I totally understand that it doesn't always make economic sense to own a car. But I confess that it's really hard for me to understand the mentality of not getting a drivers license if able to do so. So many of the activities I do when in the Bay Area (and elsewhere) are pretty much impossible without either renting a car or having someone else drive me which isn't always possible. I've even had jobs that I couldn't have done without driving.

1. Things just tended to "work out". I'm not someone who sweats the small stuff when planning things. At the very least if I'm going somewhere "remote" (Tahoe, Santa Cruz), I wouldn't be by myself and I could ride with someone else.

2. You'd be surprised how far you can take an Uber. I had a friend take an Uber from SF to Sacremento.

I wouldn't consider, say, the Santa Cruz mountains remote. I go there all the time when I'm in the Bay Area. But, yes, I'm sure like many things one adjusts their expectations and desires based on their constraints. I'd find not having a car in the Bay Area extremely limiting.

I’d think a good ole fashioned taxi would work. Is there a reason you couldn’t or wouldn’t use one?

Depends where you are. In much of the Valley you will not see a cab anywhere, but you might be able to call one.

In SF proper, there are more cabs, but don't forget the hour-long waits we had before the ride-sharing thing started. I don't know if it'll get that bad again, but I don't think they authorized thousands of new cabs like (IMO) they should have. Also, I've had cabbies in SF tell me point-blank they won't take my fare because it's not far enough. Yeah, illegal, they don't care.

Further out... good luck. You're in Concord and need a ride to Walnut Creek? Might work, but it might be faster to try Craigslist.

The last cab I was in, the driver was asking my girlfriend how to get where we were going (Chinatown in LA from downtown...not exactly challenging), which she didn't know because she doesn't drive. He was rude to us both the entire time, and then when we got out, (even after she left him a reasonable tip), he called her a "fcking btch" and sped away. We tried complaining to the cab company a few times but nothing came of it. I've never had an issue even remotely close to that in Uber/Lyft, but have had more unpleasant than pleasant experiences in taxis all over the country.

In California, most cities are very spread out so taking taxis anywhere are super expensive. You can't just hail one down on the street like other cities, you have to order one over the phone to come pick you up from where ever you are.

There are taxi apps that are similar in functionality to Uber and Lyft.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/curb-the-taxi-app/id299226386

I decided to check for myself and registered in the app. The nearest ride is in 20 minutes (about 2x from the rideshares) and the price from my house to SFO is about $160. My last ride with Uber was about $70. Make your own conclusions. Oh yes and the app is buggy as heck, losing internet connection all the time (on my home wifi!) and getting stuck in random places.

I mean, one conclusion is that Lyft and Uber are not charging enough to continue to operate.

They were stopping operations not because they couldn't afford it. But because the courts and lawmakers banned their whole business model.

What's the availability? I.e. are you actually able to get a ride within 10 mins in SV, for example? How about rest of California?

I remember taxis before Uber/Lyft. They sucked. They were very expensive. Low availability - I once was stuck in the middle of one 200k+ city with literally no cars available after calling several companies. After an hour or so, I had to call friends to pick me up. Then, if you get a cab, you have no idea who is your driver and have no history and no resort if something happens - you could call the dispatcher again but they won't take complaints, as it's not their business, and even if you manage to get the taxi company's support number (provided such thing exists) they'd probably ignore you. Oh yes, and last time I used it half of the drivers couldn't even make a credit card transactions - you had to have cash (hopefully at least this one is fixed now?)

Uber was founded because there are frequently 60 minute waits for taxis in SFBA, if they show up at all.

The reason that Uber and Lyft were eating the taxi business's lunch: Less cost and better service.

In part by ignoring city and state laws!

Because those laws led to low availability, high prices and subpar service. And now they will lead to it again.

Sure. That wasn't the point of this conversation, though. The point of this conversation was why one would use Lyft and Uber, and still not want to use the regular taxi companies.

Because they're a giant PITA to use compared to ridesharing.

i can get an uber from my house to the airport at 4AM in about 10 minutes. I can't get a taxi in the middle of the day sooner than 45 minutes.

(I live in Dallas TX)

I find that this is super convenient that this is happening during COVID restrictions.

