Lyft accounts for 29%.

    For road congestion, the study found that in 44 cities with relevant data, rideshares resulted in a 0.9% increase in traffic, and that congestion duration increased by 4.5%. Of the 174 cities with regular public transit data, rideshares led to an average 8.9% decrease in ridership. According to the researchers, the “magnitude of this effect” was most dramatic in the first three years after a rideshare company entered a market, before evening out. If a second rideshare company began offering services, the study found that public transit ridership decreased by an additional 2.1 percentage points. Meanwhile, while it would seem intuitive that city dwellers might give up their cars thanks to rideshares, the study found only 1% of the top ten transit cities did so.

    In short, the study found that online livery causes congestion on the roads, lowers use of public transportation, and doesn't actually incentivize people to give up their cars.

    I see the data started in 2016, but I would be VERY hesitant to blame the reduction on public transit solely on ridesharing if any 2020 data entered their study. Covid absolutely ravaged use of public transit, number of routes available, and when those routes were available. I live in a neighborhood in Manhattan that had rather lengthy dead zones for public transit availability, especially in 3rd shift hours where people working service jobs would have needed access.

    I am not absolving ridesharing of playing its part, but any data around use of rideshares and decreased use of public transit in 2020 needs some additional scrutiny.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    It's been a while since we've had purely online livery related news, so we have a study from MIT showing that online livery is causing and/or exacerbating problems with transit:
    The study, titled “Impacts of transportation networks on urban mobility”, was a joint effort conducted by researchers from Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), MIT, and Tongji University. It looks at monthly congestion data from metropolitan areas in the U.S. that had Uber and/or Lyft since 2016, as well as regular public transit ridership reports. Uber accounts for about 69% of the rideshare market, while Lyft accounts for 29%.

    For road congestion, the study found that in 44 cities with relevant data, rideshares resulted in a 0.9% increase in traffic, and that congestion duration increased by 4.5%. Of the 174 cities with regular public transit data, rideshares led to an average 8.9% decrease in ridership. According to the researchers, the “magnitude of this effect” was most dramatic in the first three years after a rideshare company entered a market, before evening out. If a second rideshare company began offering services, the study found that public transit ridership decreased by an additional 2.1 percentage points. Meanwhile, while it would seem intuitive that city dwellers might give up their cars thanks to rideshares, the study found only 1% of the top ten transit cities did so.

    In short, the study found that online livery causes congestion on the roads, lowers use of public transportation, and doesn't actually incentivize people to give up their cars.

    If people would rather use rideshares than your public transportation the problem is that your public transportation sucks not that rideshares exist.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited April 2021
    syndalis wrote: »
    It's been a while since we've had purely online livery related news, so we have a study from MIT showing that online livery is causing and/or exacerbating problems with transit:
    The study, titled “Impacts of transportation networks on urban mobility”, was a joint effort conducted by researchers from Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), MIT, and Tongji University. It looks at monthly congestion data from metropolitan areas in the U.S. that had Uber and/or Lyft since 2016, as well as regular public transit ridership reports. Uber accounts for about 69% of the rideshare market, while Lyft accounts for 29%.

    For road congestion, the study found that in 44 cities with relevant data, rideshares resulted in a 0.9% increase in traffic, and that congestion duration increased by 4.5%. Of the 174 cities with regular public transit data, rideshares led to an average 8.9% decrease in ridership. According to the researchers, the “magnitude of this effect” was most dramatic in the first three years after a rideshare company entered a market, before evening out. If a second rideshare company began offering services, the study found that public transit ridership decreased by an additional 2.1 percentage points. Meanwhile, while it would seem intuitive that city dwellers might give up their cars thanks to rideshares, the study found only 1% of the top ten transit cities did so.

    In short, the study found that online livery causes congestion on the roads, lowers use of public transportation, and doesn't actually incentivize people to give up their cars.

    I see the data started in 2016, but I would be VERY hesitant to blame the reduction on public transit solely on ridesharing if any 2020 data entered their study. Covid absolutely ravaged use of public transit, number of routes available, and when those routes were available. I live in a neighborhood in Manhattan that had rather lengthy dead zones for public transit availability, especially in 3rd shift hours where people working service jobs would have needed access.

