Studies are increasingly clear: Uber, Lyft congest cities • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by addicted » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:35 AM UTC

IntronExon wrote: post #35

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has fantastic transit. Maybe not as good as Paris, but that is an extremely high bar to meet. Poor people already don't drive in NYC because it is already too expensive for them, so it is disingenuous to suggest that they are being shafted by making it more expensive.

The chief of the MTA doesn’t agree with you. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/nyregion/subways-new-york...

Because the state and the city have criminally underinvested in it and diverted MTA money to bail out upstate ski parks and build roads to nowhere. And forced the MTA to take up high interest rate bonds instead.

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

#52

Post by bluntfang » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:36 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #28

tachyoff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

you're right, Inertia isn't the right word. More like "institutional aggression against not using cars".

Go to town hall meetings in developing cities about installing bike lanes. Many people, even when presenting with well done studies that state the contrary, believe biking and bike lanes will take from their profits. Taking away a parking spot for a bike lane or funding public transportation just doesn't happen as much as it could in urban areas today.

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

#53

Post by closeparen » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #52

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. you're right, Inertia isn't the right word. More like "institutional aggression against not using cars". Go to town hall meetings in developing cities about installing bike lanes. Many people, even when presenting with well done studies that state the contrary, believe biking and bik…

Again, developing infrastructure is distinct from influencing mode choices under existing infrastructure. "Driving is far and away your best option today" and "we should add a bike lane" are simultaneously true.

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

#54

Post by apendleton » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:38 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #46

beguiledfoil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic

I don't think it does; your use is in line with the rideshare operators' claims as to why traffic should go down given their service: that it makes it easier for people to not own a car, and that consequently while some of their trips will be ride share, they might be shared, and others will be more likely to be transit.

I think what the studies are showing, though, is that not everyone's behavior is like yours. Some people (like me, for instance), didn't ever own a car, but now at least sometimes use Uber or Lyft because it's cheap and convenient when otherwise they/we would have used transit, because it used to be our only option. Apparently we're hurting more than you're helping?

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

#55

Post by ams6110 » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:39 AM UTC

blitzo wrote: post #12

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.

Another point is, private car owners now has been incentivized to cover their gas tank so they can stay on the roads even more.

I'm not following. "Cover their gas tank" ? You mean lock it in some way? Are Uber drivers siphoning gas from other parked cars?

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

#56

Post by megy » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

lulmerchant wrote: post #48

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 tr…

> 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.

Ok, well I guess if you increase PT and no one catches is then sure. But if you make drivers pay the proper prices for using roads then that will encourage them to take the cheaper option.

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

#57

Post by bluntfang » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

chrismcb wrote: post #37

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 aren't "ride sharing" they are taxi service. And we had rules and regulations to limit tazi services, and congestion was one of the reasons. But everyone complained that these rules are based and antiquated.

Since you're being pedantic, I think we should call it what it is: Livery service.

Taxis, at least in my municipality, are the only vehicles legally permitted to pick passengers up off the street, aka only taxis can be hailed in person. Uber and Lyft cannot do this (where I live), and that is the differentiator.

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

#58

Post by stmfreak » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

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.

I prefer being stuck in traffic than sitting on the pissy seats of public transportation. Waiting in the rain for my connection downwind from the smokers. Standing on the train because some piss soaked bum is sprawled across two seats... there are many legitimate downsides to public transit. People make the choices that work best for each of them. For the majority, that means driving in a clean, private car.

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

#59

Post by echevil » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

This result is not surprising at all. When these taxi service becomes much more affordable, more people will use them instead of other transportation and more people will be stuck in traffic. Uber has been giving me tons of discount last year, making it even cheaper than Muni, so I’ve been taking Uber a lot more than necessary.

The reduce congestion, we need much better train system like those in east Asia so that people would love to take trains. Trains can also go much faster and they are much more predictable during busy hours

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

#60

Post by closeparen » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

apendleton wrote: post #54

lsc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic I don't think it does; your use is in line with the rideshare operators' claims as to why traffic should go down given their service: that it makes it easier for people to not own a car, and that consequently while some of their trips will be ride share, they might be shared, and others will be more lik…

As far as I can tell, the surveys are asking about specific trips. It's true that I substitute ridesharing for public transit for specific trips (therefore contributing to these results), but also true that if ridesharing were banned, I would buy a car.