I'm not needing a taxi/uber/lyft for leaving the bar. I'm not going out to a restaurant with friends. I'm not traveling for work/fun and needing an lift to the hotel.

My usage of uber/lyft/taxis went from 100s per month down to 0. If this change happened in 2019, I'd of had significant changes to my daily routine. Today, this changes nothing.

DMV is offering appointments again in many locations.

I feel your pain though... living in SF made it a little too easy to just ignore the DL thing, and then I moved to Europe and lived in big cities with excellent public transportation.

Now that I'm finally doing it I'm kicking myself for not just getting it done years ago even if I might not have used it much.

> then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test

I didn't have my driver's license for 10+ years, and thought the Californian DMV would surely make me take another driver's test because of that. Nope...after I did the written test, they said my license would come in the mail.

There’s always actual licensed taxis or public transit.

The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.

There are tons of people who could have replaced their car with rideshare and maybe some public transit, and still come out cheaper.

Insurance, parking, fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and random events add up. If you don't need it for commuting, most of the recurring rideshare costs vanish.

If you need to make an extra long occasional trip, car rental for a day or two outweighs ownership.

Edit: To be clear, anything other than a car is cheaper for many (not all) people. (e)Bike, shared scooter, walking, trolley, Uber/Lyft, taxi, carpooling, etc. Cities are expensive and small towns are small.

On average, ~50% of car trips are under 2 miles. A car is not required for most of those in most locations.

For my commute, the cost of ridesharing breaks even with the cost of buying a parking space in the city (Boston) if you go to work an average of 4 days per week or fewer. (at least pre-covid, I'm not sure if parking is cheaper these days). Once you factor in insurance and maintenance, for some cars you would get to 5 days.

An unlimited use trolley/bus pass is $150/month in my city. Suppose I spend $200/month on gas/insurance/maintenance. The marginal cost of having commutes that take half as much time, to me, is worth it. Otherwise, you could be spending 30 more hours a month commuting to save $50.

Now add $300/month for a parking space in an apartment building, $10/day for parking in a garage downtown near your office, plus your car payment/depreciation of the car you're driving.

Also not all public transit trips take twice as long as a car. In many urban places (which is where any of this scenario makes sense) at rush hour a trip on public transit is often about equivalent to driving if not shorter.

Also, don't forget that you've actually got to drive.

That equation doesn't work out in every city obviously. In SF a trip to the Mountain View (GOOG HQ) by car is an hour and change regardless if you drive or take CalTrain. If you live and work downtown, walking is a perfectly valid option as well.

It’s only cheaper because riders were taking advantage of the unrealistically low labor costs (while regulation was catching up) and dumb VC money.

Riders only have themselves to blame if they made life choices around a service that was clearly unsustainable, Movie Pass style.

most of what people need cars for is shopping, a problem that is more efficiently addressed with delivery.

This is not true for everyone. I track my ride share spending and it’s significantly lower than owning a car. I spend less that $200 a month on average (2019 avg was $196).

I’m in a unique position to do this, because i put myself in that position. i moved near my work and live in an urban area.

even if it cost $400 a month, i would still do it this way. i read when i’m in the car, i wouldn’t trade that for staring at the road.

If you’re in the Bay, or really any other major tech hub in the US, you should also factor the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments into that calculation. I’m lucky to be remote, but if I moved close enough to SF or the Valley to spend only $200/month on ride shares to the office, my mortgage would at least triple. This would far offset any savings in gas/insurance/maintenance.

I’m happy that you’ve found a good situation for yourself and I don’t mean to disparage it. I just don’t think the comparison you’ve made is quite complete.

The reason rents and mortgages in transportation and commute friendly areas of the country are high is because those locations are desirable.

If one enjoys the lifestyle, spending less on transportation and shifting that spending to housing is a net win. That's how I did it, and for about eight of my eleven years in the Bay, I wouldn't have had it any other way.

I left the Bay in 2018 because I got a remote job and didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth from the city life. Pretty clearly, in 2020, much of what makes city living good is gone, but it will come back; whether that's a matter of years or decades is very much an open question.

In San Francisco, owning your own car and using it for regular driving is a luxury. Lyft/Uber is cheaper and more convenient, all costs considered.