    I am not absolving ridesharing of playing its part, but any data around use of rideshares and decreased use of public transit in 2020 needs some additional scrutiny.

    It says the paper was received in November 2019 so it likely does not contain any 2020 data. It would be pretty damning if somehow they did this analysis incorporating post-pandemic data without acknowledging that.

    EDIT: The paper says "The PT (public transportation) ridership data cover 310 MSAs from 2005 to 2016." So it doesn't look like the analysis goes beyond 2016 even.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    Could just be that people are willing to pay more to get to their destinations faster in some/many circumstances where they aren't driving themselves. Whether you love or hate uber/other livery apps I think we can agree they've made getting a cab easier and more reliable in most circumstances.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Pre-COVID transportation studies are kind of unreliable now

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    Could just be that people are willing to pay more to get to their destinations faster in some/many circumstances where they aren't driving themselves. Whether you love or hate uber/other livery apps I think we can agree they've made getting a cab easier and more reliable in most circumstances.

    Also, when your public transit doesn't cover the demand, private transit will. I live in Lima, and the demand not covered by regular buses is covered by bike taxis and minibuses. Of course that is a massive issue with traffic jams and now the pandemic, but quite simply people need to move around in the city. Period.

  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    Could just be that people are willing to pay more to get to their destinations faster in some/many circumstances where they aren't driving themselves. Whether you love or hate uber/other livery apps I think we can agree they've made getting a cab easier and more reliable in most circumstances.

    I mean yes, that's why people choose it. But when people choose a mode that creates negative externalities in every other way other than the travel time of one person's trip from A to B, then there's a duty to regulate to compensate for those negative externalities. If Uber/Lyft in their current form don't compensate drivers properly, increase traffic congestion, decreases transit ridership, and increases GHG emissions, then should cities actually want them as they exist now? Or should they try to regulate the types of trips, pricing of trips, driver compensation, etc.?

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    Could just be that people are willing to pay more to get to their destinations faster in some/many circumstances where they aren't driving themselves. Whether you love or hate uber/other livery apps I think we can agree they've made getting a cab easier and more reliable in most circumstances.

    This is a big issue.
    The researchers found that easy access to rideshares actually discourages commuters from walking, public transit, or cycling. Roughly half of the ridesharing trips basically replaced those that would’ve been taken via greener alternatives, or not at all. As for the increase in congestion, the researchers say that a contributing factor may be that 40.8% of rideshare miles are “deadheading”—or miles in which a driver has no passengers.

    Largely separate from the whole issue posed by the gig-economy nature of these services, is the fact that taxis…which functionally in this context these are…simply aren’t very efficient. So making this form of transportation more accessible through either aggressive pricing or increased convenience is going to have adverse effects from a pure transportation point of view.

    It *can* have positive impacts on transit as well, in cities that partner with these services (or roll out similar services of their own) to help link poorly served neighborhoods to transit. Seattle had a program, not sure if it survived COVID, that was effectively a “free” pooled “Uber” to/from the light rail. The app was almost indistinguishable from Uber, except that a) the only payment method was a transit card and b) every trip had to either begin or end at a light rail station. That and the van was county owned, it wasn’t actually an Uber. The fare was the same as the light rail fare, and transferred…so provided you rode the train, it was no additional cost. M

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Cauld wrote: »
    Could just be that people are willing to pay more to get to their destinations faster in some/many circumstances where they aren't driving themselves. Whether you love or hate uber/other livery apps I think we can agree they've made getting a cab easier and more reliable in most circumstances.

    I mean yes, that's why people choose it. But when people choose a mode that creates negative externalities in every other way other than the travel time of one person's trip from A to B, then there's a duty to regulate to compensate for those negative externalities. If Uber/Lyft in their current form don't compensate drivers properly, increase traffic congestion, decreases transit ridership, and increases GHG emissions, then should cities actually want them as they exist now? Or should they try to regulate the types of trips, pricing of trips, driver compensation, etc.?
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Cauld wrote: »
    Could just be that people are willing to pay more to get to their destinations faster in some/many circumstances where they aren't driving themselves. Whether you love or hate uber/other livery apps I think we can agree they've made getting a cab easier and more reliable in most circumstances.

