Study finds ride-sharing intensifies urban road congestion(news.mit.edu)
news.mit.edu
Study finds ride-sharing intensifies urban road congestion
https://news.mit.edu/2021/ride-sharing-intensifies-urban-road-congestion-0423
306 comments
I almost exclusively use it as ride sharing. Is that not the norm?
By its original definition that i stated in my first post? As in, someone that will go from point A to point B anyway, not because they're paid for it, and takes passengers that have the same need?
You must be an outlier, everyone I know including me just uses it like a taxi where you don't have to explain on the phone where you want to be picked up from and where you want to go (and where you know how much you'll pay when ordering).
The fact that they don't want to label themselves as taxis doesn't make them any less taxis.
You must be an outlier, everyone I know including me just uses it like a taxi where you don't have to explain on the phone where you want to be picked up from and where you want to go (and where you know how much you'll pay when ordering).
The fact that they don't want to label themselves as taxis doesn't make them any less taxis.
There's another app that still hasn't been flooded by commercial transportation using it as an advert platform: BlaBlaCar.
In my experience in Ukraine and Poland over the years there's been only a few times when it was a company offering transportation. For the most part it's a private person travelling anyway and picking up people to cover the fuel cost.
In my eyes it's the 21st century hitchhiking, as you get the safety of knowing passengers ahead of time (and some degree of screening by the app itself), but still just go wherever you were going.
In my experience in Ukraine and Poland over the years there's been only a few times when it was a company offering transportation. For the most part it's a private person travelling anyway and picking up people to cover the fuel cost.
In my eyes it's the 21st century hitchhiking, as you get the safety of knowing passengers ahead of time (and some degree of screening by the app itself), but still just go wherever you were going.
It's a fair complaint. At least in the USA, "ride sharing" meant some form of carpooling for a long time, and, in some jurisdictions, that definition is even baked into laws or regulations. Services like Uber do offer a ride sharing option, but using it to describe all Uber riding is a bit of a misnomer, and does have the effect of undercutting or even co-opting an existing conversation that was about congestion and environmental impact reduction rather than personal convenience.
That said, the cows are already out of the barn and have been for years now. We probably can't get this new understanding of the term out of the vernacular anymore, so I guess we'll have to make do with an important conversation topic now being permanently confusing.
That said, the cows are already out of the barn and have been for years now. We probably can't get this new understanding of the term out of the vernacular anymore, so I guess we'll have to make do with an important conversation topic now being permanently confusing.
From my experience using Uber and similar services outside of the US: not at all. Here in Europe at least they all work as taxis, more specifically here in Sweden almost every Uber I've ever got was a normal taxi using Uber as well.
The same in Berlin, Oslo and Barcelona, at least that has been my experience with Uber since 2017 in numerous cities around here.
The same in Berlin, Oslo and Barcelona, at least that has been my experience with Uber since 2017 in numerous cities around here.
Uber tried launching "ride-sharing", also called the UberPOP service in Sweden in 2015 completely flouting the laws. Many of the drivers were quickly convicted for illegal taxi services and Uber had $2M in unpaid taxes and social security from the short period of time they operated which they paid without question .
Since anyone is free to run a taxi business in anywhere Sweden as long as they fulfill the base requirements the whole "ride-sharing" angle to get around medallion systems and what not does not apply here. For now Bolt has completely eaten Ubers cake and is the largest taxi app in Sweden.
News about the conclusion of it in Swedish: https://www.breakit.se/artikel/15246/skattesmall-for-uber-i-...
Edit: Flaunting -> Flouting.
Since anyone is free to run a taxi business in anywhere Sweden as long as they fulfill the base requirements the whole "ride-sharing" angle to get around medallion systems and what not does not apply here. For now Bolt has completely eaten Ubers cake and is the largest taxi app in Sweden.
News about the conclusion of it in Swedish: https://www.breakit.se/artikel/15246/skattesmall-for-uber-i-...
Edit: Flaunting -> Flouting.
> completely flaunting the laws
I think you meant "flouting".
I think you meant "flouting".
The rise in ride-sharing requires a rethink in transportation planning within cities and campuses.
We did a study for a major university after it found a huge increase in traffic volumes within its main entry “plaza”, and an associated logjam that radiated from there. A large proportion of that traffic was due to ride-sharing drivers circulating in and around the plaza waiting for passengers.
The university built a dedicated ride-sharing area nearby and prohibited ride-sharing services from the plaza. This largely solved the problems (although enforcement is an ongoing issue).
Ride-sharing absolutely can cause local increases in congestion if nothing is done to accommodate it. However, it’s a modern reality, so planners who don’t accommodate it aren’t doing their jobs.
We did a study for a major university after it found a huge increase in traffic volumes within its main entry “plaza”, and an associated logjam that radiated from there. A large proportion of that traffic was due to ride-sharing drivers circulating in and around the plaza waiting for passengers.
The university built a dedicated ride-sharing area nearby and prohibited ride-sharing services from the plaza. This largely solved the problems (although enforcement is an ongoing issue).
Ride-sharing absolutely can cause local increases in congestion if nothing is done to accommodate it. However, it’s a modern reality, so planners who don’t accommodate it aren’t doing their jobs.
It's something of an aside, and no doubt a losing battle, but I wish we'd stop (ab)using the term "ride-sharing" for services like Uber and Lyft.
Ride-sharing is when I'm intending to drive somewhere, have spare capacity in my vehicle, and offer that space (at a price, potentially) to other people. A high degree of ride-sharing would almost certainly decrease congestion by making more efficient use of vehicle capacity.
Uber and Lyft are essentially app-enabled taxi services. It's not surprising that putting a huge number of extra taxis on the road can increase congestion as drivers congregate in the areas with most potential fares.
Ride-sharing is when I'm intending to drive somewhere, have spare capacity in my vehicle, and offer that space (at a price, potentially) to other people. A high degree of ride-sharing would almost certainly decrease congestion by making more efficient use of vehicle capacity.
Uber and Lyft are essentially app-enabled taxi services. It's not surprising that putting a huge number of extra taxis on the road can increase congestion as drivers congregate in the areas with most potential fares.
Also, proliferation of taxis[0] doesn't immediately change the behavior of people. It takes time for citizens to adjust to improved transport infrastructure and stop using/storing their own cars in the city. Within that lag window, more taxis = more cars.
--
[0] - As you say, Uber and Lyft, and their predecessors and successors, are just that - a different flavor of taxi services. Slightly leaner, at the cost of worse guarantees for certain service types where old-school taxis were bound by regulations, but otherwise pretty much the same thing.
--
[0] - As you say, Uber and Lyft, and their predecessors and successors, are just that - a different flavor of taxi services. Slightly leaner, at the cost of worse guarantees for certain service types where old-school taxis were bound by regulations, but otherwise pretty much the same thing.
The only thing taxis reduce is the need for parking. Everything else results in more traffic compared to individual driving.
If I take my own car to work, the car is only on the road between my house and my office. If I take a taxi, at the very least you'll have to add the distance the taxi drove to pick me up, as well as the distance driven to pick the next customer up. There is no way around that, and any argument that taxi services (whether with actual taxis, or by the driver's personal cars) somehow reduce traffic is complete nonsense.
That's not even mentioning the fact that a number of people are now going to take a taxi instead of public transport, further increasing the number of cars.
If I take my own car to work, the car is only on the road between my house and my office. If I take a taxi, at the very least you'll have to add the distance the taxi drove to pick me up, as well as the distance driven to pick the next customer up. There is no way around that, and any argument that taxi services (whether with actual taxis, or by the driver's personal cars) somehow reduce traffic is complete nonsense.
That's not even mentioning the fact that a number of people are now going to take a taxi instead of public transport, further increasing the number of cars.
I don't mean the case of switching from a personal car to a taxi for daily commute. I mean the case of, "I need my car few times a month to run some errands around the city - and since I already have that car, I may as well drive to work instead of using public transport". Availability and reliability of general transport infrastructure - both mass transit and taxis - will drive the decision here. If one can count on always catching fast transportation for those few errands a month, they can retire their car, and that's one less car on the road every day. This does not scale 1:1 with taxis - on a margin, a single extra taxi constantly on the road can tip the decision for several people, removing several cars from the city during rush hours.
I'm a not a traffic planner, so I'm not certain if things play out this way in reality - but it sounds plausible.
A different topic is that taxis unfortunately compete with mass transit too much these days. For example, in my hometown of Kraków - known in Poland for having a very good public transit system - the situation in recent years[0] evolved to a point in which, for 2+ people traveling further than a bus or tram will go in 20 minutes, it's cheaper[1] to travel in one of these VC-subsidized app-taxis! Given the economics of mass transit, I worry this is not the kind of competition that will lead to improvements of service - instead, it'll lead to further degradation of the bus and tram networks, in a positive feedback loop.
--
[0] - I noticed it around 2019, so it's not a COVID-related phenomenon, though the pandemic did a lot of work to cement it, as well as reversing the ongoing efforts to remove car traffic from the city center.
[1] - Unless you're a citizen/regular, and pay a monthly pass. I'm currently neither.
I'm a not a traffic planner, so I'm not certain if things play out this way in reality - but it sounds plausible.
A different topic is that taxis unfortunately compete with mass transit too much these days. For example, in my hometown of Kraków - known in Poland for having a very good public transit system - the situation in recent years[0] evolved to a point in which, for 2+ people traveling further than a bus or tram will go in 20 minutes, it's cheaper[1] to travel in one of these VC-subsidized app-taxis! Given the economics of mass transit, I worry this is not the kind of competition that will lead to improvements of service - instead, it'll lead to further degradation of the bus and tram networks, in a positive feedback loop.
--
[0] - I noticed it around 2019, so it's not a COVID-related phenomenon, though the pandemic did a lot of work to cement it, as well as reversing the ongoing efforts to remove car traffic from the city center.
[1] - Unless you're a citizen/regular, and pay a monthly pass. I'm currently neither.
>[0] - As you say, Uber and Lyft, and their predecessors and successors, are just that - a different flavor of taxi services. Slightly leaner, at the cost of worse guarantees for certain service types where old-school taxis were bound by regulations, but otherwise pretty much the same thing.
And yet, prior to Uber and Lyft, I would hesitate to call a taxi for my worst enemy due to all of them smelling like smoke, being old dumpy cars, and having questionable drivers. After Uber/Lyft, I can remotely order a car for my grandparents who don’t speak English and they can get to me in a nice clean car with no issues.
Taxis outside of urban cores in a few US cities were a terrible experience prior to Uber/Lyft, they clearly brought something to the table.
And yet, prior to Uber and Lyft, I would hesitate to call a taxi for my worst enemy due to all of them smelling like smoke, being old dumpy cars, and having questionable drivers. After Uber/Lyft, I can remotely order a car for my grandparents who don’t speak English and they can get to me in a nice clean car with no issues.
Taxis outside of urban cores in a few US cities were a terrible experience prior to Uber/Lyft, they clearly brought something to the table.
This positively ends conversation.
The proper 'ride-sharing' you're talking about is very popular in Germany. On daily basis thousands of people drive few miles to a spot near a highway, etc., 'abandon' their cars and ride together downtown. It's been so for years.
Aka car-pooling. At least in Canada, car pool lots are quite common, and are used quite heavily.
The obvious solution is to the free-market one: Businesses who want to use a scarce (in the economic sense, i.e., 'limited') public good, road capacity, bid on it.
If I understand correctly, that's what taxi medallions are. Many respond with outrage about anything that limits ride-sharing, but they are taking my road space, which my tax dollars pay for.
If I understand correctly, that's what taxi medallions are. Many respond with outrage about anything that limits ride-sharing, but they are taking my road space, which my tax dollars pay for.
Taxi medallions are bullshit because they have decided in advance that taxi’s only get to use X amount.
The actual free market solution would be per mile tolls that increase with congestion and charge regardless of vehicle type.
The last thing you want to do is charge ride sharers and not single commuters, which are much worse.
The actual free market solution would be per mile tolls that increase with congestion and charge regardless of vehicle type.
The last thing you want to do is charge ride sharers and not single commuters, which are much worse.
Note that most tolls are regressive taxes. Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls. Also transport costs - or, more specifically, commute times - interact with house prices. Poor people often have to travel longer and further for work, increasing the tax they have to pay even on an absolute basis.
There really isn't a way around that. There are vastly more poor people than rich people, and the difference between emissions of cars typically owned by rich people and poor people is marginal if anything. If you want to make an impact on emissions and congestion, you are going to have to change the behavior of large numbers of people. If you want to ameliorate the effects of this on poor people, you can invest the money into decent public transit options.
[deleted]
I don’t think we should expect road policy to also solve inequality. Equally, we shouldn’t let an unequal society prevent us from solving congestion.
Agreed, the negative effects of air pollution, noise pollution and car dependency are mostly borne by the poor.
Agreed, the negative effects of air pollution, noise pollution and car dependency are mostly borne by the poor.
We should definitely expect road policy to not introduce extra inequality.
This sounds reasonable on the face of it, but actually it’s not. I can’t think of many policies that might not introduce some inequality somewhere in society. That’s an unrealistic standard.
Increasingly inequality is of course something we should be mindful of when designing policy though.
Increasingly inequality is of course something we should be mindful of when designing policy though.
