
SF people, you are hypocrites using services like Uber and Lyft - fesja
http://www.fesja.me/sf-people-you-are-hypocrites-using-services-like-uber-and-lyft/
======
ars
> really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure
> private cars or taxies would be discarted.

Wow. Talk about thinking everyone is exactly like you, and only your
transportation needs need to be met.

What about the elderly? (Who can't walk the last mile from the bus.)

Or young children? What about a large family that needs a full car load of
groceries - you're going to put that on a bus? And somehow carry it home?

Inevitably every single person who writes about public transportation is young
and single, or at least no kids, and they think: No more cars, problem solved.

News flash: The entire world is not like you. Getting rid of cars is a
complete non-starter for a HUGE segment of the population.

~~~
gglanzani
This. A thousand times.

My work gives me a (hybrid) car. Almost (~95%) every day I let it home and
take the train to get to work.

But I have three kids and my wife is pregnant, so there's no way she could do
almost anything without having a car.

~~~
megablast
Sure, it is harder without a car, but it not impossible. Somehow we have
survived for a long time before cars.

~~~
Evgeny
We have also survived without electricity for a long time, so I'm not sure
it's a convincing argument.

~~~
eevilspock
Yes, but one has lots of environmental and societal costs, while the other
doesn't. If electricity were bad overall for society, his argument would apply
to it too.

~~~
Evgeny
Isn't most of electricity these days obtained by burning coal? I remember
figures around couple hundred thousand yearly just from that. Here is one of
the sources

[https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/...](https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-
deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants)

------
joshstrange
> Let's be serious, people are paying $12-25 for taking a Uber or Lyft when
> they could be paying just $2.25. Does it take longer? Yes. So much longer
> that you willing to pay 4-11x? I don't think so. People are wasting money.

Disclaimer: I don't live in SF.

Yes, a million times yes it is worth it. The bus system where is I am from is
far worse than SF but still, google map from location A to B and toggle
between car and bus options. I can get there in less than 15min by car but
unless I time it perfectly (and the bus is on time) it will take over an hour
to get there by public transit.

Not to mention there are times when the busses do not run where I live. The
author seems to think it's: busses or lyft/uber (and again that might be the
case in SF) but where I am from your options after 11pm is taxis or lyft and I
will easily pay more (though the rides so far have been nearly the exact same
as the taxis I've taken) for a ride that I know is coming, I don't have to
give turn by turn directions to, and I can pay by CC (completely impossible
with taxis in my town).

So the author's argument of "Lyft/Uber sucks because busses" seems quite BS to
me...

------
oskarth
The central assumption of his whole argument:

> If you had to think what the transport systems would be on a sustainable
> modern city, I'm sure you would think that the solution would be a really
> good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm _completely sure_
> private cars or taxies would be discarted. (my emphasis)

is mere opinion. I like libraries and think the are great, but I still want my
own books. There's no contradiction there.

Additionally, the title is inflammatory by calling people hypocrites instead
of trying to understand why people use the services mentioned.

~~~
higherpurpose
Not everyone wants to ride in a bus. In fact, in my country people are
stopping using buses, and doing some kind of car sharing, because it's much
more convenient (available when you need it), they charge the same, and even
though it's not much better space wise, a lot of people prefer riding with 3
others, than 20 others. This has been a growing trend, and I think it's
inevitable that it will happen _everywhere_ in the world.

Also, this is exactly the kind of service self-driving cars would offer in the
future.

~~~
couchand
The funny thing is opinions like this are basically just fashion, they tend to
change pretty quickly. For example, just fifty years ago in the US the new
buses were viewed as a high-class affair and train travel was left for the
lower classes. That position is basically completely reversed now.

Also, I find it hard to believe that a vehicle for hire could possibly charge
the same as mass transit for a comparable journey. I don't know which country
you live in but that's certainly not the case anywhere I've been.

~~~
hershel
Not as same, but relatively close:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7888339)

------
smoyer
"I'm a young master engineer"

I'm an old engineer (electronics and software), and as I age and gain
experience I realize I still have a lot to learn. I don't think you can be a
"young engineer" and a "master engineer" at the same time - and I think those
who truly master engineering have become _MORE_ adept at questioning their
abilities.

I think the attitude conveyed by his tag-line is repeated (several times) in
the article's body ... one mind-set, one "best" and everyone else must be
wrong. His ideal seems to be centered around Madrid's transportation systems,
but if your (singular) goal is what's good for the environment, I've seen many
Asian cities that easily beat buses and trains (with walking and bicycling).

