|
Okay, drove a bit down on the Texas Gulf Coast a few days ago and something piqued my curiosity. Does anyone know why the roads around Houston and Galveston are primarily concrete instead of asphalt? I'm assuming there has to be a reason...besides the fact that it's loud as gently caress below your tires?
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
how well does asphalt do with being riverbeds? And alot fo roads up in dallas and austin are concrete, too. Maybe its more cost effective?
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Okay, drove a bit down on the Texas Gulf Coast a few days ago and something piqued my curiosity. Does anyone know why the roads around Houston and Galveston are primarily concrete instead of asphalt? I'm assuming there has to be a reason...besides the fact that it's loud as gently caress below your tires? It's very much a "Red vs Blue" issue. The asphalt lobby pushes for policies and laws to lock in asphalt and label concrete as an "alternative material," while the concrete lobby uses high oil prices to push more concrete roads when the economics are more favorable under the banner of "free market." Both get the job done. Both are also blocking other means of paving, like advanced pavement recycling techniques and integrated solar and glass paving technologies, to make sure the ball stays in their court until they can figure out how to profit off of these technologies themselves. Varance fucked around with this message at 06:25 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
All I know is that asphalt is much more pleasant to drive on.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
We mainly use asphalt here in Scandinavia. I've gotten the impression that it's cheaper per mile to lay down, and cheaper to do a complete re-pave when needed. Of course, concrete would last basically for ever. I'm not sure economics are the main deciding factor though. Doesn't concrete work a bit better in very warm climates? Like, in Texas or Florida, I can imagine the asphalt melting during heat waves, which could be really expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Okay, drove a bit down on the Texas Gulf Coast a few days ago and something piqued my curiosity. Does anyone know why the roads around Houston and Galveston are primarily concrete instead of asphalt? I'm assuming there has to be a reason...besides the fact that it's loud as gently caress below your tires? Comedy option: concrete is more resistant to weathering, and given that Galveston is scoured off the face of the earth by a hurricane every hundred years or so... Edit: and yeah, asphalt gets a bit sticky during south Texas summers.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:31
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Concrete is bad news in areas with frost heave. There's also particular maintenance foibles with both road surface materials.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
I have a faint recollection of someone in this thread saying concrete was also falling out of favor because of difficulty repairing it, but that might be wrong. Also, as to my speed limit question a bit ago, it looks like here used to be 4 churches clustered together where the speed dips, so that's one mystery solved I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:We mainly use asphalt here in Scandinavia. I've gotten the impression that it's cheaper per mile to lay down, and cheaper to do a complete re-pave when needed. Of course, concrete would last basically for ever. I'm not sure economics are the main deciding factor though. Doesn't concrete work a bit better in very warm climates? Like, in Texas or Florida, I can imagine the asphalt melting during heat waves, which could be really expensive. Concrete's more expensive but it'd also be expected to last longer. So if you've got a road that you can lay down and forget (no weather to tear the surface up, don't need to expand or upgrade within a few asphalt lifetimes, etc) it may be more cost-effective in the long run to do concrete.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Varance posted:There's a long-running battle between the asphalt and concrete industries as to what roads should be paved with. Early local roads were paved with brick. Long haul roads were paved with concrete, as the US Highway and later Interstate Highway systems were designed with national defense in mind and were expected to bear the weight of tanks and other heavy vehicles. Asphalt came on the scene third, first introducing "asphalt bricks" as a local alternative, then layer-based asphalt as new techniques emerged to pave roads faster. Asphalt had the upper hand for a long time because of cheap oil. During the energy crisis of the 1970s, concrete became more competitive because of the fuel shortage, so you'll see a lot of 1970s-era roads in the US paved with concrete. Same with roads built in the early 2000s, when oil was at an all-time high. Delivery McGee posted:Comedy option: concrete is more resistant to weathering, and given that Galveston is scoured off the face of the earth by a hurricane every hundred years or so... Fair enough. Thought it was something like that to be honest. All I really noticed is that the stuff is loud as gently caress under my tires at highway speed (Tires emit a constant howling of the damned that I eventually tune out) and that there were concrete splatters everywhere (Assuming it's just a little bit spilling out of the cement truck here and there and then the cement just fuses to the road in a way it wouldn't do to asphalt). dupersaurus posted:Concrete's more expensive but it'd also be expected to last longer. So if you've got a road that you can lay down and forget (no weather to tear the surface up, don't need to expand or upgrade within a few asphalt lifetimes, etc) it may be more cost-effective in the long run to do concrete. I thought one of the big draws for Asphalt over Concrete was the poo poo is hella recyclable. Sure it takes more oil, but you only lose 10-15% of that oil when you rip it up and remix it. That and it doesn't really have to wait to dry, you can drive on it in a few minutes after the resurfacing truck drives by. I'm guessing that it really just depends on where you are and what sort of environment you're dealing with.