I beg to differ. I see ensuring a level playing field while preventing abuse, as pretty much the only valid reason for any (internal) policy at all. Everything else is just history being written by the winners.
>> Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls.
If you want to charge for use of a resource, to discourage over-use, and only to raise enough to fund production of more of that resource, it's entirely irrelevant that it's "regressive" (which is a very loaded term), because it is not the main source of government revenue, and people benefit from the expenditure of the funds raised by the tax directly in proportion to how much they are taxed.
If the objective is to use the tax as a proxy to tax general utilization of public infrastructure and services, then yes, it would be inappropriate to choose a tax on an activity that is a poor proxy, e.g. an activity that the poor engage in out of proportion to their general use of public infrastructure and services.
If you want to charge for use of a resource, to discourage over-use, and only to raise enough to fund production of more of that resource, it's entirely irrelevant that it's "regressive" (which is a very loaded term), because it is not the main source of government revenue, and people benefit from the expenditure of the funds raised by the tax directly in proportion to how much they are taxed.
If the objective is to use the tax as a proxy to tax general utilization of public infrastructure and services, then yes, it would be inappropriate to choose a tax on an activity that is a poor proxy, e.g. an activity that the poor engage in out of proportion to their general use of public infrastructure and services.
Every tax that isn’t based on income is regressive (sales being the major one).
> Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls
And every other basic good. This doesn’t mean much.
> Also transport costs - or, more specifically, commute times - interact with house prices.
Yes, but as it stands the cheap road use is subsidizing mega commutes, which is broken.
> Poor people often have to travel longer and further for work, increasing the tax they have to pay even on an absolute basis.
And they often don’t too. We don’t need to be subsidizing mega commutes as a society. It shouldn’t make sense to travel for 90 minutes each way for a $20/hr job.
Making these jobs more expensive for the employer is a good thing. Either they will raise the wage because they lost all employees or they will just hire locals instead which is better for the environment.
> Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls
And every other basic good. This doesn’t mean much.
> Also transport costs - or, more specifically, commute times - interact with house prices.
Yes, but as it stands the cheap road use is subsidizing mega commutes, which is broken.
> Poor people often have to travel longer and further for work, increasing the tax they have to pay even on an absolute basis.
And they often don’t too. We don’t need to be subsidizing mega commutes as a society. It shouldn’t make sense to travel for 90 minutes each way for a $20/hr job.
Making these jobs more expensive for the employer is a good thing. Either they will raise the wage because they lost all employees or they will just hire locals instead which is better for the environment.
This is not always the case, especially in urban areas, as was shown during the recent debates over congestion pricing in New York.
Car commuters into the central business districts are a much smaller, wealthier group. Free roads act more as a subsidy for this group, while the masses, including almost all poor people, cram onto insufficient public transport. A bus carrying 240 people being stuck behind a line of wealthy car commuters alone in their vehicles is not a picture of equity.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/10/24/de-blasios-wrong-poor...
Car commuters into the central business districts are a much smaller, wealthier group. Free roads act more as a subsidy for this group, while the masses, including almost all poor people, cram onto insufficient public transport. A bus carrying 240 people being stuck behind a line of wealthy car commuters alone in their vehicles is not a picture of equity.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/10/24/de-blasios-wrong-poor...
Not to mention it can cost quite a bit of money to collect these tolls/taxes!
In places like Texas it’s mostly a solved problem, everyone either has a toll transponder on their windshield or uses Pay By Mail, which just reads your plates as you drive through the gate. No stopping, no slowing down at all. You can go through these gates at 120mph and it’ll still catch you (and won’t even write you a speeding ticket).
Paying cash isn’t even an option anymore.
Paying cash isn’t even an option anymore.
It’s solved even better in Canada. All toll plazas are reading license plates, regardless of a transponder. Just send a bill to the owner of the license plate. No need for a transponder.
I think most technically do that here, the transponder is more as a backup. With one exception— the DFW airport will only read NTTA tolltags for some reason last I heard.
There’s also some interoperability- my Texas TollTag works in Oklahoma and one or two other states so it’s all consolidated with the lower rate. Those with TollTag accounts pay a lower rate on toll roads as it acts more like a gift card than a bill, it just autoreloads each time your balance gets low.
Another cool thing is that some parking garages can read your TollTag if you let them to open the gate for you. It doesn’t bill you, it just acts as an access card if you have a standing agreement with the garage owner (you can see this at UT Austin for permit holders).
There’s also some interoperability- my Texas TollTag works in Oklahoma and one or two other states so it’s all consolidated with the lower rate. Those with TollTag accounts pay a lower rate on toll roads as it acts more like a gift card than a bill, it just autoreloads each time your balance gets low.
Another cool thing is that some parking garages can read your TollTag if you let them to open the gate for you. It doesn’t bill you, it just acts as an access card if you have a standing agreement with the garage owner (you can see this at UT Austin for permit holders).
That’s... worse. Why should the person who gets the toll bill be locked to the license plate registration?
Taxes on car use is not at all regressive, but actually very progressive. At least here in Norway.
"True" progressives here would prefer to ban cars in the inner cites completely (or at least the non-electric ones), but most of the moderately progressive and liberal are content to put a high tax on roads and petrol (and new cars too).
Cars fueled by fossils are seen as symbols of anti-environmentalism, pro americanized consumerism and an unnecessary luxery (for the non-disabled), and particularily so in the cities. Car lovers are almost as bad as Trump supporters, in the eyes of progressives here.
Here is one of the most iconic progressives in the country posing with her electic cargo bicycle (with the kid inside), in a news story promoting massive increases in parking taxes in Oslo:
https://e24.no/privatoekonomi/i/X8w2zg/mdg-lan-og-oslobyraad...
People are expected to take the train/tram/subway/bus when they can, and if necessary, park at the train station after delivering the kids to school/daycare. (If they cannot use an electric bike, as in the story above).
In order to ensure there is no regressive aspect, disabled (including many elderly) are subsidised. Also, electric cars are not taxed, and 53% of new cars sold last year were electric. (Teslas are everywhere).
So if you want to show everyone you are a good progressive, you should support toll roads, and if you can, take the bus. :)
"True" progressives here would prefer to ban cars in the inner cites completely (or at least the non-electric ones), but most of the moderately progressive and liberal are content to put a high tax on roads and petrol (and new cars too).
Cars fueled by fossils are seen as symbols of anti-environmentalism, pro americanized consumerism and an unnecessary luxery (for the non-disabled), and particularily so in the cities. Car lovers are almost as bad as Trump supporters, in the eyes of progressives here.
Here is one of the most iconic progressives in the country posing with her electic cargo bicycle (with the kid inside), in a news story promoting massive increases in parking taxes in Oslo:
https://e24.no/privatoekonomi/i/X8w2zg/mdg-lan-og-oslobyraad...
People are expected to take the train/tram/subway/bus when they can, and if necessary, park at the train station after delivering the kids to school/daycare. (If they cannot use an electric bike, as in the story above).
In order to ensure there is no regressive aspect, disabled (including many elderly) are subsidised. Also, electric cars are not taxed, and 53% of new cars sold last year were electric. (Teslas are everywhere).
So if you want to show everyone you are a good progressive, you should support toll roads, and if you can, take the bus. :)
> taxi’s only get to use X amount
Right; road capacity is a scarce resource. There isn't an unlimited amount available.
> The actual free market solution would be per mile tolls that increase with congestion
Sure, modern tech allows more flexible pricing than periodic capacity auctions. However, I wonder if it allows long-term investment, given that tomorrow your capacity could effectively disappear.
> and charge regardless of vehicle type
That ends up being regressive taxation. Public resources are public goods; they are for everyone, regardless of ability to pay. I absolutely oppose effectively restricting poor people from the roads in parts of the city - and what happens if there is a lot of traffic in their own neighborhood? Can they pull out of their parking spot?
> bullshit
Well if you put it that way ...
Right; road capacity is a scarce resource. There isn't an unlimited amount available.
> The actual free market solution would be per mile tolls that increase with congestion
Sure, modern tech allows more flexible pricing than periodic capacity auctions. However, I wonder if it allows long-term investment, given that tomorrow your capacity could effectively disappear.
> and charge regardless of vehicle type
That ends up being regressive taxation. Public resources are public goods; they are for everyone, regardless of ability to pay. I absolutely oppose effectively restricting poor people from the roads in parts of the city - and what happens if there is a lot of traffic in their own neighborhood? Can they pull out of their parking spot?
> bullshit
Well if you put it that way ...
> That ends up being regressive taxation.
“Regressive taxation” is a term for people paying what something costs. Carbon taxes are also a “regressive taxation” as well as sales tax, alcohol tax, etc.
Public resources are public goods, but they are rivalrous. If you don’t make people pay in a fair manner, you’ve just implemented government rations which incentivize all kinds of stupid shit (illegal taxi services for one).
> and what happens if there is a lot of traffic in their own neighborhood?
If they can’t afford it then they don’t drive. It’s that simple.
The complexity only comes from trying to solve poverty (“oh, but that’s regressive”) at the same time as trying to solve a specific issue. Just give poor people cash stipends for transportation if transporting the poor is the problem you want to tackle. Then they can choose if they want to spend it on bus fares or use it towards ride shares, biking, whatever.
Prescriptive “there shall be 10 taxis for the people and they will enjoy them and no more” laws have basically never had good outcomes. Hedge funds paying millions of dollars to analysts with mountains of data have difficulty predicting market demand trends, there isn’t a chance in hell some bureaucrat is going to correctly balance a market.
“Regressive taxation” is a term for people paying what something costs. Carbon taxes are also a “regressive taxation” as well as sales tax, alcohol tax, etc.
Public resources are public goods, but they are rivalrous. If you don’t make people pay in a fair manner, you’ve just implemented government rations which incentivize all kinds of stupid shit (illegal taxi services for one).
> and what happens if there is a lot of traffic in their own neighborhood?
If they can’t afford it then they don’t drive. It’s that simple.
The complexity only comes from trying to solve poverty (“oh, but that’s regressive”) at the same time as trying to solve a specific issue. Just give poor people cash stipends for transportation if transporting the poor is the problem you want to tackle. Then they can choose if they want to spend it on bus fares or use it towards ride shares, biking, whatever.
Prescriptive “there shall be 10 taxis for the people and they will enjoy them and no more” laws have basically never had good outcomes. Hedge funds paying millions of dollars to analysts with mountains of data have difficulty predicting market demand trends, there isn’t a chance in hell some bureaucrat is going to correctly balance a market.
This is a common pattern, poorest member M of society Y is not well off enough to do X, the cost of X is lowered for everyone until M can afford X. Except the members of Society Y that do X primarily consists of rich people, it looks fair because everyone is treated equally, in practice the support didn't solve the problem at all, and in the process a bunch of people got a free gift so they don't mind the damage.
The reason why politics doesn't work is that people aren't interested in solving the problem, they just want some kickbacks. The end result is a "fair" but dysfunctional society.
The reason why politics doesn't work is that people aren't interested in solving the problem, they just want some kickbacks. The end result is a "fair" but dysfunctional society.
> That ends up being regressive taxation. Public resources are public goods; they are for everyone, regardless of ability to pay. I absolutely oppose effectively restricting poor people from the roads in parts of the city - and what happens if there is a lot of traffic in their own neighborhood? Can they pull out of their parking spot?
There are two separate problems. One is insufficient road capacity at time X for Y number of vehicles of size Z. You can adjust X, Y, or Z, all with the use of variable tolling.
Platitudes such as “public resources are public goods; they are for everyone, regardless of ability to pay” will not solve congestion.
A second problem might be there are too many people in society too poor to be able to make use of a fair amount of limited resources, such as road capacity. This is a separate problem, and can be solved by giving poorer people money so they can pay to use the roads at peak times.
There are two separate problems. One is insufficient road capacity at time X for Y number of vehicles of size Z. You can adjust X, Y, or Z, all with the use of variable tolling.
Platitudes such as “public resources are public goods; they are for everyone, regardless of ability to pay” will not solve congestion.
A second problem might be there are too many people in society too poor to be able to make use of a fair amount of limited resources, such as road capacity. This is a separate problem, and can be solved by giving poorer people money so they can pay to use the roads at peak times.
> Platitudes such as “public resources are public goods; they are for everyone, regardless of ability to pay” will not solve congestion.
Calling it a platitude doesn't address that critical issue; it does suggest you don't know how else to address it?
Calling it a platitude doesn't address that critical issue; it does suggest you don't know how else to address it?
I did offer a solution to address it. It’s a platitude for the purposes of solving congestion, which I specifically identified as a separate issue from poverty.
I don't have a car. why should I pay for your right to drive on the roads for free, but yet be forced to pay a tax when I use (semi-)public transportation?
You in particular don't pay for permits, parking, tolls, fuel and sales taxes, licensing, registrations, etc. You do, however, get to enjoy all of the benefits of living in a society with ubiquitous transportation and democratized access to roads and infrastructure.
Do you purchase goods which were moved by road? Where does your food come from and how does it get to you? How do you generate your income and does any of that rely on transportation?
This would be a good argument if the road network was sized for transporting goods primarily. As it stands, road networks in population centres are largely sized to accommodate private motoring.
The company that transports goods should pay for their use of roads. I pay for that through proper pricing of said goods.
