It's important to note that Uber also created a brand new market. Many of my friends, and myself included, would've never considered using taxis "back in the day" when doing errands or day-to-day activities. Alternatives would've been to just drive ourselves or take public transportation. Uber and Lyft have made it frictionless and convenient enough for everyday use.

What I'm trying to say is that Uber isn't only cannabilizing the market share of taxis. Yes, they are definitely taking some of that, but more importantly they are differentiating themselves enough to cater to a whole new crowd that wouldn't have ever used taxis in the first place.

The existence of Uber literally changes my business travel planning. Previously I'd always pick a hotel within walking distance of the primary purpose of the trip (company office/conference/etc). Since Uber exists, I get to pick any hotel in the city. I literally ran up more in Uber bills in 2 weeks than I've spent on American cabs in 33 years and couldn't be happier with it.

(Anecdata: I actively avoid American cabs because I seem to have a sign printed on my forehead "Please try scamming this kid. He will not escalate and call the cops." Including, relevantly to this article, twice getting into a cab in Manhattan and told that the cab did not service Brooklyn.)

Not all cabs in the US are that terrible, but a lot of them are. To add to the fun, taxicab regulation/licensing is done by the municipalities, which is okay for somewhere like NYC, but in the Valley, Sunnyvale cabs are different from Mountain View cabs or San Jose cabs or Palo Alto cabs. In Boston, Boston cabs are different from Cambridge cabs or Somerville cabs or Brookline cabs or Watertown cabs, and they're all not allowed to pick people up on the street in "foreign" territory. Having one single company to deal with no matter where you are in the metro area or the country or indeed the world makes things so much easier.

Last time I was in the Bay area, I took cabs. Oh what horrible experiences!! I finally took the plunge and used Uber. I was very satisfied until I encountered "surge pricing" when going to the airport at 5am. I'm still a fan but am a bit mixed about relying on it.

For long distance trips from the airport (hour long), I still think Uber is pricey. On my last trip from an airport, a black car would have costed 120-150, with a driver in a suit or an Uber (90ish). Since surge pricing is not predictable (by me), I would go for the black car option since it is certain.

The whole discussion makes me realize there are multiple markets for cabs. Uber definitely rocks the "hail a random cab for an impromptu ride" market. The "planned trip to the airport, etc." is a different market that has yet to be cracked.

Because of stupid protectionist laws as I mentioned above, your (I presume) 40 mile trip to the airport is actually an 80 mile trip for the driver. Because the airport belongs to the City and County of San Francisco, only San Francisco taxis (and now Uber as well) are allowed to pick passengers at SFO, so the driver has to drive back to his home town with no passengers. As for surge pricing... well, presumably the conventional-taxi alternative is no cabs available at all, but its unpredictability does sound annoying.

>Many of my friends, and myself included, would've never considered using taxis "back in the day" when doing errands or day-to-day activities

Absolutely. I would NEVER use a cab to get to/from the airport. But I will use Uber. Doesn't even have anything to do with pricing - far more to do with service.

... which is interesting, because while it demonstrates that cabs are perhaps not as damaged by Uber's business model as they claim they are, it plays into DeBlasio's arguments that Uber increases congestion.

Intuitively, I'd say Ubers spend less time driving around looking for a fare, and a more intelligent dispatching/routing model would decrease fareless miles driven. That said, if it causes a shift from subways, it would increase congestion.

I don't think this is a reason for the government to attack Uber. If traffic is a problem congestion charge type systems would be more effective, as it would 'penalize' all players equally; Uber, Taxis, and private vehicles.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons for them to attack Uber already; the contractor model, the beg-for-forgiveness model, etc.

I've never been to NY, but in other (European) cities that I've lived in, the main issue with congestion are parked cars: commuters have to leave them wherever they can, including at corners where they block traffic a lot more. About half to two thirds of Paris drivable area are taken with parked cars (most streets are one-way three lanes with cars on both sides).