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Varance posted:Both are also blocking other means of paving, like advanced pavement recycling techniques and integrated solar and glass paving technologies, to make sure the ball stays in their court until they can figure out how to profit off of these technologies themselves. No, what's blocking solar roadways is that they're pointless. First, purely from a power output perspective, flat on the ground is one of the worst places a modern solar panel can be in the latitudes where most people live. It will simply receive a lot less light than one slanted towards the direction the Sun is usually in. The solar roadway also needs to use much thicker glass than normal solar installations because it has to be able to bear traffic weight, this reduces the amount of light that can be effectively used by the panels further. Then you add on top of that all the road debris that will accumulate on the surface. Bits of tires, dirt, dust, whatever. This'll take a huge toll on the already reduced power output of the solar panels. Then of course, you'll have all the cars driving on it and blocking the sun on their own, this takes out even more of the energy production, especially in high traffic times. But even when traffic is low, it's a pretty big problem for such an already compromised solar panel. So the result is they barely produce any energy, and certainly produce a lot less than you get if you were to just put panels up on all the buildings along the road with proper aiming, or even from roofing over the driving surface 20 feet up or so like you get at some parking lots. Now you get into the other problems: like road markings. You could produce good markings by just painting over the panels, but then you're killing any solar production from the portions under the paint. You can leave strips of concrete or asphalt between lanes or where things otherwise need to be marked, but the areas where those materials border the panels could be a great way for water to come in and disrupt the under-surface, or simply places that will wear away and cause pothole type issues. And then there's the way the solar roadway guys originally proposed: LEDs in the road marking the lines. Which is ok at night (if a little power wastey), but you need quite bright LEDs all day for them to be visible against direct sunlight and through at least a mild layer of surface filth. Actually using the LEDs for your road markings is likely to consume all the power the length of road can generate from the sun and then some. And then how do you handle things like snow? The solar roadways people offer that you could include resistance heating in the panels that will melt away snow and ice, and that's true, but it would also take a ludicrous amount of electricity to heat miles upon miles of road throughout winter months - easily more electricity than the solar panels could possibly gather through the year. And you still need to be able to handle plowing and such anyway, which is a problem due to how the panels are textured and how easy it could be to nick the side of a panel and pull it off the road, when using normal snow plows. And this is before getting into how plain expensive these things are i comparison to normal materials, and how they have basically no ability to "pay for themselves" unless the cost of electricity really skyrockets soon. And even if that happens, doing things like using road heating to alleviate ice and snow in northern climes, or using LED road markings could mean you actually end up paying more for the solar road, since the solar output will net you less than the electricity you use on the rest. Ultimately: solar roadways are just an idea that seems like a good one at first glance, and falls apart as a real solution when you start doing basic investigation. Especially in comparison to alternate solar projects like just putting more panels on places where you can aim them right and they won't be constantly covered by ground level filth and cars.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:The more I think about this 100x capacity claim the less sense it makes. Surely the capacity of the joining roads is the bottleneck long before the junction in that case? If you start assuming 100x is really a PR misquote from the numbers people who said 100% then it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Forget that, can you imagine driving on a glass road? Everyone would die the first time it rained.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Forget that, can you imagine driving on a glass road? Everyone would die the first time it rained. It's possible to texture the surface so you actually get very good traction on it. The problem is that doing this texturing reduces the solar panel's output even further, because it diffuses the light more and reduces the panels' efficiency. The current solar road panel makers have one variant with a less aggressive texturing that's safe enough for very low speed travel and biking/walking, and a more aggressively textured design meant for highway use. Honestly, I think where this whole idea is going to go is using the panels for things like paths in public parks, and other such low impact environments. It'll still be really expensive, but it'll look cool.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:If you start assuming 100x is really a PR misquote from the numbers people who said 100% then it makes sense. The following phrases will also be banned: "...times less than..." "...percent less/more"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Hey, I wasn't arguing the merits of the tech. Plastic roads, constructed using some of the same principles as concrete roads while using some of the same petroleum materials as asphalt, are also a thing now. A thing that you will never see in the US because of the asphalt and concrete lobbies. Concrete is quiet if it's well maintained. Problem is, state DOTs tend to treat it as "build and forget" because of its longevity. It requires regular milling and repair of broken segments to prevent the bumps. I'd make a comment about Florida having awesome concrete roads, but it IS Florida. It's not like we have to deal with freezing conditions around here... just bad tourists managing to turn their cars into 80 MPH fireballs and scorching the pavement.