I'm happy Lyft is demonstrating that it actually cares about its core/founding values of decreasing car usage.
They could have viewed this as a distraction to expanding its existing dedicated-driver model, in order to better compete against Uber. (Lyft Line is just multiple passengers; Sidecar already does "driver destination" aka real carpooling, but they're also playing a different game focusing on drivers in general, and don't have the scale Lyft does)
If they can get traction, they'll have cracked a problem that many people have tried to solve and failed at: how do you get Americans to carpool?
Context: Lyft's founders pivoted into Lyft from Zimride after five years of building white-labeled carpool sites for colleges/companies + a public long-distance carpool/rideshare board, and discovering that a) that's not a VC-scale business, and b) 90% of Americans don't "do" traditional carpooling and they're not about to start
Anyway, I use Lyft over Uber when possible for many reasons, but this is one-- they started out trying to improve society in a particular way, and still are, even as they've changed their approach. And I think they should be commended for setting an example for how to achieve an activist-y goal through a startup/company. Or since it's not achieved yet, at least trying.
(I have no affiliation with Lyft, see my profile.)
b) 90% of Americans don't "do" traditional carpooling and they're not about to start
90% of Americans didn't pay non-professional strangers for a ride before Uber came along. 90% of Americans didn't share what they were having for lunch before Instagram. 90% of Americans didn't share the hilarious list of "cats who forgot how to cat" before Buzzfeed.
The point being it's pretty much impossible to predict what product will be a success based on past market behaviour. Saying something won't work is very often right, but it's a sucky reason not to try.
Your overall point is correct but I don't think it applies here.
There are deep cultural reasons for why carpooling hasn't become popular in America. From what I have observed as a foreigner, people in this country love their big personal spaces, and their cars are a part of that. It's related to why public transportation isn't popular: most people don't want to sit within such close proximity to strangers.
In my experience it's mostly due to convenience. When public transportation is available and more convenient, it's heavily used. It needs to be available everywhere and all/most of the time. Car pooling is similar, coordinating with other people, leaving home/work at the same time everyday is difficult, not convenient. If Lyft is widely used, it can solve this problem. No need to have advanced plans.
In fact, in Washington DC, I can see people offering these rides for free to a second person in the car and use the HOV lanes. This is already done from fixed locations without the help of an app. Lyft would make it so much easier.
It's entirely possible that I'm being biased as an American, but I've never really felt this way. I love public transportation whenever I'm in cities like Chicago or New York City. My issue is that my state (and sometimes my commute) is bigger than most European countries. I've never felt a deep cultural barrier between public transportation and me, it's personally just incredibly inconvenient. I would very much love to see more public transportation options in America, though. But your argument is quite interesting, so thanks!
If people aren't willing to a share car with a stranger for money then Uber wouldn't work. It really is that simple. The evidence suggests that they are. The 'will people share someone's private car?' question has been answered and it's an emphatic "yes". That isn't the whole story here though.
There is a possibility that people wouldn't want to give up the convenience of commuting - having your car at the office so you can go somewhere on your lunch break, leaving the office without having to wait for your carpool ride, carrying large items to the office, and so on - are benefits that you would lose by switching to Lyft. People will have to weigh those benefits against the cost and stress of driving to work. So the question here is really "Do enough people want to give up driving themselves in favour of a cheaper, easier, but mildy inconvenient alternative in the form of Lyft?". The answer to that question is not an obvious "no". There could well be a big enough market to sustain a profitable business.
The fact that people haven't carpooled much before is not evidence that they don't want to or that they can't be persuaded to now; it is simply evidence that the pain of commuting was lower than the pain of organising a carpool. If you can lower the effort people have to put in enough so that it's sufficiently easy to carpool then it is possible change people's minds. Lyft will succeed if they can do that.
It's depressing that "VC-scale" (i.e. convincing some rich dude he can flip his investment soon for a 1000% return, possibly by unloading shares on unsuspecting rubes) is what matters. What ever happened to making something people want, then selling it at a profit?
Shared carpooling (called "slugging" here) has a been a viable commuting option for people in the DC area for decades. No money changes hands; the point is that a car with 3+ people can use the much faster HOV lanes.