If you're living an unhurried continental life, walking to the local market
and carrying home your fresh-picked vegetables might be an alternatively to
taking the bus/train to a larger grocery store. If you're a hurried SF-based
founder, a door-to-door service is optimizing for a limited amount of time.
Why does there have to be just one "best"?

Here's an example ... suppose Elon Musk flies around the country in a
corporate jet while working to promote solar energy at prices that will
ultimately lead to a significant decrease in emissions. Should he instead bike
across the country so his jet isn't polluting the skies? Or would the duration
of each trip simply make it impossible to accomplish his goals?

------
stygiansonic
> Is $2.25 for a single ride expensive? Is $76 for the monthly cost of the
> BART and bus expensive? If you take into account what tech people earn is a
> ridicoulus price. So price is not a problem for tech people.

> Let's be serious, people are paying $12-25 for taking a Uber or Lyft when
> they could be paying just $2.25. Does it take longer? Yes. So much longer
> that you willing to pay 4-11x? I don't think so. People are wasting money.

Regardless of whether you believe public transit is the solution, the
statement that people "are wasting money" is entirely subjective and dependent
on what they perceive value to be. In fact, if tech people are indeed earning
so much money (as is implied by the first sentence) then the higher they earn,
the less of a "waste" the extra cost of private transportation would be be due
to the factored in time-savings.

~~~
whichdan
That's how I feel in Boston. I pay $75/mo for an MBTA pass, but usually take
Uber/Lyft once or twice a week. To get from Allston to Jamaica Plain, at
night, I either need to: take a train into the city, and then a different
train out of the city (well over an hour), or, wait up to 15m for one bus,
then wait up to 15m for another bus, which means it will take anywhere from
30-60m to get home. In the meantime, I can have a cab reliably get me home in
15 minutes for all of $12. It's quite lucrative when one has work the next
day..

------
Htsthbjig
"I'm sure you would think that the solution would be a really good public
transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or
taxies would be discarted."

This is something I always wondered, WHY? Have you calculated the numbers
yourself? I don't believe so.

In Europe most people repeat this phrase, without knowing why, or just looking
at the numbers.

I was born in Madrid, It looks to me like government propaganda too. You find
ads on TV that tells you something like "a bus could carry 50 people, if
everybody used buses we will be saving that much".

But most of the assumptions are wrong, E.g Most of the time the buses or
subway are less than half empty.

And when they are full, people don't want to use the services. In Madrid,
subway trains are designed for 4people per square meter!!!

Politicians want people to use public services(while not a single of them uses
them). They want to raise taxes, people not being able to buy private cars,
but giving the money to politicians in order to make big public works(and
enrich themselves by the way, the bigger the amount of money they handle, the
easier it is).

On the other hand, moving 2 tons for every 0.1 tons person does not make
sense. We need individual alternatives like electric motorbikes or something.

~~~
collyw
Yes, but public transport is going to have to cope with elastic demand, so you
can't base carriage sizes on the average number of passengers.

Here in Barcelona, it seems that the metro starts off quiet at the ends of the
line (easy to get a seat), then as you approach the city centre it fills up
(difficult to get a seat near these stations). Then it starts to empty on the
way back out.

Electric bikes makes sense though.

------
ehartsuyker
As someone who lived in SF for a while, I found that SF public transit was
utter shit. Muni delays could be as bad as 20 minutes in the tunnel between
two stop or a line showing up 45 minutes late. Or even catching everything on
time getting from the middle of the Sunset to the middle of the Richmond took
over an hour.

On the other hand, I've never had Bart break on me or be delayed (in SF
itself).

So yes, when people have be money and want to take a cab, it's usually a
better bet.

~~~
doff
If you've never had Bart break on you or be delayed, then you weren't taking
it enough.

SF public transportation is limited in its geographic coverage and the fact
that it's not 24 hours. And that sucks. But San Francisco is also a much
smaller city then Madrid, New York, Chicago, and the other places listed. Add
a couple more million people to SF, South SF, and East Bay, and you can bet
that public transportation will improve.

~~~
PinguTS
Sorry, but that is BS. SF too small? Really.

Go and visit other countries in the world. Public transportation works pretty
well also in smaller cities with a couple 100.000 people. Go look to
Nuremberg, Germany with about 500.000 people. Go look to Jena, Germany with
about 100.000 people. Cities in France or Spain or Estland or Lithuania. Look
in Denmark or Sweden.