    This is a big issue.
    The researchers found that easy access to rideshares actually discourages commuters from walking, public transit, or cycling. Roughly half of the ridesharing trips basically replaced those that would’ve been taken via greener alternatives, or not at all. As for the increase in congestion, the researchers say that a contributing factor may be that 40.8% of rideshare miles are “deadheading”—or miles in which a driver has no passengers.

    Largely separate from the whole issue posed by the gig-economy nature of these services, is the fact that taxis…which functionally in this context these are…simply aren’t very efficient. So making this form of transportation more accessible through either aggressive pricing or increased convenience is going to have adverse effects from a pure transportation point of view.

    It *can* have positive impacts on transit as well, in cities that partner with these services (or roll out similar services of their own) to help link poorly served neighborhoods to transit. Seattle had a program, not sure if it survived COVID, that was effectively a “free” pooled “Uber” to/from the light rail. The app was almost indistinguishable from Uber, except that a) the only payment method was a transit card and b) every trip had to either begin or end at a light rail station. That and the van was county owned, it wasn’t actually an Uber. The fare was the same as the light rail fare, and transferred…so provided you rode the train, it was no additional cost. M

    "Discouraging" greener alternatives like not actually making a trip somewhere is another way of saying that people can actually make trips with less hassle than they would any other way. Yeah if spending an hour to take a bus somewhere is your only option you might do it if you don't own a car, but you will obviously just get an Uber if you can.

    Prices being artificially low because of issues with driver pay are certainly something that should be addressed from the labor side. And other things like commercial road use taxes or gas taxes or whatever to properly price in externalities.

    But I believe that will still leave plenty of demand for rideshare services.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    "Discouraging" greener alternatives like not actually making a trip somewhere is another way of saying that people can actually make trips with less hassle than they would any other way. Yeah if spending an hour to take a bus somewhere is your only option you might do it if you don't own a car, but you will obviously just get an Uber if you can.

    Prices being artificially low because of issues with driver pay are certainly something that should be addressed from the labor side. And other things like commercial road use taxes or gas taxes or whatever to properly price in externalities.

    But I believe that will still leave plenty of demand for rideshare services.

    I mean from personal experience I can name many times that I've taken an Uber (with the SO or solo) for a trip that I 100% could have walked or bussed with fairly minimal additional hassle. But the Uber was cheap so fuck it. As you touch on, the issue is that driver pay is artificially low and that externalities are being forced onto the city/region, making the price of the trip artificially low. In the past the region could ensure that driver pay was reasonable and that excess taxis weren't clogging roads with their deadhead miles by limiting the number of cabs through regulation.

    Obviously that came with a whole lot of other issues, and taxis for the most part sucked in most US cities. But the breakdown of that regulation through willful violation means those things the regulation did address became problems again.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    edited April 2021
    Semi related to this thread maybe?
    It looks like Lyft sold their autonomous arm to Toyota.
    I have not idea what this means in the broader sense.

    Doodmann on
    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Sometimes I sell my stuff on Ebay
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Semi related to this thread maybe?
    It looks like Lyft sold their autonomous arm to Toyota.
    I have not idea what this means in the broader sense.

    That they would rather be a consumer than develop the tech, because it turns out that autonomous vehicles are hard to make.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2021
    In the before times, my Uber/Lyft bill had basically 2 types of charges on it.

    One was travel where I didn't want to rent a car, but where public transit didn't get me where I needed to go. I use public transit extensively when I travel(and have the plastic cards to prove it), but dead zones or areas outside the city etc exist. Also if there is no airport shuttle dealing with luggage on multiple bus/train switches sucks.

    The second is "I'm going out to get my drink on". And public transit shuts down at sometimes the most useless hours for that. Like Milwaukee Route 15, a core "connect young hip neighborhoods with the drinking areas" type route.

    k9b0f1ja6ve5.png

    The final pick up in the middle of the green box, which is sort of the where you will go out drinking zone, is 1:07. An hour before bar close, in a town that really loves to drink. Now maybe they've done studies and the ridership doesn't support running the busses later, but no one is going to consider the busses instead of Uber, if the busses aren't running.

    ohh and the bus system didn't have an app until November of 2017(the android app was 2018 iirc), hell we didn't have reloadable fare cards until 2015. It was tickets from a book or exact change...