This might be a small detail that matters big if you start driving for Lyft. What does your personal auto insurance policy cover if a paying passenger gets hurt in an accident in your car?
That's a nice chunk but insufficient nowadays. (The 24-year old in that article might've been able to make several $million in his remaining career.) The Lyft driver could still end up on the hook.
It's certainly possible, but it's unlikely. The Lyft driver's own assets are likely small, and most lawyers suing the driver would rather settle for an amount within the $1 million insurance policy, rather than risk getting nothing by going to court to try to get more than the insurance policy.
Even many doctors don't have malpractice insurance above $1 million (depending on speciality and state) -- most policies are $100K-$300K/claim, $1MM-$3MM/all claims (http://jop.ascopubs.org/content/3/5/274.full). So Lyft is providing more liability insurance than many doctors carry.
If you're demanding absolute 0% risk for the Lyft driver financially, this would not cut it, but very little anywhere is absolutely no risk.
"Commercial" is only expensive because higher mileage is higher risk. If you aren't doing a lot of miles per year, it won't be more expensive. Lyft's insurer probably has some mileage math worked into the premium. Or Lyft self insures and knows exactly how much mileage they are covering.
The thing is, I've never heard that term until now. I lived in the DC area for two years and worked with quite a few commuters. It's cool that it's a concept but there hasn't been mainstream adoption to the point where it's as easy as an app in your pocket until now.
I'm not sure the "slugline" term is common for that meaning; it's typically (don't know how widely it's still used) just slug. But it's a pretty obvious and clever derived term to combine slug and headline and come up with slugline.
Slug line (two words) is apparently a screenwriting term--which I didn't know.
It's extremely popular between DC/North Arlington and the southern and western suburbs.
I used to work in Crystal City, and on my commute home I would see dozens of people -- probably more than 30 most days -- lined up at the designated slug line stop.
That's crazy that I never heard about it. Is it a recent thing? Very cool that it has taken off regardless, and I suppose serves as a proof of concept for Lyft/Uber.
Not recent at all; Wikipedia says it started in the DC area in 1975, and I definitely remember people using it when I was a kid, which would have been early '90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging
It's more popular in certain geographic and industry pockets. I used to see long lines at the Pentagon and Crystal City for slug riders every afternoon/evening.
Yeah, it's definitely confined to certain demographics. It's especially popular among government/defense types in Virginia. There are a couple of benefits that make it popular with them -- namely that it's free and the system is primarily designed to take you to the far-flung suburbs (where the cheap housing and good schools are).
Given that, I doubt Lyft (marketed towards urban millennials who have smartphones and are cool with riding around in cars with mustaches) and Slugging (mostly used by staid, middle-aged, middle-income workers) are going to compete with each other.
(Still kicking myself for not finishing that app for Slugline-like ridesharing 6 or so years ago :) )
Swing by the south Pentagon parking lot around 5PM and you'll see people lined up on the sidewalk looking for rides, and cars lined up looking for riders so they can take the HOV lanes on 395. You may not have been in the right place at the right time to see it, but it's extremely common in the right places.
I don't have hard data, but I think it's more common than you think. We have one employee who does it every day and I know 1 or 2 others. I would imagine everyone who lives in e.g. Woodbridge knows about slugging.
Having lived only in DC and SF bay area, I find HOV lanes to be much faster relative to traffic in DC. The data is less reliable, but I also observed HOV cheating to be much more common in CA, and enforcement to be stronger in DC.
There aren't any HOV lanes actually in DC that I know of.
395 and 66 are two interstates that connect DC to the Virginia suburbs. The HOV lanes on 395 are usually more open and faster than the main highway. 66 is entirely HOV inside the Beltway during rush hour, so if you want to go that way at all, you need passengers.
Virginia just added HOT (passengers or pay) lanes on the Beltway itself; these are usually very clear because you need a transponder to even travel within them legally, and most people haven't bothered to get one. Maybe because the Beltway doesn't actually go into the city, so the utility is low for rush hour.
There isn't enough highway in DC to make express lanes worthwhile.
