This video is sponsored by Morning Brew.
Can a ride sharing service run by LA Metro beat Uber?
The king of awkward conversations with strangers in cars?
I wanted to find out
so I pitted them against each other in a competition.
I'm taking Metro Micro to Caltech
and Uber back to downtown Pasadena.
I'll be comparing them on ease of use,
time to destination and price.
And of course, I'll be talking about the impact
of ride sharing services on cities
because this is a city planning channel.
The first thing I did was book a ride
on Metro Micro using the app.
The app feels modern and sophisticated
which may not be something to expect from a transit agency,
but it's clear that LA Metro is marketing this to Uber users
and it accomplishes that goal.
The app does work a little differently than Uber though.
The service is simpler to UberX Share
where you carpool with others.
The app gave me a time range for pickup
and I wasn't allowed to know my driver's info
or see them on the map until I was the next to be picked up.
I booked the ride at about 7:00 pm
and the app said I wouldn't be picked up until 7:20 to 7:30
and I would get to my destination around 7:45.
This is considerably slower
than most of my experiences with Uber,
save for a few late night pickups in rural areas.
It did gimme time to stroll through
downtown Pasadena though, which was lovely.
My ride eventually came closer to 7:40.
The app told me the driver was running late, which was nice.
When the driver pulled up, there was no one else in the van
but before dropping me off at my destination
we had to stop and pick someone else up.
Luckily, they were only a few blocks out of the way.
The van was big enough that I didn't really need
to interact with the other passengers
and it wasn't awkward.
The driver was friendly and I arrived around eight o'clock.
Now it's Uber's turn.
I only had to wait about six minutes for my Uber to arrive
after booking it and the drive took 11 minutes,
which is substantially shorter
than the 20-ish minutes for Metro Micro.
But of course, we didn't pick
anyone else up on the way back.
It was an altogether uneventful Uber ride.
Let's look at the scoreboard here for a second.
Both services are easy to use
for anyone who has ever used a smartphone app.
In both cases, you input your destination
and the app finds you a driver
to take you from point A to point B.
I'll have to give the edge to Uber here, however,
because the Metro Micro driver was late.
Time to destination goes to Uber,
though I feel like Metro Micro was extremely quick
and efficient given that we stopped
to pick up another ride.
If I was comparing Metro Micro to UberX Share
I would've probably given the edge
to Metro Micro for its sweet van.
Finally, price.
As advertised, Metro Micro costs $1
and you can use your transit pass if you have one.
The Uber ride was only $7.57 cents
which the app said was lower than normal.
The average price is closer to $9.00.
This one easily goes the Metro Micro.
So Uber wins, right?
Well, I think it depends on your priorities.
If you just wanna get from one place to another quickly,
Uber is a solid option.
But if you're someone who cares
about things like traffic, carbon emissions,
and the fate of urban transportation systems,
then maybe Metro Micro is a better option.
Plus, it's hard to beat those dollar rides.
Metro Micro is so good
that I first heard about it from Adam,
of Adam Ruins Everything.
If Metro Micro is so awesome
that it won over someone who debunks things professionally
you know, it's good.
Let's talk about the problems Uber creates for cities
and why Metro Micro may be the real future of ride sharing.
After the bike bell. (pictures whooshing)
(bike bell ringing)
I went over all the major service differences
between Uber and Metro Micro,
but perhaps the biggest difference between these two
are their parent organizations and their goals.
Uber, as well as the competitor, Lyft are private companies
and incentivized to make a profit for their shareholders.
Metro Micro is a service operated by LA Metro,
a public transit agency.
They have several goals listed in their strategic plan
but their first is the most obvious and instructive.
Provide high quality mobility options
that enable people to spend less time traveling.
They just wanna move people throughout the area fast.
They don't need to generate a profit,
as public transit is a public service,
just like roads, fire protection and parks.
Does that mean that Metro Micro is better
because it's a public service?
Well, maybe.
Let's do another little competition
between Uber and Metro Micro,
but this time focus on the overall impact to the region.
And let's look at labor first.
Metro Micro's drivers are employed by the transit agency
and are represented by a union.
They get medical and dental insurance,
tuition reimbursement, and are provided a vehicle.
It's essentially the same job as a public bus driver.
You're not gonna get rich driving a bus
or a metro micro vehicle,
but by U.S. standards it's a pretty stable job.
Uber and Lyft drivers are not unionized,
nor are they considered employees, at least not in the U.S.
They're independent contractors with no guaranteed wages,
hours, or working conditions.
In 2019, California passed a law
reclassifying independent contractors as employees
and entitling them to the same workplace protections
and benefits, such as a minimum wage, workers' comp,
unemployment insurance, and paid family leave.
Uber and Lyft spent $200 million,
10 times their opposition,
on a ballot measure to exempt them
from this law and they succeeded.
The debate probably doesn't make much difference to drivers
who appreciate the flexibility of the gig economy,
the kind of people who drive a few hours here and there
to supplement their income.
