
Lyft to use only electric cars by 2030 - crakenzak
https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/leading-the-transition-to-zero-emissions
======
samatman
I'll buck the trend: this is fantastic news.

Most of the comments in this thread are ignoring how preference cascades work:
this kind of purely symbolic action sends a signal.

CEOs of car companies see something like this and think "hmm, will it actually
be socially acceptable to sell ICE cars in ten years?", and this affects their
planning no matter what conclusion they draw from it.

~~~
xiphias2
,, ending our carbon offsets program''

This is the real news hidden in the press release, and it's actually quite sad
:(

~~~
samatman
That's kinda depressing, unless there's evidence that the money goes
immediately and directly into electrification.

In that case it would be good. Offsets are just rearranging the deck chairs,
or to be as charitable as possible to the strategy, making renewables a cost
center rather than a profit center for the business.

The presser does outright state that this is what they're doing, so I'll
choose to be optimistic, at the risk of being disappointed if it's all talk.

------
jtms
Bold of them to assume they will still exist in 2030

~~~
mulmen
“We will have 0 ICE cars on the road in 2030.”

------
fenwick67
Anyone in the automotive space that says "by 20xx" can be essentially
immediately discredited at this point. You can blame Google/Waymo for saying
self-driving cars would be available to the general public by 2017.

~~~
jsight
I don't think I understand the 20xx part of that assertion. Should this imply
that 21xx or 22xx would be creditworthy?

Maybe it should be something like "202[3-9]"?

~~~
fenwick67
If I had to nail this down I would say anything more than 2 years out.

------
zffr
This seems like a great change, but I wonder what impact it would have on the
drivers who have bought a car to use for Lyft. Would they have to sell their
car in the next 10yrs to remain on the platform? What if they don't have a way
to charge an electric car where they live?

10 Years is a long lead time, but I can imagine that some Lyft drivers might
not be very happy with this news.

~~~
henryfjordan
If someone bought a car to use for Lyft, they are probably driving full-time.
Full time drivers I've spoken with go through cars a LOT faster than 10 years.
Some don't even make it to the 3 year mark before needing a new car.

Lyft and Uber have always had requirements on the maximum age of a vehicle
too. I don't think any car on the road today will be eligible in 10 years
anyway.

------
derision
I'm also committing to use only electric cars by 2030. Please invest

------
shawnb576
Main blocker for EV for rideshare today is TCO of EVs for drivers. Hybrids
show that its definitely possible to move in this direction.

Drivers need to make money by driving, and for an EV they face several
hurdles:

\- Cost of the cars themselves \- Range \- Availability of charging stations
\- Time it takes to charge

My understanding is that the TCO of EVs will cross with ICE in ~2025. All of
the above will get better over time.

I think it's great that Lyft is signalling this but its mostly out of their
direct control. In one world, this happens by default because the market has
switched. In one it won't happen because the infrastructure still isn't there.

I personally think most cars sold in 2030 will be EVs because they are a
classic disruptive change product. They gain share due to some attributes that
are better then one day the whole market flips because it's clear they're on
balance better. For urban usage, I think we aren't too far from that.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
I'm surprised we haven't seen more plug-in hybrids.

A plug-in hybrid is essentially an EV for most people's daily commute, but
still has an ICE to relieve range anxiety on road trips. And since the
batteries are small, they can be recharged overnight easily without installing
a charging port. You can charge from a standard household 120v outlet.

Now if only more manufacturers making EVs and hybrids would stop putting the
batteries in the @#$%ing trunk and follow Tesla's lead in putting them in the
floor of the car.

~~~
imtringued
Pretty much every manufacturer puts batteries in the floor of the car. I've
yet to see one that doesn't.

------
anamexis
I'm curious if today's electric cars would even work. Does a Nissan Leaf or
Chevrolet Bolt have enough range for the average Lyft shift?

Of course, EV range can improve, and Lyft could make logistical changes to
allow for charging, but I'm curious if, overnight, Lyft drivers all switched
to EVs, would that work?

~~~
DarmokJalad1701
Model 3 SR+ goes 250 miles. Bolt goes 259, Leaf goes ~226.

The average Uber/Lyft ride is ~6 miles. The average driver makes ~30 trips per
week according to Uber. The gas + maintenance savings would be significant
especially if they charge at home overnight.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
> Model 3 SR+ goes 250 miles.

I can't speak for the Bolt or Leaf, but I can tell you that the stated range
of my Model 3 Performance (299 miles) is not accurate.

Sure, I can probably go 299 miles on a full charge if I'm going 55 mph with
the climate controls off, but if I'm going 75 mph with the heat running
because it's 35F outside, the actual range is closer to 230 miles.