The benefit of HOV on 395 & 66 comes from having limited access. The lanes get crowded during rush hour, but they still move faster because of less merging & exiting. When traffic is all moving in the same direction at the same speed it flows smoother.
The changes to the Springfield interchange did a lot to prevent backups by reducing the amount of lane changing necessary to get on and off the Beltway.
In cities with more striking poverty, like Baltimore and southeast DC (admit it, it's basically a separate entity from DC) there are other forms of transportation too, like hacks[1] and hawkers [2], and the VANS of latin america [3].
There are many reasons for these kind of underground economies to exist, but one of the most striking ones to me is race. Try asking a black friend in DC whether they get picked up by cabs as easily as their white counterparts. Then there's both the drivers and riders, who have so little cash they can't afford the extras imposed by a traditional transportation company. That's when there's even a form of transportation at all; VANS exist solely to fill the empty void left by the largely nonexistent public transit of Brazilian favelas.
Other concerns (seriously, you should read the first article) include price and time: "Hale has practical reasons for putting his own safety at risk. "Cabs are too high nowadays," he says. "Most of the time, if you're not going too far, a hack is only $5. With cabs it's a $10 trip to go nowhere." As for public transportation: "If I'm going to take the bus to work, I leave at noon. If I catch a hack, I leave at 1:30."
Shared carpooling has always been an option, but there has never been a dominant player, so it's always hard for me to find shares. Natural monopoly and all that.
Flinc [0], a start-up from Germany, does exactly this but in real time, too. It can hook up with the drivers navigation software so they are only asked to pick someone up, when it does not change their own route.
I highly prefer this model over the classic Uber/Lyft service, because it actually delivers on the promises of the sharing economy. Resources are shared, from which both parties and the general public benefit. Its not just taxis with lower wages.
Of course, critical mass is a bigger problem with this model, but there is the obvious entry point of white-label ride sharing platforms for companies, which flinc does, too.
I think, it is about as cool as it gets, until I get my self-driving car, which transports passengers on-demand the whole day after it drove me to work, from time to time being recharged on inductive parking spots, powered by green energy.
The messaging here is off. "Driver Destination" implies it has generalized applications -> be a Lyft driver where ever you are going. In practice, they need to get traction in the one big market for this: commuters. Better marketing will call it what it is: Lyft Commute - share a ride from home to work
(claiming the product name 'Commute' also stops Uber from using it)
This is really great – though I wonder if Lyft runs the risk of people making the connection once (i.e. finding a person with similar commute times/locations who is willing to pay for rides) and deciding to arrange a paid carpool that doesn't go through Lyft.
I think when you read the safety guidelines this idea is a non-starter. Using Lyft you get guaranteed payment, 1M of insurance while driving someone else, and the app tracking your location and keeping you safe. When you circumvent the system you take on a lot of risk, especially if the person you are driving gets injured.
Even if that happens, Lyft is recieving revenue they wouldn't have otherwise. i.e. it may decrease the potential revenue from this use case but not the profitability.
I think there are a lot of people that this would be a good idea for. I use my car to get to/from work, but I also like having it to use during the workday (lunch, errands, etc.). I'd be up for giving rides in the morning/afternoon but still having use of my car the rest of the time. Plus it sounds ad hoc, so I don't have to commit to someone beyond just the one time.
i've thought about that for myself with some neighbors but I feel my schedule would be too hectic to be a consistant driver or passenger. Having a network available would offer me the flexibility every morning to drive or ride with zero commitment.
I am late to the Lyft party, but after recently leaving Uber because I did not agree with their questionable business ethics and attitude toward their customers, I must say I find the whole Lyft experience somewhat refreshing.
Funnily enough, my first Lyft driver I had a week or so ago was telling me he leaves home a couple of hours earlier, does a couple of trips close by to his work and then on the way home from work he turns the app on and most of the time he is fortunate to get a ride that is going the same direction, so it pays his way home.
Not an entirely new premise, car-pooling has always been a thing, but for my driver (his name was Brett) this is going to be an awesome feature and I imagined many other Lyft drivers. I like the feature of the app that allows you to tip drivers a little something extra when a driver has gone beyond what you are paying them for. In my first experience, Brett offered me and my pregnant wife a muesli bar, bottled water and even held an umbrella for us while we got in and out of the car.