If car commuters use Uber, you relax that source of problem. Not sure how much Uber substitutes for car commuters, though.

I think this is the biggest point taxi companies fail to grasp. I NEVER consider taxis. I would sooner walk than take a taxi. Uber doesn't have the same grody, sketchy perception that taxis do. I have never had to call Uber on an Uber driver, while it seems like I nearly ALWAYS had to threaten to call the cab company on the cabbie ("Cash only", taking some idiotic route, etc). It is WAY too much work to get a ride home from a taxi.

I ran a quick year-over-year comparison on your data, for Jan 2015 -- June 2015 (compared to Jan 2014 -- June 2014), and the average reduction is -7.8% of revenue and -9.7% of trips.

IMO, that's quite significant for a 1 year drop.

Ah, that's probably a better way to look at it than from the straight linear trend.

Another observation is that taxis will also have their own place too. Taxis have the benefit of being in the right place at the right time. They're distinctly marked and you don't even need an app to use one. Just raise your hand and you're good to go. There will always be impulse purchases when it comes to needing to get a ride. Perhaps it's raining, you have no shelter, you need to get into something, anything. Or you've just arrived at an airport, full of luggage, after a long flight, you just don't want to deal with calling an Uber.. oh look, a line of taxis ready and waiting. Ride share services and taxis both won't go away because they each have their own distinct advantages and use cases. And as the population grows, there will still be a large enough market for both to exist and profit.

I'm not so sure... even at the airport, with a traditional taxi I have to worry about whether they will take my credit card (or take it but complain about it), if the taxi is clean, if the driver is some weirdo, will I get attitude about my destination, figuring out the tip etc.

I recently used Uber at the San Jose airport and it was a glorious experience. The app switches to a different UI specially for the airport, I select the exit number I'm standing next to and the ride shows up in about 2 minutes, the driver already has my destination on his GPS before I get in (no more sightseeing tours), no fussing with payment at the end and I get a nice receipt emailed to me with the drivers details and the route taken. Taxis are going to have a hard time competing once more airports allow Uber properly. And they've got no one to blame but themselves.

I live in Europe and for the last 15 years taxis prefer to be hailed via phone/sms rather than hailed on the street. If you hail a cab on the street you will get a higher rate plus a hailing fee. Cabs near airport/railway station that are parked there are a tourist trap since they charge almost triple price plus drive you a longer route. Basically a taxi company strikes a deal with city council so only their cabs are allowed to park there and then make their "hail from the street" rate as high as local laws will allow.

Probably because of the TLC stronghold in Lower Manhattan. I think it goes without saying that most of the hottest, quickest fares can be made on the island. If Uber can penetrate those fares, the slope would be more dramatic.

Time will tell is my guess.

an old business professor of mine from college, who took a company public at one point, taught us that "if you're not growing, you're dying". the same mantra is now repeated here in silicon valley in the form of "move fast and break things" and "grow as fast as possible",etc.

regarding your spreadsheet, it doesn't take into account seasonality. factors such as weather and tourist activity certainly affect revenue.

if you take the total revenue in months Jan-June 2015 and compare them to the same time period in 2014, the delta is -8%. if you look at the last datapoint and compare to the first, you get a drop of 1%.

They're not eating the yellow/green cabs lunch, but they are taking jobs from livery cars. Unfortunately we don't have data on their earnings.

They are livery cars.

Yes, I meant other livery cars. They're cornering the market.

But what do you mean they are taking jobs from livery cars?

I don't understand. It's very different in NYC, where all the Uber drivers have proper professional licenses and license plates and are bonafide livery drivers, from other cities where what are essentially random people with cars are now competing with professional drivers.

I have many reasons to be very critical of Uber but this doesn't seem one of them. They are taking business away from car service companies, many of which were little neighborhood storefronts around the city, but I don't see how they are taking jobs from livery cars really, as they are not.