Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#91

Post by andys627 »

cbr wrote: post #38
Nav_Panel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to "fix" land use once the land is already "in use". Much harder than before the land is developed, at least. LA seems to be doing the right thing: build subway lines/high-density transit, even if it "goes nowhere," and the density will follow.

It's very hard to "fix" land use once the land is already "in use". Relaxing zoning to allow people to expand or rebuild more densely on existing lots would go pretty far in high-demand areas.

This, and making it harder/more expensive to develop inefficient uses. I'm surprised this is so hard because the increased public expenses for car oriented development over car optional development is large. It's mostly a revenue now vs expense later tradeoff cities almost always have taken in US.

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#93

Post by akgerber »

LordKano wrote: post #4
JBReefer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but I bet you can't name 15 cities larger than LA that depend on an outdated tech like trains. When's the last time you saw one of those at TechCrunch Disrupt? Seriously though, this is a solved problem everywhere but major US cities. Paris - which once loved cars - has totally changed over to being bus, bike, and train promoting, and it works.

There are cultural reasons why what works in Europe won't work in most of the US. If I can't take my car or park for a reasonable fee, I simply won't go somewhere and most of the people I know are the same.

That's all well and good, but in most urban areas of the US, business owners can't even choose whether they want to cater to you as a customer— instead, all new development is required to have a certain quantity of parking by legislative fiat, effectively outlawing the classic 'main street' that's the anchor of so many communities.

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#94

Post by akgerber »

chillingeffect wrote: post #8

This is great news, until we look at the open space and say, "Wow! Now we can fit so many more commuters on these streets." Nature abhors a vacuum. Not to denigrate the science, I respect the math greatly. It's just that NYC culture is about trying to cram the most things in one place. Few open resources like Central Park remain so very long.

"Induced demand" is the bane of attempt to reduce congestion in the history of automobiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#95

Post by bogomipz »

Retric wrote: post #78
bogomipz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Rent Control apartments only represent 1.2% of the total rental stock in the New York City. That is as of 2014 and so its likely less now as that number only ticks down. How is that heavily subsidizing a retired population? http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/2014-HVS-initia... Also the idea of people paying peanuts for a rent controlled apartment is largely a myth. It is discussed in detail in this art…

To qualify for "Rent Control" the apartments must be occupied since July 1, 1971 so that 1.2% is effectively 100% retired people. Further 1,030,000 units are "Rent Stabilized". However, "Rent Stabilized" is really just another type of Rent Controlled with different rules. PS: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York Non-regulated 2011: 39.1%.

That 1.2% figure for the number of rent controlled apartments in 2014 equates to 27K apartments. I was responding to the OP's claim was that New York City was "heavily subsidizing" retired people.

Lets say that those 27K apartments have two occupants - the reality is probably less. so that is 54K people out of population of 8.1 million. The percentage of people that rent in NYC is ~ 70%(see link below) or 5.6 million? Would you consider that 54K a heavy subsidy burden on the majority of renters even if they were only paying peanuts which they are not see my second link above.

https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/renting-in-new-yo...

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#96

Post by madgar »

Retric wrote: post #78
bogomipz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Rent Control apartments only represent 1.2% of the total rental stock in the New York City. That is as of 2014 and so its likely less now as that number only ticks down. How is that heavily subsidizing a retired population? http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/2014-HVS-initia... Also the idea of people paying peanuts for a rent controlled apartment is largely a myth. It is discussed in detail in this art…

To qualify for "Rent Control" the apartments must be occupied since July 1, 1971 so that 1.2% is effectively 100% retired people. Further 1,030,000 units are "Rent Stabilized". However, "Rent Stabilized" is really just another type of Rent Controlled with different rules. PS: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York Non-regulated 2011: 39.1%.

> Further 1,030,000 units are "Rent Stabilized". However, "Rent Stabilized" is really just another type of Rent Controlled with different rules.

Rent Stabilization has very little to do with retired individuals, unsurprising given its broad scope. How is your comment relevant?

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#97

Post by lubesGordi »

akgerber wrote: post #86

While the algorithm is an interesting development, any discussion of 'reducing traffic' without even acknowledging the concept of induced demand is an indicator that someone isn't engaging with urban planning remotely seriously. (hopefully just the person in the PR office?)