Exactly; if the roads are subsidized (as in GP's concern), then some of that subsidy is showing up as a reduced price of goods.
All of that could be done on gravel roads which are a lot cheaper than paved roads. Or trains once we are beyond the last mile.
Paved roads are required when there is a lot of traffic, but all the uses you named are a fraction of road uses.
Paved roads are required when there is a lot of traffic, but all the uses you named are a fraction of road uses.
This is why diesel has a higher tax.
First, you aren't forced to pay any tax, the ride-sharing company is. Businesses like to say that taxes are passed on to their customers, but that's not actually true (depending on the elasticity of demand). If Uber could increase revenue by charging more to cover some new tax, they'd already have done it to increase their profit.
> I don't have a car. why should I pay for your right to drive on the roads for free
That's an issue with every public good, from schools to police to public health to courts to real estate records office, etc. None are utilized anything like equally across the population. Yet we chip in and pay for them because we decide, collectively, that they are important for the community.
Also, you do use the roads all the time even if you don't drive yourself. Your hair stylist uses them to get to work, your groceries get to the store, your customers come to your store, etc. etc. Imagine your situation if there were no roads.
> (semi-)public transportation
It's a private, for-profit company.
> I don't have a car. why should I pay for your right to drive on the roads for free
That's an issue with every public good, from schools to police to public health to courts to real estate records office, etc. None are utilized anything like equally across the population. Yet we chip in and pay for them because we decide, collectively, that they are important for the community.
Also, you do use the roads all the time even if you don't drive yourself. Your hair stylist uses them to get to work, your groceries get to the store, your customers come to your store, etc. etc. Imagine your situation if there were no roads.
> (semi-)public transportation
It's a private, for-profit company.
> Businesses like to say that taxes are passed on to their customers, but that's not actually true (depending on the elasticity of demand). If Uber could increase revenue by charging more to cover some new tax, they'd already have done it to increase their profit.
This isn't quite true. If Uber charged more to increase profit, they would lose more customers to competitors who didn't increase their prices.
Taxes can increase costs for (some of) those competitors as well. In that scenario, prices could rise to absorb the tax and there would be less relative change between competitors.
This is important for incentivising 'societal values', e.g. reducing pollution, increasing public health, etc.; either directly by discouraging people from choosing single-occupier taxis like Uber in favour of e.g. trains and buses; or indirectly by causing companies to compete on reducing their harm (and thereby avoiding the tax).
I don't have specific examples to hand, but I recall some companies advocating for such taxes (e.g. a carbon tax), since they want to make bigger improvements, but doing so individually would make them uncompetitive.
This isn't quite true. If Uber charged more to increase profit, they would lose more customers to competitors who didn't increase their prices.
Taxes can increase costs for (some of) those competitors as well. In that scenario, prices could rise to absorb the tax and there would be less relative change between competitors.
This is important for incentivising 'societal values', e.g. reducing pollution, increasing public health, etc.; either directly by discouraging people from choosing single-occupier taxis like Uber in favour of e.g. trains and buses; or indirectly by causing companies to compete on reducing their harm (and thereby avoiding the tax).
I don't have specific examples to hand, but I recall some companies advocating for such taxes (e.g. a carbon tax), since they want to make bigger improvements, but doing so individually would make them uncompetitive.
> First, you aren't forced to pay any tax, the ride-sharing company is. Businesses like to say that taxes are passed on to their customers, but that's not actually true
It absolutely is in the long run. Reduced margin means fewer competitors and subsequently higher sustained costs for riders. There is little barrier to entry in the “rideshare” market so as long as high margins exist competitors will keep entering with cheaper prices to eat at the margin.
There is no scenario in a competitive market where an input cost is not reflected in the output cost of a good/service.
It absolutely is in the long run. Reduced margin means fewer competitors and subsequently higher sustained costs for riders. There is little barrier to entry in the “rideshare” market so as long as high margins exist competitors will keep entering with cheaper prices to eat at the margin.
There is no scenario in a competitive market where an input cost is not reflected in the output cost of a good/service.
idk. I’ve yet to see an industry that doesn’t concentrate to fewer and fewer operators with time, regardless of taxation.
A natural law of wealth accumulation dictates that as trade continues the players with more wealth already, are increasingly more likely to get even more wealth at the cost of those with less. At time of hardship you would expect the less wealthy players to loose the business which eventually concentrates the industry to 2-5 players through acquisition or bankruptcy. Taxation is actually a way to counter this phenomena by means of redistribution.
EDIT: To clarify the above is only true if industries are competing for customers against each other. While a market is growing the growth of one player does not necessarily come at the cost of another. However at some point the market will be saturated and businesses new customers are exponentially more likely to come from a competitor rather then new to the market. At this point the premise holds true.
A natural law of wealth accumulation dictates that as trade continues the players with more wealth already, are increasingly more likely to get even more wealth at the cost of those with less. At time of hardship you would expect the less wealthy players to loose the business which eventually concentrates the industry to 2-5 players through acquisition or bankruptcy. Taxation is actually a way to counter this phenomena by means of redistribution.
EDIT: To clarify the above is only true if industries are competing for customers against each other. While a market is growing the growth of one player does not necessarily come at the cost of another. However at some point the market will be saturated and businesses new customers are exponentially more likely to come from a competitor rather then new to the market. At this point the premise holds true.
> First, you aren't forced to pay any tax, the ride-sharing company is.
I am forced to pay taxes for the roads since you can't possibly fund all of the rodes solely by taxing ride-sharing companies.
> Businesses like to say that taxes are passed on to their customers, but that's not actually true.
Eh. Economics is not an exact science so there is no way for me to prove it to you. If you don't believe in that (and have another reason why iPhones are more expensive in higher taxed countries) then let's leave that.
> That's an issue with every public good, from schools to police to public health to courts to real estate records office, etc. None are utilized anything like equally across the population. Yet we chip in and pay for them because we decide, collectively, that they are important for the community.
Then why not subsidize cars, or better yet, offer a free car per citizen? In fact, "we" decided that we should tax cars and maybe we should also tax car usage (gas, roads, pollution, ...).
> Your hair stylist uses them to get to work [...] Imagine your situation if there were no roads.
There should be roads. And private drivers shouldn't get out of paying for them.
> It's a private, for-profit company.
Taxis are private and for profit, yet they are considered public transportation.
I am forced to pay taxes for the roads since you can't possibly fund all of the rodes solely by taxing ride-sharing companies.
> Businesses like to say that taxes are passed on to their customers, but that's not actually true.
Eh. Economics is not an exact science so there is no way for me to prove it to you. If you don't believe in that (and have another reason why iPhones are more expensive in higher taxed countries) then let's leave that.
> That's an issue with every public good, from schools to police to public health to courts to real estate records office, etc. None are utilized anything like equally across the population. Yet we chip in and pay for them because we decide, collectively, that they are important for the community.
Then why not subsidize cars, or better yet, offer a free car per citizen? In fact, "we" decided that we should tax cars and maybe we should also tax car usage (gas, roads, pollution, ...).
> Your hair stylist uses them to get to work [...] Imagine your situation if there were no roads.
There should be roads. And private drivers shouldn't get out of paying for them.
> It's a private, for-profit company.
Taxis are private and for profit, yet they are considered public transportation.
>> That's an issue with every public good, from schools to police to public health to courts to real estate records office, etc. None are utilized anything like equally across the population. Yet we chip in and pay for them because we decide, collectively, that they are important for the community.
> Then why not subsidize cars, or better yet, offer a free car per citizen? In fact, "we" decided that we should tax cars and maybe we should also tax car usage (gas, roads, pollution, ...).
OK, why or why not? Are you proposing something?
> There should be roads. And private drivers shouldn't get out of paying for them.
They do pay, via their taxes, which is the generally appropriate way to fund public goods.
> Then why not subsidize cars, or better yet, offer a free car per citizen? In fact, "we" decided that we should tax cars and maybe we should also tax car usage (gas, roads, pollution, ...).
OK, why or why not? Are you proposing something?
> There should be roads. And private drivers shouldn't get out of paying for them.
They do pay, via their taxes, which is the generally appropriate way to fund public goods.
I was responding to your proposal that businesses pay extra, via medallions to use the roads, while private drivers use the road for free (ie. no extra). Rather, I am saying that every user of the road should par for it.
Roads are paided for with taxes on gas. So whoever buys gas pays for road repair. Licenses, fees, etc also go towards that system.
No, they aren’t. There isn’t enough money from the gas tax to cover all of the roads. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/gas-ta...
[deleted]
Why should people pay any tax for any public good that they don't use personally? Schools, healthcare, parks & rec, homeless shelters, space exploration, national defense, fire fighters, vaccine development.
Because we live in a society.
Because we live in a society.
Personal transportation isn't like the things you mentioned. It has -by itself- value to the individual, but not to society. Having no fire fighters quickly becomes an obvious problem. Not having people drive their personal cars all over the city does not.
"Value to society" is the summation of "value to individuals". Arguing that people should not have personal transportation is arguing that "we" have the right to dictate people's lifestyles to them.
> "Value to society" is the summation of "value to individuals".
I disagree, not necessarily, and probably not in the case of unnecessary personal transportation (which is most of it). Everyone in society profits from fire fighters or hospitals, even when they don't need either just this instance. That's not the same for some luxury that some/most people enjoy and want everyone to fund.
> Arguing that people should not have personal transportation is arguing that "we" have the right to dictate people's lifestyles to them.
And we do, and we don't consider that an issue. People shouldn't have personal nuclear bombs, even though some would like to. Also, few people are arguing that personal transportation shouldn't exist, just that the required infrastructure should be funded differently.
I disagree, not necessarily, and probably not in the case of unnecessary personal transportation (which is most of it). Everyone in society profits from fire fighters or hospitals, even when they don't need either just this instance. That's not the same for some luxury that some/most people enjoy and want everyone to fund.
> Arguing that people should not have personal transportation is arguing that "we" have the right to dictate people's lifestyles to them.
And we do, and we don't consider that an issue. People shouldn't have personal nuclear bombs, even though some would like to. Also, few people are arguing that personal transportation shouldn't exist, just that the required infrastructure should be funded differently.
Yes, in principle. Frustratingly, for a goal like 'moving around cheaply, conveniently and safely, with minimal environmental impact', then subsidising driving is a worse investment than public transport.
The person I was replying to was not complaining about how revenue is distributed, they were complaining about revenue being spent at all on a public good that they don't use.
I agree that there is a lot of work to be done to rebalance the equations on how we spend money on roads, public transit, and various forms of energy subsidies. But all else being equal, getting that balance "right" is not going to make personal transit just go away. Some will shift to public transit, but you will always have a case of "your tax money" going to pay for roads used by private transit.
I agree that there is a lot of work to be done to rebalance the equations on how we spend money on roads, public transit, and various forms of energy subsidies. But all else being equal, getting that balance "right" is not going to make personal transit just go away. Some will shift to public transit, but you will always have a case of "your tax money" going to pay for roads used by private transit.
Agreed. But if you analyse things then it's likely people use those facilities at a secondary level - eg you get something done for you by people who used schools to enable them, someone who provides value to your life used the healthcare services.
Yes, that was my point.
Car infrastructure is not a public good.
If the person you're "sharing a ride" with is just going to keep driving around after they drop you off it's not entirely clear to me that single commuters are much worse.
I think ride "sharers" with a single rider are strictly worse. That driver is going to drive a non-zero amount of miles to pick up his next passenger. Those miles are traffic that wouldn't exist if the two passengers drove themselves.
The only thing ride sharing reduces is parking requirements, unless the ride sharing is truly carpooling.
The only thing ride sharing reduces is parking requirements, unless the ride sharing is truly carpooling.
[deleted]
>The last thing you want to do is charge ride sharers and not single commuters, which are much worse.
Are they? They only drive in one direction park and then drive the same route back. No need to go from customer to customer, no need to "circulate" waiting for a customer. The only miles a commuter drives is the miles he has to drive, not a single mile more. I always thought the "your car is idle 99% of the time" statistics are meaningless, yes it's idle, it's idle exactly where and when I want it, there is zero waste.
Of course there are problems with cars, but they also apply to "ridesharing" as well.
Are they? They only drive in one direction park and then drive the same route back. No need to go from customer to customer, no need to "circulate" waiting for a customer. The only miles a commuter drives is the miles he has to drive, not a single mile more. I always thought the "your car is idle 99% of the time" statistics are meaningless, yes it's idle, it's idle exactly where and when I want it, there is zero waste.
Of course there are problems with cars, but they also apply to "ridesharing" as well.
Dynamic tolling is such an obvious solution, easily implemented with license plate scanners.
As someone who has been working on ways for people to self-report driving habits in a privacy-respecting way:
People in the US absolutely loathe the idea of being taxed based on license plate scanners. The combination of automation, surveillance, and taxation is basically toxic across the political spectrum.
People in the US absolutely loathe the idea of being taxed based on license plate scanners. The combination of automation, surveillance, and taxation is basically toxic across the political spectrum.
License plate scanners exist everywhere on the east coast at all the toll booths, and probably elsewhere too. They probably exist at every toll booth, and who knows where else.
I’ve seen cop cars outfitted on all corners with license plate scanners driving around. I even saw parking enforcement cars outfitted with them to track which cars were spending too much time parked in spots with time limits.
