Yes. The framing of these articles is atrocious. The framing should be, "It's great that people are gaining more transportation options. Public transit should adapt and improve in response to those changes."

> Public transportation can only win by competing with alternatives.

Exactly. Improve the quality of public transportation and the usage levels of Uber and Lyft will decline. Whatever the failings of Uber and Lyft, and there are many, they can't be used as a justification to curb their use (essentially eliminate competition) so public transportation systems can continue their unchallenged mediocrity.

When the wealthy[1] can opt out of having to use public services, those public services tend to be crap.

When the wealthy are forced to use public services, all of a sudden, they become interested and politically engaged in improving them.

Uber doesn't drive improvements in transit in this sense - it starves it of political capital.

The best transit services are ones which are used by a wide swathe of the public.

[1] If you are regularly paying $6-30 for a one-way taxi commute, you are either wealthy, really money-foolish, or a truly special case.

Not sure about the ranges on that wealthy comparison- if I wanted to commute to work by bus, it would cost >$6 in bus faires a day in the Bay Area. Splitting a Lyft line in San Francisco often results in math where we actually save money while using a more convenient service. It’s just hard to choose public transit around here when it is unreliable, barely cost competitive and slower.

It's pretty rare you end up spending 3$ for a Lyft in SF. The bus pass is also $78 (or $1.95 a ride assuming you work 20 days a month). It should be cheaper yes, but it's still much cheaper.

Costs $24/day including tip for me to go 1/2 mile with Lyft 10 miles outside of Seattle during non surge pricing.

Costs me $0/day to take the bus or light rail, subsidized by my workplace. $3-$4 if your workplace doesn't subsidize and you get a regional pass.

This, a million times. The metro in Paris is good because upper middle class people take it.

How exactly did you come up with that direction for the causal relationship?

Just so. But they also take it because it’s good

If you can group it with 2 or 3 people, ride shares become competitive with public transit, let alone the time savings of Door-to-door service.

Neither Uber nor Lyft is currently profitable. They can't truly be said to be winning a market competition until they're not effectively running on subsidization. Additionally, until more cities implement congestion pricing, they benefit from a negative externality not being priced in.

Neither are the nationalized public transport systems they're competing against.

It's important to note that public transport systems are often forced to run unprofitable routes. Late night routes and paratransit are inherently unprofitable but improve accessibility. Of course, there are more unsavory reasons, usually political (for instance, the "Downtown Express" bus routes in Toronto were created to fulfill a political promise, and are vastly unprofitable as a result).

Ride-hailing services don't have this particular problem. They only need to serve based on rider demand. Yet at this moment they do rely on subsidies by VC money.

I think the issue here is just the 'size of solution' between private and public transport offerings. i.e. If you've got tens of thousands of people in a place - an underground line isn't a bad idea. If you've got tens - then that's not even enough for a bus. However an Uber driver (or even a pool route) is actually happier with the latter, as they're not having to compete with an underground. Different types of transport tend to be poorly integrated. Maybe airports being the only example I can think of where private and public play nicely together.

Don't forget to count the subsidized road infrastructure that Uber/Lyft use (and don't say "but gas taxes", they only pay for about half of road spending).