$2.25 Lyft line rides in SF
blog.lyft.comThe actual lyft line code is more simple than you would expect. It's written in Flask and uses lots of heuristics. Lack of real-time traffic data causes most of their issues. We're hosting the engineering lead for Lyft Line at our meetup in SF next month if you are interested in learning about it: http://www.meetup.com/OpenLate/events/217476372/
This price war between uber and lyft seems foolish and unsustainable, but as a consumer, I'm down.
You shouldn't, the end result is that drivers will end up with shitty salaries (and no, most drivers aren't going to be retrained as computer programmers when they realise Uber can't help them pay for their SF rent). Not to mention that these people are contractors (illegal) so have more personal taxes to pay.
In my eyes Uber and Lyft have lost all moral high ground. These companies are just not following regulations to make more money. This money was going towards drivers, but it's clear that that's no longer the case. If you have any moral qualms about Walmart's treatment of employees, I don't see how you cannot have issues with Uber.
It's not clear to me that the contracting model for drivers is illegal. Drivers choose their own hours, own their own cars, and don't have to be exclusive to either Uber or Lyft--many drivers drive for both more or less simultaneously. That's the most clear cut example of a valid, legal contractor model I've seen.
If working your own hours, with your own equipment, for one or two companies is illegal then myself and a lot of Hacker News are working illegally.
working almost 40 hours of week for only one company as a contractor _is_ illegal. In the eyes of the IRS you are an employee, not a contractor. But this is illegal for the employer rather than the employee in this case.
That's not true. Working 40 hours in a week is not a problem. A contractor can put in an unlimited number of hours if they wish. 20, 40, 80 - it doesn't matter.
The differentiator you're probably thinking of is whether the worker chooses which hours they work. If the worker decides independently how much they will work and at what times then the IRS doesn't tend to consider the relationship employment -- regardless of how much time is put in. This is precisely how these driving services operate.
If the employer is scheduling a fixed schedule, say 9-5 M-F, then the IRS considers it an employment arrangement. Regardless of the number of hours worked. But that is not at all how these services operate.
One of the defining features of Uber is that the drivers set their own hours, too. That's how surge pricing is supposed to work--it's supposed to incentivize part-time drivers to get off their butts and drive during peak times.
Sometimes it backfires; Uber sent warning emails about surge pricing New Years Eve to drivers and to riders, and the cumulative effect of the warnings resulted in a glut of drivers and relatively little surge pricing in Seattle, at least according to a driver I talked to. In this case, leaving it as a contract arrangement even works for Uber because it lets them leverage market forces where a traditional employment model would make it impossible.
Why would a lyft driver be paying SF rent? The notion that low income earners ought to be renting in extremely expensive neighborhoods is nonsense.
If I can commute across the bay so can everyone else.
I'm a little sad that the entirety of SF is now considered "extremely expensive neighborhoods".
What's your response going to be when Oakland also becomes "extremely expensive neighborhoods" (if it isn't already)?
Well I live a lot further away than Oakland. I commute from along the 680 corridor which is further than may are willing to endure, I think. Luckily there's still quite a lot of affordable housing in safe neighborhoods in San Leandro, Hayward and El Cerrito (to name a few), all of which are much shorter commutes than mine.
But the more general answer to your question: When supply outstrips demand the only reasonable response is to build more housing.
Complaining that driving jobs have low value isn't constructive. The value of those jobs will approach zero soon due to technology. Instead, address the economic imbalance and let supply meet the demand.
Walnut Creek
Most of the Lyft drivers I've spoken to recently lived in Walnut Creek or further out. I only occasionally seem to get someone from Oakland, let alone SF.
The uber announcement notes that "Partner Drivers will receive fares based on time and distance, the same as they normally do." So it appears they aren't taking the hit. Lyft doesn't comment on it...
Drivers' salaries can only go as low as drivers are willing to be paid to drive. That's no different than literally any commercial interaction. You could always volunteer to pay more, and the other party would probably be appreciative.
Of course, in this case I think it's pretty clear that Lyft and Uber are subsidizing the rides and paying drivers much more than the cost of the ride. If wealthy investors want to pay people to drive me around, I'm game.
This only holds so long as you believe the drivers are rational actors, and account for all of their own costs. From talking to drivers I've ridden with, most have literally no idea how much their driving is depreciating the car, nor do they factor in things like an increased maintenance schedule into their calculations.
