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

41–50 of 135 posts

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

#41

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#42

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

adrianparsons wrote: post #3

This makes total sense. Uber & Lyft lowered the barrier to entry for private transportation. Instead of paying $20,000 for a car, I only need $10 and I can ride in comfort from lower Manhattan to Brooklyn.

> lowered the barrier to entry for private transportation.

"private" transportation, with a driver who knows your information from his phone and can see your rating. Even when it is autonomous uber will know where you were and where you went.

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

#43

Post by almostApatriot1 »

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.

Uber and Lyft operate at a loss, even more so if you factor in how little drivers consider the wear and tear on their cars. Ride sharing would go down in favor of public transport if ride sharers paid the true cost.

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

#44

Post by AckSyn »

tachyoff wrote: post #32
closeparen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. Assuming you live in a bikeable or walkable area, sure. Bus service exists, but it can be patchy and/or underfunded. Some people simply have none of these options. I live in Detroit (yes, Motor City), and this area is crying out for good mass transit. In fact, two out of four necess…

The issue about them shutting down a public transit system into the burbs isn't because of racism but one of access. These people don't want easy access via bus to their neighborhoods, and for a very good reason.

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

#45

Post by ensei5459 »

Can confirm with intuitive certainty. For 2 days in Q4 of 2017 here in Bangalore, India, the ride sharing companies (Uber and Ola) were on a strike and those 2 days were the best in terms of traffic (or the lack of it) for us. I'm sure a small segment of the population decided to work-from-home, but since it was bang in the middle of the week, I'm sure most of them availed public transport like buses or used their two wheelers. Of course, some of them used their own cars, but even if they did, it did not reflect in the form of enhanced or even the usual amount of traffic. I've been thinking about this ever since and it feels bittersweet to read this. The validation is good, but the fact that it's actually true to some extent and not just in my head, is sad.

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

#46

Post by lsc »

beguiledfoil wrote: post #18
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.

Even Seattle is seeing per capita transit ridership drops, odd considering expansion of rail lines. In an urban environment the car is what turns transportation into a game of the prisoner's dilemma. From this point of view ride shares are just the latest way that America has managed to extend the game. My desire is that we develop ways to make cities hospitable to carless families. That goal seems more remote now th…

>My desire is that we develop ways to make cities hospitable to carless families. That goal seems more remote now than it did in 2010.

Eh, from where I stand (in silicon valley) being carless is way more practical now than in 2010; I mean, I don't have a child, so I'm not a carless family, but I've gotten rid of my car and more than half of my 'ride sharing' trips are in the actual 'ride sharing' mode where they can pick up other people. I take fewer trips in general (I now use grocery delivery, etc..) and I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic, unless ride shares spend more time driving empty than they spend driving two-up, which isn't my perception.

Ride sharing services do make public transit marginally more useful. I usually use the train to get to SF, but because they shut down so early, I usually come home on a rideshare. Before rideshare, I'd have to drive to SF both ways or get a hotel 'cause the train back would be closed by the time I wanted to come home.

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

#48

Post by lulmerchant »

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.

>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

This is far from being an established fact. Ignoring the fact that cities can't simple be redesigned from the ground up to maximise the benefits of public transport, there's very conflicting evidence about whether increasing public transport decreases congestion.

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

#49

Post by adrianmonk »

This is fairly obvious because it generates extras trips while drivers are en route to pick up someone and don't have a passenger. If everyone had their own car and infinite parking existed, these trips wouldn't exist. And those additional trips as to traffic.

These services have advantages, but reducing the number of cars on the road isn't one of them.

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

#50

Post by idunno246 »

almostApatriot1 wrote: post #43
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.

Uber and Lyft operate at a loss, even more so if you factor in how little drivers consider the wear and tear on their cars. Ride sharing would go down in favor of public transport if ride sharers paid the true cost.

public transit operates at a loss, sfmta tickets accounted for 20% of the budget, and bart looks like about a third...
Post reply on HN