I imagine the Model 3 SR+ is the same way. Probably only really ~200-220 miles
in real-world conditions.

~~~
DarmokJalad1701
It averages out IMO. In my Model 3 AWD in the Midwest, I frequently get better
than the rated efficiency of ~242 Wh/mi in the summer and Fall and worse in
the winter. It is around ~200 Wh/mi in the summer and close to 300 in the
winter depending on how cold it gets. So the range could be as low as 250 in
the winter and even better than 310 in the summer/fall depending on how I
drive and how warm it is.

------
Animats
Lyft doesn't own the cars; the drivers do. (Mostly; Lyft has a side hustle in
the rent a car business.) So this doesn't mean much.

In the more advanced countries, things are further along. Shenzhen has 100%
electric taxis now.

~~~
paulgb
The announcement includes privately owned cars.

> This includes cars in the Express Drive rental car partner program for
> rideshare drivers, our consumer rental car program for riders, our
> autonomous vehicle program, and drivers’ personal cars used on the Lyft
> platform.

------
saltedonion
Am I the only skeptic here? 2030 is a decade away, and lyft needs to figure
out how to stay afloat NOW.

It is not as well positioned as Uber on some important fronts such as
diversifying its product offerings into food, prescription drugs etc... and it
really needs to have an answer there.

I’m more concerned with if lyft will be able to attract enough capital to stay
afloat rather than what kind of cars it will have in 10 years.

This seems like a way for the CEO to plant anchoring bias to me, where by
displaying it thinks long term, gives the impression that there is nothing to
worry about in the short run.

~~~
elhudy
Lyft always says things like this. Part of their marketing strategy is to be
the "good guy" vs Uber the "bad guy". I know people who always take Lyft over
Uber because it has positioned itself as the rideshare beacon of corporate
responsibility.

------
jillesvangurp
Seems conservative. IMHO taxis and other urban mobility will largely go
electric in the next five years already. The only constraint here really is
production capacity for cheap EVs and the average sales price. Both are
improving rapidly.

The EVs currently hitting the market are probably getting there in terms of
ASP but the availability is pretty limited, especially in the more affordable
segment. Around ~30K (for a decent sized vehicle with leg room in the back) is
pretty expensive but if you look at the total cost of ownership for a vehicle
that is likely to be used intensively, it's probably not bad. As these prices
come down in the next few years, it's only going to get more attractive.

I think also, many cities (especially in Europe) will be keen to get ICE cars
out of the city and I expect there will be advantages to operating EVs in the
form of subsidies, easier to get permits, charging infrastructure, etc.

So 2030, seems a long way off. Why wait that long?

------
kyriakos
Its possible all new cars sold will be electric by then which makes Lyft's
plan not innovative but inevitable.

~~~
ghaff
Possibly a high percentage but there are a lot of use cases that electric cars
don't cover. _No_ electric sales has a very high bar even if it's mostly
pickups and big SUVs/vans.

------
BariumBlue
My guess: running costs for electric vehicles are lower than for ICE vehicles,
meaning either reducing payouts to drivers, reducing customer costs, or both.

If I understand it correctly, Uber and Lyft currently have a problem where the
customers are unhappy with high costs, drivers are unhappy with their amount
of compensation, and yet the margins are too small or negative to achieve
company profitability

------
hogFeast
I shall be giving $100bn to charity in 2030. It will be a great year.

...srs, this is The Michael Scott Foundation. Admire the balls but everyone
knows that Lyft have no control over this (I am sure they would do this today
if they could, but the issue is that no-one has electric cars...not Lyft's
failure to make this pledge).

------
kamakazizuru
hmm - I wouldn't be too surprised if Tesla has their electric self driving
fleet of cabs out well before that.

~~~
ben_w
I will be neither surprised if they do nor if they don’t. Tesla have ~ten
billion miles of experience, so at this point I think the question is “how
long will it take to figure out a data-efficient algorithm?” rather than “can
it be done?”

Back in 2009 I was expecting this to be available before 2019, and I didn’t
have in mind anything as limited as either the “motorways only” autopilot of
Tesla nor the (single?) heavily mapped city system of Waymo.

------
ProAm
How many miles does the average driver drive in a day for a ride sharing
service? And how many on top of what they normally commute while not driving
for Lyft/Uber?

Seems like it might be hard to manage charging to live a normal life, drive
for one of these companies and still have your car available when you need it?

~~~
mulmen
It doesn’t take much to imagine a model where this works. Lyft already rents
cars to drivers. Just stage them around town and when the first shift car
battery is dead the driver can park it somewhere, plug in and swap to another
car.

------
voz_
Typical empty nothing statement from Lyft. I highly doubt they will exist by
then. Uber is falling back to food during coronavirus quarantine, what does
Lyft have?

------
speedgoose
Myself to find a cure to all cancers by 2030. Please invest.

~~~
chrisseaton
This seems like a snarky comment.

It's good they've got an ambition, a plan, and a realistic chance of doing it.
You're just sitting there being nasty about it.