I suspect Uber and Lyft would continue to experience their current glut of drivers, even if the entire model boiled down to nothing more than drivers effectively trading the equity of their vehicles for cash at a terrible exchange rate.
I prefer the assumption that people tend to be rational actors who account for their own costs than the assumption that there is some group of people able to rationally prescribe actions and account for the costs of other people they have never met.
What does meeting people have to do with anything?
It's pretty straightforward to figure out what the costs are of an UberX or Lyft driver, knowing their car model and year and also knowing how much they drive. These are facts, and they can be calculated once and held to public scrutiny and review. There's no need for everyone to redo that calculation.
Now that we have something that can be calculated, we can move forward based on reason, without having to decide which of two assumptions we prefer.
I agree, until Lyft runs out of money, Uber wins, and the price skyrockets.
Plus there's Sidecar, which will surely die soon because nobody even knows it exists.
...and the price skyrockets.
Maybe. But maybe instead:
Routing and capital intensity (lack of car idle-times) continues to improve. Shared-rides in larger-vehicles (vans) grow in proportion and convenience. Cities expand pick-up/drop-off zones for car services. Attempts at monopoly price hikes spur freelance/coop/upstart competitors along the most profitable corridors, able to snipe Uber rides via overlay apps/services. So costs and prices stay low long enough until...
Driverless vehicles become the major mode of urban short-trip car travel. Driver costs are eliminated, insurance costs reduced, and capacity/intensity further improved – with high-capacity vehicles that tirelessly reposition without breaks/distractions. Automated rides stay nearly as cheap as 'mass' transit on dedicated rails, indefinitely.
Who owns the cars? Who is liable for problems which arise? If I'm anywhere near home, I'm using my own self-driving car, not something used by tens of thousands of unknown people. If I'm somewhere else, I'd like to use a restricted set of cars of people that I know and trust and vice versa. Probably just trade favors and pay for gas/charging rather than a straight up fee. Would be nice to coordinate with a place to stay, so I don't have to do two separate tasks (esp if I'm visiting somewhere I have friends or family nearby).
Also, it seems like regulated utilities have been more effective at providing essential services widely at low cost than large private oligopolies such as cable and wireless, so I have no particular desire for an Uber/Lyft duopoly.
Whoever wants to be in the business owns the cars, like every other rental/service offering. Whatever the liability challenges, they are likely less than current cars-with-drivers, after removing human error, emotions, and criminality.
You aren't likely to want to own your own self-driving car in a major city, unless you're an eccentric rich person, or a car hobbyist, or a old fogie. Urban garage/parking space is expensive for an asset that's idle 22+ hours of every day, and fueling/maintenance/looking-for-parking are likely not the best marginal use of your time.
What's your dislike of "something used by tens of thousands of unknown people", as long as it's well-maintained? Do you avoid libraries, sidewalks, parks, airports, shops, and restaurants?
Right now, Uber and other transport-network-providers are becoming "people I know and trust", because their systems have consistently delivered quick, clean, reasonably-priced rides across many times/places. App-dispatching a suitable-quality autocar from the nearest competitive local provider is going to save a lot of time/energy/pollution, compared to coordinating loaners from friends/family.
If transport regulators like city councils and taxi commissions were better at this sort of thing, they'd have bootstrapped a similarly rapid and ubiquitous ride-service years earlier, using their unique governmental coordination powers. Instead, they let a patchwork of inferior alternatives fester for decades.
I'm not sure of the eventual market structure of autocar-dominated city streets. Automation and standardization might make room for many providers, or just a few. Regulators could easily screw things up, by locking in specific practices or incumbent providers based on early guesses, biases, and corruption.
We'll just have to let lots of things be tried and see what works. For rapidly exploring the possibility space, the vigorous investor-fueled competition we're seeing now is very helpful.
Do you spend most of your life sleeping on public beds, lounging on public sofas, and public furniture? Eat most of your meals in restaurants? Rent your clothes? I'll spend some time in a hotel if I have to (i.e. far from home, no friends or family where I'm going), but I don't pay to sleep in a hotel or couch surf in my own neighborhood, nor do I rent cars unless I'm out of town.
I own my own home, means of transportation, eat most of my meals at my own table...the idea of being a renter of all the major environmental necessities of life is simply not appealing to me in the slightest. I'd rather sleep in my own natural latex, bed bug free bed, and sit on my own sofa or read a book on my own chair, call me crazy. There's never sticky goo on mine, or weird smells. I like private ownership.
