I love Lyft and have been using the service for almost a year now, but they've gotten greedy with their pricing model. About once a month I'll take a Lyft home from work, and the same ride has steadily become more expensive. What once costed $12, now costs $18, when a cab would charge $14. It's an easy way for them to boost profits, but I think riders will catch on and look elsewhere as cabs start to get their act together. Flywheel is an app for hailing cabs, and you can pay through your phone just like Lyft. Cab drivers attitude has significantly improved over the course of a year and I'm now no longer opposed to taking one like I once was.
Why would they charge less than a cab? It's clear they are not a ride sharing service, unless your $12 ride was for 50 miles ($.55/mile * 50 miles / 2 people ~= 12).
Taxi drivers are professionals, Lyft drivers are amateurs. I'm not being rude, but that's what they are. Taxi's are under strict regulation and guidelines, and require a medallion to operate. Lyft drivers constantly get lost, take the slowest routes to get around, and have taken me to the wrong place multiple times.
I've taken Lyft twice and both times I had to direct the driver. Which isn't a problem, really, but they are indeed amateurs in the real sense of the word compared to the Uber drivers and most cab drivers. It's kind of neat though since they're just people from the area and even though they don't know where everything is they're interesting to talk to for the most part.
They have navigation systems built into the Lyft (and Uber) apps, actually, but it was more of me saying my destination and the guy saying "Should I go left or right to get started?" whereas a cabbie just knows exactly where you're headed.
I'm unfamiliar with Lyft -- do Lyft drivers only pick people up on their way somewhere? Or do they go out of their way to pick people up?
If it's the latter, then it's not really helping the environment much more than cabs, correct? For me, that means taking a cheaper option (and supporting someone's profession, rather than someone who's just making extra money on the side), is better.
1) Lyft drivers operate similar to a taxi and wait around until they are summoned via the app to give someone a ride.
2) It's not helping the environment more than cabs, and probably does more damage than cabs. I've seen a Ford F-350 Superduty with a pink mustache picking someone up. Cab's are usually Toyota Prius'.
3) As of recently, it's not cheaper than a cab.
4) It does allow drivers, who often have full-time jobs during the day, make extra money on the side.
It's the latter. Lyft and Sidecar started in SF, a city in which it is notoriously difficult to catch a cab. The goal isn't to help the environment but to create a marketplace to allow drivers and passengers to easily connect. When they began they were both cheaper than cabs; from my personal experience they now cost about the same. They do make catching a ride far easier though.
I'm curious, is it a popular service because of a dearth of other options like public transit (buses), or because people prefer cab-style transportation despite the higher cost?
A bit of both, but more column A than column B IMO. SF's transit is pretty notoriously bad - dirty buses and trains, never on time, very slow, stops (too) frequently, and there's a (probably well-founded) perception of danger on some routes to boot.
Mass transit coverage (see: BART or MUNI light rail) is also non-existent in the vast majority of the city, making sketchy, infrequent buses the only alternative.
This is combined with an extremely corrupt taxicab lobby that has successfully prevented the growth of the cab fleet despite an increasing population, making SF a notoriously difficult city to get a cab during busy times (Thurs, Fri, Sat nights). Taxicabs are also poorly regulated, quite often picking up a passenger on the way to another fare and simply abandoning the request, as well as sketchiness with accepting and processing credit cards.
SF is really the perfect storm of regulatory and governmental failure that has allowed the rise of Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, etc.
Whether you believe in Lyft or not, it's amazing that in just one year transportation in SF is a solved problem. And soon it will be in many other cities as well. I remember waiting on the phone for Yellow Cab to confirm my taxi and it would sometimes take hours. I would have to plan my night ahead. Now with Uber, Sidecar, Lyft, and Flywheel I can be out the door in 5 minutes.
Get out of the echo chamber for a bit, SF did not "solve transportation". Some startups (of questionable legality) have allowed upper class people to more easily move themselves around. Frequently in luxury cars. It's neat if you're one of those people, but it didn't solve much of anything.
You don't have to be so snarky. Of course I'm aware of issues outside of SF or even within SF for that matter. My point is that getting around in cabs has been made a lot easier. Sure, there are still problems with public transit and whatnot (I ride the bus everyday) but the increased attention on lowering costs via ride sharing is having a net positive effect.
$200k in revenue a month for one of the consumer services alone (estimated Lyft rev on 120,000 rides/month) suggests they're solving a big problem/providing a lot of value for consumers...
Recent sold on one single medallion in NYC was over $1MM.
In government eyes moving people is a business of making money, not giving people convenience. Said that once the companies like Uber of Lyft grew enough to be impossible to ignore them, I am more than sure Gov will step in and limit them severely in what they can do, most likely through expensive certifications and fees. Then it won't be a difference between calling Uber or Yellow Cab.
I can't wait until SF gets Car2Go. It's an amazing service that is surprisingly cheaper than Uber, Lyft... even the bus!
The most expensive part of a cab ride is the labor. That labor is uneccesary for people who know how to drive and haven't been drinking. Car2Go fixes that problem handily.
Parking is going to be a problem. Even with something the size of the Smart car parking SF is going to be a gigantic pain.
