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

First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

sfcta.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#71

Post by dsfyu404ed »

jaclaz wrote: post #68
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In SF, Uber pool rides are cheap ($20 can usually get you anywhere in the City, and shorter distances at off peak times are often under 10). Compared with just cost of parking which is easily 300+ a month at many apartment buildings and only a piece of the cost of car ownership, commuting via Uber/Lyft actually makes economic sense.

If the average is actually $20, two rides a day (working day) are $800 i.e. more of the $700 calculated above. If both rides are around $15 on average, than you get an afvantage.

>If the average is actually $20, two rides a day (working day) are $800 i.e. more of the $700 calculated above

In which case owning the car is a no brainier because of the personal freedom and massive amount of inconvenience it affords. If you want to go on a road trip or eat taco bell at 1AM you can do that for just the price of gas (though you probably shouldn't do the latter because odds are if you want Taco bell at 1AM you're also stoned out of your mind and unfit to drive).

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#72

Post by dsfyu404ed »

bovine3dom wrote: post #61
dirkgently wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical HN reaction - smug intelligent-sounding question to doubt the validity of a hypothesis backed by data and detailed analysis, by completely ignoring the details in a given linked article. Your question is answered on page 15 (How Do We Determine the Causes of Changes in Congestion?) of the report you are happy to debunk so eagerly. Link (PDF): https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/T...

It's hardly rocket science - the cost of driving/being driven has gone down, so usage has gone up. I think real issue here is that road usage is mispriced. Singapore does it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing . A tax on just ride hailing is mad. They are cheaper than owning your own vehicle, in part, due to real efficiencies in terms of maintenance and depreciation. Why on earth would anyone…

>I think real issue here is that road usage is mispriced.

The problem is not that roads are too cheap but that the alternatives are too expensive in terms of time, money and quality. Making what is the most effective (all things considered) transit option for a huge chunk of the population more expensive just hurts everyone. It's like raising prices on bandwidth in order to reduce network congestion. The solution is more capacity. That capacity doesn't need to be for cars but you need to add capacity.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#73

Post by superseeplus »

treerock wrote: post #59
pftburger wrote: post #46

To be clear, Uber and Lyft are in cash burn phase, still... Yes, this is essentially still a free market economy but the prices of rides are largely subsidised to bring them to a point where they compete with public transport. That said, public transport is often a last mile problem. How do you get to and from the node, with a baby, in bad weather etc. Public transport is far from ideal and TNCs fill the gap willingl…

> prices of rides are largely subsidised to bring them to a point where they compete with public transport Is this location based? I'm in the UK and my recent trips with Uber have cost around the same as a standard taxi and nowhere near as cheap as a bus would have cost.

I’m sure this is comparing Uber Pool or similar rather than riding the car all by yourself. Also, San Francisco has multiple transit agencies and transferring between them means paying another fare.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#74

Post by bovine3dom »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #72
bovine3dom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly rocket science - the cost of driving/being driven has gone down, so usage has gone up. I think real issue here is that road usage is mispriced. Singapore does it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing . A tax on just ride hailing is mad. They are cheaper than owning your own vehicle, in part, due to real efficiencies in terms of maintenance and depreciation. Why on earth would anyone…

>I think real issue here is that road usage is mispriced. The problem is not that roads are too cheap but that the alternatives are too expensive in terms of time, money and quality. Making what is the most effective (all things considered) transit option for a huge chunk of the population more expensive just hurts everyone. It's like raising prices on bandwidth in order to reduce network congestion. The solution is…

I don't think the problem is capacity so much as temporal capacity. There's a large opportunity cost in having a big road empty for most of the day. Surely a smaller road that's busier for more of the day would be better?

I don't in principle have a problem with bandwidth being priced according to congestion. What we have instead is rationing.

You could make road pricing approximately revenue neutral by reducing fuel and vehicle excise duty.