For me, Uber is the opposite of "people I know and trust," and I have no desire to have them monetize my movements.
This attitude will change over the next decade or two. As @gojomo said, the vast majority of people already use common cabs, buses, trains and planes. Convenience and price will win out. Street parking or off-street parking will become rarer and more expensive in cities.
First it will be the occasional users or those with a second car or on a budget, but eventually most of us will either pay per use or have an account for regular use rather than outright buying a car like we do now.
For commuting, many will be taking shared vans (possibly pod-based) that pick an efficient route rather than plying a typical bus route.
And we'll get the vehicle we need when we need it. You won't take a ute to dinner with your partner. You won't have a three-door hatch when you need to choose and bring home large items, or transport the family on a road trip.
The future Uber won't even be people you know or don't know. It will be a driverless car.
Fair enough, I trust you on your own preferences, but car ownership is already trending down. More people each year are living in bigger cities. That's where ride-services are most convenient – and become even more efficient with a high density of cars and riders. And it's also where private car ownership can already be superfluous and expensive.
Self-driving cars-for-rent will get you places both faster and cheaper than possible in your own car. That could make private car ownership seem quaint or even ostentatious in most cities.
Globally private car ownership is soaring, especially in countries such as China where public modes of transportation have long been dominant. Self driving cars will be great, I can't wait to own one, but I disagree that renting something that I use on a daily basis will be clearly cheaper than owning. Short term rents for similar quality are generally more costly than purchases or long term leases. Renting furniture and appliances is usually something poor people do in spite of it being more expensive in the long run, because as Michael Caine said, "Poor people can't afford good deals." One thing that's true is that people are getting poorer in America. Maybe that will force many of them into higher cost rentals. But I don't see the people on the waiting list for Teslas deciding that don't want one. A self driving Tesla makes it more desirable, not less. Cars are one of the major ways people express their sense of aesthetics and status. People don't have to buy Apple iPhones or Burberry clothes, but they do. The most iconic brands deliver the highest profits.
Rental cars carry costs that I don't have with my own vehicle: frequent transactions, additional liability issues, wasted mileage driven between fares, uncertain transit times, daily cleaning and inspection for damage, commercial licensing and insurance, middle men, management, marketing, accounting, additional taxes, regulations, and covenants. If I leave something important in my car, it's still there the next day. I don't have to worry about vomit in the backseat. I don't face a transaction cost and a delay (or the uncertainty of a no show) to go to work, to drive home, to hop in the car and go to the mall, or grab a bite. I can leave things in my car. I have less exposure to pathogens and pests from surfaces in revolving contact with thousands of strangers from all over the world, lower probability of exposure to cold and flu viruses, fewer vectors for bedbugs to travel into my home.
I can't see rent seekers (esp short term ones) being so far under my costs that after adding their markup, it will be particularly cheaper for me. The 5 year TCO for a Prius (staple of the ridesharing industry) according to Edmunds is a little over $18 a day at 41 miles per day, 44 cents/mile inclusive of insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. The average fare mile on the Peninsula for a cab is $3. I don't see ridesharing companies finding an order of magnitude in efficiencies and still delivering any kind meaningful profit.
Maybe private toilets will seem quaint and ostentatious, and we'll be soon freed from the tyranny of private bathrooms by happier times of public lavatories.
You've convinced me that germ-phobic suburbanites will resist pay-per-ride services.
For city-dwellers, it's different, and the Edmunds TCO leaves out a lot. We pay $hundreds more per month for housing with parking. Then, we pay to find parking near our destinations in extra drive-time, money, and walk-time. And we ride for far fewer than the assumed 41 miles a day, 15K miles a year – so the fixed costs of car ownership are amortized over fewer miles.
That makes the per-mile costs of rideservices already roughly competitive or outright superior for many city-dwellers. That's especially true for the non-poor, who face a higher lost-compensation opportunity costs for every minute spent driving/refueling/parking/walking.
That's also before app-assisted multi-rider pooling, or automated-driving. Those could more-than-halve rideservice costs again.
My self driving car will drop me off right at my destination, park itself, drive itself, refuel itself (at the lowest cost), pick up my dry cleaning while I'm busy, and pick me up again, so no lost opportunity cost there. I have a garage, and I'm not hurting for living space so no need to convert it (which would also raise my property taxes). No labor cost to handle all the micro transfers of responsibility/possession. No complex tracking, routing, and billing system required, no embarrassing privacy and security failures even with large investments and ongoing costs in that area. You don't think a family of 2 or 3 or 4 drives 15k miles a year in America? Maybe the number of cars drops from one per person to one per every other adult in a household. Maybe retirees pool their cars with their friends or share them with their working children. Looking at all the cars on the road with one person in them, I'd say we're pretty far from 1 car per household, let alone 0.
