Ride

Society's winners and losers of Uber and Lyft (it's a love/hate relationship)

Snacks / Tuesday, February 18, 2020

5 Stars for Convenience... 0 stars for congestion. The Uber and Lyft-led ride industry has made life easier for many: whether it's having a few too many margaritas with dinner, visiting a new city, or needing a ride to the airport. It's also never been harder in one way: traffic. Here's the low-down, based on studies summed up by the WSJ:

  • The Pitch: Uber/Lyft pitched themselves as ride-sharing apps (picture 4 strangers in a Prius heading the same direction). Five years ago, Uber founder Travis Kalanick said it would end congestion: "If every car in San Francisco was Ubered there would be no traffic."
  • The Reality: Congestion got worse. Most riders hail private cars β€” an estimated 70%-80% of rides in major metro areas are non-pool. Drivers in NYC and California cruise without passengers ~40% of the time. Though Lyft estimates 500K Americans gave up personal cars thanks to ride-hailing (not ride-sharing).

Negative effects take a back-seat... When you can get contact solution delivered to your door same-day by Amazon, you're probably not thinking about delivery vehicles congesting streets. Similarly, users of ride-hailing services are likely to think more about convenience than traffic or pollution.

Fibbing about your mission can be a (disturbingly) successful strategy... The reality of ride-hail apps is more driving, more traffic, more pollution, more horn honking, more air fresheners. If we were woke sooner to Uber being part of a problem, not part of a solution, we may be less likely to have started Ubering. But now Lyft/Uber are here to stay, despite years pitching a mission that wasn't accurate.

Get Your News

Subscribe and thrive

Snacks provides fresh takes on the financial news you need to start your day. Chartr provides data visualizations on business, entertainment, and society. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.