    For reference Uber debuted in Milwaukee in 2014. Weird that people would flock to it over paper tickets and no idea when the bus was actually going to get there.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    I went to college in Ann Arbor for a semester, and I took the bus to get groceries two or three times. It was the kind of trip I had to plan my whole day around.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    The public transportation data is from 174 cities, which for the USA means that most of that is going to be buses. And since buses are the rented red haired step mule of of our already poorly funded public transportation system, I'm thinking that the core problem is that the public transportation options suck.

    I'm all for getting Uber and it's ilk to pay fair wages and account for externalities, but it'd take one hell of a surcharge to make the rideshares less desirable than the sort of hour and a half, three transfers, and the bus only comes every 30 minutes crap that is what passes for public transportation in too much of the USA.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Basically a company is capitalizing on the massive flaws in our transportation system because we couldn't get it together.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • The Zombie PenguinThe Zombie Penguin Eternal Hungry Corpse Registered User regular
    It's not just a US problem. If I want to get to the local super, it's either a bus ride that's going to take a good 20+ minutes between getting to the bus and the ride, or a rideshare. The rideshare takes 5, 10 minutes at most. The bus is about 2.50, the ride is 9 ish.

    So the bus is better, but if my health isn't great, or the weather is hell, I've got a heavy load that I don't want to troop to the bus stop and then neck to my house... or the buses aren't running because the drivers are being screwed by their company again. Rideshare is the only option, given I don't drive. And this is a city with okay ish public transport.

    It's a knotty issue. and this is before you get into other reasons people might be inclined to avoid public transport - harassment, stalking, disabilities, chronic health issues (though ride shares tend to have all of the same). I'm not sure how you solve it without a holistic change to both how cities are made and people are moved around them. Which then leads you to tangles like the political will too make such changes.

    Ideas hate it when you anthropomorphize them
    Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
    Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
    Switch: 0293 6817 9891
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It's been a while for this thread, but given that the Guardian just dropped a pile of Uber's dirty laundry out in the public eye:
    A leaked trove of confidential files has revealed the inside story of how the tech giant Uber flouted laws, duped police, exploited violence against drivers and secretly lobbied governments during its aggressive global expansion.

    The unprecedented leak to the Guardian of more than 124,000 documents – known as the Uber files – lays bare the ethically questionable practices that fuelled the company’s transformation into one of Silicon Valley’s most famous exports.

    The leak spans a five-year period when Uber was run by its co-founder Travis Kalanick, who tried to force the cab-hailing service into cities around the world, even if that meant breaching laws and taxi regulations.

    During the fierce global backlash, the data shows how Uber tried to shore up support by discreetly courting prime ministers, presidents, billionaires, oligarchs and media barons.

    Well, fuck.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    People still ask my why I never use Uber/etc. It's because they're corrupt as shit and trying to abuse as much as possible so they can be the next batch of robber barons.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I'm not sure what of this we didn't already know

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • OrcaOrca Also known as Espressosaurus WrexRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm not sure what of this we didn't already know

    Hard evidence as opposed to accusation, supposition, and deflection.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm not sure what of this we didn't already know

    Hard evidence as opposed to accusation, supposition, and deflection.

    You're not wrong.

    But at the same time I kinda feel like we all assumed all of the accusations and supposition were accurate and that the deflection was bullshit.

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    It's not in that article, but I loved Ubers official response which was something like "Well that was all pre-2015, please ignore it, we're totally different now" lol.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm not sure what of this we didn't already know

    Hard evidence as opposed to accusation, supposition, and deflection.

    You're not wrong.

    But at the same time I kinda feel like we all assumed all of the accusations and supposition were accurate and that the deflection was bullshit.

    I mean, we also felt that way about, for example, what Snowden revealed.

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    It's not in that article, but I loved Ubers official response which was something like "Well that was all pre-2015, please ignore it, we're totally different now" lol.

    Please ignore our crimes until the statute of limitations is up.

Sign In or Register to comment.