I’ve seen cop cars outfitted on all corners with license plate scanners driving around. I even saw parking enforcement cars outfitted with them to track which cars were spending too much time parked in spots with time limits.
I understand that. It doesn't mean people know or think about it on a regular basis, and it's not used to send them bills every month.
People are used to surveillance in law enforcement to some extent. Once you tell them it's a tax agency, they lose their minds. I have participated in large-scale, state-funded studies that have shown this.
People are used to surveillance in law enforcement to some extent. Once you tell them it's a tax agency, they lose their minds. I have participated in large-scale, state-funded studies that have shown this.
I see. I found it very convenient to drive in Canada and not worry about having a specific toll system transponder. It seems so archaic. I even got the bill in the mail in the US.
Gasoline taxes at European levels of $4/gallon is a far more obvious (and effective) solution without additional infrastructure costs.
Has as little chance as dynamic tolling because there's a loud swing vote who wants their road trips and commutes paid from the public coffers.
Has as little chance as dynamic tolling because there's a loud swing vote who wants their road trips and commutes paid from the public coffers.
Living in Europe --
No, it's not. Maybe at 8/gal. But cars still expand to fill all available road space, parking on the sidewalks, and generally demanding that their needs are accounted for first.
No, it's not. Maybe at 8/gal. But cars still expand to fill all available road space, parking on the sidewalks, and generally demanding that their needs are accounted for first.
Over here in civilization we have electric cars that are making “tax gas” a bad solution.
Dynamic tolling is to reduce congestion on specific roads at specific times. Gas tax does not address everyone going to work at 7AM to 9AM and causing congestion then.
It's 2021. We should be minting exclusive rights to operate for taxi owners in the form of NFTs.
Can't tell if this is sarcasm.
>Taxi medallions are bullshit because they have decided in advance that taxi’s only get to use X amount.
why is that bullshit, it might create artificial scarcity of taxi services but it helps prevent the kind of congestion that this article discusses.
why is that bullshit, it might create artificial scarcity of taxi services but it helps prevent the kind of congestion that this article discusses.
The other reason is medallions are very open to corruption - especially in the USA where until relatively recently major cities ran machine systems where spoils where handed out to people on your side.
Doesn’t make any sense, the ride share driver and passenger are just as entitled to the roads as you are.
Being a car owner really warps the mind in a bizarre way in terms of the entitlement most people seem to feel about their own use of public space and how they justify deserving to use it more than others.
Being a car owner really warps the mind in a bizarre way in terms of the entitlement most people seem to feel about their own use of public space and how they justify deserving to use it more than others.
One of the big problems with taxi medallions (at least how they're handled now) is that you pay once, and then get access to them forever, which turns them into an asset and the value of the future cash flow is capitalized into the asset value. Allowing people to buy and own a monopoly isn't a great system.
If it was set up as an yearly auction, that would work okay.
If it was set up as an yearly auction, that would work okay.
While I can see the drawback you describe, isn't that basic capitalism, in regard to any asset? If someone else wants to buy they medallion, they are welcome to make an offer at any time, not just annually.
No, that's basic feudalism. In which you trade privileges for infinite time spans and inherit them across generations. Infini-time auctions are a symptom. Corrupt anti-monopoly office another.
Free Market Capitalism actually designs markets for optimal allocation. Can be recognized by operating anti-monopoly yearly or so auctions.
When people complain about today's capitalism, they actually complain about feudalism. Yet the aristocratic rentiers they actually hate hide behind the productive capitalists, which leaves people confused. The real parasite successfully conceals its presence.
Free Market Capitalism actually designs markets for optimal allocation. Can be recognized by operating anti-monopoly yearly or so auctions.
When people complain about today's capitalism, they actually complain about feudalism. Yet the aristocratic rentiers they actually hate hide behind the productive capitalists, which leaves people confused. The real parasite successfully conceals its presence.
The land ownership model has already been considered a failure for centuries, the medallion system is just it's younger brother. The medallions should be leased from the government.
Is that the only obvious solution? Wouldn't better public transportation (which benefits from economies of scale unlike private automobiles) be equally if not more obvious? Especially since it has a much more proven track record.
I'm not so sure about that track record. In many major cities public transportation has proven miserable, and that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.
Viscous circle. Cars are slightly more convenient which gets a few to drive taking people away from transit which then has less money and becomes less useful making cars more convenient. ..
It doesn't help that most transit agencies are run by people who drive and so they won't use their limited budget to make something as good as possible.
It doesn't help that most transit agencies are run by people who drive and so they won't use their limited budget to make something as good as possible.
Sorry, good point. I meant, given that ride-sharing exists, this is the solution.
No idea why you are getting downvoted!
No idea why you are getting downvoted!
Where I am from - Bulgaria, we don't have a limit on taxis AFAIK. They operate on a sort of franchising system - the taxi companies vet drivers and make sure they follow all regulations, in return the driver gets to put the company's logo on their car and gets connected to the company's order system. It's almost exactly like Uber, but with quality control and regulations. Drivers are also not restricted to using only the company's ordering system, there is at least one app that is entirely independent that drivers can opt to use in parallel with their company's system.
As long as you use a taxi from a well known established company you can expect a high level of service. On the whole taxis are plentiful and cheap.
As long as you use a taxi from a well known established company you can expect a high level of service. On the whole taxis are plentiful and cheap.
Free market enthusiasts like to move the goalpost wherever they see fit. A true free market solution would be that private operators would build and maintain the infrastructure and then lease the usage. I.e. the roads, parking and other ride share accommodations would be owned by a third party company which the ride share company would pay to be allowed to use.
This is obviously a terrible idea, and everybody can see why there is no city that operates roads this way. But it demonstrates that there exists problems which the free market is ill equipped to solve. Road congestion is one of them. A better solution has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread: Congestion taxes + public transportation.
This is obviously a terrible idea, and everybody can see why there is no city that operates roads this way. But it demonstrates that there exists problems which the free market is ill equipped to solve. Road congestion is one of them. A better solution has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread: Congestion taxes + public transportation.
Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid).
The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648
The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648
The natural conclusion to that line of thinking is that all cars bid for using the road. This would certainly help lower traffic, but it would also prevent poor people from using public infrastructure. I think it's very difficult to strike a good balance here.
exporectomy(2)
Your tax dollars pay for roads the same way the tip jar at your coffee shop pays for the barista's college tuition... true in a sense, but ultimately meaningless.
> they are taking my road space
And what's the alternative, assuming N people still need to make trips to a particular location? A traffic jam of people driving around in circles searching for half an hour for parking spaces to snatch?
And what's the alternative, assuming N people still need to make trips to a particular location? A traffic jam of people driving around in circles searching for half an hour for parking spaces to snatch?
> And what's the alternative, assuming N people still need to make trips to a particular location?
Public transport? Works really well in a lot of cities.
Public transport? Works really well in a lot of cities.
I was a big public transit user. Since covid, lockdowns and a lack of seasonal flus and cold I'm starting to wonder how healthy it is to cram as many people as possible together in a hot closed environment.
Their tax dollars paid for them too. There’s no reason businesses should have to pay to use the road, and everybody else shouldn’t. That’s a targeted market intervention, and couldn’t reasonably be described as a free market solution. A general user pays model would be more free market, but then of course you start to economically disenfranchise the poor.
However, constraining productive economic activity as a plan for dealing with inadequate infrastructure development is a fundamentally stupid idea that would impact the prosperity of everybody in the area, whether their business or employment is directly related to transport or not.
However, constraining productive economic activity as a plan for dealing with inadequate infrastructure development is a fundamentally stupid idea that would impact the prosperity of everybody in the area, whether their business or employment is directly related to transport or not.
> Their tax dollars paid for them too. There’s no reason businesses should have to pay to use the road, and everybody else shouldn’t.
There's an essential reason: Businesses are not human beings. They don't have rights and we generally don't provide them with public goods. If a person loses everything and is on the street, that's a tragedy and we try to help them; if they are ill, they are guaranteed medical care (depending on some factors); if they die, it's a serious matter involving grief, sometimes crime, etc. If a business loses everything or is ailing or 'dies', it's just part of the creative destruction of capitalism. I can kill your business and be congratulated. People own the roads and the city - they democratically decide what happens with them - and businesses don't.
It's not so simplistic, of course, but people need access to roads and we generally believe that freedom involves the ability to move around the public areas as one pleases, regardless of wealth or other factors.
There's an essential reason: Businesses are not human beings. They don't have rights and we generally don't provide them with public goods. If a person loses everything and is on the street, that's a tragedy and we try to help them; if they are ill, they are guaranteed medical care (depending on some factors); if they die, it's a serious matter involving grief, sometimes crime, etc. If a business loses everything or is ailing or 'dies', it's just part of the creative destruction of capitalism. I can kill your business and be congratulated. People own the roads and the city - they democratically decide what happens with them - and businesses don't.
It's not so simplistic, of course, but people need access to roads and we generally believe that freedom involves the ability to move around the public areas as one pleases, regardless of wealth or other factors.
> but people need access to roads and we generally believe that freedom involves the ability to move around the public areas as one pleases, regardless of wealth or other factors.
But not if they’re conducting business?
But not if they’re conducting business?
> The university built a dedicated ride-sharing area nearby and prohibited ride-sharing services from the plaza. This largely solved the problems (although enforcement is an ongoing issue).
I hate it when you realize the ride-sharing area is in some offsite parking lot when there's a pick-up area right at the door.
Driver should only enter the plaza with a confirmed pick-up (go wait in the designated area), not lazily relocating every ride-share.
I hate it when you realize the ride-sharing area is in some offsite parking lot when there's a pick-up area right at the door.
Driver should only enter the plaza with a confirmed pick-up (go wait in the designated area), not lazily relocating every ride-share.
This reminds me of all the nearby school parking lots at ~8am and ~3pm every day
(well, pre-covid)
Even though most of the kids walked, many were not allowed to walk and there were logjams of cars down the block and through the parking lot with plenty of idiocy.
(well, pre-covid)
Even though most of the kids walked, many were not allowed to walk and there were logjams of cars down the block and through the parking lot with plenty of idiocy.
"Ride sharing can cause problems unless people who do not benefit from the ride sharing dedicate land and money to alleviating those problems" is a long way of saying "ride sharing causes problems".
No one said the quoted bit (your "long way of saying"). Please don't make up quotes (at all), but especially please do not make one up if the only intent is to dump on how bad an idea it would be for someone to actually say it.
I said it. The second set of quote marks here do not mark a quotation from someone else, they mark my paraphrase of the first quote.
No worry has been directed at the second set of quotation marks. It's "the first quote"—which is not a quote, because it's something pulled out of thin air—that is the problem. It's also against the rules:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15893789
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13602947
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15893789
Because Uber drivers are not always transporting people. About half the time, they are driving their empty car ("deadheading") on their way to pick someone up. This still contributes to traffic congestion.
The study also found a corresponding 9% drop in public transport ridership.
The study also found a corresponding 9% drop in public transport ridership.
Why half the time? I'd expect that Uber tries to allocate a nearby driver, so that most pickups are near the last drop-off.
And of course with Uber Pool and Lyft Line, there may be only a slight detour for pickups.
This situation seems better than taxis, which drive an empty car around when they're NOT EVEN on their way to pick someone up. They'll just drive around and around waiting for someone to stick their arm out.
And of course with Uber Pool and Lyft Line, there may be only a slight detour for pickups.
This situation seems better than taxis, which drive an empty car around when they're NOT EVEN on their way to pick someone up. They'll just drive around and around waiting for someone to stick their arm out.
Actually if you look at the complete research report they quote a study which says 40% not 50%:
"due to the substantial deadheading miles (miles travelled without a passenger), which account for at least 40.8% of TNC miles"
"due to the substantial deadheading miles (miles travelled without a passenger), which account for at least 40.8% of TNC miles"
They also just drive around "hot" spots with the hope that they will get a customer. Realistically Uber will not match a customer with a driver who is 45' away. They also cannot park like taxis do in designated locations (they are very rare for uber), so they have to keep driving.
45' means 45 minutes, I guess?
It does. Personally, as an amateur astronomer, I just read it without thinking.
However, I can see how many people may take several " to work it out.
However, I can see how many people may take several " to work it out.
Certainly, there is spare capacity of empty ride-sharing cars; it's not just-in-time inventory where they drop someone off and immediately pick someone up.
Also, in many jurisdictions, capacity for taxis is limited; that's what the medallions are for. Ride-sharing capacity is not limited.
I haven't seen data on whether taxis or ride-sharing have more spare capacity in terms of miles, but I have seen data that ride-sharing vehicles significantly increase traffic.
Also, in many jurisdictions, capacity for taxis is limited; that's what the medallions are for. Ride-sharing capacity is not limited.
I haven't seen data on whether taxis or ride-sharing have more spare capacity in terms of miles, but I have seen data that ride-sharing vehicles significantly increase traffic.
> This situation seems better than taxis, which drive an empty car around when they're NOT EVEN on their way to pick someone up.
This is true, but mainly for dense cities prior to Uber/Lyft, and even then cabs driving looking for fares would be in the central part of the city. Here in NYC back in the day I’d rarely find a cab just driving around in Brooklyn, you’d typically find them on main roads driving back to Manhattan after dropping off their last fare if you did.