I have a friend who lived in the Outer Richmond and we'd meet up from time to time. He'd take his car because it's the Outer Richmond and transit is basically non-existent. Conversations when we meet up would go something like:
I'm from Vancouver and we have several car-sharing services here - Car2Go, ZipCar, Modo. There are not only dedicated spots all over the place, but recently a bylaw was passed to allow cars from car-shared services to park in all spots that say "permit required" [1]
That's true. I hope cities will start to dedicate spots to shared cars at some point. It only makes sense that a car used by many people would get some precedent over a car that only serves one person. I can also imagine shopping centers providing free spots to encourage foot traffic.
If I'm reading this correctly it says you just park the car at the other end and get out? In SF I'd pay a premium not to have to park a car. Parking, in my limited experience, often takes much longer than the actual driving part.
Car2go should build a hand-off feature, where you can find people near where you're going who want a car. Then you can just pull up, put on the blinker for a few seconds and give them the car without parking.
I could imagine this would often work downtown at busy times.
This makes me wonder where Sidecar is headed. I'm in Boston so I do not get to experience Lyft except when visiting SF twice a year. Sidecar seems to be a much looser experience than Lyft with the drivers feeling more like the friend of a friend that may or may not get you home alive.
That's obviously somewhat of an exaggeration but I've found the few Lyft rides I've taken to be more "professional" than those I've done with Sidecar (and by professional I'm referring to the way the drivers operate their vehicles). Uber is obviously the leader in this but Lyft seems a few steps above Sidecar.
As a customer I want as many ride providers as possible to keep competition intense. I'm very curious to see where this market goes.
Culture separates Lyft from the rest. The pink mustache to me serves two functions: 1) it represents that culture that runs very deep and 2) it helps you ID a Lyft car in a fun, non-threatening way.
I use Lyft quite a bit, all of the drivers are great, friendly and people I don't mind spending 5-15 minutes with. It feels like getting into a car with a friend and is completely safe.
I'm the complete opposite - I find the mustache extremely gaudy and is the main reason why I prefer Sidecar/UberX (I find the drivers with Sidecar similarly friendly and interesting, and UberX more professional).
I guess that seems somewhat trite in retrospect, but for some reason I feel like I'm getting in a clown car when I use Lyft.
I've heard that a few times and I totally understand how that can be the case. For me it's dependent on where I'm going. Classy party? Uber. Friend's house or home from work? Lyft.
I wanted to be a Lyft driver, but they don't allow 2 door vehicles (I drive an Infiniti G37). I have a passenger seat that constantly goes to waste because of it (I drive throughout downtown Chicago, as well as in the suburbs).
I agree though, its a cultural thing. Uber is about a monetary transaction, and Lyft is about creating a shared commons from private ownership.
We called a sidecar for my 6'4" 250lb friend who was borderline blackout drunk, and were very amused when we had to help him into the Mazda Miata that arrived. Funny, but not ideal.
This sentiment sets off red flags for me. If people assume that cars with a pink mustaches are safe, it will be that much easier for somebody to take advantage of a false sense of security.
I think the pink mustache thing is brilliant on a few fronts.
1. ID. It really helps identify the car when it's there to pick you up.
2. Marketing. I remember the first time I saw a pink mustache on a car I thought to myself, 'What is that about?' After the second, third and fourth times I started asking and that's how I found out about Lyft.
3. Community. I've heard that Lyft drivers wave to each other the same way Jeep owners and motorcycle riders do.
I know some people are turned off by it, but I imagine the benefits outweigh the negatives for Lyft.
I think Lyft has a visible culture that may be a turn-off to some, but I think it's really great and I prefer the service to the others you mention. In other services you sit in the back seat and ignore each other, aside from the friendly hello when getting in the car. With Lyft, you commonly sit up front with the driver and greet each other with a fist bump. The last couple of rides, the drivers had bottles of water and snacks to share. It feels like more of a community with Lyft, and it's always cheaper than the equivalent Uber. Give it a try sometime, you might just like it :)
Question: if lyft drivers don't have to purchase professional insurance, why should cab companies have to do so? The insurance companies charge a lot more when driving for hire.
Technically Lyft drivers don't charge for rides. Transactions are based on suggested "donations". So at least technically it is more like giving a friend gas money than paying a cab driver. That is probably why they are able to avoid professional insurance: they are not strictly offering what we know as a taxi service.
Just wait until one of these drivers gets in an accident and kills their passenger. The jury in a wrongful death lawsuit isn't going to buy this sort of technically.
My first thought was 60 million is alot of money which also means their valuation is really up there.I think alot of these sharing companies Airbnb Lyft etc are interseting love their vibe and profit models but they are playing in markets that are zero sum games and the old guard that they are disrupting are going launch serious knock down drag out legal battles in the near future.
An issue with Lyft, or any ride sharing service, is that they'll need to figure out how to operate in sprawly areas where customers are low-density. I spoke with them last year about their options for opening up in Detroit, but it seemed like a stretch for their ops; the only service I see really working there is Uber.
I imagine a similar issue for Dallas, Atlanta, etc. would transpire.
I really hate Lyft based on the behavior of their drivers in SF; I've had them on many separate occasions do crazy things like cut across 4 lanes to make a turn, block driveways, etc. Things which a taxi driver doesn't do, or which I'd call TL&C and report the cab for.
So Lyft (and I guess Uber) are basically Netflix then. (As in--why mail people DVD's when streaming is right around the corner?) As with Netflix, they're the best positioned to ride that particular wave.
If self driving cars take off, Lyft will be the computing network that manages on-demand transportation including via self-driving cars. Not at all a short term business.