Seriously good job Lyft, you have a superior app/service and great drivers, you just need to get the numbers up and get some more brand awareness.
20 years ago, I lived in a house that had a city implemented carpool pickup spot in the East Bay - every morning carpoolers would line up and wait for a rid into SF to get through via the carpool lane, back when the toll was only $2.
Since it was city property, I don't believe my parents got anything out of it, and we couldn't park in front of our house Mon - Fri mornings, my brother did have the enterprising idea of selling coffee in the mornings, much like a lemonade stand with a forced audience.
Seems like there was a demand for this type of service 20 years back though, interesting to see it is still an issue that companies are looking to solve today.
I'm surprised that shopping centres/malls don't support these sorts of things outside peak hours. When people are dropped back at the end of their day, they could do some last minute shopping, or grab coffee or whatever.
Within major metro areas there are many options for getting home, from car sharing to regular taxis to busses and trains. The same does not apply to a trip to Tahoe.
So lyft for the burbs and uber for the cities, then? Burbs require non-professional drivers (i.e. daily commuters) to become drivers since ride request density isn't high enough to support professional drivers.
Having grown up with California's carpool lanes (a lane reserved for vehicles with two or more riders) I've always expected the number of commuters that are able to take advantage of it has to be minimal. In my experience, having that additional passenger only happens on special occasions; it never happens on the morning commute. This is what the carpool lane has always needed to be successful; networking.
Man, I was thinking about this last night, how I could use my morning and evening commutes to take people home on my way home -- since I'd either stay in the city (killing time for traffic to die down), or be paid to sit in my normal evening traffic home across the bay. Only hiccup would be if I had a fare taking me to the south bay, but that seems a reasonable gamble.
Same with me this morning. Drove past someone at a bus stop and thought "They're going to sit there for another 10+ minutes, then pay $3+ to get to their destination with a stop every couple of blocks. Meanwhile, I'm going past right now using one seat out of five."
Very interesting. The most important thing to me personally is convenience, which is an itch that I believe this scratches. If I'm able to input that I'm going somewhere and this will help automatically direct me to people I can pickup and drop off on the way, it avoids the huge hassle of coordination. Additionally, it (presumably) helps with the issue of liability?
Trying to charge people for carpooling, something we've traditionally done for free. The "sharing economy" isn't about sharing- it's about monetizing free things and taking a cut.
This is not in any way improving humanity. It's a step backwards.
We also give food and shelter to guests for free, but restaurants and hotels are still a thing. People do favors for people, and employment is still a thing. People look after each others' kids, but daycare is still a thing.
You probably know fewer than 200 people. Sometimes you can't ask any of them for a favor. Sometimes you don't want to impose on your friends. Sometimes someone would happily do something for you in exchange for some amount of money, and you'll both be better off.
The sharing economy expands the pool of people you can ask to do things for you; is also expands the pool of people who are willing to give you money for doing things. It does not replace friendship and socialability.
This is especially true about carpooling with a stranger. Generally, carpooling now happens with neighbors/coworkers, which isn't exactly the same use-case as this.
I live on on the south shore Long Island in the suburbs of NYC. My community is a fairly dense, walkable community, but most jobs are located in office parks in the burbs or a commuter rail ride away in the city (or possibly Brooklyn/Queens).
After seeing the same cars every morning drive the same stretches of highway for a while, I thought I'd have a brilliant idea. Create a website where people can post their commutes to possibly look for people to share with. The site would have been free to use (it would be a portfolio piece but I wouldn't turn down a donation here or there) and wouldn't encourage or prohibit any financial exchange between users.
So I guess if the site exists and no one is using it (and I didn't know about it until I started thinking about attempting to make my own) the issue is publicity. So I posted flyers around town, at the commuter rail station, at the farmers' market.
I'm not sure if there was an uptick in rideshares, but you're right, Michael (of Portland?). Here's something that's been done for a while, for free, with the state even trying to encourage it. Most cars are still empty.