Now there are just a lot more for hire vehicles driving around the city in general. There was an artificial shortage of medallions, with about 14000 of them back before the apps, plus a bunch of for hire car services (and dollar vans on Flatbush). Now there’s about 100,000 cars for hire in NYC.
This is true, but mainly for dense cities prior to Uber/Lyft, and even then cabs driving looking for fares would be in the central part of the city. Here in NYC back in the day I’d rarely find a cab just driving around in Brooklyn, you’d typically find them on main roads driving back to Manhattan after dropping off their last fare if you did.
Now there are just a lot more for hire vehicles driving around the city in general. There was an artificial shortage of medallions, with about 14000 of them back before the apps, plus a bunch of for hire car services (and dollar vans on Flatbush). Now there’s about 100,000 cars for hire in NYC.
Drivers ultimately choose to snag rides or not. Many a times I see local drivers circling my area, only the one who ends up grabbing my ride many times is the one 10 miles away on the freeway heading the opposite direction. Now I need to wait 15 minutes while they exit and double back, and if I cancel I might get ranked as a bad passenger.
Things may have changed, but last time I read about this topic, Uber is doing a lot less to help the efficiency of the drivers than you’d think. Making real money requires the driver’s themselves to learn their local area’s hotspots and strategies. Which probably makes sense from their incentive perspective.
I think Boise was making a general point.
It's not just deadheading that is the problem. It's also the traffic caused by them stopping in the middle of lanes for pickups and dropoffs, driving around going 3mph looking for their pickup, and various other behaviors.
None of those things are very problematic on very small scales...an inconvenience at most. But just a tad more than that, and it can create absolute chaos.
None of those things are very problematic on very small scales...an inconvenience at most. But just a tad more than that, and it can create absolute chaos.
FTA: "The researchers think that the substantial deadheading miles (miles traveled without a passenger) by TNCs could contribute to the TNC’s negative impact on road congestion. According to some other studies, approximately 40.8 percent of TNC miles are deadheading miles."
Uber could optimize this by predicting where demand will be and telling a subset of drivers to move there. Right now drivers predict and move to hotspots in herds.
Uber could optimize this by predicting where demand will be and telling a subset of drivers to move there. Right now drivers predict and move to hotspots in herds.
I have no way of knowing whether this true in aggregate, but personally the existence of ride sharing has led to me dropping my car, since it covers some tail-end last mile problems that public transit cannot. Maybe there was only a 1 percent drop in car ownership, but if public transit were improved I think ride sharing would still be solving important last mile problems.
I think for last mile, the bike is a great solution, if the infrastructure would be there. Bike lanes separate from car roads etc.
It also seems like e-scooters would solve this given the proper infrastructure and planning, but those have other problems and that infrastructure wasn't there when the idea was done 2018/2019.
This is actually what I do for most last-mile needs, but I use ride share when I need to travel 5+ miles one way quickly. Also, scooters and bikes just aren't safe at night or in rainy/windy weather.
It's impossible to sustain most big cities with just bikes for the last mile problem. It's just not practical to do your last mile on the cold or the rain every single day if you have a coastal or a very cold winter. Whatever that thing is that's there for those days is probably very similar to ride sharing, or it's just very good public transportation so that it's the last block and not the last mile.
Plenty of people cycle to work or school no matter what the weather... A good raincoat helps
Plenty of people live with dirt floors too. Doesn't mean they like it.
I'm tempted to say this is an attitude issue? Perhaps it's even an idea the car lobby wants to promote.
There's nothing inherently bad about rainy, slushy or snowy weather. It's just water. Getting wet is not going to melt you.
There's nothing inherently bad about rainy, slushy or snowy weather. It's just water. Getting wet is not going to melt you.
I feel like people haven't actually done those things here, they just say it as a matter of faith.
It's miserable trying to bicycle in slush, or in near freezing temperatures. Bicycling any length of time in the rain also is miserable. Strong wind makes things worse, and there's only so much you can do to compensate. Let alone what happens when you get sick from a chill, or you work at a job that has lots of physical labor or standing time, or bike in high heat with no showers available at your job.
I used to do so a lot as a young man, and it really does limit you. Sometimes you just give up the bike and walk, because the weather is that bad.
It's miserable trying to bicycle in slush, or in near freezing temperatures. Bicycling any length of time in the rain also is miserable. Strong wind makes things worse, and there's only so much you can do to compensate. Let alone what happens when you get sick from a chill, or you work at a job that has lots of physical labor or standing time, or bike in high heat with no showers available at your job.
I used to do so a lot as a young man, and it really does limit you. Sometimes you just give up the bike and walk, because the weather is that bad.
I agree strongly. I did it, or tried, for months in Minnesota winter.
It was unbelievably terrible. I was actually okay with the biking in 90+ degree heat, but it required more careful planning on water consumption. And, I have a pretty high tolerance for general wet misery. I once spent a weekend lying in puddles in the rain, and it was fine.
But the winter biking, holy hell. The cold and road slush are the real killers for winter biking. The cold can make it physically painful, and the slush makes it both dangerous, and consumes a huge amount of time on maintenance - especially when it's a salt-brine slush. That stuff disintegrates your bike (or at least my bike).
It was unbelievably terrible. I was actually okay with the biking in 90+ degree heat, but it required more careful planning on water consumption. And, I have a pretty high tolerance for general wet misery. I once spent a weekend lying in puddles in the rain, and it was fine.
But the winter biking, holy hell. The cold and road slush are the real killers for winter biking. The cold can make it physically painful, and the slush makes it both dangerous, and consumes a huge amount of time on maintenance - especially when it's a salt-brine slush. That stuff disintegrates your bike (or at least my bike).
No it isn't going to hurt me, but given the option, I would prefer to arrive at work dry and/or not needing to shower and change clothes.
If your feet get wet in most shoes, they are wet the entire day. It sucks. Investing in the correct rain gear you need takes money and time to research options, both are things that not everyone has to spare.
Not everyone needs to ride a bicycle all the time. But perhaps we can increase the number of people willing to do so by providing safe infrastructure.
Investing in a car also takes money and time to research options.
Working people buy on price not on quality, for a car or shoes. They can't afford to be choosy. A $2000 car is a steep price but is much more reliable and/or safe transport than a bus, or bike which is why we typically see working class people in this country opt to buy cars as soon as they can afford them. Because the bus and bike experience is not reliable in this country for most people.
Water does complicate things and takes extra effort to deal with.
A car sidesteps it with a big set of convenience.
While convenience is king for the end consumer that's what will happen for most people.
A car sidesteps it with a big set of convenience.
While convenience is king for the end consumer that's what will happen for most people.
Not really: you still need to get from where you park the car to the front door of where you are going. That is a shorter distance, but you still need something to deal with weather.
I forget where I saw it, but someone did a study which showed that bike ridership was strongly correlated with the quality and maintenance of the biking infrastructure and either only weakly correlated or not correlated at all with the weather.
There's no city in the world with bad weather and good biking infrastructure. How can they study that with data? Amsterdam is the closest I can imagine and it's a very small city so you usually bike a few blocks.
I believe the study was done in Norway, but I am struggling to remember the details. The point was that no one had any problem with cycling in the winter if there were good bike paths where snow was plowed with the same priority as roads.
Also, it's a solution for a physically able demographic. Elderly people and many others need last-mile transportation too - and they are even more dependent on it the physically healthy.
We should be striving for a society where the elderly are just as capable of cycling as they are of driving. With electric motors assisting the subset of people not able to do so while also not qualifying for a disabled mobility scooter should be rather small.
While I am a strong advocate of biking, if my elderly relative falls, even once, it could be disastrous.
In one elderly couple I know, they sustain permanent or serious injuries when they fall just walking, and they don't heal so fast or well. One slipped in the bathroom and broke their collarbone. The other slipped on the sidewalk and has permanently lost significant function in their left (dominant) hand. An injury that requires prolonged immobility, such as a broken hip, not uncommonly leads to death.
No way are they riding a bike. Not only would they hit cement at bicycle speeds, they lack coordination, strength, and mental acuity. I have been in many situations on bikes that they simply couldn't handle. As one simple example, what happens if there is no curbcut or some other obstacle. I can simply lift by bicycle over any obstacle; they cannot always do that, and especially with the added weight of a battery, and then consider that a tricycle is the only feasible option for their balance.
In one elderly couple I know, they sustain permanent or serious injuries when they fall just walking, and they don't heal so fast or well. One slipped in the bathroom and broke their collarbone. The other slipped on the sidewalk and has permanently lost significant function in their left (dominant) hand. An injury that requires prolonged immobility, such as a broken hip, not uncommonly leads to death.
No way are they riding a bike. Not only would they hit cement at bicycle speeds, they lack coordination, strength, and mental acuity. I have been in many situations on bikes that they simply couldn't handle. As one simple example, what happens if there is no curbcut or some other obstacle. I can simply lift by bicycle over any obstacle; they cannot always do that, and especially with the added weight of a battery, and then consider that a tricycle is the only feasible option for their balance.
> While I am a strong advocate of biking, if my elderly relative falls, even once, it could be disastrous.
That can easily be a confusion of cause and effect. I have multiple 80+ neighbours and relative who ride a bike daily - which is what makes them fitter for events like falling in the first place. It's well researched that physical fitness both prevents accidents and reduces recovery times for the elderly.
That can easily be a confusion of cause and effect. I have multiple 80+ neighbours and relative who ride a bike daily - which is what makes them fitter for events like falling in the first place. It's well researched that physical fitness both prevents accidents and reduces recovery times for the elderly.
If you're fit to drive a car, you're fit to ride an electric tricycle at least in mild weather. Obviously we need options for people who can't drive anymore, and frailer people in bad weather, too. But that doesn't mean that bicycles can't play a _much_ larger role in last mile transportation than they do today.
Really you aren't. My mother has knee issues, yet can still use a car fine. A bicycle would be ridiculous. You are not riding bicycles 60+ unless you are very healthy, and electric wont change that. This is just people who think their little fetishes work for everyone
I have knee issues since I was 18. My doctor recommended riding my bicycle more. It helped. In any case the point is not the everybody is forced to ride a bicycle, but that everybody can safely and comfortably choose not to drive.
Just get them a tricycle.
That isn’t the right characterization because there are many elderly who can neither drive nor ride a bike. They can however be passengers of public transportation or of cars. They may not want to ride on disabled mobility scooters either and those don’t seem to work well on hills or in inclement weather.
It's funny how you can't cycle in the winter in North America but you can in Scandinavia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=749s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=749s
> It's impossible to sustain most big cities with just bikes for the last mile problem.
You've made an assumption that most cities have a period of un-rideable weather every year and that's just not the case.
You've made an assumption that most cities have a period of un-rideable weather every year and that's just not the case.
A majority of cities always have rideable weather? Which ones?
Well it depends on who you ask I suppose, but there's rarely a day you can't ride in Adelaide Australia, certainly not so often that you would throw the idea of bicycles as a last mile solution out the window, and South Australia's climate pretty closely matches San Fran. It's also just not that bad to ride in the rain if you were prepared for it. It usually stops raining in ten minutes here anyway. It's just not a strong argument to not focus on bicycle infrastructure.
I didn't say the majority have good weather either, I just disagree with the premise that "most" have unrideable seasons. Maybe "most" have an unrideable day or week but there are days you can't drive too and we don't pull funding from road infrastructure because of it.
I didn't say the majority have good weather either, I just disagree with the premise that "most" have unrideable seasons. Maybe "most" have an unrideable day or week but there are days you can't drive too and we don't pull funding from road infrastructure because of it.
Just FYI, I think Adelaide gets substantially hotter than SF. Adelaide's highest temperatures are around 110° F every year, [1] whereas SF rarely breaks 100° F. [2]
In addition to different high temperatures, SF also has surprisingly cold summers.
Having lived in CA for most of my life (and having visited AU once), I'd say the temperatures are more similar in Sacramento or Los Angeles, and to a lesser degree Palo Alto.
1: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/Australia/SA/A...
2: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/CA/San-Fra...
In addition to different high temperatures, SF also has surprisingly cold summers.
Having lived in CA for most of my life (and having visited AU once), I'd say the temperatures are more similar in Sacramento or Los Angeles, and to a lesser degree Palo Alto.
1: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/Australia/SA/A...
2: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/CA/San-Fra...
Almost every city in the EU? I live in Germany and ride every day of the year.
Cities have spend billions on developing bike infrastructure, typically by removing roads, and the best they tend to manage is a low single digit improvements in % of commuters biking (if they get any improvement at all). It’s such an demonstrable failure of an idea that I struggle to believe that people can still suggest it with a straight face.
Which city spent billions on developing bike infrastructure? In Berlin the share of trips done by bike increased by 40% between 2013 and 2018 and we certainly didn't spend billions on it. We did spend about a billion on building 3km of new Autobahn through the city, but that's a different story.
San Francisco alone has budgeted over a billion dollars for cycle lanes, and since 2013 has managed to decrease it’s % of cycling commuters from 3.8% to 3.1%. There are some cities in the world that have a high demand for cycling infrastructure, in those cities it makes sense to spend money on it. There are 0 cities in the world that have managed to build a cycling culture out of infrastructure spending. This “built it and they will come” idea has been so thoroughly debunked, you have to be drinking some rather strong coolaid to still have any faith in it. If you look at the numbers, it turns out that it’s better to spend infrastructure budget on things people actually want to use.