~~~
speedgoose
It's a snarky comment.

A 10 years plan to go electric is engaging only the people who believes in it.

By the way to give a scale, Lyft is 8 years old. The Nissan Leaf is 10 years
old. Today you have tons of different eletric cars on the market. They could
go electric a lot sooner if they were forced.

~~~
chrisseaton
> It's a snarky comment.

Well that's specifically against the site rules here so please don't post
snarky things.

~~~
speedgoose
True. My snarky comment wasn't directed towards another member but I guess
being snarky with corporations being lame is not allowed by the rules.

------
imtringued
I don't understand how this is supposed to work. What prevents drivers from
switching to a different app?

------
mister_hn
Hope they will not go bankrupt until 2030

------
csours
2030 seems way too late. 2025 would be a meaningful goal.

~~~
ryanmcbride
I believe the issue there is that they wouldn't realistically have enough
drivers with electric cars by 2025. If they entirely managed their own fleet
they could make that happen, but most lyft drivers likely don't make enough
money to buy an electric within the next 5 years.

------
Zhenya
So much excitement here for what?

Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle.

They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years.

This is a big fat nothingburger.

~~~
cryptoz
> So much excitement here for what?

Corporate action on climate is needed. Also I don't see _any_ excitement in
this thread, mostly negativity and lukewarm reaction, sarcasm, etc.

> Just seems like fluff to get them into the news cycle.

Not to me, do you have anything to back this up? Why would Lyft care about the
news cycle?

> They commit(whatever that means) to using only electric cars in 10 years.

The meaning is pretty clear.

> This is a big fat nothingburger.

This kind of namecalling and negative attitude really doesn't belong on HN.

You have copy+pasted this comment all over the thread, why? I've flagged and
downvoted

~~~
Zhenya
I posted it twice. And I will go line by line:

Corporate action in 10 years by a company that encourages the disuse of public
transport.

News cycle: Uber/Lyft volume is very low. Get in the news and get folks to
start using Lyft as restrictions end. "we are good, we are saving the climate"

What's the meaning? Is it binding? Is it legal? Or is it just words that they
can walk back at any moment for any reason or just forget the made this claim.

It's not name calling; I'm pointing out this is fluff and pretty much does not
mean anything.

Thanks for your input and vote.

~~~
cryptoz
> Corporate action in 10 years by a company that encourages the disuse of
> public transport.

I don't understand your point here. Lyft also discourages car ownership. What
should any of this matter? Why does it matter what their customers incentives
might be when discussing their corporate climate action? Are you stating that
lyft is bad for the environment and climate change overall, and would still be
bad after this change? I just don't get how these things are related.

> News cycle: Uber/Lyft volume is very low. Get in the news and get folks to
> start using Lyft as restrictions end. "we are good, we are saving the
> climate"

People are just desperate to get out and do things. I don't think that lyft
making headlines online or on TV is going to matter much for that and I don't
think their marketing department would think so either. This sounds like a
conspiracy theory that Lyft does not operate in good faith and is rather
trying to trick everyone all the time. It just seems unfounded and weird.

> What's the meaning? Is it binding? Is it legal? Or is it just words that
> they can walk back at any moment for any reason or just forget the made this
> claim.

I'm sure it is binding. If they do not make strong efforts towards meeting
these goals, surely the shareholders would sue? I would!

> It's not name calling; I'm pointing out this is fluff and pretty much does
> not mean anything.

"big fat nothingburger" is the definition of name calling and rude behavior.
It just doesn't belong here.

You also didn't address that there is literally 0 excitement here. There are 0
comments that I would rank as any level of "excited". I don't want to accuse
you of lying, but, can you source what you mean by "excitement here"? It just
doesn't seem real to me.

------
iphone_elegance
not that it's possible but I'd prefer to be making progress towards no cars by
then

------
jsnider3
Big, if true.

~~~
dumbfounder
According to this article: [https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-sales-
growing-fa...](https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-sales-growing-
faster-expected)

It is expected that more than half of new cars sold will be EV by 2030. This
will by federal incentives no doubt, and also by the further disruption of the
car industry by the pandemic. Still, it seems low to me. And, I would expect
by 2030 it will be the better choice to go electric for Lyft/Uber drivers due
to decreased maintenance and overall cost per mile compared to ICE.

The problem right now is availability of reasonably priced options, but that
will be solved in the next 10 years almost certainly. So, without the
proclamation of a mandate my gut says 90%+ of Lyft/Uber drivers would go
electric because it's the better business choice for them. So I don't think
it's "Big", I think it's a calculated risk with good intentions to grab some
news headlines. But that's ok, maybe it will encourage others to make bolder
bets, which would be good. Not quite "Big" in my opinion.

