Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Metrorail vs. Uber: Travel Time and Cost

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the cost-vs-convenience dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

With Uber and other ridesharing services becoming a common transit option for some D.C. residents, we wanted to get a sense of when someone might substitute an Uber trip for a Metrorail trip. To do this, we plotted data on travel time and cost, creating a visualization that shows whether Uber or Metro is faster, and at what cost, for 114 different trips between Metro stations. By adding in the time it takes to wait for a Metro train or Uber, walk to the Metro, or sit on a delayed train, we can see how a person's decision might change depending on their circumstances.

The trips we analyzed include trips between the city and the suburbs as well as trips within the city.

[...] We found that for longer trips between the center of the city and the suburbs, Metro tends to be both more cost-effective and quicker than Uber. But for trips within the city that require a Metro transfer, Uber is often quicker than Metro, especially when Metro wait times are long, like on weekends, or when there are delays. While Uber's regular service tends to be much more expensive than Metro, Uber Pool makes some Uber trips nearly as affordable as Metro.

Did they factor in the need for a pack train, 3 days' provisions, and sherpas to get up and down the stairs in the Metro?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Metrorail vs. Uber: Travel Time and Cost | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 40 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:21AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:21AM (#583873) Homepage
    > services you can flag down on the street like London's Back Cabs and NYC's Yellow ones from those that you need to pre-book

    Total aside: why is the above a thing? Why did governments feel the need to take one market segment (driving people here they want to go for money), and split it into two completely artificial parts?

    > The only innovations ... using an App instead of having to phone up

    Using a phone rather than a phone??!?!? I guess that's why they're worth billions (of techboom virtual money).
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:06PM

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:06PM (#583894)
    Historically, it was down to regulation. Taxi drivers are in a position of trust for their passengers, so it lets them set bars for entry and control numbers (one of the impacts of services like Uber is that cities apparently see more road traffic and less use of public transport, so expect that to start becoming a consideration again soon). In the case of taxis that can be hired on the spot it allows for an additional level of vetting to as there was no real audit trail to link a given driver to a given passenger in the event of an assault until quite recently. Private hire companies provided that audit trail through their booking system and the fact that a passenger and driver should both be capable of confirming that they were the expected party, so the level of regulation and vetting could be somewhat looser. Neither system is foolproof, of course, technology has blurred the boundaries somewhat, and the systems are often abused (e.g. NYC's medallion cartels) but the basic premise is still the same.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!