Do you mean like the increased total number of cars on the road since ride share has become popular (not sure this is the case, but it seems to be in dense urban areas where drivers come in from the suburbs)?

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#98

Post by akiselev »

ceras wrote: post #68
source99 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the academic research I have read (Check out Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes) shows the exact opposite to be true. Our diets accounts for dramatically much higher cause of obesity than our environment and specifically cars.

Diet definitely has a bigger impact than exercise, but isn't there still a correlation between more urban areas and lower obesity even when controlling for poverty? There may be other factors to urban, non-car-based living besides the extra physical activity that encourages lower weight. It's maybe as simple as without a car you can't go to Costco and stock up on huge sacks of unhealthy foods in one go -- beats me, I…

On my phone so I can't find the right metastudy but yes, there is an inverse correlation between urban lifestyles and obesity rates but it's a tenuous one. In cities like Atlanta, St. Louis, Montgomery, and San Antonio the difference in obesity rates from rural and suburban areas in the same state is almost nonexistent but Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York see much lower rates in obesity. (within city limits, their metropolitan areas are a while different animal).

I have a feeling that it's mostly due to a hybrid peer pressure/economic effect. When you're in a group of friends and the majority want to go to a healthier restaurant or everyone in your neighborhood goes to the local mom and pop grocery store instead of Safeway, it becomes a self reinforcing pressure to eat healthy. More healthy restaurants will open and more small grocery stores will be built to serve individual neighborhoods while market share is slowly taken from unhealthy restaurants and chain groceries. Eventually, a significant portion of people who would otherwise have trouble controlling their weight stick with the healthier diet out of inertia or convenience.

I also saw a study (although not a very conclusive one) that suggested that discrimination could play a part. A higher cost of living in cities means that a lot more jobs that can support the lifestyle have a physical appearance component to them. Salespeople in high end boutiques, consultants, etc are economically more viable in denser areas and if clients or employers discriminate based on looks, there will be fewer job opportunities for the obese, making it harder for them to live in urban areas.

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#99

Post by ajross »

jwineinger wrote: post #71

Pet peeve: how do you "reduce traffic by 3x"? Shouldn't this be "reduce traffic by 66%"

Both of those statements are nonmathematical when parsed strictly, you need a translation mechanic to turn them into a forumula ("per cent", literally, doesn't mean a multiplier either). It happens that the percent framing became common earlier, but when it did it was surely just as ad hoc.

Multiplier framing like that is at least as common, and given that "3" is easier to understand than "66" (which one has to recognize as the result of 100*(1-(1/3)) for goodness sake!) I genuinely don't understand your peeve here.

Re: Study: carpooling apps could reduce traffic 3x in NYC

#100

Post by zevkirsh »

the obsession with number crunching in the transportation space is really unfortunate because if you just focus on what is going on 'IN THE STREET' , you will see that black market transportation already optimizes for transportation. the problem is that it is not legal, let alone funded for growth.

there are too many vested special interests,namely, the police, the mass transit system, the cab drivers, and now, yes, uber and the ride sharing apps have become part of the institutional dead weight on policy change.

if you want to see what common sense would dictate in ride sharing , it would be pretty simple.

mini busses would not only be allowed all over new york , anywhere and everywhere ( because they already run up and down flatbush avenue in brooklyn) , but large companies would ----if ONLY THEY WERE invited by nyc government---------flock to build premium versions of minibusses with a minimum of one entrance per 2 passengers all along the side of the vehicle.

the designs for such a vehicle are plenty. MANY examples of these designs exist. they are also easily buildable even with safety gear and precautions built in.

optimizing ride sharing is obvious, you give people vehicles with enough entrances and enough privacy so that every pair of people can get enter together, and at most a stranger will be forced to share a pseudo cabin with one other stranger.

the problem as always IS NOT THE LACK OF MATH AND NUMBER CRUNCHING BY WONKIES , it is the vested interests that have crushed innovation by having their meathook money suckers squidlike suffocating government with the help of willingly crooked politicians.

the same issue plagues all major metropolitan areas in the u.s. , especially san francisco.

i vote peter theil for dictator of california.

Post reply on HN