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:When the revolution happens comparison of efficiency will specify if we are talking about absolute numbers of in reference to a theoretical limit. "times more" is just as bad. Is "two times more" a 2x or 3x multiplier? Ban any number before the word less/more, and make it always be "x times/percent as much".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And then how do you handle things like snow? Speaking of which, have self-driving vehicles figured out how to drive in various levels of snow & salt without crashing/weaving all over the lanes/being blinded yet? Last I heard didn't sound very optimistic.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Don't be silly, nobody gung-ho about future driving/road tech would even consider snow. It's not like huge swaths of the country get it every year. If we wait long enough, climate change will render this a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Varance posted:I'm going to cross-post this bit of transit lore I wrote for the Florida thread: I'm curious if you've read any of Jarret Walker's stuff or what you think of it because it seems he has a way different approach to ridesharing and talking about "choice" riders.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:I'm curious if you've read any of Jarret Walker's stuff or what you think of it because it seems he has a way different approach to ridesharing and talking about "choice" riders. On top of that, transit agencies are digging the hole deeper with the "modern realignment" process mentioned above. Creating high frequency core routes to compete/compliment rideshare is 1) going to play into rideshare's hand and 2) turn captive riders on lesser routes into choice riders when you take away their service, making things worse. This is the same process that destroyed the railroads and radial lines 50+ years ago. Closing under-producing lines kills ridership on mainline operations, and eventually those cease as well. You can find efficiencies and ways to improve routes, but you can't straight-up eliminate service in the process without inconveniencing the hell out of your captive ridership base that already has to plan their life around a bus schedule. Companies like Uber have sociologists and psychologists on staff that study stuff like this. Your average transit agency does not. Transit agencies rely on consultants for this kind of wisdom, who probably don't have any either (or are paid under the table to feed transit agencies poor info). Varance fucked around with this message at 07:05 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Varance posted:Here's my thoughts on rideshare and choice riders: transit has dug its own grave with real-time bus arrival apps. In the mind of the impatient choice rider, looking at a phone and seeing "bus is arriving in X mins" translates as "I could probably get an Uber faster." Once you've ordered that rideshare, there's a sense that you've committed to the ride in that there are penalties for avoiding the ride. There are no penalties for not waiting for the bus. Even if the bus arrives before the Uber, you're locked in. It's very potent psychology, and over time locks people into Uber out of habit. Isn't UberPool doing exactly that, though? Also, how do captive riders turn into choice riders? I thought that was the entire idea behind captive that you don't get a choice. Also, The cities JW has been in have seen increased ridership (maybe, it was up for a few months then down), so I'm not too sure about flatly saying getting rid of under-performing routes kills ridership. I don't get how a bus arrives every quarter hour is much, much more attractive vs rideshare than a bus every hour or half. I don't think that's intended to compete with rideshare, though, because transit and Uber also compete with the mode of the private car (which is ready instantly) cost and time-wise. A frequent bus drastically reduces total travel time in it's own right and it's the time between buses that really drag. Maybe I have different history of rail lines than, but you start with mainlines, if those fail, it wasn't because you had enough feeders, it because the entire foundation is (and was) screwed. (assuming Uber is going to be profitable at some point) Eskaton fucked around with this message at 07:55 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Isn't UberPool doing exactly that, though? Also, how do captive riders turn into choice riders? I thought that was the entire idea behind captive that you don't get a choice. Also, The cities JW has been in has increased ridership, so I'm not too sure about flatly saying getting rid of under-performing routes kills ridership. I don't get how a bus arrives every quarter hour is much, much more attractive vs rideshare than a bus every hour or half. I don't think that's inteneded to compete with rideshare, though, even if it does. A frequent bus drastically reduces total travel time in it's own right and it's the time between buses that really drag. Maybe I have idfferent history of railines than, but you start with mainlines, if those fail, it wasn't because you had enough feeders, it because the entire foundation is (and was) screwed. Basically, Uber, Lyft and other rideshares (the big private transpo companies like First, MV and Transdev are all on the bandwagon now) are slowing trying to ingratiate themselves as part of transit systems to gain public funding for their services, as a sort of loss leader to adopt the new technology. As the