A billion dollars over how many years? How much of that is already spent? When I was in SF two years ago I didn't see any cycling infra that could've cost a billion dollars. I think I only saw two cycle lanes. I certainly wouldn't feel safe to cycle there.
The bus will still have to wait on or go around rideshare drivers who have their Park Anywhere lights on. Here in SF it's compounded by the limited range of mobility of certain buses as they can't really leave their intended travel lane without losing power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_pole
Trolleybuses can have batteries too, the new Chinese buses in CDMX do.
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/yutong-begins-the-deliv...
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/yutong-begins-the-deliv...
> The bus will still have to wait on or go around rideshare drivers
This is why transit-only lanes are important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis
This is why transit-only lanes are important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis
We have plenty of those in CA. Lane enforcement is nonexistant, though, so you get stuff like rideshares/police/delivery/city vehicles/trash cans parked in the bus/bike lanes typically.
What is needed is for people to start complaining when that happens. If you are on the bus and your lane is locked call the police. If it is a police officer get the car number and write in a formal complaint. You acting along won't make a difference, but everyone else on doing the same will quickly make your pressure known and change will happen so spread the word.
This is a city where police do not care if your bike is stolen. A complaint about a bike lane violation that might clear up 15 minutes after I call won't carry much water. The cops parking in the bike lanes know what they are doing. The trash people leaving cans know what they are doing, and sanitation is probably the most corrupt department in this city. My councilmember isn't going to care what I have to say unless I have cash to donate/bribe, I have written plenty of emails and received plenty of canned responses about a variety of things in this city and operates autonomously. I don't have the free time to start a grass roots effort on trash cans in bike lanes of all things. The status quo contains an amazing amount of inertia, that's why little seems to get done in the name of public works. Such is life in American municipalities.
It is a statistic which they have to collect. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Though it might be time to vote for someone else. If your council member doesn't care what you think, then vote for someone else. SF is big, but it is still small enough for votes to matter. You have already rejected grass roots, but that is the real answer. And it need not be you doing much, just make sure the ones who are doing something get noticed by your peers.
Though it might be time to vote for someone else. If your council member doesn't care what you think, then vote for someone else. SF is big, but it is still small enough for votes to matter. You have already rejected grass roots, but that is the real answer. And it need not be you doing much, just make sure the ones who are doing something get noticed by your peers.
When public transit is done right, last mile is more like last 500 feet, and a walk.
Maybe for S-bahns far out it's a mile, but bikeshare should cover that.
Maybe for S-bahns far out it's a mile, but bikeshare should cover that.
I completely agree - I love the German train system - but we can't get there overnight. While we wait (optimistically) 50+ years for the US transit infrastructure to develop, we need rideshare.
Bikeshare. Rideshare is a colossally inefficient in both labor and material terms. Bikeshare including wagons for kids and cargo is far, far better.
Also we can do it much faster if we accept we need to make driving worse. See https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... cars and trains are fundamentally opposed, so every time build American-style light rail and yet continue widening highways we shoot ourselves in both feet.
Accepting the reality that we need carets and sticks to radically reform our material culture, demolish highways, shred zoning laws, crank up the gas tax, and then suddenly find your trains full, bikes all in use, people clamoring for more, the private sector helping with the easy stuff, and more growth in general.
Also we can do it much faster if we accept we need to make driving worse. See https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... cars and trains are fundamentally opposed, so every time build American-style light rail and yet continue widening highways we shoot ourselves in both feet.
Accepting the reality that we need carets and sticks to radically reform our material culture, demolish highways, shred zoning laws, crank up the gas tax, and then suddenly find your trains full, bikes all in use, people clamoring for more, the private sector helping with the easy stuff, and more growth in general.
> but we can't get there overnight
Why not? Buses are cheap and can operate on existing infrastructure. Sure there are places like Seattle where the buses are congested and more expensive rail infrastructure is needed, but that is not true in majority of American cities. Quite often the bus lines are even already there, but run so infrequently that they are unusable for the majority of people (think El Paso).
For most of Americans the problem could literally be solved over night.
Why not? Buses are cheap and can operate on existing infrastructure. Sure there are places like Seattle where the buses are congested and more expensive rail infrastructure is needed, but that is not true in majority of American cities. Quite often the bus lines are even already there, but run so infrequently that they are unusable for the majority of people (think El Paso).
For most of Americans the problem could literally be solved over night.
The limit to that is how fast we can make more buses. Those lines are built for expected demand, and if cities suddenly start buying all the buses they should have to get a useful transit system they need a large expansion.
Though if cities actually did put for that investment, in a few years there would be enough riders as to pay off the investment. I'm not hopeful though: most cities have transit executives who don't care about transit, and so if given a ton of money will instead invest in transit art - things that look good but don't improve transit.
Though if cities actually did put for that investment, in a few years there would be enough riders as to pay off the investment. I'm not hopeful though: most cities have transit executives who don't care about transit, and so if given a ton of money will instead invest in transit art - things that look good but don't improve transit.
You can’t do public transit right in areas that are insufficiently densely populated, like the vast majority of the US. There’s simply not enough people to be able to pay for the costs.
Well, doing public transit right means densifying. Density is a virtue on it's own so this is fine.
How is density a virtue?
Try making faster CPUs without doing die shrinks.
Expecting perpetual economic growth without densification is equally absurd.
Expecting perpetual economic growth without densification is equally absurd.
It breeds efficiency and self sufficiency. Less wasted resources on virtually every metric.
Suburbia on the other hand makes us all worse off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...
Suburbia on the other hand makes us all worse off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...
Except living in suburbia is a delight. I appreciate not everyone shares that perspective, but in my view everything from not sharing walls, to quiet streets for kids to ride bikes, to garages large enough for a boat or trailer, to large public parks. I think that's why you're seeing so many presently move in that direction. Densification is great, but for all the people. I lived in the city for ten years. I'll never do it again.
It is a delight, for those who can afford it. For others, and future generations subject to the effects of pollution, it will not be such a delight.
Having money has always and will always lead to a more comfortable life. Pollution is all a matter of degree, and cities produce plenty of it, even if per capita numbers are marginally less.
Energy = force * distance = mass * acceleration * distance .
I don’t think dense living energy usage is only marginally less due to the extra distance all the mass has to travel. And with current technology, the energy used is basically a proxy for pollution.
The more mass you move (water, sewage, gas, waste, supplies, people) longer distances, the more you pollute. I.e. the more space you use, the more you pollute. Just like using most other material resources.
I don’t think dense living energy usage is only marginally less due to the extra distance all the mass has to travel. And with current technology, the energy used is basically a proxy for pollution.
The more mass you move (water, sewage, gas, waste, supplies, people) longer distances, the more you pollute. I.e. the more space you use, the more you pollute. Just like using most other material resources.
I only mean “marginally” insofar as living in a cabin with no electricity and growing your own food would use even less. We are all living very high energy lifestyles. The difference, as always, is on the margin. Modern conveniences and comforts come at a price, both ecologically and economically. It’s just a question of whether that price is worth it.
> per capita numbers are marginally less
It's not marginal at all, but a huge difference. Rich inner suburbs ("Democrat suburbs" you might say) are the worst polluters per capita, and urban and some truly rural areas the best, but the truly rural case absolutely doesn't scale.
I'm sorry, but your boats-the-shed fantasyland is slowly killing us all.
It's not marginal at all, but a huge difference. Rich inner suburbs ("Democrat suburbs" you might say) are the worst polluters per capita, and urban and some truly rural areas the best, but the truly rural case absolutely doesn't scale.
I'm sorry, but your boats-the-shed fantasyland is slowly killing us all.
Personally I wouldn’t be against suburbia if people could work and shop nearby (as in 5 min drive / 20 min walk at most), and if there would be sufficient cheap public transit to the center for kids to attend cultural events like the cinema or sports. However that is usually not the case when suburbia is zoned and we end up with nightmare land use and traffic congestion as suburbia commutes to work + leisure.
Honestly, I think the pandemic is driving some of this. And if you have a family, it's a lot easier to find space to comfortably work from home in a 3000 square foot suburban home than it is a 1500 square foot flat in the city. And with less people driving downtown, taking your car into the city for the symphony or a game is less of a chore. At least in Portland, Oregon, traffic jams have eased considerably in the last year. We'll see whether that persists, but I know my company is adopting a policy that will accommodate a lot more working from home long term.
> quiet streets for kids to ride bikes
Getting rid of cars would solve that problem regardless of density.
> large public parks
Denser everything else frees up more space for parks. (I sometimes think of a "fractal density" which is high on average but has tons of variation to keep things beautiful.)
Getting rid of cars would solve that problem regardless of density.
> large public parks
Denser everything else frees up more space for parks. (I sometimes think of a "fractal density" which is high on average but has tons of variation to keep things beautiful.)
I am not convinced there will ever be a universe where we are "getting rid of cars." At best, I think, we decrease emissions associated with them.
I wonder if people said something similar about horses back in the 1850s New York: “At best we breed horses with that don’t leave as much manure on the streets”, DVDs in the early 2000s “at best we make better recycling facilities and our landfills won’t be full of plastic” or oil lamps in the 1840s “at best we will be able to find a plentiful hunting grounds where we’ll never run out of whale oil”.
> At best, I think, we decrease emissions associated with them.
You are saying at best make them less bad, but used just as often? Forget other universe, what about the other countries that successfully do what I speak of?
You are saying at best make them less bad, but used just as often? Forget other universe, what about the other countries that successfully do what I speak of?
[deleted]
How many planets would we need to support this idyllic lifestyle you describe for 7 billion humans?
If your lifestyle is inherently non sustainable or non scalable, then you only get to live it because you're at the top of a pyramid scheme.
If your lifestyle is inherently non sustainable or non scalable, then you only get to live it because you're at the top of a pyramid scheme.
I’m not sure I even disagree with that. Is your proposal that because everyone can’t have it nobody should?
No. There will always be inequality.
But we're already running over budget on the resources we do have, https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/past-earth-overshoot-d....
Unless we want to accept some kind of extreme depopulation events (either by choice or by systemic failure) then we have to learn to live a lot more efficiently than we do now. And the long term costs of running suburbs are not fully internalized to the people choosing to live like that.
But we're already running over budget on the resources we do have, https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/past-earth-overshoot-d....
Unless we want to accept some kind of extreme depopulation events (either by choice or by systemic failure) then we have to learn to live a lot more efficiently than we do now. And the long term costs of running suburbs are not fully internalized to the people choosing to live like that.
While I agree that part of the solution is to increase density (and more importantly provide affordable housing close to where people work; and also—just as important—provide good jobs close to where people live), you can for sure improve peoples lives a lot in the mean time by throwing some money at the problem. A frequent bus route from the less dense neighborhoods to the center might not be profitable in the strict sense, and might run many trips empty or near empty, but it will certainly improve many people’s lives.
Politically, it has and will be seen as a waste of resources to run empty buses which then translates to “public transit does not work, it’s a waste of money, cancel it”.
In my experience people are generally in favor of this kind of “waste of money” if it is done in their neighborhood.
A good example is ST3 in the Seattle area. Seattleites and their neighbors overwhelmingly supported the expensive and radical expansion of the rapid transit system in the area and were more then willing to pay the increased taxes for it... Opposition came mostly from the eastern parts of the state even though the taxes are only to be collected in the proximate areas to the expansion.
In fact I can’t recall any examples of people calling for the cancellation of existing public transit. The backlash is usually against planed expansions from distant areas.
A good example is ST3 in the Seattle area. Seattleites and their neighbors overwhelmingly supported the expensive and radical expansion of the rapid transit system in the area and were more then willing to pay the increased taxes for it... Opposition came mostly from the eastern parts of the state even though the taxes are only to be collected in the proximate areas to the expansion.
In fact I can’t recall any examples of people calling for the cancellation of existing public transit. The backlash is usually against planed expansions from distant areas.
Seattle is in the middle of an exceptional economic boom. Typically, these things start showing when budgets start getting strained and taxes are already high and cuts have to be made.
I’ve seen a few places on the East coast where voters resonate with political candidates that decry the subsidies to public transit, and call for increases in fares or decrease in frequency of bus/train service.
I’ve seen a few places on the East coast where voters resonate with political candidates that decry the subsidies to public transit, and call for increases in fares or decrease in frequency of bus/train service.
True, but the density needed for a useful bus is a lot less than people think. With an investment in buses and useful routes most of the us could have useful buses with a good number of riders.
Frequency is the problem. A bus is useless to me if there is 1 every 30min and missing it means I waste another 29min. It needs to be every 5, maybe 10 min at most to make me not want a car at current car costs in most of the US.
Agreed, but the density of suburbs supports a bus every 10 minutes in some countries.
In this article ride-sharing is just a weird euphemism for taxis you order via an app, right? Or are they referring to something other than Uber?
No, it's just Uber etc.. Which is a completely different meaning than ride-sharing had ten years ago.
From what I recall it was exactly the same 10 years ago.
This is a repeating pattern, let's reinvent X but call it something else to bask in the rays of disruption and mislead regulators/consumers long enough to succeed.
This is a repeating pattern, let's reinvent X but call it something else to bask in the rays of disruption and mislead regulators/consumers long enough to succeed.
Until recently, ride sharing meant sharing a ride with another driver who was already going the same way as you, without a commercial side (although you might be expected to chip in for petrol). Somewhere in between carpooling and hitchhiking.
Uber hijacked the term and took it over to mean a commercial enterprise that is basically unlicensed taxis via smartapp.
Uber hijacked the term and took it over to mean a commercial enterprise that is basically unlicensed taxis via smartapp.
Uber and Lyft business are terribly dishonest. Getting billions of dollars pumped into them so that they could use their non-profitable momentum to destroy other means of transportation is the modern equivalent of streetcar company takeovers of the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
What does a 1% increase in congestion mean for people in traffic?
How much value did that increase in congestion (and environmental impact) provide ride-sharing customers?
How much value did that increase in congestion (and environmental impact) provide ride-sharing customers?
> What does a 1% increase in congestion mean for people in traffic?
Well, the article indicates the increase was 1% in amount of congestion, and 4.5% in duration. So, I suppose that means people in traffic are in traffic longer?
Well, the article indicates the increase was 1% in amount of congestion, and 4.5% in duration. So, I suppose that means people in traffic are in traffic longer?
A fair amount of people will adjust their working hours to get a reasonable commute. They would prefer to work 8-5 (because that is what the day is setup to be - at least one friend (or their kid's school!) is on a fixed shift that cannot change, so matching shifts makes sense as it means the most time outside of work. However if that ideal time is too crowded they will adjust to a more reasonable compromise for their situation.
That is why rush hour exists. In Des Monies it is more like 15 minutes, in Minneapolis it is several hours. The idea is the same though: the time when the most people are trying to get someplace at the same time.
That is why rush hour exists. In Des Monies it is more like 15 minutes, in Minneapolis it is several hours. The idea is the same though: the time when the most people are trying to get someplace at the same time.
More accessibility to a car => more car on the road => more traffic jam.
The title is misleading, it found a 1% increase in congestion.
[deleted]
1% in amount, 4.5% in duration
I expect the same thing or worse with “self-driving” cars.
True, but slightly different. Self driving cars will mostly leave the built up area looking for free parking as close as possible. Gas (or electric) is a lot cheaper than downtown parking, so for those going to work sending your car to find cheap parking is cost effective even though it adds to congestion - and you aren't even in the car to care.
There will be a few people who give up the car for taxis since without paying a driver taxis are cheaper, but those won't be near as popular as people think.
There will be a few people who give up the car for taxis since without paying a driver taxis are cheaper, but those won't be near as popular as people think.
Well yeah I can see their ass circling the block like vultures constantly looking for a pickup in the app.
Just like taxis
They don't mean "ride sharing". They mean unlicensed taxi services such as Uber. It's not carpooling.
[deleted]
"Unlicensed taxi" is a stock phrase from anti-Uber scaremongering, but my Uber is licensed by the Taxi and Limousine Commission. (Well, these days it's more an occasional Lyft, but still.)
So call it a taxi then. It's still not a rideshare (except for the actual shared ride services like UberPool).
[deleted]
That is probably an exception, and Uber and Lyft were definitely breaking the law acting as unlicensed taxi for the vast majority of their existence.
Right, and they called it "ride sharing" to try to deflect attention from that fact, as if people were really just picking up strangers along the way on drives they were making anyway.
Good. Everyone who is not relying on the strongmen with guns to put a moat around their business is benefiting from Uber and Lyft.
> strongmen with guns
You mean the democratic choice of local citizens?
You mean the democratic choice of local citizens?
You don't have to be suspicious of election results to have low faith in government. And it doesn't change that the state operates under the implicit threat of violence.
> the state operates under the implicit threat of violence
No, despite that hot trope, it's not true and doesn't survive much examination. I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state; that's certainly not why I do anything. In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people. If they lose it, no matter how much violence they use, the state collapses. This isn't theoretical; it's government 101.
I'm not saying that violence isn't used, but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone.
No, despite that hot trope, it's not true and doesn't survive much examination. I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state; that's certainly not why I do anything. In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people. If they lose it, no matter how much violence they use, the state collapses. This isn't theoretical; it's government 101.
I'm not saying that violence isn't used, but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone.
> I have never experienced a threat of violence
Because you decide not to partake in whatever would cause that. This might or might not be a decision you notice. You probably wouldn't kill someone else even if it was legal. Would you do drugs if it was legal (to pick on a current hot topic)? I generally support my state, but that doesn't mean that the state doesn't exist because it uses force on those who don't like it.
> In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people.
Myanmar is a current counter example: the military just took over and few people have the ability to do anything about it, and those who are trying are doing at risk of their life.
Because you decide not to partake in whatever would cause that. This might or might not be a decision you notice. You probably wouldn't kill someone else even if it was legal. Would you do drugs if it was legal (to pick on a current hot topic)? I generally support my state, but that doesn't mean that the state doesn't exist because it uses force on those who don't like it.
> In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people.
Myanmar is a current counter example: the military just took over and few people have the ability to do anything about it, and those who are trying are doing at risk of their life.
> I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state
I have not experienced !== it does not exist. That isn't theoretical; it's logic 101.
> but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone.
You and "almost everyone" support the rules of this specific set of laws, there are others who have morals that do not line up with that set of laws very well who do indeed follow them due to thread of force. That's government 101.
Most people !== every person. That should be evident by us talking about Uber and Lyft circumventing these rules. The fact that this conversation is happening invalidates your thesis.
I have not experienced !== it does not exist. That isn't theoretical; it's logic 101.
> but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone.
You and "almost everyone" support the rules of this specific set of laws, there are others who have morals that do not line up with that set of laws very well who do indeed follow them due to thread of force. That's government 101.
Most people !== every person. That should be evident by us talking about Uber and Lyft circumventing these rules. The fact that this conversation is happening invalidates your thesis.
HN broadly, but not necessarily you specifically, frequently talk about the moats that large businesses like Amazon and Facebook create through regulation once they have crossed the point where the moat will effect them. That's a common business tactic. Why is this different? How are those moats enforced?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Uber vehicles have licenses in the US like every other car. “Unlicensed taxi” is a bullshit phrase from medallion rackets.
While agree the medallion is a racket and uber should be able to run, that doesn't change the fact that uber is a taxi, and where a license/medallion exists they don't have it. The two are different issues.
For optional travel, the existence of Uber and Lyft has made it much more likely that I’d go into Boston for a dinner or evening of entertainment.
In that sense, Uber also added to sidewalk congestion as I’d previously have spent that time and money in a Cambridge or western suburban location. With convenient and reasonably priced transport, my life is more flexible and enjoyable. Whether that’s worth the trade-offs is a valid question to entertain, but it seems odd to focus only traffic rather than also looking at how much of that traffic is a result of people enjoying life more.
In that sense, Uber also added to sidewalk congestion as I’d previously have spent that time and money in a Cambridge or western suburban location. With convenient and reasonably priced transport, my life is more flexible and enjoyable. Whether that’s worth the trade-offs is a valid question to entertain, but it seems odd to focus only traffic rather than also looking at how much of that traffic is a result of people enjoying life more.
How much of the measured additional increase of congestion (from the flood of hail sharing services) can also be considered from, sheer weight of numbers, poor road infrastructure, wasteful navigation (bad driving)?
>Specifically, they noted that congestion increased by almost 1 percent while the duration of congestion rose by 4.5 percent. They also found a 8.9 percent drop in public transport ridership and an insignificant decrease of only 1 percent in private vehicle ownership.
This juxtaposition sounded weaselly, so I went to the paper:
>TNCs had insignificant effect on vehicle ownership on average, but they reduced vehicle ownership by 1% in the top ten transit MSAs.
I.e. the effect on vehicle ownership was only significant when you look specifically at large cities.
This juxtaposition sounded weaselly, so I went to the paper:
>TNCs had insignificant effect on vehicle ownership on average, but they reduced vehicle ownership by 1% in the top ten transit MSAs.
I.e. the effect on vehicle ownership was only significant when you look specifically at large cities.
The most obvious congestion I see with Ride-Hailing and Delivery services is a lack of ingress for people without cars. And the driver familiarity of driving to the back entrance.
So, what ends up happening, is even though there is a garage or pick up parking inside a building; the 2 lane road turns into 1 lane with parking (but with no signage)_or street parking turns into street double parking.
So, what ends up happening, is even though there is a garage or pick up parking inside a building; the 2 lane road turns into 1 lane with parking (but with no signage)_or street parking turns into street double parking.
I wonder how this contrasts with any added throughput.
If we move away from being bound by available parking, would we not increase congestion but also throughput?
If we move away from being bound by available parking, would we not increase congestion but also throughput?
Exact same experience. Used to work as a concierge in a downtown and while taxi calling wasn't a huge part of my job I definitely did enough of it to hate working with taxi companies. I think that must be where the smaller luxury towncar services used to make a lot of money, recommendations from people like me for people trying to catch a flight and willing to pay extra for some certainty.
Studies have shown that uber doesn't necessarily take drivers off the road, but riders off bikes, trains, and busses, and pedestrians off of sidewalks. Considering a bus or a train as orders of magnitude higher throughput than a private car, throughput has probably gone down.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/uber-s-im...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/uber-s-im...
It was lower prices and app convenience from Uber/Lyft that caused more congestion through increased demand, hence congestion. Not Uber/Lyft themselves. This could have come about in the same way if normal taxi companies had reacted in the same way (but they wouldn't because they are basically protectionist).
That makes sense. Congestion-wise, if you’re not carpooling, it’s no different than the case where every single Uber rider chose to drive their own car instead. It does alleviate parking issues, which is certainly nice in downtown.
[deleted]
Why is that so often things so obvious to me like drug prohibition increases violence and health issues rather than drugs themselves, but for so many people it is difficult to comprehend - like they can only make a simple connections aka drugs are bad, therefore violence and health issues. Like if they were not capable of incorporating more than two variables in their thinking.
Then such people also seem to be dominating in the political scene. Do such limitations in thinking give some kind of advantage when it comes to entering politics?
People prefer an Uber to public transportation.
Often public transportation isn't available, isn't reliable, or still requires last mile coverage from rideshares.
According to their medical doctor: the vast majority of people would be better off if they walked the last mile. I don't even need to be a medical doctor to make that obvious statement.
There are a small minority who cannot walk that far, and so yes we should provide something for them. However that is a tiny minority.
There are a small minority who cannot walk that far, and so yes we should provide something for them. However that is a tiny minority.
"Last mile" is a term referring to the final connection from the transport hub to the destination; it doesn't mean a literal mile.
A major problem with public transport in many cities is that this "last mile" segment is often several miles which would be hours of walking and therefore necessitates ridesharing/vehicle travel.
A major problem with public transport in many cities is that this "last mile" segment is often several miles which would be hours of walking and therefore necessitates ridesharing/vehicle travel.
No, if it is more than a mile there is no public transit to those people at all. Don't try to pretend there is, just subtract all such people from the transit roles.
There is one exception: a park and ride lot can work in some cases. though then the last mile is solved. In general I don't like park and ride, but they have their place.
There is one exception: a park and ride lot can work in some cases. though then the last mile is solved. In general I don't like park and ride, but they have their place.
Public transit is shared transport for the general public. It's not defined by how close it is to people, however last-mile logistics is a common reason for lack of usage. All of this is covered in my original comment.
Your replies are nonsensical and add nothing to this discussion. It seems you're replying just to argue and I'm not interested.
Your replies are nonsensical and add nothing to this discussion. It seems you're replying just to argue and I'm not interested.
My own opinion as well as speculation:
IN THE US:
Public transit suffers from under funding and a general lack of civic planning (at least at macro-scales).
Public transit and all other public _spaces_ also suffer from lack of social safety nets at a national level. Defacto, they are where the displaced and under-served end up, because they are unable to go anywhere else. Everyone else with options either doesn't need to travel, or uses personal transport when they do. This exacerbates the issue of lack of funding through lack of use.
In the United States there is, an accurate, perception that on public transport someone is more likely to be exposed to crime, unwanted scents from the unwashed or the uncouth in personal hygiene (too much Axe (which is any), etc), or particularly during the pandemic, unavoidable social mingling.
In urban cores this might be different given the lack of cars and denser service. However around them the only well serviced customer are business persons who commute down town early, and then back in the evening.
In the suburbs and outlying areas there's either service far too infrequent to be a reliable choice or none at all; and often that service cuts off too early in the evening.
IN THE US:
Public transit suffers from under funding and a general lack of civic planning (at least at macro-scales).
Public transit and all other public _spaces_ also suffer from lack of social safety nets at a national level. Defacto, they are where the displaced and under-served end up, because they are unable to go anywhere else. Everyone else with options either doesn't need to travel, or uses personal transport when they do. This exacerbates the issue of lack of funding through lack of use.
In the United States there is, an accurate, perception that on public transport someone is more likely to be exposed to crime, unwanted scents from the unwashed or the uncouth in personal hygiene (too much Axe (which is any), etc), or particularly during the pandemic, unavoidable social mingling.
In urban cores this might be different given the lack of cars and denser service. However around them the only well serviced customer are business persons who commute down town early, and then back in the evening.
