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

81–90 of 135 posts

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

#81

Post by bsder »

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…

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

Downtown London is a tremendous counterexample. The Tube is generally faster, sometimes dramatically so.

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

#82

Post by ShabbosGoy »

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’m sorry for your girlfriend’s experience. If it makes you feel any better, it cuts both ways.

For example, I was in an Uber Pool yesterday in SF. My driver picks up the next passengers (two women), and they refuse to get in after asking what my name is. (Who even asks that?!)

They cancel, and we pick up another passenger who’s also female. Keep in mind that my driver and I are both of Indian descent. She instantaneously showed signs of fear and pretended to be asleep while throwing herself on me. I felt a mixture of pity and anger. Mostly anger though, why would you assume that two brown guys are going to rape you? Not to trivialize what happens to women, but it’s certainly an odd reaction to have.

In short, I’m glad I don’t live in SF anymore. I thought things were bad in 2015-2016, but what happens there now is much, much worse.

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

#83

Post by ars »

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…

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

No one is forcing you to build so many homes so close together. Make some space, give people room to live.

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

No, we don't have reliable public transit because public transit just isn't very good. People know that, and have little interest is wasting their time, unless they have no other choice.

> Nobody tell Europe, or Japan.

OK, I won't. Except I've actually been there, and compared to cars Mass Transit is terrible. And this wasn't some bad mass transit - no it was world class, where you could get literally anywhere in the entire county, with very frequent buses.

Still would never prefer it to 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?

Because I can store things in my car, I don't have to hand carry them.

Because I can buy one thing, put it in my car, then go, with empty hands, and buy another.

Because I can put a car seat, fitted exactly to my infant, in the car.

Because I know I'll have room for a stroller, and won't have to fight to get on or off the bus.

Because I can put kids in the car, and then not have to worry about them finding somewhere to sit that is reasonably close to me.

Because I don't have to wait in the heat.

Because I can set the temperature to exactly what I want, and not have to hope the driver set it right.

Because I don't have to suffer aggressive drivers who slam on the bakes and gas throwing me around the bus.

Because I don't have to worry about missing my stop.

Because I don't have to worry about me getting on (or off) the bus, and one of the kids having the door slammed on his face, leaving him alone without me.

Because I can change my plan and go somewhere else, without figuring out which bus to take.

Because I can go somewhere in the middle of the night, and not have to worry that the buses have stopped running.

Because I don't need to worry about having my stuff stolen while traveling.

Because I can sit down for a long trip.

Because I don't have to wait for the next bus.

Because I don't have to carefully plan connections between stops to get where I need to go, and leave at exactly the right time. I can just go when I want.

Because I don't have to be so close to so many people.

Because I can transport a lot of stuff, if I want.

Because I can transport a single heavy item, and drag it only twice.

Because I don't have to worry about strangers complaining I'm taking up too much room with my item(s).

Because I can travel right to my door, minimizing how far I have to carry things.

Because I can make one trip and get everything, and not be limited by how much I can carry.

Because travel takes less time in total, including waiting.

> 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.

And I'll vote with my wallet. And we both know my vote is more powerful.

Solve all the above issues for me and we can talk about Mass Transit.

In contrast a car has just two issues:

I have to pay for gas (and other expenses).

Sometimes I have to search for parking.

And both those issues can be dealt with - the cost of a car in exchange for my time. And I just don't go places (or live in cities) that make parking an issue. If they wanted my business they would make it worth it for me.

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

#84

Post by hncommnt »

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.

I live in SF. My wife has started taking uber pool because she can no longer deal with the verbal and physical harassment on muni buses and trains by homeless and/or mentally unstable people (both men and women). I've had on multiple occasions had guys with no pants on smelling of feces sit next to me. I don't want to deal with that so I pay two to four bucks more and take an Uber Pool.

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

#85

Post by plasticchris »

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!

I thought much the same but quadcopters are too slow for an effective solution.

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

#86

Post by gaius »

addicted wrote: post #51
IntronExon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh so it’s a conspiracy

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

#87

Post by gaius »

Eridrus wrote: post #77
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.

Has anyone done a serious analysis of the scalability of air taxis

You mean... helicopters? Because they already exist and have limited use cases.

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

#88

Post by njarboe »

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.

Yes. When forced to, due to bad traffic, people will use other forms of transport. Fast, enclosed, point-to-point, on-demand personal transport (cars and trucks) seem to be better than other modes. Why don't we fix the problems with personal transport instead making that mode so broken that people are forced to use other methods. Go Boring Company.

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

ShabbosGoy wrote: post #82
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…

I’m sorry for your girlfriend’s experience. If it makes you feel any better, it cuts both ways. For example, I was in an Uber Pool yesterday in SF. My driver picks up the next passengers (two women), and they refuse to get in after asking what my name is. (Who even asks that?!) They cancel, and we pick up another passenger who’s also female. Keep in mind that my driver and I are both of Indian descent. She instantane…

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by ars »

bsder wrote: post #81
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…

> Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. Downtown London is a tremendous counterexample. The Tube is generally faster, sometimes dramatically so.

That doesn't mean the Tube is good - it means the roads are bad.

Fix the roads (probably impossible in London), and no one would think the Tube is that great.

But newer cities have that chance, they can build good road networks, with the houses far enough apart to avoid congestion.

I hate close, dense, cities. I like space. I like to have a my own yard, and my own private space.

Not everyone shares this Politically Correct dream, of dense cities with lots of buses and subways. It's hard to argue against, just like every in-vogue politically correct thing is hard to argue against.

So you won't hear a lot of public disagreement.

But privately? Things are quite different, people are just not interested. Well some people. I would never imagine everyone is. Different people like different things.

Dense cities need Mass Transit. It's terrible, but it's the only practical option. So if you chose to live in a dense city, you have to accept that.

But less dense cities? No only do they not need Mass Transit, they can't do it anyway (there's not enough demand to make it work). And there are people who prefer it.

And then you have cities in between...... With either the best of both worlds, or the worst, depending on the city.

Post reply on HN