foundation of the transit system erodes, they gain a more and more pronounced role in the ecosystem until they eventually become the big fish in the pond, and more money comes their way. As far as frequency goes, it's true that reduced headways do greatly cut down on overall travel time. Problem is, going below a 15 minute headway is like adding a 5th lane to an Interstate highway: vastly inefficient for the cost. If 1 bus gets you 60 min service, then it takes 2 buses for 30 min service, 3 buses for 20 min service, 4 buses for 15 min service, 5 buses for 12 min service, 6 buses for 10 min service, etc.. In other words, twice the cost to drop from 20 to 10 minute service. Additionally, the closer vehicles are, the more likely they will get bunched up into pairs or convoys due to typical traffic conditions. When vehicles get bunched, you usually have to put them into drop off only service or turn them back/"deadhead" them elsewhere on the route to restore on-time performance. If you're full at 15 minutes, you really need to be looking at fixed guideway alternatives that won't get bunched easily. The term being thrown around at board meetings these days is "congestion-proof transit," which is the main mode advantage that transit can have that so many agencies fail to capitalize on. As far as rail lines go, you always need feeders in a transportation network, otherwise you lose the cost efficiency of providing low headway service. Amtrak still uses coach bus service to supplement rail ridership, plus has numerous feeder routes along the Northeast Corridor. Non-discount airlines all have feeder routes that keep hub routes full... Delta Connection, American Eagle, United Express, etc. US interstate highways have feeder routes (the 3-digit interstates and US highway system). That logic hasn't changed in hundreds of years. If you can't make it easy for people to get where they're going, they'll find a different way. The one non-optional component that HAS to be in place for high frequency transit to be effective without feeders is density. If it's not a rail line, you basically have to legislate density along the corridor to get ridership up. Many, many, many American cities are against this for a plethora of reasons. With rail, it happens naturally. I used to call Miami Metrorail's south end the "Metro to Nowhere." And then Downtown Dadeland happened. Edit: One other thing that's happening in the background is that paratransit ridership is rising almost everywhere as the boomers age out, which is the complete opposite of what fixed route ridership is doing. Depending on the market, Uber/Lyft actually have to pay a cab service that specializes in accessibility to do para rides to avoid fouling disability rights laws, and they make it as pain in the rear end as possible to encourage you to use paratransit instead. Not helping. Paratransit is expensive as hell, way moreso than rideshare because of how specialized the vehicle typically needs to be. This is a big factor going forward, especially if transit agencies keep getting rid of feeder routes. Guess what? FTA mandates paratransit in service "doughnut holes" left behind by the elimination of feeder routes. Not only are you not losing the paratransit costs associated with lower performing feeder routes, you're probably pushing more people onto paratransit by taking their local bus away. At $35+ average per ride in a low cost of living state (para trips can easily get into the $100 range, depending on destination) and accompanied by an FTA mandate that para fares be comparable to local fares, you can really shoot yourself in the foot if you don't look closely at ADA-qualified ridership along feeder routes. Varance fucked around with this message at 08:49 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
that's going to leave a mark... http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/05/31/semi-crash-puts-up-a-lot-of-flames-on-i-25-in-the-tech-center/ 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
I still can't quite figure out why the US is so so bad at building transport, and I've never bought the "UNIONS!" excuse. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-31/the-u-s-has-forgotten-how-to-do-infrastructure
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I still can't quite figure out why the US is so so bad at building transport, and I've never bought the "UNIONS!" excuse. Same reason college and healthcare are expensive. Administrators. Everyone complains about  UNIONS but just skip over the part where all the pencil pushers make 10 times the union and refuse to do anything unless a pay raise for themselves is on the docket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Unions do a good job of tangling projects up in red tape when they try to get out of paying prevailing wage. In California CEQA is the most notorious cudgel in that tool kit... But that is a huge stretch to say union wages are a major factor in explaining the costs. Mechanization allows for a lot more work to be done per unit of labor as compared to the past. An extreme example would be longshore men. Wages have gone way up, but total labor costs are way down. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Yeah we live in a society where 100 people making $15 hour are replaced with a bunch of machinery and then 10 people making $30 an hour and people flip out at those drat unions and entitled workers draining the economy. Your total labour costs have gone down and your productivity has gone way up, this is entirely on the bloated management/consultant class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:that's going to leave a mark... Amazingly CDOT had all the lanes back open this morning
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
uberpool is already transit-izing