The reason in the US is simple: you love cars.

~~~
kordless
We love cars simply because of the fact we could fit all of Europe INSIDE the
US and still have room left over for Japan, the Philippines and a few other
Asian countries.

It's about the only way to get around if you are traveling from one state to
another - which we frequently do. Also, ~330M people.

~~~
arethuza
That's kind of odd as Europe (the Continent - 10,180,000 km2) is actually
larger in area than the United States (the Country - 9,826,675 km2).

I take it you mean the EU - which covers less than half the area of Europe?

~~~
kordless
Yes, you are correct. I pulled up a map off Google that overlayed 'europe'
over the continental US. That map omitted Ukraine and Turkey, which are
included in Europe (among other non-EU countries).

~~~
arethuza
Only a small part of Turkey is in Europe - making Istanbul one of the few
transcontinental cities :-)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_spanning_more_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_spanning_more_than_one_continent)

------
asg
Of course this article is a lot of hyperbole, and whether you agree or not
depends on your worldview. But one bit I couldn't agree more. Uber and Lyft
are NOT examples of the sharing economy. Just adding an element of technology
to good old fashioned capitalism does not a sharing economy make.

~~~
jey
Think of it in terms of resource utilization. In the old model, there's tons
cars that need to be parked somewhere within SF while completely unused. In
the Uber/Lyft model, these cars usually enter the city while they're actively
transporting people, then they go back to the suburbs when they need to be
parked.

Sure, one could easily argue that parking spaces aren't the most pressing
resource shortage, but the point is that these types of changes do create
value by sharing resources. The same concepts can be applied to more pressing
domains as well.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Think of it in terms of resource utilization. In the old model, there's
tons cars that need to be parked somewhere within SF while completely unused.
In the Uber/Lyft model, these cars usually enter the city while they're
actively transporting people, then they go back to the suburbs when they need
to be parked."

Didn't we already solve this problem with taxis more than 50 years ago? It was
already a 'sharing economy'. Uber/Lyft just made it more convenient.

------
gedrap
So following the same thinking, we should burn the restaurants to the ground,
because we can all cook, and we pay 10x more. Waste of money.

We should also stop buying clothes at more expensive brands, because Primark
clothes are also wearable and will keep you warm. What else can we downgrade?

Dear OP, people do things because they like conveniences, coolness and
everything. If it works that way for you - great! But it doesn't mean everyone
has to be the same, have the same values and attitude :)

EDIT: Am I saying that because of the tone of the post? maybe. Because, like
other people are saying, I don't like tone of this post :)

------
thisishugo
Hypocrite isn't the word the author is after, but even if it were, effectively
just insulting people you disagree with will not bring them around to your
view point.

Uber and Lyft may well be 10 times the price public transport, but the
services are otherwise barely comparable. It absolutely _is_ worth $20 to me
versus $2 to get where I'm going in a fast, comfortable, and private manner,
in exactly the same way as I don't baulk at a $3 Starbucks, despite being able
to brew a coffee myself for 1/20th that price.

Public transport is never going to win simply by being a cheaper option, you
have to appeal to other motivators, such as sense of social responsibility.

As an aside, my "future city" vision of public transport would be publicly
available, self-driving, electric "cars" recharged with renewable energy. Not
mass-transit. I don't want to be forced into a shared space with strangers, if
I can avoid it, thanks.

~~~
icebraining
_Public transport is never going to win simply by being a cheaper option, you
have to appeal to other motivators, such as sense of social responsibility._

Yes, that's what the author is doing: "If we want to live in a walkable and
clean city, we have to start acting the same way we think. And in this case is
by taking public transportation."

~~~
thisishugo
My argument is that the author should have made that his leading premise, not
a secondary point.

------
antirez
The tone of the article is not relaxed, however I'm a bit perplexed of reading
here that many don't believe that the author main argument is right, which is:
sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public. I don't
mean public as necessarily "provided by gov/city", but in which the common
routes are handled by busses or trams or similar systems where, unlike cars,
the weight of the moved people is not minimal compared to the weight of the
moved vehicle.

Taxies have their place of course, you can't serve everything via public
transports. Also one thing is normal people moving inside SF, another thing is
arriving at the SF airport with a business meeting 45 minutes later. But the
_bulk_ of how people move, should be, mass-transport systems.

~~~
collyw
> sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public.

As I bike owner I would disagree with that.

~~~
icebraining
Bikes can be public too. I've been recently to Budapest, and their public bike
networks that was about to open seems excellent. Cheap, with stations
everywhere around the city and renting bikes with just a cellphone.

If you live in a small place, and you just bike around the city, I'm not sure
it's worth buying your own.