The problem in SF is that Uber/Lyft has become some convenient that its been diverting people from transit and putting them into single occupant cars (the driver doens't count). Much of the traffic congestion is coming from Uber/Lyft

Well it might be single occupant, but it's often also on the way to another gig. Ignoring that is double-counting.

Counting rideshare cars as "single occupant vehicles" is not "double counting" -- whether I drive in to work and park my car myself, or I take Uber and get dropped off, that's still one trip so it's the same congestion. If he picks up another fare immediately, then that's a new single occupant vehicle trip.

But I think it's rare during commute hours that a ride share driver will drop someone off downtown and immediately find another fare, he's going to have to leave downtown to get his next passenger. So that Uber driver is worse than a single occupant vehicle, he's made 2 trips for one passenger (once to drop me off, once to leave downtown to pick up his next fare).

In off hours, sure, the driver brings someone in, then doesn't have to search far to find someone else looking for a ride, but during commute hours I don't think that's true.

I think some kind of SF congestion tax, with proceeds to benefit public transit infrastructure, would be appropriate.

Crossing the bridges during rush "hour" (more like three to five) should be much more expensive.

Not sure how to handle the fact that this de-facto subsidizes the Peninsula. But it would be a start.

When I was living in Dallas in 2014 I was using Uber full time and it was less than half the total cost of ownership of owning a used car at the time. And paying $10 to park downtown each day. It was about $3.15 one way which was even cheaper than the bus. I'm not sure what uber prices are in Dallas these days but it'd have to be close to $9 one way for it to be cheaper than owning a car in that situation. Uber was a major lifeline for me here in the Bay Area when I first arrived as I didn't have a car for the first three years. Parking in my area starts at around $250/mo. My uber bill was usually around $300/mo. Car insurance alone is at least $50/mo.

$3 sounds like an extremely short ride. Either that, or they were subsidizing a lot more back then. In Austin, over the past few years I've used use lyft occasionally to get to or from work and it was typically $6-$9 for a 1.6 mile trip that typically lasted 6-8 minutes.

I mainly used Uber/Lyft for "last mile" transportation. I replaced "all driving" with largely public transportation. I probably spent an average of ~$300/mo on Uber/Lyft which would account of my parking premium + insurance.

That said, I will concede I'm in a unique position. This legislation isn't completely onerous on me.

The irony in this comment is amazing. You're in a unique, privileged position to not even consider public transit for some trips an option.

Public transit for everyday commute to work, plus Uber/Lyft for trips outside of common commute hours or off the beaten path where public transit is less reliable, can definitely be cheaper than car ownership.

Well, OP was considering driving vs rideshare, so that's what I compared/contrasted. They never considered public transit, and continuing with their train of thought, neither did I. Seems like a reasonable perspective to take.

Public transit isn't an option for all people, particularly in low income communities, that have to get from home to work in rural and suburban areas. They aren't dense enough for public transit.

Public transit in SF works well in some areas, not so well in others -- even making a single connection can add 30 - 45 minutes to your commute If you're going to the financial district or north SOMA, transit is usually viable, if you're going anywhere else, it's likely not so viable.

And this is a city that's only 7 miles wide -- I used to be able to bike downtown in less than than I spent waiting on the bus on most days (since I didn't just have to wait for one bus, I had to wait for a bus that wasn't already full to take on passengers)

In the bay area, I think reliance on public transit and Uber/Lyft is common enough to be the case for "the average person" in that area.

Last I heard, public transit had greatly reduced service in San Francisco, but I'm not sure of the current status.

I think you're vastly underestimating how many people can do so, especially in urban centers with walking, biking, and public transit. Even more now with the changes brought by covid.

Including parking and insurance deductibles for all the times their car will be broken into in SF?

This is no joke, getting parking for an apartment (pretty much required unless you live in the sunset or have deeded parking) is like $250/mo+ and your car will probably be broken into depending on how often you park it on the street

You can also ride a cab.

Not if you call a cab and they say "we dispatched a driver" and then that driver never shows up. There wasn't accountability with the old system, hopefully Uber/Lyft have forced cab companies to evolve. The apps in some cities are a promising sign but aren't universal.