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Wiggly posted:Amazingly CDOT had all the lanes back open this morning yep, they've hosed up in the past, but when something like this occurs, they do a really good job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHAc6ziM5A Can anyone tell me the point of this setup? It seems to do the exact same function as the vertical-doghouse signal it replaced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Uber can't get real mid-century unfettered captains-of-industry cred until they start buying transit agencies outright and shuttering them like the Big Three did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Uber can't get real mid-century unfettered captains-of-industry cred until they start buying transit agencies outright and shuttering them like the Big Three did. Varance fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Uber can't get real mid-century unfettered captains-of-industry cred until they start buying transit agencies outright and shuttering them like the Big Three did. That's not a real thing. You're misremembering conversions from streetcars to buses so they could boost their bus sales, just like most of the operators had already done because buses were massively less expensive to operate than a streetcar system was. And you're forgetting that they weren't "transit agencies" they were various private companies that ran the streetcars, because transit agencies barely existed in most cities before the 40s besides minor subsidy systems for the private operators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's not a real thing. You're misremembering conversions from streetcars to buses so they could boost their bus sales, just like most of the operators had already done because buses were massively less expensive to operate than a streetcar system was. And you're forgetting that they weren't "transit agencies" they were various private companies that ran the streetcars, because transit agencies barely existed in most cities before the 40s besides minor subsidy systems for the private operators. Both the US and Canada were able to strong-arm GM into continuing bus production through the 80s with business incentives, which is how agencies survived until newer manufacturers filled the void: Flxible, MCI, Novabus, New Flyer, NABI, Orion and Gillig. North American bus tech has matured quite a bit since then. Diesel hybrid 40 foot buses can do 80 MPH on the highway and get 10+ MPG these days, CNG buses barely cost anything in fuel and the industry is quickly moving toward electric because of how advanced the tech is now: quiet interior, good range and already comparable to CNG in cost. European and Asian vendors are also heavily moving into the NA transit market, which should hopefully drive prices down a bit. Karsan has bus manufacturing plant in Miami-Dade, plus CRRC, Alstom, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and Kawasaki all have North American production plants and are eating Bombardier's lunch in the rail sector right now.  Also, Trump can go screw himself when he talks about transit being an urban-only thing. Every Florida county has a transit agency... the smaller ones in Florida are rolled into the local "Council on Aging" and are almost entirely funded by state and federal dollars (what we call the "5310 agencies," after the FTA program for the disabled/elderly that funds them). FDOT is trying to get the larger agencies to partner with the smaller agencies for training, marketing, planning, etc., as many of them are run by a single person and have no budget/resources as-is. Tens of millions in "red" counties will get screwed nationwide if Trump actually manages to shut down the FTA like he wants. Just wanted to get that out there. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Buses are really not exciting but this guy almost makes them interesting, and honestly there is a lot of cool tech in buses coming down the pipes at the moment. Real poo poo, not road-straddling painted-line-following chinese bullshit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv20P9MrrqY This guy makes really well produced videos on transit and transit vehicles, he is my internet friend. I love transit fabrics and glad they had a booth just on the delightful fabrics you can get. Some pretty cool tech at the end and of course bus booth babes. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
We have all of this tech already, but none of us can afford it all, so we take what makes sense for us. Bradenton has automatic wheelchair restraints that massively speed up the boarding process by letting mobility users VOLTRON into part of the bus, St Pete/Clearwater and Tallahassee are in the electric bus club, Orlando and Tampa are going CNG, etc.. Most agencies have realtime bus arrival and will be implementing tap cards and phone-purchased fares next year, with some already up and running. FDOT's trying to get the big agencies to let the little guys piggyback off of their fare and bus tracking systems, so even rural agencies will eventually come into the 21st century. Stuff like that. Alright, I'll quit with the boring transit stuff now. Varance fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Varance posted:I just spent the last three days talking with transit professionals nonstop. General consensus is that Uber won't be around in its current form by the end of the decade. Lyft has a different business model that actually works, doing what transit doesn't: overnight/off-hour transit for people with no option - what the industry refers to as transportation disadvantaged service. Wait what? Lyft has a difference business model than Uber how?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Michael Scott posted:Wait what? Lyft has a difference business model than Uber how? Lyft doesn't plan to lose 3 billion dollars this year via massive subsidies and other dumb stuff (Uber has lost 1.6 billion already in the past two financial quarters). They're also more willing to follow local laws which means they can get into prime pickup locations like airports without needing to worry about the drivers being arrested by the cops. If need be, they'll have a far easier time becoming a profitable enterprise with some cutbacks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:43
|
|