Parking cost when I'm away go down because the car can park itself somewhere cheaper (in automated facilities), or drive itself home, be at the disposal of friends/family, drop off or pick up things for me. Since in your world their are fewer cars, that puts downward pressure on parking prices. Parking facilities can be located in more economical areas, and pack cars more efficiently because they are automated and instrumented, and their own labor costs are reduced.
One of the main practical use cases for local cabs/ubers is a ride to the airport. Since my car can drive itself home, I really have no need for a ride for hire. Also, since giving a friend a friend a ride to the airport no longer a personal time investment, the odds of getting a ride from a friend increase. If you're worried about me not maximizing my 44 cents per mile, I can take someone leaving the airport home, assuming they meet my standards of reputation. At this point you're probably crowing victory, but note that is purely a highly infrequent, discretionary use of my excess capacity, perhaps less than 1% of miles driven for most people. It's more tax efficient to just swap (robo) rides with friends.
A self driving car will reduce all these onerous costs that ridesharing is supposed to save me from, plus I can earn money from it in your Renters Paradise, so I don't see any downside in owning a car. I hardly feel the cost as it is, even without driving anything close to the most economical, lowest TCO car on the market.
I don't see why that would necessarily happen, because the barrier to entry for new competitors in the smartphone-app-ride-sharing industry is relatively low. Of course, it could happen if Uber ironically manages to get regulatory favors that increase barriers to entry to would-be competitors.
Agreed, except that we shouldn't ignore network effects. Drivers go for one smartphone-ride-sharing-app over another because it has more riders, and riders likewise: because it has more drivers. That can be very hard to shake.
There's a logic to unsustainable price wars - your competitors might not sustain them as well as you can.
Price wars can be horrible for consumers, that's why some forms of them are illegal[0]. If Lyft and Uber talk to each other about gutting prices to put cabs out of business it's illegal. If they read the same econ books and independently come to the conclusion that it's the best thing to do, it's legal.
We regulate the cab industry to insulate it from this type of thing, because once the high prices and bad service that come with market concentration happen it may be months or longer before better options become available.
I'm not sure how tin-foil or revisionist this belief considered, but I've suspected for a while that predatory pricing simply isn't a thing that is remotely common or effective. There is far too little historical evidence of it happening, and even less of it being effective.
In some quick googling the Cato Institute are the only ones saying it's a myth. But I'd expect that from them. I'm sure the Austrians deny it, too.
It's fairly basic game theory and strategy. If it's not empirical enough for you then Economic theory in general might not make the cut either :)
I don't know. The Wikipedia article is pretty short and sparse. There is a short list of "examples of alleged predatory pricing," but that doesn't seem to support the certainty with which the economic theory is generally presented.
Even in non-empirical economic theory, the idea doesn't sound particularly obvious or sound to me. Obviously predatory pricing by a large firm can drive small firms out of business, but the large firm doesn't actually make profit from that until they raise their prices again, which sends a signal to others to start competing. And yes, there are barriers to entry, but it doesn't seem like the resources a small firm spends to enter a market would be destroyed when that firm gets driven out of business by the large firm's predatory pricing. Assets will get liquidated, sold to someone else, and potentially used to start competing again when the large firm raises its prices.
I really wouldn't expect there to be a mountain of evidence for predatory pricing, it's been illegal since the 50's and if done properly it's subtle. It's just one of many tools firms have to duck and move in the marketplace.
Yeah, seems dangerous for Lyft to get sucked into a price war. But I do see a lot of potential longer term value in getting riders and drivers accustomed to multiple pickups.
For those not in the SF area, this is almost certainly in response to this (unless Uber has a mole within Lyft...): http://blog.uber.com/SFpoolparty
I just tried Lyft line in SF. The first request got canceled after five minutes. The second one found matches after a few minutes and told me to be outside 6 minutes later. At some point someone else joined the ride, so the 6 minutes turned into 12. About 15 minutes went by, and (when the estimated wait time had decreased only by 4 minutes) the driver decided to cancel the ride. My guess is that it was because rush hour pricing jumped from 50% to 75%, so "James" decided getting a single, full-price ride made more sense.