Road traffic is a particularly good case for variable pricing because there is a discontinuity in traffic jam likelihood versus cars on the road - essentially, roads get full at a certain point, so the marginal cost of extra cars increases rapidly as it approaches that level.

This would encourage traffic to spread across more of the network, deliveries to happen at off-peak times, the 9-5 work cycle to be relaxed, pollution to be spread out more evenly across the day (to times when people aren't walking around).

So, for clarity: I'm saying make it cheaper to use the roads sometimes, and more expensive at other times.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#76

Post by TheCoelacanth »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #53
austenallred wrote: post #16

This is why it blows my mind that scooters are effectively banned in San Francisco. They’re such a perfect solution for inner-city travel.

In many ways, I think solutions like this are just kicking the can. Travel in a place like Bangkok for one day. Red lights look like the start of a motocross rally. There are even motorbike taxis. And motorcycles deciding the sidewalk doubles as a bike line is a common sight. But traffic is still completely brutal. That's also with city wide subway and airtrain transport options as well. The problem is simple. People…

Amount of potential traffic can't grow without limit. People need space to do other things. That puts a natural limit on the amount of traffic because people don't go places just to get there. They go places to do something when they get there.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#77

Post by ulfw »

product50 wrote: post #54
newnewpdro wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever heard the phrase "has more money than sense"?

Do you have kids? Do you know how expensive it is to raise them? The preschool costs around $3k/mo at least. Compared to that $300/mo is pretty minor and the convenience it offers is totally worth it.

Yea. Not every parent sees it as essential to spend three THOUSAND dollars on a pre-school. Please don't generalise.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#78

Post by notacoward »

I use Lyft a lot when I travel, but I'm also acutely aware that such services have their downside. For example, using Lyft the way I do spares me both the hassle and the liability of a rental car in two unfamiliar and notoriously bad traffic environments (Silicon Valley and Seattle). How is that possible? Because that hassle and liability are pushed onto the driver, whose livelihood would be far more affected by an accident than mine would be. :(

With respect to congestion, there is definitely a problem that so many rides leave the driver somewhere other than where they'd want to be. Taking rides to and from dinner is one thing, because those trips balance out pretty well. Using a TNC as a commute alternative is quite another thing, because everyone wants to go one way in the morning and the other way in the afternoon, leaving every car occupied only half the time. Even worse, the effect is most concentrated in exactly the places people least want to drive themselves because of the pre-existing congestion. Every bad place gets worse.

I don't know of any solution that others aren't already likely to mention, but it's definitely a problem looking for a better solution.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#79

Post by SllX »

almost_usual wrote: post #30

A MUNI bus ride is 1/10 the cost of an Uber or Lyft and people would rather spend the extra money to not deal with the SF public. Ride share to work, your favorite restaurant, bar, and then home. It’s like living in the suburbs in the city. I wonder how many people who can’t afford a vehicle but don’t want to deal with public transit would leave SF if ride sharing was banned outright.

“A MUNI bus ride is 1/10 the cost of an Uber or Lyft…”

How I wish that were true. Certainly it can be depending on whether it is Prime Time and some other variables, but generally taking a shared Lyft or even a private one, MUNI is more like 1/2 to 1/4 the cost.

Now the thing working against a shared Lyft is if a trip on the bus to my destination will take 30 minutes, a shared ride will be about 20 or 25, so for my use case I’m almost always calling a private car except when time isn’t a factor but overall comfort is.

That is to say, it isn’t cheap, but it is competitive if you’re willing to pay a tiny bit extra for a much more comfortable ride. That said I still try to stick to public transit when possible, except when time is a factor and I can’t rely on the bus.

Re: First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

#80

Post by [deleted] »

user3359 wrote: post #63
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parking number seems low. May depend on where in the city you are parking. But driving to work means parking in two places regularly which could be more like 500/month. Depends where you live and where you work.

Also, insurance. $200/month is a normal rate where I live (with a clean driving record).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN