Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 253 posts

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#41

Post by pyrophane »

NickBusey wrote: post #18

>> .. when people use a ride-hailing company, they are opting to do so rather than take public transportation, walk or bike. They generally are not choosing between hailing and driving themselves. This doesn't seem correct to me. If I can ride my bike or walk somewhere, I will do that pretty much every time. The only time I ever consider an Uber or Lyft is if the distance is too far to bike, and I would rather not dr…

I know people like you, but I also know people who are very much not like you. The latter sort are kind of lazy, at least when it comes to getting around, and they will frequently opt for whatever means of conveyance involves the least effort on their part.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#42

Post by dantheman »

blondie9x wrote: post #40
lewis500 wrote: post #15

I don’t understand why this study is receiving so much attention. It’s not peer reviewed. It doesn’t contain actual data collection (the estimates are all extrapolated in a way the author considers reasonable, not measured data from traffic detectors or surveys). Schaller is not a researcher or engineer, but a consultant mainly working for taxi regulation. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But I’m surprised the study get…

Are you kidding yourself? You think people continuing to rely on cars whether they drive or they are being driven is going to reduce traffic? Buses and rail reduce traffic not cars. Mass van pooling and what not can also help. We have to get off of cars and empty seats. Apps pushing cars and pushing ride sharing are pushing laziness and congestion. Why kid ourselves into thinking that Uber and Lyft are fixing the car…

Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Could it make owning a car more vialble? Could it increase the density of a city (due to less parking)? Could this make it more walkable? Could it make mass transit more effective?

We should be encouraging ride sharing and working to eliminate parking; parking requirements make cities unwalkable thus making public transit ineffective.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#43

Post by dsfyu404ed »

rhino369 wrote: post #10
sharkmerry wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Uber isn't perfect, but banning it doesn't magically fix the subway. There's no doubt there are issues with public transit, but letting the rideshare services run rampant, while being effectively subsidized by the taxpayers roads, etc is no solution either. >> U.S. ridership is surging, he said — up 37% last year, to 2.6 billion passengers, from 2016. >> It found that, in U.S. cities, 49% to 61% of ride-hailing tr…

Road funding should be raised by using gasoline, tolls, and/or mileage taxes. That would force uber to pay for their usage of roads. Many/most jurisdictions already do this.

Why stop there? Why not put tolls on the sidewalks and park benches and charge per usage?

We as a society have decided that it's best for all of us is we collectively eat the cost of letting people use certain resources as much as they want at low/no cost or at a cost not proportional to usage. Roads are one of these resources.

Increasing the cost of transportation basically increases the cost of physical distance. That's a needless drag on the economy in every way and at every level. It's better to just keep filling potholes and ignore the people who grumble about it than it is to enact any sort of pay-per-use system that actually results in the roads being approximately self sustaining. Transportation infrastructure is publicly funded/subsidized for a reason.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#44

Post by sol_remmy »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #14

It's extremely onerous and difficult to own a car in San Francisco (parking situation, street cleaning, meters, lack of reserved and available parking spots) but a bunch of Ubers and Lyft drivers can drive all day in the city causing massive congestion with plenty of drivers who not only don't reside in the city, but aren't even from the Bay Area paying nothing to maintain the roads or congestion or pollution or the…

Please consult the facts before you post.

All employers within San Francisco pay a large amount of taxes to the city for each employee. Those taxes more than pay for the cost of road use of their employees.

Thank you.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#45

Post by stcredzero »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #32
lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the major benefits in some cities of Uber/Lyft over public transportation is not risking interaction with thementally ill, inebriated, panhandlers, or otherwise dangerous people (like the dancers on the NYC subway).

Urban living is not without risk, and trashing the commons is not a solution. You can work towards making public transportation safer, improving public transit in general, and reducing the congestion caused by ridesharing (through congestion charges) all at the same time. EDIT: I'm not dismissing the inherent risks of public transportation and interactions, I'm stating it is a risk that must be accepted as a conditio…

Urban living is not without risk, and trashing the commons is not a solution.

One either actively polices and maintains the commons, or it devolves into trash.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#46

Post by lotsofpulp »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #38
lotsofpulp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can reduce the risk, if we beefed up our funding of mental help institutions, social safety nets, and educational facilities. But until then, people will pay a premium to avoid the hassles of public transportation.

A well functioning society requires effort. You can't unicorn app the hard work away. If transportation network consumers wish to use those services, they should be able to. And cities should tax those rides to offset additional congestion and improve public transportation. Everyone wins.

I agree. My point is any ire directed towards Uber/Lyft is useless. The problem with public transportation (and using public facilities in general in big cities) is much deeper, caused by lack of investment in public infrastructure and social safety nets.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#47

Post by blondie9x »

dantheman wrote: post #42
blondie9x wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding yourself? You think people continuing to rely on cars whether they drive or they are being driven is going to reduce traffic? Buses and rail reduce traffic not cars. Mass van pooling and what not can also help. We have to get off of cars and empty seats. Apps pushing cars and pushing ride sharing are pushing laziness and congestion. Why kid ourselves into thinking that Uber and Lyft are fixing the car…

Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Could it make owning a car more vialble? Could it increase the density of a city (due to less parking)? Could this make it more walkable? Could it make mass transit more effective? We should be encouraging ride sharing and working to eliminate parking; parking requirements make cities unwalkable thus making public transit ineffective.

You don't need cars if you have better transit and more dense cities. You would need less parking also.

Ride sharing makes congestion worse because people are less likely to use mass transit for the route.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#48

Post by stcredzero »

NickBusey wrote: post #18

>> .. when people use a ride-hailing company, they are opting to do so rather than take public transportation, walk or bike. They generally are not choosing between hailing and driving themselves. This doesn't seem correct to me. If I can ride my bike or walk somewhere, I will do that pretty much every time. The only time I ever consider an Uber or Lyft is if the distance is too far to bike, and I would rather not dr…

Often ride-hailing has to do with whether it will be too much of a pain to park. That's the 1st question my wife and I ask ourselves when it comes to most uses of Uber.

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#49

Post by stcredzero »

One way to think of this, is that Uber and Lyft are transforming the impetus of parking-pain into car service. People pay money to avoid the hassle of driving and parking. This means that a number of cars will be utilized more, and a number of parking spaces will be utilized less.

The 1st question my wife and I ask with regards to Uber is generally, "Will we be able to park?"

Re: A new study says services like Uber and Lyft are causing urban traffic woes

#50

Post by dantheman »

blondie9x wrote: post #47
dantheman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Could it make owning a car more vialble? Could it increase the density of a city (due to less parking)? Could this make it more walkable? Could it make mass transit more effective? We should be encouraging ride sharing and working to eliminate parking; parking requirements make cities unwalkable thus making public transit ineffective.

You don't need cars if you have better transit and more dense cities. You would need less parking also. Ride sharing makes congestion worse because people are less likely to use mass transit for the route.

If you want to get from a car based city to one with mass transit (most us cities). The only way to get the city dense enough is to remove parking requirements, and that only works if people can get by without a car. If the public option isn't good enough, then ride sharing can be a bridge until the public option is good enough.

In LA the biggest difficulty facing new dense/affordable construction is the number car spaces required per apartment. http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2014/parking-requiremen...

Post reply on HN