Needless to say, not a happy customer at this point.
For its shortcomings, at least Muni has a level of accountability to the public that Lyft and Uber inherently lack. I can't see Lyft or Uber providing discounts to seniors or people with disabilities.
Instead, they provide a reliable service. All the discounts in the world are useless when it's raining and the ramp is stuck, but "no worries, we'll send someone to you in 30 minutes."
I have a lot of strong opinions about why Uber is a godsend for people with disabilities that still let them get into a car. It grates on me when people bring up "the disabled" in support of any sort of public transit, when my experience has always been that it may work, or be half assed, and the perspective of the agencies when you ask for change (like, say, design a bus such that everyone gets on the same way, or a train station that only uses elevators (with hidden away backup stairs) such that if they are broken people will care) is to be grateful to have been invited to the party at all.True in a political sense I suppose. But Lyft and Uber are far more accountable to actual users. And I'm nor sure I would equate accountability with offering arbitrary discounts to select groups.
I wouldn't call them arbitrary. As a society we've chosen to make the idea of helping the less able lead more normal lives something we want. Whether it really helps or is the most effective way is debatable, but I think it's pretty clear why; it's generally well supported and fits with our cultural mythos.
Also young people don't vote ;)
Yes, I also thought of that as well. :) I didn't feel like exploring how that interrelates to other classes like the disabled in complex ways though[1], so omitted it.
Edit: s/included that as well/thought of that as well/
1: Do the disabled benefit from this association and the voting power of the elderly, and if so how much of our cultural wish to help the disabled is rationalization after the fact?
I'm not that familiar with Lyft, but Uber doesn't doesn't seem accountable to actual users. Did they issue an apology for their "Rides of Glory" article where they mapped potential one night stands?
It would be simple for the public to provide this support for seniors and people with disabilities on ride sharing services. Just create a monthly subsidy that can be used for the purpose of any public transit. It doesn't have to be used only on Muni. Problem solved!
In fact, that seems like a great policy idea.
No, it seems like a terrible policy idea just like giving people food stamps instead of money - less utility to the recipients than straight up cash, high overhead for the program including the development of rules on what is an acceptable expense (can I just give all the subsidy to my mom for driving me around? What if she creates a 3-car competitor to Uber? What if she actually never drives me around?), will appeal greatly to people who worry that giving poor people money would be terrible because they will just spend it on drugs and Cadillacs, etc.
Muni is theoretically accountable to city hall, not the people who ride it. It has no incentive to provide a useful service- only to keep its budget (which is a slush fund anyway).
The company I work for recently won a contest put on by Lyft offering free Lyft Line rides to and from work for an entire week. I live in Lower Pac Heights and work in the Financial District and take a couple different Muni routes to and from work. I'll take either the 2 or the 3 heading in and the 38L heading back; the 38L is way too crowded in the morning by the time it gets to my closest stop. Morning commute usually takes around 15 minutes and afternoon takes around 10.
So, my commute isn't bad by any means but I decided to give Lyft Line a shot to see if I could do any better. The first day I tried hailing one in the morning, the app hung up looking for drivers; it said 1 minute to match with a driver but I waited 3 before quitting the app and deciding to take Muni. That afternoon, I tried again but ran into the same issue. The next afternoon, I was finally able to line up a ride but had to wait 10 minutes for the driver to get to me. Once he did and we were on our way, I had the joyful experience of sitting in traffic for blocks on end while watching Munis zip by in the designated lanes beside us. Not including wait time, the ride took around 20 minutes (double my normal commute time).
I'm sure there are some routes for which Line is a better option than public transportation, but I personally have a much better experience on Muni than I did with Line. I get why they're focused on rush hour; a service like Line requires a critical mass of people to use the app concurrently in order to make it work. But, the downside of this is that the times when it reaches this point are the times when traffic is the worst and public transportation offers a superior alternative in many cases. We'll see if this ends up taking off, but I know I won't be using it for my commute. Maybe this would be better suited for one-off events like Outside Lands, Giants games etc. but I'd imagine they'd run into the same problems.
Sounds similar to my thoughts. I've been trying to get a ride for the past two hours (I'm in the office, no rush to go home). I got canceled three times.
I’ve been a regular Lyft Line user. Except for some cars that show up in pretty bad shape and smell, it’s a good experience. And I’ve had to wait much longer on an average.
It’s heartening to see a company just focused on the “user” and not just world domination.
