Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

171–180 of 253 posts

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

#171

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 It’s not peer reviewed.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…

For what it's worth, the article also links to a study with the same conclusion out of UC Davis. https://steps.ucdavis.edu/new-research-ride-hailing-impacts-...

The Davis study doesn't make any of the big claims that are getting attention here. Being academic and from a good department, it is much more measured:

"Net vehicle miles traveled (VMT) changes are unknown."

"While this data provides initial insights into the travel behavior changes associated with ridehailing, it is still limited in that it does not provide a complete picture of individual travelers’ trip generating activities, the modes they used before ride-hailing services, and the potentially new patterns of behavior that have since emerged."

Meanwhile, here is coverage of this study: "Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180 percent in major cities, says report" https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyft-cause-tra...

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

#172
post #7

There's a simple solution to this -- buses! We don't even need public tax dollars to pay for them. There were plenty of startups that wanted to run "Uber, but with a bus instead of a Car" and they all died because of regulation from the cities. Hell, Google (and other tech companies) will happily pay for its own buses to reduce VMT, but taking away street parking to add bus stops is political suicide in San Francisco…

It's not simple to just use buses and change all the regulation for cities to mass-adopt buses. Buses cost a lot of extra time in waiting and slower speeds, are often much less comfortable, require people to walk further on both ends, are less good in bad weather, and let's not forget: they are very infrequent on holidays/evenings, where we want less drunk driving but fewer buses will be on offer. Buses are a good to…

[deleted]

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mass transit will never be solved. I think it's time to give up on this dream. In a sprawled out city like Los Angeles, the suburbs that people live in, are too far away from the job centers. It's even too far away from a supermarket, or the shopping mall. Mass transit is a failure when it takes 2 hours to get to your destination, when it is just 15 miles away. Where you may have to walk to a bus stop to catch your b…

"violently attacked, robbed..." - I've spotted the guy who doesn't ride mass transit but has opinions on it!

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

#174
post #92

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…

Wow, that's gross. Braess's Paradox says adding more capacity to roads can cause more congestion, I guess the narrative would be 'rip up roads to solve traffic' then? It really makes me sick to my stomach how often 'authorities' lack any background in formal reasoning, and see no need to apply it to decisions for the public welfare.

yeah, pedestrianizing or making roads into transitways does actually solve quite a bit of traffic locally. The trick is to do it holistically - most of the time everyone on both sides is looking far too short term and pounces on the results after making changes to a block or two.

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

#175
post #7

There's a simple solution to this -- buses! We don't even need public tax dollars to pay for them. There were plenty of startups that wanted to run "Uber, but with a bus instead of a Car" and they all died because of regulation from the cities. Hell, Google (and other tech companies) will happily pay for its own buses to reduce VMT, but taking away street parking to add bus stops is political suicide in San Francisco…

There's a simple solution to this -- buses! Yes, and no. The less dense an area is, the less effective buses are. If everyone lived in a dense, urban environment, buses would be great. But they're not useful for large portions of the population, in America at least. I wish park-and-rides were more common. I'd use that, if it was an option. But for now, I'm not going to walk four miles to take a bus the remaining 15 m…

Just because something isn't a solution everywhere is no reason to not consider it to be a solution in the places where it can be one. I'd wager that most of the places where congestion is a problem, are dense enough areas where busses are quite viable.

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

#176
post #101
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set rules for society and harshly punish people who break them. Look at Singapore.

For better or for worse, we are not like Singapore. Exorbitatly heavy fines, in these cases, barr the RIAA, and caning are not acceptable punishment in the US. I’m certain most people would not want Singaporean-style justice in the US.

RIAA asks for around $3/song when they catch someone pirating a large number of songs. The small handful of people who ended up higher got that way by being idiots.

E.g., the most famous case, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was caught sharing 1700 songs. The RIAA asked for $5000.

She refused, so they sued. They sued over 24 of the songs. Why not sue over all 1700? Probably a couple reasons. First, if they sued over 1700 and won, the minimum damages they would receive would be $1 275 000 (statutory damages of $750 [1] per infringed work x 1700 works). Only suing over 24 cuts the minimum to $18 000. They were willing to settle for $5 000, but having to go to trial adds some expenses and so $18 000 is pretty reasonable.

Second, for each song they do have to file some paperwork proving that they have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright owner. Every bit of paperwork they have to file is time and money, and every bit of paperwork offers the defense something to challenge to further take their time and increase their cost.

Any non-moron looking at the above math would beg to accept that $5 000 settlement as soon as they found out that they were in fact being sued. But not Thomas-Rasset. Worse for her, she was a very unsympathetic defendant. She tried to pin the blame on her kids, she tried to destroy evidence, and she lied about that under oath and was caught at it. The jury gets to pick the damages and instead of going for the low end of statutory damages they went for something higher up, and she got hit with a large fine (around $200k).

And then what did the RIAA do? They offered again to settle for some reasonably low amount. She refused, got another trial, lost again (because of course nothing had changed) and that jury went high, going an order of magnitude higher than the first jury. The RIAA again offered to settle, although now they were asking $25.

Eventually she got an appeals court to lower the damages back down to around the first trial's amount. Again the RIAA offered a much lower settlement, if she would agree to make a video about copyright infringement. She refused.

If you are going to pirate, fine, but be an honest and honorable pirate. If you get caught and are offered a reasonable settlement (and 3x what it would have cost you to buy the works without pirating them is reasonable [2]) take it. Don't waste the court's time with going to a trial you have pretty much no change of winning and that when you lose the minimal damages will be more than the settlement offer.

[1] It can go down to something like $200 or $250 per work if the alleged infringer can prove they were an "innocent infringer", which means that they did not know the works were copyrighted and had no reason to know this. That would be very hard to prove.

[2] It has to be more than the retail cost because if the worst that happens to you when you are caught is that you pay what it would have cost to buy retail, there is no incentive not to pirate.

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

#177
post #82

VIA is the answer! Via is an on-demand transit system that takes multiple passengers heading in the same direction and books them into a shared vehicle. Think of Via as a bus that’s smart enough to come when you want it and where you want it... https://ridewithvia.com/ and https://www.viavan.com/

Isn't this just UberPOOL with a van?

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

#179
post #82

VIA is the answer! Via is an on-demand transit system that takes multiple passengers heading in the same direction and books them into a shared vehicle. Think of Via as a bus that’s smart enough to come when you want it and where you want it... https://ridewithvia.com/ and https://www.viavan.com/

The problem with this service is it needs tremendous amounts of capital to own all those buses. Is this company really going to raise billions and billions of dollars to own a large enough fleet to make a meaningful difference?

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

#180
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some people, especially urban-based, just like the anti-car narrative, so they link to it as to something that confirms their favorite POV. I bet city officials in most places don't like ride-hailing companies, too, so they would gladly link to something like this, for the same reason. Maybe every other reader would look at it and say: "Hey, this has no data, and the author's position produces an obvious confli…

Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Come on this is just classic "I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" A form of limited licensing for ride-hailing companies can exist without any of the inputs from the taxicab lobby and work out really well.

Medallions existed because of the opportunity for cronyism / corruption with a superficial veneer of public benefit.
Post reply on HN