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

81–90 of 105 posts

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

#81

Post by chrisseaton »

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.

> The preschool costs around $3k/mo at least.

You're out of your mind if you think most people with children are paying $3k a month for child care. $3k a month is the entire income for a minimum wage couple with a child isn't it? I don't think your experience is typical.

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

#82

Post by dang »

product50 wrote: post #38
almost_usual wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you continue to live in San Francisco if ride sharing were banned?

#inflammatory At this point, you have no argument but probably are just pissed that families are co-habiting your preferred non-family only city space. Get a life and do something with it.

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, regardless of how provocative another comment is or you feel it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#83

Post by archagon »

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.

Sounds to me like we should ban sharing outright.

If you can't deal with "the SF public", then you have no place living in SF.

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

#84

Post by H1Supreme »

superfrank wrote: post #41
liotier wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have to pick up and drop off our daughter at her day care on a daily basis and without Uber I'm amazed that Uber is considered an affordable commute device. Is that a SV phenomenon ?

Eh, it depends on how you look at it. If you are comparing Lyft/Uber to public transit, yeah they lose out by a lot, but I don't think a lot of people are doing that. I think a lot of people are comparing Lyft/Uber against the cost of owning a semi-new car in a major city and that's much more comparable. Here's a super ball park monthly cost breakdown: - Car payment: $250 - Parking: $200 - Insurance: $85 (~$500 every…

$600 per year for maintenance, assuming this is an average sedan built within the last 5 years, is very high. New vehicles need oil changes every 10k miles, and tires every few years. That's it (on average).

I live in the rust belt, which is probably the worst environment for vehicles. I buy new, keep cars for 6 years or so, and I spend very little on maintenance. New vehicles simply don't require much to keep running well.

Also, $40 a month for registration? Most places are $50-$100 a year. Is California that much more?

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

#85

Post by grandmczeb »

httpz wrote: post #49
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…

I'm not sure how credible this is but someone who work at one of the ride sharing company told me most of the cash burn happens in new markets for rapid growth and established markets like SF are profitable.

I’ve been told the same thing by friends who work at Uber.

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

#86

Post by lewis500 »

SllX wrote: post #17
lewis500 wrote: post #2

"TNCs had little impact on congestion in the western and southern San Francisco neighborhoods." Recently Supervisor Peskin apparently reached a deal to impose a "net fares" tax on the TNC's. I wonder if they will consider differentiating it by neighborhood: imposing larger charges downtown. Peskin has also lobbied for downtown congestion pricing although that is harder to implement, politically and technologically, t…

> Peskin has also lobbied for downtown congestion pricing although that is harder to implement, politically and technologically, than such a tax. Politically, sure. The idea has been floating around for at least a decade that I know of, and probably longer. Technologically? License plate readers on every intersection, let's say, for the sake of argument, every intersection along Van Ness and South Van Ness going east…

Congestion pricing is certainly do-able, and it would have the significant advantage of charging all vehicles rather than just TNC's. But it is technologically more complex to install readers everywhere than to tell TNC's to vary the tax they already pay. In other cities downtown congestion pricing has cost a couple hundred million to set up, and it takes some time.

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

#87

Post by njarboe »

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…

Check out the Boring Company. This could be the solution. Tunnels can be stacked below the city just as deep or deeper than you can build up.

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

#88

Post by njarboe »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #51

It seems tautological that uber/lyft would increase congestion. The one and only way it would not be true is if every single person who used the service had a previous option that they were readily utilizing. Though even there nonpassenger driving hours would probably cause a net increase in congestion anyhow. But I think it goes without saying that there are countless people that end up 'driving' far many more miles…

I've heard that at many times 1/3 of cars on the road in SF are looking for parking. Don't really believe it is that high, but, if true, would be a way for uber/lyft use to decrease congestion in a meaningful way.

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

#89

Post by momerath »

H1Supreme wrote: post #84
superfrank wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, it depends on how you look at it. If you are comparing Lyft/Uber to public transit, yeah they lose out by a lot, but I don't think a lot of people are doing that. I think a lot of people are comparing Lyft/Uber against the cost of owning a semi-new car in a major city and that's much more comparable. Here's a super ball park monthly cost breakdown: - Car payment: $250 - Parking: $200 - Insurance: $85 (~$500 every…

$600 per year for maintenance, assuming this is an average sedan built within the last 5 years, is very high. New vehicles need oil changes every 10k miles, and tires every few years. That's it (on average). I live in the rust belt, which is probably the worst environment for vehicles. I buy new, keep cars for 6 years or so, and I spend very little on maintenance. New vehicles simply don't require much to keep runnin…

Agreed about maintenance, but yeah, CA registration is that much more.
Post reply on HN