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

Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

denverpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#21

Post by so33 »

dpflan wrote: post #5

Perhaps carpooling hasn't been incentivized enough: the current in-app economics for 'pooling' appears to be an increased time to destination but decreased fare (+/- social interactions with driver and passenger(s)). If congestion is a function of cars on road, car size, number of passengers, and path to destination, then perhaps shorter rides with more passengers in smaller cars should be incentivized more. This see…

A bus with 50 people is 49 cars taken off the road.

Even with a self driving carpool option the bus still takes off 9 other vehicles (assuming 5 passengers in a vehicle).

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#22

Post by closeparen »

bparsons wrote: post #16

Cars congest cities. Articles like this encourage policy makers to target users of ride sharing, while ignoring the obvious broader problem. If cities build appropriate multi modal transportation networks and restrict the amount of space allowed for vehicle traffic, people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic.

>All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic.

Other people's preferences don't bend to this kind of declaration. If they were preferable, people would choose them.

I'm all for building out better transit infrastructure, but there is simply no contest in the midcentury suburban sprawl that dominates American life. Maybe park-n-ride. We're going to have to figure out how to build attractive, livable, and politically credible compact urban environments at scale to really address car dependence.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#23

Post by arcticbull »

donatj wrote: post #7
jseliger wrote: post #2

Solution: Toll roads.

The freedom of travel now being open to all, you declare 'Tax the poor! They're clogging up the roads.'? If anything I see this as a remarkable step forward for equality.

Why shouldn't cars be a premium product? Buses and subways are so much more efficient, and if Europe or Hong Kong is anything to go by, they can be nice, clean and faster than driving. If people want to spend the extra money to drive by themselves that is a luxury not a right, and we should be open to charging it accordingly. I feel ridesharing services have a place, but less so than then Zipcar.

Lastly, I don't think that it's fair to call this a step forward for equality, as free parking throughout town is a tax on everyone who doesn't own a vehicle, or takes public transit, paid out to those wealthy enough to afford cars and their own parking spots at home.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#24

Post by ams6110 »

so33 wrote: post #21
dpflan wrote: post #5

Perhaps carpooling hasn't been incentivized enough: the current in-app economics for 'pooling' appears to be an increased time to destination but decreased fare (+/- social interactions with driver and passenger(s)). If congestion is a function of cars on road, car size, number of passengers, and path to destination, then perhaps shorter rides with more passengers in smaller cars should be incentivized more. This see…

A bus with 50 people is 49 cars taken off the road. Even with a self driving carpool option the bus still takes off 9 other vehicles (assuming 5 passengers in a vehicle).

What is a 50-person bus with 1 passenger aboard? That is a very common sight in my town. There are a few routes that are heavily used, but the rest of them are just huge vehicles very inefficiently transporting a couple of people and blocking lanes of traffic and frustrating drivers at the same time.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#25

Post by IntronExon »

arcticbull wrote: post #23
donatj wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The freedom of travel now being open to all, you declare 'Tax the poor! They're clogging up the roads.'? If anything I see this as a remarkable step forward for equality.

Why shouldn't cars be a premium product? Buses and subways are so much more efficient, and if Europe or Hong Kong is anything to go by, they can be nice, clean and faster than driving. If people want to spend the extra money to drive by themselves that is a luxury not a right, and we should be open to charging it accordingly. I feel ridesharing services have a place, but less so than then Zipcar. Lastly, I don't thin…

When Parisian subways show up in NYC, then make your argument about shafting the poor because you’re currently not one of them.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#26

Post by tachyoff »

closeparen wrote: post #22
bparsons wrote: post #16

Cars congest cities. Articles like this encourage policy makers to target users of ride sharing, while ignoring the obvious broader problem. If cities build appropriate multi modal transportation networks and restrict the amount of space allowed for vehicle traffic, people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic.

>All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Other people's preferences don't bend to this kind of declaration. If they were preferable, people would choose them. I'm all for building out better transit infrastructure, but there is simply no contest in the midcentury suburban sprawl that dominates American life. Maybe park-n-ride. We're going to have to figure out how to build attractive, livable, and politic…

> If they were preferable, people would choose them.

Balivernes. That’s just a tautology. I’m sure if you ask any American if they think the electoral college system is fair, 99/100 will tell you it isn’t. Yet it persists. Why? Many reasons, among them being institutional inertia. Institutions are big and slow, especially ones involving concrete and steel.

There are also power amplification issues. That is to say, certain groups of people might have more power to effect change than others. A majority can seemingly want something, but not know how or not be able to effectively get that change accomplished.

In other words, I think it’s a bit more complicated than “if people wanted public transit we would have public transit”.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#27

Post by iamdave »

swozey wrote: post #14
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or just ban Uber and Lyft

I live in a city that banned U/L for about a year. Nothing was improved. A bunch of companies popped up to replace them but they were absolute jokes and so much worse. DWIs went way up. People stopped going out. I don't think there were any net positives from it.

Hrm. This sounds a lot like a certain city I just got away from. By chance, did your state legislation come down pretty much immediately and strip away the power of cities to regulate TNC's in their city limits?

That was a real fun session of The Lege.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#28

Post by closeparen »

tachyoff wrote: post #26
closeparen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Other people's preferences don't bend to this kind of declaration. If they were preferable, people would choose them. I'm all for building out better transit infrastructure, but there is simply no contest in the midcentury suburban sprawl that dominates American life. Maybe park-n-ride. We're going to have to figure out how to build attractive, livable, and politic…

> If they were preferable, people would choose them. Balivernes. That’s just a tautology. I’m sure if you ask any American if they think the electoral college system is fair, 99/100 will tell you it isn’t. Yet it persists. Why? Many reasons, among them being institutional inertia. Institutions are big and slow, especially ones involving concrete and steel. There are also power amplification issues. That is to say, ce…

There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip.

The real challenge is in building out the transit infrastructure and dense transit-oriented development that would make these options genuinely preferable to most people. Not in declaring that they're preferable or forcing people into them today.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#29

Post by hasbroslasher »

I'd like to propose the following: public-private ride share. In short, US Federal Gov't buys or finances the development of ride-sharing software and licenses it to cities. Cities act as Uber does now, skimming a (much smaller) percentage of their revenue as a tax, adjusting the variables in favor of local interests (e.g. incentivizing carpooling or service in lower-income areas), and studying the ways that ride sharing can complement existing transit options.

I know that's a socialist longshot in capitalist America, but I really think that going forward the government is going to have to take a larger stake in tech in order to avoid the types of conflicts we've been seeing between private companies and public interests.

Re: Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities

#30

Post by lemoncucumber »

ams6110 wrote: post #24
so33 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bus with 50 people is 49 cars taken off the road. Even with a self driving carpool option the bus still takes off 9 other vehicles (assuming 5 passengers in a vehicle).

What is a 50-person bus with 1 passenger aboard? That is a very common sight in my town. There are a few routes that are heavily used, but the rest of them are just huge vehicles very inefficiently transporting a couple of people and blocking lanes of traffic and frustrating drivers at the same time.

Sounds like your town should consider following the example of Houston's recent reimagining[1] of their bus system.

"The old system, like many bus routes in the United States, expended a lot of resources on very low-ridership routes for the sake of saying there's 'a bus that goes there.' The new plan says the focus should be to provide reasonably frequent service on routes where reasonably frequent service will attract riders. That does mean that some people are further than ever from a transit stop. But it means that many more Houstonians will find themselves near a useful transit stop."

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8056039/houston-transit-reimag...

Post reply on HN