In the suburbs and outlying areas there's either service far too infrequent to be a reliable choice or none at all; and often that service cuts off too early in the evening.
In my area public transportation is over funded. Watching all the near empty busses going from stop to stop is disgusting.
*in certain countries
Here in Japan public transport in unanimously preferred over Uber & Taxis
Here in Japan public transport in unanimously preferred over Uber & Taxis
Just got back from a trip to the Bay Area and BART was closing at 9pm! Even during normal hours it closes far too early, forcing people to find alternatives, and strongly bolstering the case for ride share companies. But this was extra ridiculous and forced me to take Uber/Lyft when I would have preferrer to take public transit.
Now imagine how it works in the next 50 largest US cities that have worse public transit than the Bay Area.
Then think about how it works in the thousands of small cities and towns where many bars and restaurants are a 20 minute driver and public transit barely exists.
Now imagine how it works in the next 50 largest US cities that have worse public transit than the Bay Area.
Then think about how it works in the thousands of small cities and towns where many bars and restaurants are a 20 minute driver and public transit barely exists.
wankerrific(2)
In London, public transportation is usually faster than driving (except during early morning or late night) for most journeys. You can get close to most places you'd want to go, without needing a car for the last mile.
In Beijing, cars are faster for many journeys, and public transportation doesn't quite reach everywhere you'd want to go, without a lot of changes. But the reach and density of public transportation (particularly the subway system) is growing fast. And the last mile is served by ubiquitous shared bikes.
In San Francisco, which has a fraction of the population (maybe 10% of London's, and <5% of Beijing's), almost all journeys seem to be faster by car, than they are by public transport. A small section of the city is served by BART but, even then, wait times are a significant proportion of total journey times for short journeys.
I prefer to walk, cycle or take public transport, than to drive. But I'll drive if it cuts the journey time in half, which it often does.
For example, my son's preschool is 10 mins' drive away. 2 return trips per day is 40 minutes. Switching to Muni (bus) would add an extra 90 minutes each day.
Perhaps it's the low population density, perhaps it's lack of funding, perhaps mismanagement. Or perhaps we're stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium in which people don't use public transport for $good_reasons, and the lack of ridership means that improvements cannot be justified.
In Beijing, cars are faster for many journeys, and public transportation doesn't quite reach everywhere you'd want to go, without a lot of changes. But the reach and density of public transportation (particularly the subway system) is growing fast. And the last mile is served by ubiquitous shared bikes.
In San Francisco, which has a fraction of the population (maybe 10% of London's, and <5% of Beijing's), almost all journeys seem to be faster by car, than they are by public transport. A small section of the city is served by BART but, even then, wait times are a significant proportion of total journey times for short journeys.
I prefer to walk, cycle or take public transport, than to drive. But I'll drive if it cuts the journey time in half, which it often does.
For example, my son's preschool is 10 mins' drive away. 2 return trips per day is 40 minutes. Switching to Muni (bus) would add an extra 90 minutes each day.
Perhaps it's the low population density, perhaps it's lack of funding, perhaps mismanagement. Or perhaps we're stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium in which people don't use public transport for $good_reasons, and the lack of ridership means that improvements cannot be justified.
Apparently BART stands specifically for the Bay Area's BRT line[0], thought you misspelt BRT (bus rapid transit[1]).
0: https://www.bart.gov/
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
0: https://www.bart.gov/
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
BART is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail rather than a bus. In San Francisco it’s a subway line, in the suburbs it’s elevated and makes one or two stops per town.
Most people I talk to much rather take public transport. Uber is way too expensive for everyday travel, and you have the same schedule variance as if you had driven a car in.
One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion.
One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion.
>One of the great benefits of a train network is that you're not amongst the car traffic, so you don't suffer congestion.
Many brand new American train networks run at grade with car traffic, so even aboard the train you can't escape. For example, it takes 15 minutes aboard the expo line in Los Angeles to go between USC and downtown LA. The distance is 2 miles; you could out run the train if you ran directly on the track and didn't have to stop at red lights like the train does. Most new transit construction in the US seems to be this half measure LRT that has many at grade crossings with cars, and is rarely given signal priority (there should be no reason for an at grade train to stop at an intersection at all).
Many brand new American train networks run at grade with car traffic, so even aboard the train you can't escape. For example, it takes 15 minutes aboard the expo line in Los Angeles to go between USC and downtown LA. The distance is 2 miles; you could out run the train if you ran directly on the track and didn't have to stop at red lights like the train does. Most new transit construction in the US seems to be this half measure LRT that has many at grade crossings with cars, and is rarely given signal priority (there should be no reason for an at grade train to stop at an intersection at all).
Yes that sounds like a really poor network design. I've never heard of trains stopping for car traffic before, usually cars are required to stop at level crossings and wait for the train.
Not just for the strain on the stock and rails but thinking about it like a societal ethos, public transport should have right of way to individuals in their cars as public transport efficiently serves the commons. I still think atomic individual transport is important and will stick around, but surely it's important to not undermine the efficacy of a network that supports hundreds of people at a time.
Edit: I forgot, there's a light tram line in my city that stops at a handful of car intersections, but it's mostly above grade anyway and those stops are accompanied by a platform as well. So the tram technically stops at the platform first, then begins again once the road lights cycle.
Not just for the strain on the stock and rails but thinking about it like a societal ethos, public transport should have right of way to individuals in their cars as public transport efficiently serves the commons. I still think atomic individual transport is important and will stick around, but surely it's important to not undermine the efficacy of a network that supports hundreds of people at a time.
Edit: I forgot, there's a light tram line in my city that stops at a handful of car intersections, but it's mostly above grade anyway and those stops are accompanied by a platform as well. So the tram technically stops at the platform first, then begins again once the road lights cycle.
I'd much rather take a bus, subway or train.
Depends on how accessible these are to you. In my city, with 1400 miles of bus routes and 100 miles of rail, transit is still the slowest option by usually at least two fold. The fastest bus lines come every 10 minutes. It might take you 15 minutes to walk out your door to a bus stop, another 10 minutes to get on the bus, then you sit in traffic and crawl at about 2/3 the speed of a car on the given stretch of road, thanks to the stops, then you walk to your destination which might be another 10-15 mins from the stop, assuming your destination is even on a direct route to you. If you need to transfer lines, factor in more time waiting for the next bus to show or time walking to another stop. If it's over 90 degrees and there is zero shade, as there frequently is, this can become unbearable to deal with. One day I forgot my water bottle during a heat wave and the bus was late, and I was feeling faint by the time it came to me. So much time taking transit is spent waiting around rather than moving. I only rely on the train to go to work, and for my ~50 minute commute door to door, only 15-20 minutes or so are spent actually riding the trains (1 transfer).
And I'm lucky enough to live relatively convenient to work. Many apartments I was looking at in my price range were still within 5-10 miles of work, but with bus commutes hovering around 2 hours one way thanks to transfers across the street grid and a lack of diagonal serving bus routes. For many people who might not be able to afford to be choosy about where they live, it can be difficult to land a practical apartment transit wise to your work, and it can be hard to land a job where there is even good transit opportunities to begin with. Suddenly a $2000 car that can turn your 2 hour bus commute into 18 minutes seems like the best investment money can buy, no matter what job you have, especially when you have a family who you want to see, or maybe even another job to get to across town. People in this city sooner give up a roof over their head than their car when money gets tight.
And I'm lucky enough to live relatively convenient to work. Many apartments I was looking at in my price range were still within 5-10 miles of work, but with bus commutes hovering around 2 hours one way thanks to transfers across the street grid and a lack of diagonal serving bus routes. For many people who might not be able to afford to be choosy about where they live, it can be difficult to land a practical apartment transit wise to your work, and it can be hard to land a job where there is even good transit opportunities to begin with. Suddenly a $2000 car that can turn your 2 hour bus commute into 18 minutes seems like the best investment money can buy, no matter what job you have, especially when you have a family who you want to see, or maybe even another job to get to across town. People in this city sooner give up a roof over their head than their car when money gets tight.
Yeah, transit planning sucks in most cities. It should be better.
People just want to get from A to B as quickly and painlessly as possible. Maybe the public sector should take the hint and come out with their own ridesharing services.
They already have it. What they need is to take the hint and make the local bus system useful. It shouldn't be more than 10 minutes from when you get to the bus stop until a bus arrives. The bus should go a straight line. This can be either the downtown transfer point, or a grid - either with timed transfers so that when you arrive at a transfer you get on the other bus just before it leaves, or if you are continuing on you don't wait very long. Either way, a bus system can do much better than most do.
No, it doesn't compare at all. There is no bus line that goes straight from the bar to my apartment. Hell, after 11:00PM, there are barely any bus lines running at all due to low ridership at that hour. And this is in a major European city. It just doesn't make sense to run a bus when it will only have 1 or 2 riders throughout its route. That's why it makes sense to have an individual car service. That's why taxis/Uber are doing so well.
In the middle of the night it makes sense to not run buses/trains and just a dial-a-ride. It will not make money, but the peace of mind for the few times you need it is worth it.
Transfers should be normal. We need to make them quick and easy.
Transfers should be normal. We need to make them quick and easy.
Growth in ride-sharing seems to imply a failure in basic public transportation.
I wonder how ride sharing effects parking congestion. If, say ride-sharing increases congestion by 1% but lowers the requirement for roadside parking, then maybe the solution should be to replace roadside parking in congested areas with an extra lane.
This is not new, there have been other studies that pointed this out. An economic engine like ride sharing will not be stopped because of congestion. Unfortunately, there is going to be a lot of noise year over year. Delivery robots are going to be ubiquitous and are going to swarm streets to the extent that it will be a pest in cities and crowded areas. Remains to be seen what the lawmakers do about it.
> An economic engine like ride sharing
How is it an economic engine? Who benefits? The jobs don't apy well. AFAICT, the main economic beneficiary is the shareholders of the ride-sharing companies, but I genuinely wonder what the truth is.
How is it an economic engine? Who benefits? The jobs don't apy well. AFAICT, the main economic beneficiary is the shareholders of the ride-sharing companies, but I genuinely wonder what the truth is.
The main beneficiaries are the millions of daily users FFS. Uber/Lyft provide service in markets where taxis were so unreliable they were fundamentally broken.
In the suburbs/college towns/etc in the US, getting a taxi had to be done hours in advance if you wanted a guarantee they would even show up.
Otherwise you would call a dispatcher on the phone, tell them where you were and wanted to go, then they would say something like “someone should be there in 30-60 minutes”. Then it would be about a 30% chance they would actually show. That’s right, too much to drink at a bar around closing time and you will likely end up just walking home drunk in the dark. Really great industry.
This was my experience throughout all of the 00s in multiple large suburban cities and college towns. An absolutely dead industry kept alive by regulatory capture that deserved to get fucked.
In the suburbs/college towns/etc in the US, getting a taxi had to be done hours in advance if you wanted a guarantee they would even show up.
Otherwise you would call a dispatcher on the phone, tell them where you were and wanted to go, then they would say something like “someone should be there in 30-60 minutes”. Then it would be about a 30% chance they would actually show. That’s right, too much to drink at a bar around closing time and you will likely end up just walking home drunk in the dark. Really great industry.
This was my experience throughout all of the 00s in multiple large suburban cities and college towns. An absolutely dead industry kept alive by regulatory capture that deserved to get fucked.
Have you tried calling an uber from most suburbs? It's pretty similar to the taxi experience you describe these days. Plenty of drivers just reject your ride if it's too far out from a central business district where they can easily snag another fare. My parents can't get rides where they live, 20 minutes out from their downtown and 20 minutes from their international airport. I live in a city of 4 million people and just called an uber the other day after a night of drinking, and it took 30 minutes to show up after the first one dropped my ride, so it's not just suburbs that might get the shaft with this 'taxi-like' quality of service from uber et al. Not to mention prices have gone sky high for these services. Sometimes I wonder if I really save much anymore using them vs. a yellowcab (which has an app now, too).
I was alive then too. I don't recall having trouble getting around without Uber and Lyft (which, despite the story that you repeat above, provide service in markets well-served by taxis and public transit).
Then you weren’t in the suburbs or you just drove yourself. Uber is only confusing to people who live in places with good public transit and/or good taxi services. For the 90% of the rest of US population it was a game changer.
Even in Vegas (a presumably ‘healthy’ cab market), you would get scammed by cab drivers from the strip hotels to the airport by them suggesting the interstate despite it not being faster because it would accumulate them more miles. Cabs had no reasonable negative feedback systems for shitty (but not illegal) behavior so it was a terrible experience.
Even in Vegas (a presumably ‘healthy’ cab market), you would get scammed by cab drivers from the strip hotels to the airport by them suggesting the interstate despite it not being faster because it would accumulate them more miles. Cabs had no reasonable negative feedback systems for shitty (but not illegal) behavior so it was a terrible experience.
Why is Uber called ride sharing? It never was. Okay, maybe in the beginning there were actual people taking extra passengers now and then, but considering drivers are treated like employees now (which means they spend significant time ferrying passengers back and forth), it's just a smarter taxi service.
Ride sharing would be when a group of people with the same destination share one car instead of taking one car per person. Which is not Uber, not Lyft.
Real ride sharing would indeed reduce traffic. Taxis... why would they? At best they reduce parking lot congestion.