# Are trips in heavy traffic worth it?



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

I feel like we get triple-taxed on stop-and-go non-surge trips in city traffic.
1. No car gets decent MPG when it's hardly moving.
2. Wear and tear ramped up dramatically compared to highway trips or normal city rides.
3. I do not feel like the rate formula appropriately values our time/opportunity cost, or takes into account the first two things.

There are probably even more ways we lose on slow trips, off the top of my head: lower ratings, increased risk of getting rear-ended. What's the fare formula trying to tell me? Take side streets, roll through stop signs?


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

troubleinrivercity said:


> I feel like we get triple-taxed on stop-and-go non-surge trips in city traffic.
> 1. No car gets decent MPG when it's hardly moving.
> 2. Wear and tear ramped up dramatically compared to highway trips or normal city rides.
> 3. I do not feel like the rate formula appropriately values our time/opportunity cost, or takes into account the first two things.
> ...


IMO, the per minute rate is way too low. Even during some surge events, if traffic is stop and go the surge may only compensate for your lost time stuck in traffic.


----------



## Dave (Apr 12, 2014)

In the SF market, at 60 mph, you are earning $90/hr on mileage and $18/hr on time. at 30 mph, it's $45/hr on mileage and $18/hr on time. The break even point between the two would be 12 mph where the mileage and time rates per hour are equal. So technically no, it's not worth being stuck in traffic on a ride, but it just comes with the territory unfortunately.


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

Yeah, thanks for the numbers, though I'm in the current wild west of UberX (Chicago).
I also didn't mean to suggest that people regularly abuse residential streets. I don't think you save much or any time, and collisions seem much likelier. Remember that bicyclists swarm the one-block-away alternates, and they typically treat four-way stops as slow/yield, which are empty most of the time at night. Don't hit one, don't get deactivated.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

troubleinrivercity said:


> Yeah, thanks for the numbers, though I'm in the current wild west of UberX (Chicago).
> I also didn't mean to suggest that people regularly abuse residential streets. I don't think you save much or any time, and collisions seem much likelier. Remember that bicyclists swarm the one-block-away alternates, and they typically treat four-way stops as slow/yield, which are empty most of the time at night. Don't hit one, don't get deactivated.


I've also questioned the low per minute rate as increasing the risk of an accident. The most direct, shortest trip could be going through a congested city. The fastest and safest route could be following a more free flowing freeway loop around the city. If the per minute and mile rates were better balanced, they might reduce this issue.


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

Maybe Uber will eventually employ someone who took undergraduate psychology, and learn the difference between distress and eustress. Razor-thin margins lead to aggressive decision-making, and they are an example of negative stress.


----------



## cybertec69 (Jul 23, 2014)

troubleinrivercity said:


> Maybe Uber will eventually employ someone who took undergraduate psychology, and learn the difference between distress and eustress. Razor-thin margins lead to aggressive decision-making, and they are an example of negative stress.


Uber could care less about your stress.


----------



## KWDC (Jul 28, 2014)

After a couple of trips in brutal traffic yesterday I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth it to go out in heavy traffic. Obviously sometimes it can't be avoided, but we are paid much more for mileage than we are for time. So the less mileage and more time, the less you're making. By far.


----------



## UberAltima (Jul 31, 2014)

Which is better to configure on GPS, shortest or fastest route?


----------



## Moofish (Jun 13, 2014)

I would say fastest, $/mile is more than $/min, so if you get to a destination 3 min faster you only saved the passenger $0.90, whereas if you took an extra 1 or 2 miles to avoid traffic, it's $1-3 more.

Of course, asking pax for preferred route should come first as they may suspect you of scamming them for more money if you take an unusual route.


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

If you're in my city, some roads are disaster areas pavement-wise, and are very unsuitable for long rides no matter what GMaps says. You'll never be able to travel a reasonable speed on these roads without making your passengers sick and hurting your car.


----------



## Jeff212 (Aug 1, 2014)

KWDC said:


> After a couple of trips in brutal traffic yesterday I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth it to go out in heavy traffic. Obviously sometimes it can't be avoided, but we are paid much more for mileage than we are for time. So the less mileage and more time, the less you're making. By far.


True that, I had a fare that was over an hour because of traffic and I was thinking like it was going to be a great fare.... Wrong, what a waste.... Oh well, roll of the dice....


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

Jeff212 said:


> True that, I had a fare that was over an hour because of traffic and I was thinking like it was going to be a great fare.... Wrong, what a waste.... Oh well, roll of the dice....


It was never a roll of the dice. You can run the fare equation in your head, it just doesn't pay you for slow trips. Traffic w/o surge means you're screwed.


----------