If Lyft can, but offering a financial incentive, get this to take off, maybe it is an improvement. I think it's possible that:
From the post:
"Nearly 80% of commuters currently drive to work alone."
Anecdotally in Chicago:
Look at the Kennedy any day during morning or evening rush hour. Easily 8/10 cars have a driver and nobody else in the car.
I see this effort as more bringing the idea to the masses. Yes, carpooling has always been an option, but clearly nobody chooses to do so (for a myriad of reasons I'm sure, like logistics, coordinating, communicating with strangers, etc). Maybe things like this will help those solo commuters reduce the number of cars on the road.
I believe this argument is flawed. Carpooling has been free only with friends in most cases which limits the number of possible carpools as it only works when people you know are heading same direction.
This opens up doors to higher number of carpools which would be a big boon for big metros like Los Angeles where rush hour traffic is a nightmare. Reducing traffic will be a big win for humanity.
Presumably this would increase the supply and convenience of finding someone to carpool with, and presumably repeat carpoolers share at least fuel costs. I don't see this as a step backwards.
Usually the person getting a ride pitches in for gas/parking/tolls etc, so it's not entirely free. Also, I'd be more comfortable giving rides to strangers if I knew they've been cleared through a background check.
You're implying that stasis = we're all car pooling already. The reality of stasis is that we're NOT leveraging the car pooling opportunities there are, and so Lyft is helping to resolve that. That's a step forward.
This is a great point. In some circles we would refer to this as commoditization (clichéd but effective). It seems to be a consequence of continued profit-seeking outside established and competitive marketplaces.
Nothing is forcing people to pay for carpooling; if you find a neighbor who usually goes the same way, you can just do it. No need to pay Lyft in that situation.
Think of this as paying for the discovery of carpool companions.
I was in SF a few weeks ago and was shocked by how cheap and effective Lyft Line is - it ended up being comparably priced to public transportation in terms of getting around the city. (A tad more expensive, yes, but not an order of magnitude more, as I would have expected).
I've already heard of people using Lyft Line in this way (making money on the way to work), and I imagine that many more people now will, since it's officially supported.
Think about how many people already carpool. Now think about how many people don't carpool, simply because of the hassles of coordinating transportation with another person. Lyft Line addresses that burden.
I used to carpool on my morning commute with about four people, and it was awful trying to coordinate times, or remember who wasn't going to be joining us today because they had to go in early, or who was running late... all sorts of headaches. Because Lyft Line is on-demand, drivers don't have to worry about most of that. The downside is that you don't get the benefit of carpooling with the same people every day, but not everyone would mind that - and in any case, this feature seems aimed at ad-hoc trips (like running errands), not just regular commutes.
Hmm, this makes me wonder if there's room in the market for an app specifically targeted towards people who want to find carpool partners and coordinate schedules among carpool groups.
Lyft seems to be oriented around passengers and vehicles being commodities. This is probably the best move for general taxi service, but work carpoolers may want to either form their own group among friends, or try a couple of groups and stick with one that works for them. Maybe there's value in focusing on helping pre-existing groups coordinate schedules, with finding new groups being more of an afterthought, rather than an implied expectation of a new, anonymous driver and passenger every day.
Well, there are over 130 million commuters in the US alone making 2 trips per day, the vast majority driving. Quite possibly one of the largest segments in all of global commerce. But you think it's small?
It will be, but it is appealing to a large casual set of the market, and it could reduce congestion significantly in a city if it gets enough traction.
Can't up-vote this one enough; worked at a startup for a while tackling all sorts of traffic related stuff with proprietary IP, industry veterans & more. Suffice to say that there are tons of papers out there which clearly say taking N% of the number of cars off the road reduces congestion by Y% - a very much larger impact than the number of cars taken off.
This is because traffic, in general, is really caused by a small number of cars. It seems like it's everywhere but the root cause (there was a paper even on HN that talked about it) is that people can't follow each other at an even speed. This uneven speed then results in more braking, more backup, etc. A few cars in the lead who don't accelerate properly can have a disproportionately negative impact on traffic flow and average speed.