But for those who do Uber full time,
those benefits are necessary.
Uber drivers typically make about $15 to $22 per hour,
which must also cover the cost of gas
and vehicle maintenance.
In larger cities, it's easier to eek out a living
due to the larger number of rides requested.
Recently, drivers have been making
closer to $30 an hour in some cities,
as Uber has had to pay more to fend off a driver shortage
and compensate for higher gas prices.
But this is also contributed to increased prices for riders.
Let's look at that scoreboard again.
Metro Micro is the clear winner in the labor category.
These increased labor costs lead to higher prices
which makes mass transit more attractive to people.
This is part of the reason
why Uber's trying to replace mass transit
so you'll be captive to Uber and pay whatever they charge.
But what is Uber doing to actually replace mass transit?
Well, simply operating in cities with mass transit systems
has reduced transit ridership.
For example, Uber rides in New York
went from 60,000 to 600,000 per day between 2015 and 2018.
Subway ridership dropped by the same amount in that period.
Transit agencies nationwide
saw consistent drops in ridership
as Uber and Lyft began operations there.
One study found a 9% drop in transit usage
as soon as a ride sharing company
began operating in the city.
And today, the pandemic has put transit agencies
into fiscal crisis as ridership has dropped further.
Uber and Lyft are seeking partnerships with transit agencies
to replace lines with Uber rides.
Transit agencies who had never have considered
these deals before are forced to
as they can't provide the service they once did.
The result will be a less efficient form of transit.
Buses and trains can move a lot of people
and don't take up a lot of space.
When they run at high frequencies
and connect destinations people want to go to,
they are super efficient and cost effective.
Moving one person at a time
in a private vehicle with one driver
is not efficient at all,
but it's better than nothing
which is why transit agencies are considering it.
And obviously Uber wants more rides
and this is one way of getting them.
Impact on transit easily goes to Metro Micro.
Uber and Lyft degrade transit ridership
by competing directly.
Metro Micro is run by a transit agency.
You can use your transit pass to pay for rides
and the system is designed
to compliment transit instead of defeat it.
Early on in this ride share experiment people like me,
planners, were hoping that Uber
would actually reduce overall reliance on cars.
This is because people might leave their car at home
and take Ubers everywhere.
One Uber driver could provide transportation
for several people, thereby reducing traffic,
congestion, carbon emissions, and that sort of thing.
But that's not exactly how it worked out.
As I mentioned before, many ride share trips
actually replaced transit trips, not driving trips.
In fact, a study found
that half of all ride share trips
replaced walking, cycling, and transit trips,
or trips that wouldn't have even been made
in the first place.
15% of all car trips within San Francisco
are made with Uber and Lyft.
All of these new car trips create more traffic.
In San Francisco, weekday vehicle delay
increased by nearly 70%.
It makes sense too, if you think about it.
A normal trip and return trip is really straightforward.
You drive to the store, park, drive home and park.
Those same trips made with Uber
require someone to drive to your house first,
then take you on the trip to the store.
Same thing on the way back.
Metro Micro wins at traffic
though it's not immediately obvious why?
I mean, it's still ride sharing, right?
But some of the reasons why it lost
in earlier categories means it wins here.
It's simply not as convenient as Uber or Lyft
which means it's not gonna generate as many ride share rides
as the other competition.
It's also just a better compliment to transit,
in particular areas where transit doesn't already go.
Metro Micro fills a gap
that transit networks have a hard time with,
serving people in low density car dependent areas.
By integrating fares with transit
and advertising it is an extension of the transit system
it could potentially create more transit riders,
reducing traffic.
Metro Micro is still in its early days
so it's hard to know if the program's been a success or not.
But if it delivers on the goal set forth by LA Metro
I have to believe that other transit agencies
would wanna implement a similar program,
especially if Uber and Lyft keep raising their prices.
And especially if Uber and Lyft
continue to be kind of shady and sketchy with cities.
I haven't really even scratched the surface
of what they've done in the past.
Did you know that Uber arranged
backroom deals with politicians
to expand their services in certain cities
and likely broke the law when doing it?
Or that Uber wants you to book flights,
trains, and buses on the Uber app?
It sounds like they wanna take down
all other transportation, not just transit.
Or that Uber's impact on the taxi industry
has led to bankruptcies and suicides
by New York taxi drivers.
But now you can actually book
a Yellow Cab in New York through Uber.
I learned all of these things
and more by reading Morning Brew,
a completely free daily newsletter.
Morning Brew keeps you up to speed on all the news
and current events you need to know
about business, finance, and tech.
They do it in only five minutes
in a way that's more informative, witty,
and relevant than traditional news.
It cuts through the clutter
and gives you what you need every morning.
Since you watch this channel
I know you like getting smarter about the world around you.
So go ahead and start your mornings with Morning Brew
by subscribing completely free
using the link on screen and in the description.
This is one of the few ways
you can support this channel for free
and still be up-to-date on current events.
There aren't as many win-wins as good as this one.
Thanks for watching and I'll see you on the next one.