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

61–70 of 135 posts

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

#61

Post by flycaliguy »

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.

It’s an expense paid for by the city to provide municiple services to as many tax payers as needed. People rely on the bus. Seniors, disabled, young people. A city provides these services and sometimes it looks like one person on a bus.

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

#63

Post by echevil »

mrep wrote: post #33
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.

> people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Maybe for you but my girlfriend could write a book about all of the harassment she has received from random strangers in Seattle. She has even been assaulted which is why we are now car shopping after trying to go without one for 2 years and that is just so she can feel safe traveling. She would easily dr…

That’s a separate problem to solve. Trains in lots of countries are both clean and perfectly safe.

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

#64

Post by ars »

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…

Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible.

And I say this having tried both. It just doesn't compare.

This is not a battle you are going to win. I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me.

Or I can be more fair and want more road space for everyone.

Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution, that sometimes is the best thing available, but never mistake that for actually being a good solution.

Properly designed cities would not need it.

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

#65

Post by discoursism »

stmfreak wrote: post #58
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.

> For the majority, that means driving in a clean, private car.

Not the majority. At least not in sensibly operating cities.

https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute

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

#66

Post by iamdave »

swozey wrote: post #36
iamdave wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup. I'm actually on my way out myself at this point. I loved this place 6+ years ago. I haven't been happy here in the last few years.

You sound so much like me. Are you me? Are we both talking about Austin? I'm coming back in a couple of days to throw things into a big truck and say my final goodbyes. LET'S COMMISERATE

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

#67

Post by lsc »

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…

Makes sense. I mean, I say that it was totally impractical to not have a car and live in silicon valley before the rise of the ridesharing services; but I know a guy who did it. He had a bicycle and just always lived near work and a grocery store. Come to think of it, he now uses a rideshare service a lot more often than he bummed rides before, so ridesharing has increased his automobile usage. maybe there were just a lot more people like him (and you) than I thought before, people without cars who nonetheless live in cities designed without people like them in mind.

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

#68

Post by s0rce »

mrep wrote: post #33
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.

> people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Maybe for you but my girlfriend could write a book about all of the harassment she has received from random strangers in Seattle. She has even been assaulted which is why we are now car shopping after trying to go without one for 2 years and that is just so she can feel safe traveling. She would easily dr…

That seems like an outlier, while harassment is sadly commonplace, I know many women in SF/Oakland (arguably worse than Seattle) and they do not have enough issues with harassment on public transit to prevent them from safely using it.

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

#69

Post by s0rce »

stmfreak wrote: post #58
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.

This decision is also largely economic and cars are hugely subsidized in America compared to public transit.

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

#70

Post by s0rce »

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 are many suburban areas where walking is difficult/dangerous (little to no cross walks, multi-lane roads, high traffic speeds, inattentive drivers, etc.), biking is often possible but many don't feel comfortable or safe and in other places the weather can pose a challenge many month of the year. Buses are slow, expensive and inconvenient as well across many American cities. These options need to get better for more people to use them, however, sadly without more people using them they won't likely fund their improvement.
Post reply on HN