~~~
collyw
We have a public bike network here in Barcelona (I think it was one of the
first).

Sure public bikes will do, but for me its kind of like the difference between
my car and a bus. You have to wait for stations to become free a lot (usually
commuting from my house to my work involved getting up half an hour before the
crowds took the bikes). The bikes often have slight problems (loose breaks,
squeaking, won't go into gear). Most people don't seem too bothered, but as
somewhat of a bike enthusiast, I find it frustrating to know that its like
just a spanner turn or two (end the bolts are usually non standard to prevent
theft).

Its a great idea, but not without problems.

------
spiralpolitik
Author misses the point that transportation in SF/Bay area sucks for two
reasons:

1) Mismanagement of the infrastructure. MUNI couldn't manage its way out of a
wet paper bag, AC Transit tackles increasing ridership by replacing transbay
buses with smaller capacity local buses. To get anything done you have to
organize across 30+ agencies. Lack of investment in the public infrastructure
verses the increasing population. The list goes on...

2) People want public transit just not in their back yard. Witness the central
subway debacle of it not going all the way to North Beach/Fisherman's Wharf.
Witness Marin voting not to extend BART to their cities. Witness the Marin
SMART line first phase not ending at the Larkspur ferry terminal. Witness the
high speed rail link mess and the fact that it's impossible to take a train
from San Francisco to Sacramento without having to transit through about 3
different systems.

So it's no wonder that companies are running their own buses or people are
looking to alternative services like Uber or Lyft because it's their only
option for getting around, and as a wise man once said "There ain't no getting
'round getting 'round"

------
tinco
This article is misguided. Using a taxi is good for the environment exactly
because it is expensive. You use a taxi first of all because you don't have a
car. You don't have a car because you either ride public transport or you
walk/cycle.

Don't get mad at people who use taxis a few times per week for short
distances. Get mad at people who clog highways with their polluting owned
cars.

~~~
icebraining
With enough income, riding taxis daily becomes feasible. I think the question
is distinguishing the two, instead of accusing everyone who uses them.

------
SnydenBitchy
I seem to recall reading that the city of SF (or another municipality?) had
conducted a study that found, perhaps counterintuitively, that improving taxi
service would actually end up increasing transit ridership and decreasing
overall vehicle miles traveled. Improved cab service, it was claimed, would
let people get rid of their own cars and begin using more convenient, more
sustainable modes of transit for most things, resorting to a now more reliable
taxi service as a crutch when necessary.

Taxi industry bullshit? I don’t know, because unfortunately I can’t find
reference to this study at the moment—does this ring a bell with anyone?

------
malka
> You may have to leave your home 10 min earlier, or arrive your home 20 min
> later; but it's a small price to pay to build the city we want to live in.

Given that most people will not take a job that is further than 30 min
away[0], that actually makes a big difference

[0][http://www.citynews.ca/2013/12/03/commuting-times-key-
factor...](http://www.citynews.ca/2013/12/03/commuting-times-key-factor-for-
job-selection-among-younger-workers-survey/)

------
hershel
This guy gets the wrong impression because he doesn't understand that uber is
growing to something totally different:

1.Uber recently started to offer it's uberxl suv service, which carries upto 6
passengers and in sf costs $5 base fare + the lowest of ($0.45/minute or
$2.15/mile)[1].

2.Given enough demand, uber can offer a highly efficient personalized route
service, which builds optimal routes needed to transport 6 people. Let's
assume such routes can be only 25% longer than normal routes , on average[2].

Combine both of those, we can replace 6X30 minutes car trips , with a single
37.5 minute suv trip, which will be charged $21.87 for 6 passengers, or $3.64
per person.

If we wanted to have a similar trip in public transportation, it would
probably take around 1.5-2 hours , but might cost $2.

And if we compare this to a normal car trip, the uber experience could be much
better - you could watch a tv episode on your tablet after a long work day and
unwind, instead of the stress of fighting traffic. And it's priced pretty
closed to the cost of personal transportation.

And the secondary effects from shifting so much traffic to highly efficient
forms would greatly decrease traffic jams and further increase speed.

TL;DR - with it's new offering uber is evolving to be a much better, new mode
of public transportation, both cost effective and a great experience.

[1][https://www.uber.com/cities/san-
francisco](https://www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco)

[2]research of "demand responsive transportation" talks about similar
efficiencies.

