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

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

#111

Post by mrep » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

tmnvix wrote: post #108

mrep wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it is a tragedy and it is also a tragedy how much resources we devote towards computer/software security. There are tons of similar best practice inefficient solutions to society's problems in order to deal with the malicious actors because nobody has solved this problem and I doubt anyone ever will. Do you have an idea for how to stop people from acting maliciously? Considering how subjective that quest…

Like with helicopter parenting, I think that by trying to avoid risk in this way you are giving up more than you are gaining - even though in isolation this might seem like the rational choice. If everyone took your approach we would end up as a sharply segregated society where the public domain becomes the preserve of 'malicious actors' and those without the ability to avoid it. That would be a classic dystopia. The…

> If everyone took your approach we would end up as a sharply segregated society where the public domain becomes the preserve of 'malicious actors' and those without the ability to avoid it.

When you frame it like that, isn't that kind of what it has already become? Cities are full of crime so people with money move to the suburbs where it is safer.

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

#112

Post by TheCoelacanth » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #97

yodon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving out to the suburbs when you have kids is a tragedy? That’s some serious first world definition of tragedy.

I think they mean that blocking problems that would prevent the implementation of their favorite policy are the tragedies. Public transport does not work, and this is just one more reason why. Every few years the police feels the need to spend a month or two catching pickpockets (or worse) on public transport. Train stations in all the big cities are hotbeds of criminal activity. That is a major problem that is not,…

> shopping for furniture, tvs or other big goods

Those things can be delivered. Often for free, almost always for less than it would cost to park a car in a city for a single month.

> move houses

You can't do that in a normal sized car. Are you suggesting that every person should own their own truck? Unless you are moving every month it makes more sense just to rent one.

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

#113

Post by Eridrus » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #87

Eridrus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I mean the self-flying electric vertical takeoff drones people are building that I'm pretty sure the GP was talking about, eg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4444874/Uber-...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16961688/airbus-vahana-evt...

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-founder-larry-page-funding-fly...

Etc

I don't know how seriously to take all these projects, but they are clearly quite different to helicopters.

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

#114

Post by ergothus » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #101

candiodari wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean that blocking problems that would prevent the implementation of their favorite policy are the tragedies. Public transport does not work, and this is just one more reason why. Every few years the police feels the need to spend a month or two catching pickpockets (or worse) on public transport. Train stations in all the big cities are hotbeds of criminal activity. That is a major problem that is not,…

I don't recognise this version of public transport you talk about. I've never had a car and moved place many times, yes it means hiring a man with a van, but my things wouldn't fit in a car anyway. I haven't seen much crime in stations apart from fare dodging, yes there might be pickpockets, but probably not more than other places outside in London. You're pretty safe, there is good lighting and staffing and cameras…

The public transport described seems very focused on American systems. Saying "public transport doesn't work" is far easier to defend if one only looks at America, where a number of elements (distance, jurisdictions, influence of car manufacturers, cultural perceptions, cultural priorities) are different than many other countries/regions.

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

#115

Post by ergothus » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #71

s0rce wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is almost certainly an issue. I'm in Seattle and am happy with the bus experience itself, though unhappy with the coverage. But I'm white, straight, and male and thus gifted with blissful ignorance of many of the worst problems (and likely unknowingly support some of the problems). FWIW tell your girlfriend that it sucks she's has these experiences and I'm glad you've shared the problem because I hadn't even thought about that aspect of bussing.

I suspect some routes are dramatically worse than others. When I moved here I loved my bus at the time (the 41 - ran seemingly every 15 mins, had very few stops to slow it down) but my coworkers warned to avoid (whichever route) that ran to the methadone clinic, both for the constant stopping and for the odds of bad/awkward passengers. My wife has not told me of any particularly bad experiences, but she busses less often than I do and I have no idea what normal life is like for her when I'm not around, so I have no idea if her bus experience would count as "fine" by my expectations.

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

#116

Post by ShabbosGoy » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #98

ShabbosGoy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

while throwing herself on me I see how someone who would write that could elicit discomfort in strangers.

That was poor phrasing on my part. I didn’t mean it in the figurative sense, i.e. “she was practically throwing herself at me”. I meant that in the literal sense; she was invading my personal space due to being inebriated.

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

#117

Post by ergothus » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #96

ShabbosGoy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Because of the extreme cost of a false negative, ...

I wish i could give you more votes. Without race the equation says high if still small chance of something very bad happening vs guaranteed delay but large percentage decrease in odds of a very bad result.

Add in unconscious bias (by race or culture) and the risk seems larger before even without explicitly racist thoughts.

Experience what women do for as long as women do, and the odds rank much higher than they do to a man making that evaluation. I'm sure women sharing stories within their cohort for mutual awareness (odds that a woman has heard more horror stories about women in uber/lyft the a man has heard are higher) further alter the different cost/benefit results by gender, though that doesn't say their calculations are unrealistic, just different.

I'm guessing many men make subconscious choices about what is "safer" (locking your door, deciding where to park, not flashing any wad of money you might have, etc.) but are baffled that women would do so for decisions where a man doesn't (I know I have been) which just highlights how our culture hasn't discussed the threats to/experiences of the various genders.

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

#118

Post by schiffern » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

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.

>This seems... iffy. For one thing, ...

At first I wrote "no oversized ventilation," but I shortened it during revision after thinking, "no, no-one would think I meant something so dumb." Thanks for the correction. :P

Yes, there will be ventilation, emergency lighting, and access paths. Those contingency systems are still much cheaper and take up less volume than the corresponding full-time systems.

>it's a much worse idea to have your car constantly drive through the parking lot than to park it in the parking lot

You say that as though it's obvious, but why? Parking lots are $$$, and this ~quadruples the density. It's not like you're paying drivers, so the only cost is a tiny amount of electricity (a parking robot would certainly use more, since A) it's heavier and B) it moves faster). I also presume the vehicles will be stationary most of the time, allowing them to de-energize power electronics in the common case.

Wear-and-tear at those speeds is negligible, and multiple "lanes" means that if a car breaks down the other cars simply drive around it. Heck, at those speeds the following vehicle could push a disabled car out of a bottleneck (mature shared-use vehicle designs will likely feature non-scratch bumpers).

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

#119

Post by ergothus » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

s0rce wrote: post #70

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 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…

For many decades American guides to design residential areas have promoted cul-de-sacs (with false and/or unproven assertions), resulting in less foot traffic and less concern for foot traffic. Culture has said these are "safer for children" which also promotes their use. From the air, you can often identify the age of a suburb by seeing how nested the cul-de-sacs are.

Meanwhile, American culture also says transit is distasteful and for the poor. (Taxi exceptions granted for very dense urban areas, but only if they are VERY dense).

You are correct that there is a lot of inertia for these issues. Even if we magically changed culture overnight (and replaced past/recent media to avoid immediate backslide) the infrastructural issues don't go away.

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

#120

Post by ergothus » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #53

bluntfang wrote: post #52

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. 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.

I don't share your confidence in the distinction. Both statements can be true today, but as a result of those being true people will not build bike lanes and will cater to drivers. The fewer bike riders you have, the less it is that likely new development will accommodate bike riders, which means you have even fewer bike riders.

Obviously people CAN overcome these tendencies, but it requires a stronger push (which is why we have unhappy bike riders everywhere, or Americans that disapprove of the electoral college, or terrible public transit) "Inertia" seems a very apt metaphor.