金融時報:正在顛覆公共交通的Uber和Lyft

所屬教程:金融時報原文閱讀

瀏覽:

2022年02月10日

手機版

掃描二維碼方便學(xué)習(xí)和分享

正在顛覆公共交通的Uber和Lyft

在美國的很多城市，交通出行類科技創(chuàng)業(yè)公司正在變得越來越受歡迎。通過Uber或Lyft拼車出行并不一定比坐公交昂貴很多，但其便利和舒適的體驗卻是公共交通遠(yuǎn)不能及的。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

prosaic[pr?'ze??k] adj.單調(diào)的，無趣的

attest[?'test] v. 證明，作證

carpool['kɑ?rpu?l] vi.合伙用車，拼車

cannibal['kæn?bl] n.食人者

disillusion[?d?s?'lu??n] vt. 醒悟，幻想破滅

How Uber and Lyft are reinventing the bus(682 words)

By Leslie Hook

There is a reason that San Francisco is the home of both Uber and Lyft — and it’s not because the town is the beating heart of global innovation. The real cause is much more prosaic: San Francisco’s public transport system is terrible. The city has only one subway line, combined with a couple of old tram lines that are so clogged at rush hour as to be barely usable.

I realise that all city dwellers like to complain about this but, having spent years living in Hong Kong, Beijing and London, I can attest that San Francisco’s public transportation is the worst. It has reached such a state that commuters can often be seen running, skateboarding or riding electric unicycles to work.

This, of course, is a godsend for Uber and Lyft, which thrive in environments with limited transport options. But as the two companies have grown, something strange has happened: they are starting to behave more and more like some of the public transit systems that are so lacking.

The latest example is a new service from Lyft called Shuttle, which offers passengers a fixed-fare, fixed-route trip in a shared vehicle — in other words, a bus. Or rather, a private car acting like a bus. Uber has been testing a similar concept in Manila, dubbed Uberhop.

This raises the question of whether Uber and Lyft are helping or hurting public transport. In many US cities, transport start-ups are highly competitive in terms of price and convenience — a carpool Uber or Lyft is usually just a dollar more than a bus fare, and takes half the time. This is less true in global capitals such as London or Hong Kong, where the subway is faster and cheaper than Uber. But in San Francisco, the “bus” concept has caused a lot of local hand-wringing about whether Uber and Lyft are cannibalising public transport and reducing bus revenues.

For Lyft, it is not accidental that its new service is, basically, a bus. Logan Green, the company’s co-founder, was for years a bus advocate, serving on the Santa Barbara transportation board when he was in college and refusing to own a car. He lobbied to raise money for a better bus system with higher taxes but, when voters rejected the measure, Green became disillusioned. Now, with Lyft, he is essentially offering better bus and transport options through the private sector.

Some cities and towns in North America have turned this challenge on its head by hiring Uber or Lyft to provide public transport services. Just outside Toronto, the town of Innisfil inked a deal to subsidise the cost of Uber rides for residents; it calculated this would be cheaper than installing two new bus lines.

In Summit, New Jersey, the town is subsidising Uber rides rather than spend $20m on a new parking garage next to the train station. “People are going to use cars differently in the future, so why would we want to make a giant capital investment?” Amy Cairns, a spokesperson, told me. Lyft has done similar deals in Colorado.

Uber and Lyft, perhaps sensing the potential to broaden their market, have been eager to embrace this development. They imagine a future in which fewer people own cars and instead rely on a combination of ride-hailing and trains. The companies are already spending promotional dollars to change habits: earlier this month, for example, Uber announced subsidised rides to certain Seattle light-rail stations, with the company itself providing the subsidy.

But along with this strategy comes a risk. If Uber makes itself an indispensable public service, it could end up being regulated like one. Already a string of pricing disputes have trailed the company, which adjusts fares dynamically based on an algorithm. If Uber or Lyft were the sole provider of a public good in a city, regulatory scrutiny would increase.

Other towns have taken a third approach — harnessing the technology of the ride-hailing companies to make public transport services work better. Austin launched its own on-demand, carpool van app earlier this year. A similar pilot is under way in Nashville. Maybe it is possible to reinvent the bus after all.

請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.What makes San Francisco's public transportation so terrible ?

A. Public transport system in San Francisco was built a long time ago.

B. Public transportation lines in San Francisco are quite limited and clogged.

C. Streets in San Francisco are designed to favor bikers and pedestrians.

D. Companies like Uber and Lyft are reducing public transport revenues.

答案(1)

2.According to the article, Lyft's new service Shuttle ____.

A. is popular in San Francisco but unwelcome in Hong Kong and London.

B. offers passengers a fixed-fare, fixed-route trip in an exclusive vehicle.

C. was first launched in Manila and introduced to the US soon afterwards.

D. is highly competitive in terms of price and convenience in San Francisco.