~~~
couchand
This is a well-reasoned analysis but there are a few weaknesses:

\- Are those 6 people travelling together (relatively unlikely), or are they
being stuck in a shared vehicle with strangers? If it's the latter it seems
likely to be much _less_ comfortable than a bus, where there's usually a
potential to move around a bit and you go into it expecting to make
intermediate stops (and knowing where/when they are!).

\- After taking plenty of effort to get the dollars right you gloss over the
most important issue: routefinding. Mentioning some hypothetical "similar
trip" is not all that meaningful. If you live near one stop and work near
another on the same line it might be much faster to take transit. If you live
in a world built primarily for cars with no regard for other modes, you may
find it difficult to find _any_ public transit option for your route.

\- And a shift in traffic is laudable only if it doesn't serve to induce
further demand [0].

[0]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand)

~~~
hershel
True , some of those points i didn't take into account, but:

> Similar trip

I once read a research paper about "demand responsive transportation" that
simulated such route aggregation in realistic traffic over a large part of a
city(probably in finland), and got similar results with regards to route
efficiency, as far as i can remember. Can't seem to find the paper , will look
later again.

> induced demand

It's really hard to predict how much induced demand this will cause ,because:

1.Big efficiencies - hard to imagine all we be "eaten".

2.It lengthens trip time.

3.Once it's running, we have a software layer on top of transportation, which
might be a powerful new tool for transportation management - which might
greatly affect demand.

> comfort

You might be right on that, although for bus riders the decreased travel time
will surely be worth the extra inconvenience.

------
zamalek
[http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/can-you-hear-
the-...](http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/can-you-hear-the-flowers-
sing-issues-for-gifted-adults)

> __Perceptivity: __[...] Adults gifted in this way detect and dislike
> falsehood and hypocrisy.

Having issues with hypocrisy (outward or inward) is something that "gifted"
people typically have an issue with. Extreme intelligence (which is an
indicator of being "gifted") is something that pervades our industry - hence
our industry generally has a strong reaction to hypocrisy.

Don't believe for one second that the average person (or SFer) cares how
hypocritical they are being, don't think for one second that pointing that out
to them will change anything.

The only way to change their behavior is to the remove or resolve the problem
that causes their hypocritical behavior.

------
leothekim
I live in New York where the subway and bus system is pretty extensive, and
taxi and livery cabs are relatively plentiful in Manhattan. I take public
transit every day, but I still take cabs and own a car as well. Subways get me
to work and home every day. Taxis are nice for me and my wife to have a
pleasant evening together. I've even used a Uber on days when the subways are
failing me so I can get back home in time to relive my babysitter. The car is
nice so my wife and kids can go shopping or take trips out of the city. These
are all valid use cases equally applicable to living in San Francisco (where
I've lived as well.) I see no hypocrisy here, nor any room for someone else's
judgment that I'm a hypocrite.

------
kordless
> Public transportation in San Francisco doesn't suck.

Moments later...

> The BART sucks.

That's a bit of cognitive dissonance right there. It's understandable given
utopian transportation won't arrive overnight, ESPECIALLY in San Francisco.
When I first moved here, I was totally blown away by the lack of a major
highway connecting the North Bay to the South Bay. Yup, you gotta take Van
Ness!

The fact there is massive inertia on infrastructure change in San Francisco is
part of our moral system here, like it or not. That doesn't make me, or others
like me, hypocrites, nor does it mean others aren't working on solving the
problem. Personally, I'm working on implementing morality in other systems in
which I have experience.

------
benzoate
I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that Uber is cleaner compared to other
forms of transport, just merely more convenient than normal taxi services. I
also don't think switching to pure public transportation is a viable solution
in a lot of circumstances. Yes it can be very good when you're travelling
between common destinations, but once your destination is more than 10 minutes
walk from the train/bus station, the journey time quickly starts becoming
burdensome. It's also nice to have a redundant system in place for the rare
occasion that the public transport network fails (line upgrades, malfunction,
bomb scares, etc).

------
ZanyProgrammer
Did he ever travel to the South Bay from San Francisco? I have to doubt it,
because I never saw the word "Caltrain."

By US standards, yes, SF has good public transit, but its incredibly shitty by
the standards of the civilized world. I'm as progressive as you can get, have
relied on Bay Area (VTA, Caltrain, MUNI, BART) public transit since 2008, and
I'm the first to admit there are _major_ problems with it. I don't think he's
lived in SF (or the Bay Area in general) long enough.

------
