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

71–80 of 135 posts

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

#71

Post by mrep »

s0rce wrote: post #68
mrep wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"But is it actually an outlier or is that just what you have heard because every women I have talked to has been harrassed on the street. Women just don't talk about it with men because they usually ensue even more harassment saying it happens"

AKA: #metoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement

- My girlfriend's response after showing her this thread

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

#72

Post by thaumasiotes »

schiffern wrote: post #10

Autonomous fleet parking has all the 3D density advantages of robot parking structures[1], but at dumb concrete prices. There's no aisle because there's no "random access" of a particular vehicle. No extra headroom (because they're identical) extra width (because they're precise), ventilation (because they're electric), or even lights. It's the best of both worlds. Where land is cheap, simply drive the cars along a s…

> [no] ventilation (because they're electric)

This seems... iffy. For one thing, my computers run on electricity, and they need ventilation. For another, I think it makes sense to have it be possible for humans to enter the car storage.

On a similar note, it's a much worse idea to have your car constantly drive through the parking lot than to park it in the parking lot.

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

#73

Post by gnicholas »

Kind of surprising they didn't mention Waze Carpool at all, since it is operating in a similar space and could help cut down on congestion. Since it doesn't pay as much as Uber/Lyft, it's likely to only encourage true carpooling—where people who were already planning similar trips end up riding together. Uber and Lyft are different because even if you have multiple riders going in the same direction, there's always a driver who goes to pick them up, idles while waiting for riders, etc.

Related note: what would happen if Ubers/Lyfts/taxies couldn't use HOV lanes unless they had multiple passengers? It's always struck me as odd that a taxi can go HOV with one passenger, since the whole point of HOV is to encourage carpooling.

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

#74

Post by tachyoff »

ars wrote: post #64
tachyoff wrote: post #32

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. 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…

> This is not a battle you are going to win.

When cities are gridlocked by expensive, polluting cars, nobody wins.

> I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me.

That kind of thinking is why we don’t have reliable public transit.

> Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution...

Nobody tell Europe, or Japan.

I don’t know how to communicate the idea that perhaps every single person having their own 2,000-pound personal transportation machine doesn’t scale well. I mean, never mind that we could reduce climate change, road deaths, congestion, and the requirement to own a car. How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Public transit is one of those things that, like public healthcare or public education, involves giving up a bit of perceived individuality to benefit the greater good. But if you’ve already got yours and are convinced that’s the way to go, I can’t help you. See you at the voting booth.

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

#75

Post by closeparen »

tachyoff wrote: post #74
ars wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is not a battle you are going to win. When cities are gridlocked by expensive, polluting cars, nobody wins. > I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. That kind of thinking is why we don’t have reliable public transit. > Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution... Nobody tell Europe, or Japan. I don’t know how to communicate the idea that perhaps every…

> How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking?

Because those 20 people are extremely unlikely to share an origin, destination, or schedule.

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

#76

Post by swozey »

iamdave wrote: post #66
swozey wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Dude between paying $400k for a 1975 3/2 house that I also have to spend $700/mo in property taxes on (thanks to the Leges robinhood tax scam) and just generally antagonistic anti-Austin policies.. I'm done here. I've got some interviews in Seattle/PNW going on but I'm also interviewing in Dallas this week. I really just want out of TX. The fact that it's an 8 hour drive minimum just to go to another State or go see a forest kills me.

2011 Austin was amazing. Traffic wasn't the best but it didn't ruin my day. I'd go out and listen to bands at least a few times a week. Now everything's an hour minimum. Need a hose from Home Depot 3 miles away? 2 hours. I don't want to leave my house. I can't figure out if it's because I'm getting older and saltier or if the town has actually changed that much.

Where are you going? Also seeing Austin pop up as some amazing place to live in every HN thread is just weird. I stay out of those because maybe it is just my experience but this place is nothing like it was when I first came here. The city council being vehemently anti-density means there are NO townhouses or duplexes in the city (they were illegal until 2016 because of SFH minimum lot laws, every SFH had to be on a 5700sqft lot). It's synthesized real estate scarcity. Houston and Dallas are the polar opposite. I can buy an incredible townhouse in Deep Ellum with a roof top patio, 3/3, year old for less than my old crappy house here 12 miles from downtown.

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

#77

Post by Eridrus »

brownbat wrote: post #39

Can driverless taxi and quadcopter technology have a risky love child already and let us hurtle towards a future where roads are rare, landing pads are ubiquitous, and the swarm of rush hour commuters blots out the sun? C'mon Elon, get on it!

Has anyone done a serious analysis of the scalability of air taxis? I assume it would be better than with roads, but air capacity is not infinite, and you can only land a small amount of taxis on top of a building at a time. Many buildings probably can't even support a single landing spot.

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

#78

Post by plasticchris »

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.

fwiw caltrain is not like this at all

used to ride next to a twitter guy who referred to it as the "premium" option...

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

#79

Post by Eridrus »

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.

I see your point about taking the poor, but when a good is free, demand often outstrips supply, and when we're talking about city congestion, expanding supply is usually impossible, so the natural thing to do in a capitalist society is to increase the price.

I think congestion pricing in NYC is inevitable, I just hope we also get more funding and competent management and contracting reform for public transport.

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

#80

Post by tmnvix »

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…

I understand that this might seem rational from an individual's perspective but to exclude your family from society in this way is a tragedy and does not seem like any kind of solution to me.
Post reply on HN