The tech world is prone to freakouts. In 2008, when Apple’s App store was announced, the media heralded the beginning of the App Economy. Hundreds of marketing directors stormed into IT departments screaming, “WE NEED AN APP NOW.” Now, every company with significant brand awareness has an app.

Six years after we were promised the app economy’s transition to maturity, it still hasn’t happened. Sure, people are using their phones more and more, but mostly with the same small set of apps.

Tech triumphalism is a common theme in the media: technology will reportedly fix medicine, education, politics, and climate change. In this vein, Vox published another brave, forward-thinking piece entitled, “Lyft’s new carpooling service is the beginning of the end for public buses.”

The gist of the article is that Lyft’s new on-demand carpooling service blurs the line between taxis and buses because it provides a service that’s 1) slower than taxis but faster than buses, and 2) cheaper than taxis but more expensive than buses. With time and self driving cars (!), Lyft will undercut bus service, so buses will die.

Transit expert Jarrett Walker had this to say:

I had thought @voxdotcom was a news source, but now I see it’s just repackaged techno-hype with zero analysis. http://t.co/QYiaQKZ3pm — Jarrett Walker (@humantransit) August 9, 2014

Here’s a few criticisms of my own that come to mind.

Transit is still cheaper: For the vast majority of trips, bus and light rail will be far less expensive than any ride-sharing service, even Lyft Line. The efficiency gains from self-driving cars won’t materialize for at least a decade, and, even then, the effects will be mixed.

For the vast majority of trips, bus and light rail will be far less expensive than any ride-sharing service, even Lyft Line. The efficiency gains from self-driving cars won’t materialize for at least a decade, and, even then, the effects will be mixed. Having a regular route is not a disadvantage : Buses follow a fixed route and schedule, which lets you know for certain what your transportation options are, instead of ride-sharing, which has no way to make sure people’s vital transportation needs are met.

: Buses follow a fixed route and schedule, which lets you know for certain what your transportation options are, instead of ride-sharing, which has no way to make sure people’s vital transportation needs are met. Not everyone has a smartphone: Believe it or not, not everyone has a high-end smartphone with a data plan.

Believe it or not, not everyone has a high-end smartphone with a data plan. Ride-sharing services are worse at accommodating surge: Single cars are low-capacity and have a low tolerance for a surge in demand. Uber is notorious for its unpredictable surge pricing scheme.

Single cars are low-capacity and have a low tolerance for a surge in demand. Uber is notorious for its unpredictable surge pricing scheme. Buses are a more efficient use of space: For reference, see this image.

If anything, ride-sharing services will replace traditional taxis, which we’ve already started to see happening.

It’s easy to base arguments off of the premise of technology’s presumed perpetual improvement, but, in reality, tech can’t solve every problem or ‘disrupt’ every industry. Netflix won’t kill cable companies, EveryCarListed won’t kill car dealerships, and Lyft won’t kill public buses.

Photo: Σπύρος Βάθης via Flickr