moritz
Public transport?! European Communist!

------
stefan_kendall3
I was in SF recently. BART is awful.

BART to a restaurant took over an hour. 9 minute walk to the stop, 12 minute
wait for the train, 30 minute train ride, 15 minute walk. Even in the best
case scenario of 0 train time, that's 19 minutes of walking.

The restaurant had a huge wait, so I used Uber to get back to where I was
staying. 1 minute wait, 19 minute drive.

The Uber trip cost $10 more than BART for two people. I don't know how you
value your time, but $10 for 50 minutes of time for two people is always worth
it.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Really? You can't walk a few minutes, so BART sucks?

BART does suck, but for entirely different reasons. Its dirty, worn, loud,
pretty much like riding in a cattle car with extra smells.

------
joesmo
You're assuming that _not_ getting to your destination on time is an option
when taking public transportation around and especially in SF. At any point a
MUNI bus/train can stop for extended periods of time with no explanation.
Other times, there is an explanation like agents checking tickets and other
idiocies. Either way, there's a great chance you're not making that 9am
meeting with the VCs to secure funding.

------
anubhavashok
One case where I use Uber/Lyft over a regular taxi is when I am at
places/times where/when taxis are not readily available..Uber/Lyft works well
in those situations as the drivers know the exact coordinates to show up at
and do so relatively fast.

------
rwmj
I thought the argument was going to be something like "SF supports restrictive
practices in house building and rents, and therefore you should support
restrictive practices in taxi service". Instead, it was even more dumb than
that argument.

------
kator
I used to live in Los Angeles (talk about Carmageddon) and I moved to New York
4 years ago. Since then I've sold my car and use subways, trains and my legs
to get me to almost everywhere I need and once in a while I use a taxi or car
service to get luggage somewhere or if it's late and I just need to get home
without subway hassle.

I'm deeply considering moving to the Bay Area for reasons I won't go into here
but I am really concerned that I will need to buy a car to survive. I spent 10
days there recently and I clocked almost 4 hours a day on the road to various
places. In all fairness I had to commute in from up north (think Santa Rosa)
for family reasons but I still had flash backs to my life in Los Angeles and
the absolute necessity of having a car.

I’m doubtful that if I do move that I can find a commute to work as sweet as
my current job. I walk (by choice) about 9 blocks and subway 9 more and can
make the entire trip in 22 minutes anytime of day I like regardless of other
commuters. In SF you have to consider traffic, bus overloading, being in just
the right place at the right time to optimize your commute, or just buy a car
or just use Uber and get there when you want on your schedule (still fighting
traffic but that's the driver's problem).

Having grown up in Los Angeles I used to think SF public transportation was
pretty advanced, but having lived in New York and the area here I realize
trains, subways and the like are just much more effective here. My uninformed
guess is because trains where ingrained in the local culture investments in
subway, commuter trains and the like where easier to justify. In California
the car was able to take hold early because of the sprawling nature of
population distribution and since then it’s been near impossible to convince
tax payers to build public transportation in face of all the other priorities
for public tax dollars.

I think the “advent” of the electric car has made people feel they’re “doing
the right thing” meanwhile it will not solve traffic issues and will only
stall investment in public transportation by another fifty years.

I acknowledge the fact that many factors feed into transportation choices
(Children, Luggage, Time, Schedules, Costs) but I also think underlying issues
in a locality have a greater impact then individual choices. Walt Disney and
Ray Bradbury both tried to fight the “good fight” for years in Los Angeles
proposing Monorail systems and you can see where they managed to get.

To condemn individuals who use Uber and Lyft is like treating the symptom
rather then curing the disease. Until we have real plans to make better
transportation options available to the public they will continue to solve
their daily problems using their own resources however they feel meets their
needs. If you doubt this consider how many people ride horses to work these
days…

------
sidcool
I appreciate the sentiment of the post, but cannot quite relate it to the
Silicon Valley ethos. Isn't it the natural progression that we are seeing
here?

------
Dewie
Sure Madrid has pretty good public transportation. But it also has an almost
mysterious lack of bicycles. I have maybe seen a handful of them outside of
parks. Not that I needed one myself, but it was just surprising to me.

~~~
fesja
finally they are coming in 10 days! You can see some photos of the electric
bikes we will have
[https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1...](https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=670&q=bicimad&oq=bicimad&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l5.358.1234.0.1777.7.7.0.0.0.0.161.688.0j6.6.0....0...1ac.1.46.img..1.6.686.2V4baRHt0Cg&gws_rd=ssl)