It's the same problem with queues - the people at the front don't have as much incentive to move quickly, since they're already at the front of the queue.
Probably the only way to really solve it is autonomous cars.
Let's imagine it is a small market and has very minimal impact (which I would disagree with), it is still showing that lyft is trying to build a better product/infrastructure to taxis, not just a comparable alternative. Ie it doesn't matter how much taxis up their game with mobile apps, seamless payments, etc - they still won't offer this type of solution.
I'm not so sure. Business and recreational travel, which I'm guessing is most of Lyft/Uber's business, accounts for a very small portion of all travel. This however, attempts to unlock business in all point-to-point travel... which is monstrous.
I would certainly join if the network effects were similar to that of Facebook and hitching a ride was a simple affair.
The market for casual rides seems to be heavily biased towards rides to/fro airport (I have nothing but personal observation to back this up though), so nothing wrong with going after meaty segments.
I remember when this was called carpooling. Weird to put the branding on it. But these days nothing counts unless it's in service of some corporate brand.
While that may be true, Sidecar isn't in many locations. It looks like it is in Seattle, however I've never heard of it until now, nor do I know anybody that uses it...
So, will this work in Sweden? The Google Play page says nothing about geographical restrictions, but it speaks about "DMV checks" which I have no idea what it is.
Seems Americans sometimes forget that the internet is a global network.
Is Lyft in Sweden as it is?
While I agree that many things on the internet are America-centric, it wouldn't surprise me that a company based in America makes an announcement about a feature that they are rolling out, in America.
while I am at work, my car sits in the parking lot of the building for 8-10hours, unused.
i don't want to be a lyft/uber driver. i want MY CAR to work for uber/lyft in its off hours. have a driver pick it up in the morning at the office, then return it when i want to get home (full gas tank and cleaned car for an extra fee).
Most of the cost is in the driver and driver recruitment, not the car. An additional car which isn't available at rush hour and has to be driven back to a specified point when you need it (and the driver is then going to need to get another ride to get to their next car) probably isn't worth much at all.
V2G (vehicle-to-grid) aims to solve that problem. You plug in your electric car into an outlet in the parking lot, and sell the electricity to the grid at peak prices, and buy it back overnight at off-peak prices.
Though I don't know how profitable it would be once you factor in the reduction in battery life, and the energy lost between charging and discharging the battery.
awesome idea, certainly a taxi-medalion that was portable in nyc could be a godsend to people who don't want to do opposite side parking.
Also, places with a lot of vacation or second homes would be a candidate if they keep a second car/suv etc there.
I'd worry that there is not enough of the right kind of demand tho. Most people are not getting taxis during mid-day. And the people who work professionally have different needs for layout and might be too harsh on your gear.
There is a reason you cannot lease a pickup at any reasonable rate (unlike, say a BMW or Mercedes). The lack of use during the day is priced into the latter, and priced out of the former (would be used/abused with low and unpredictable residual).
A friend of mine interviewed for a van-deliverer job very many years ago. He would put a bicycle into the van, drive the van to the customer, ride the bike back to the depot and pick the next van and repeat. The customer would drive with the van for the day. Then the reverse in the evening.
They could have viewed this as a distraction to expanding its existing dedicated-driver model, in order to better compete against Uber. (Lyft Line is just multiple passengers; Sidecar already does "driver destination" aka real carpooling, but they're also playing a different game focusing on drivers in general, and don't have the scale Lyft does)
If they can get traction, they'll have cracked a problem that many people have tried to solve and failed at: how do you get Americans to carpool?
Context: Lyft's founders pivoted into Lyft from Zimride after five years of building white-labeled carpool sites for colleges/companies + a public long-distance carpool/rideshare board, and discovering that a) that's not a VC-scale business, and b) 90% of Americans don't "do" traditional carpooling and they're not about to start
Anyway, I use Lyft over Uber when possible for many reasons, but this is one-- they started out trying to improve society in a particular way, and still are, even as they've changed their approach. And I think they should be commended for setting an example for how to achieve an activist-y goal through a startup/company. Or since it's not achieved yet, at least trying.
(I have no affiliation with Lyft, see my profile.)