I'm assuming you mean Uber is after "world domination"? But don't fool yourself, Lyft is the same, Uber is just better at it so Lyft has no choice but to fight back with $2.50 to Uber's $5 bucks flat.
This isn't because the company is "focused on the user", it's because the company is focused on the competition. If that goes away (unlikely for Lyft to see Uber go away) don't expect high standards.
Do you believe this because you know some inside information, or is this just a generic "All any company cares about is your money"-type platitude?
Companies exist to make money. Some don't say it outright and focus on the user experience, which brings more money (i.e. Apple). Others focus directly on the bottom line (Uber). There's nothing wrong with either mindset, but I believe it's naive to say that companies don't care about money. Without money, you can't pour it into R&D, expansion, or improvements.
Companies need to make money to keep existing, the same way we need to breathe.
If you've ever had a tyrannical boss, you'll see sometimes the company is just their fiefdom. Feeding their ego is their prime motivation and organizing principle for the company - not generating money.
I still don't understand why people are under the impression that Uber doesn't care about its customers while Lyft somehow does.
I've watched a few of Kalanick's talks and he seems like a motivated engineer who actually cares about efficient transportation.
I'm saying all companies HAVE to care about your money but they don't have to care about you. Not unless you have competition.
Laissez-faire
Was your worst Lyft Line car better or worse than your worst MUNI vehicle?
This would seem to undermine companies like Chariot, who are offering more MUNI-plus like services:
I use Lyft all the time, multiple times a week. This is ridiculous. How in the hell are their drivers supposed to make money?
It's likely that Lyft are loss-leading to keep marketshare and still paying their drivers the regular amount.
The "Drive Happy District"? That sounds like something right out of Super Sad True Love Story.
Wonderful. As a heavy Lyft user, I'm looking forward towards the same in NYC - NJ area.
Pretty neat idea. However, more glad that Lyft finally has the ability to split fare.
ok what is a lyft line? is that some other type of lyft?
A potentially shared ride. It spends a minute searching to see if someone is heading in the same direction as you and then you share the ride. As a passenger, you also only have 1 minute to get downstairs when the car arrives or you have to pay a $5 fee (which really annoys me sometimes as their estimates of time to arrival are sometimes grossly incorrect.
thats quite cheap if you go from one side of the square to the other.. which happens to be my case ;)
the 1-up-manship continues
At what point do drivers tap out? This match keeps cutting their hopes dimmer and dimmer.
So, I've been talking to a lot of Uber/Lyft drivers, and while I have no carefully tabulated data to quantify my point, I must say Lyft drivers complain less than Uber drivers (at least not explicitly) about their respective employers.
This attitudinal difference is most acute when the driver drives for both: they generally like Lyft better for how the company treats them but are also on Uber to ensure steadier business.
I thought dogma was that drivers are not employees, but Independent Contractors? Meaning Uber/Lyft are not employers (of drivers), but more akin to a fancy home improvement parking lot?
They're still employers, even if the drivers are independent contractors. The name doesn't change.
They do employee people (office staff), but they are not employers of the drivers. It would be more accurate to call them the contractee.
At least, this is the argument that Uber/Lyft will/does make to shield them from general liability for their contractors' actions as well as tax liability[1].
[1] http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...
These prices are sustained by Uber's and Lyft's VC money. Drivers still get the full fare.
Uber stated that the drivers are still getting what they would be getting without the $5 promo
Most drivers I meet have both apps running; I'm not sure this sort of competition is bad for drivers really. They will and can go where the customers are.
Who would have thought private industry was better than government at things.
To paraphrase Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, free markets don't eliminate the need for government; they minimize the extent to which government needs participate directly in the game.
However, government is still essential to deciding the “rules of the game” and in interpreting and enforcing those rules.
This is a limited time promotion. The Muni price is a long term price. After a while, lyft and uber will bring their prices back up. It will be a shame if any muni services are lost in the meantime because people stupidly believe that these are long term prices.
Lyft's normal line price is frequently (slightly) cheaper for my wife and I than Muni. Of course, during heavy demand times or for longer rides, muni wins, and I certainly would not want it to go away!
I think long term something like robot driven 6-rider lyft-line style vans is probably the future of public transit (hopefully) :)
A loss-leading promotion means that government is terrible at everything?
Ron Swanson, is that you?
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/throw...
Edit: thanks for downvoting a valid point. It's weird that HN doesn't see it for what it is.
HN downvotes low effort posts like reaction gifs, it has nothing to do with your point.