Taxis By Algorithm: Streamlining City Transport With Graph Theory 72
New submitter Mark Buchanan (3595113) writes with a story about research from scientists at MIT, Cornell and elsewhere showing "that big city taxi systems could be made 40% more efficient with device-enabled taxi sharing. We could cut miles driven, costs, and pollution with the right application of just data and algorithms, and do it while introducing no more than a 5 minute delay to any person's trip. " Letting such algorithms compete seems an excellent reason to encourage, rather than reject by law, ride-coordination services like Uber and Lyft.
Actually (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want to share my cab.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to share my cab.
...and it's unlikely you'll want to wait an *extra* 5-10 minutes to get where you're going either - especially if you're a Manhattanite. Further, if you live in Manhattan and are concerned about the cost of riding in a taxi, there's this thing they have there...what's it called...oh yeah, the subway.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, on the face of it, this really doesn't seem to make much sense. Taxis are a luxury. The whole point of them is you can jump in one at a moment's notice, and it'll take you wherever you want to go, with no delay other than that imposed by traffic. They're not cheap. If you want cheap and slow, that's what the subway and buses are for, or you can just walk.
Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
And what makes you so certain there's not a market for a service halfway between taxis and buses/subway?
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy: the taxi companies don't want it. Sounds like you're proposing two classes of taxis; the regular ones we have now, and a cheaper version (perhaps painted green instead of yellow) where you have to share rides with other passengers, wait longer, etc. The short answer is: that can't be done. It's totally impossible. The existing taxi companies wouldn't want this, that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxi companies won't allow self-driving vehicles in NYC. It doesn't matter who wants to implement it. To get a license in NYC to operate a taxi costs a fortune, and the taxi companies would not allow any competition from such a system. It's simply going to be illegal to implement a system like what you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
A well regulated market, that ends up serving only those regulated, and not the customers, or anyone else for that matter. And liberals love regulated markets and think that there is nothing wrong with over-regulation.
Well, here is a GREAT example or the wonderfulness of REGULATION.
Nothing will change, because the status quo forbids it. And that is itself a problem
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't regulation, it's corruption. It's a common feature of crappy, third-world countries. Well-run countries don't have this problem so much. You wouldn't see this in liberal, high quality-of-life index countries like Switzerland.
Re: (Score:1)
It is regulation, the corrupt part is called regulatory capture. But this is what happens, incumbents like regulation, because it raises the cost of entry for new opperators.
The other this you don't see in Switzerland is tipping at a guess also. sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
And liberals love regulated markets and think that there is nothing wrong with over-regulation.
Damn those liberals! They want to destroy Tesla...oh, wait.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
This thread is about cabs in NYC.
Re: (Score:2)
San Francisco International airport has shuttle buses - tell them where you want to go, and they would dynamically create a route that went through all destinations. Other cities offer shuttle buses booked in advance - tell them where you want to be picked up, and where you want to go, and they would dynamically create a route.
Some taxi services would allow multiple drop-off points. It was up to the customers to decide how the each segment of the route should be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are saying that the typical user will experience a 5 minute longer delay; rather, the typical user will experience a shorter wait time. If the entire system is 40% more efficient, then even if you have to wait a little longer because the cab goes a little out of your way, that should be offset by a lower wait time. *Some* users will experience higher wait + travel times, but as they say here, no more than a few minutes.
The reason that they bring it up is because there are certain kinds
Re: (Score:2)
So don't worry, your selfish need to waste energy and produce as many emissions as you can in the pursuit of laziness and personal comfort is safe!
Capitalism for the win!
Re: (Score:2)
You've sort of hit on the problem and solution. What we need is something that is not called a "taxi" for this. Rather than taking the existing taxi system and adding ride sharing, we should supplement taxis with a new form of public transport based on this system. The new system would be somewhere between a bus and a taxi- a medium sized public vehicle (perhaps "minibus" size), but which would be summoned on demand and travel to your chosen destination like a taxi rather than travelling a fixed schedule li
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, then you can pay extra for the privilege! :)
Taxi licensing laws aren't about good service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting such agorithms compete seems an excellent reason to encourage, rather than reject by law, ride-coordination services like Uber and Lyft.
Taxi licensing laws aren't about giving the CUSTOMERS good service. They're about limiting competition so the licensed cab owners have a regulated oligopoly that limits competition and keeps the prices higher than market-clearing.
It's much like the laws limiting car sales to dealers that are giving Tesla such a problem.
This is crony capitalism at its most blatant.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
yes and no.
Your claim is likely partially true. However, another reason for licensing laws is to reduce the amount of traffic on the road. More taxis on the road can mean more traffic congestion http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/20/more-taxis-mean-more-traffic/.
Re: (Score:1)
Except all of these business related regulations and taxes and inflation produce the exact opposite results.
Nonsense. They're producing exactly the results people want.
So if you wanted to have fewer cars on the roads
People don't want fewer cars on the roads. People want fewer taxis on the roads, so they can keep driving their cars
It's when anybody can afford a cab ride and cabs are extremely accessible (easy to order, so there is no shortage) you'll reduce number of cars on the roads
More communist nonsense. Cars are people's private property. They're gonna drive them on roads (that their taxes paid for) as they please. It's also their taxes that pay government, and like hell they're going to pay taxes to fund your collectivist delusions of an efficient transit system that would drive them off the road.
No, free p
Re: (Score:2)
Except all of these business related regulations and taxes and inflation produce the exact opposite results.
Nonsense. They're producing exactly the results people want.
So if you wanted to have fewer cars on the roads
People don't want fewer cars on the roads. People want fewer taxis on the roads, so they can keep driving their cars
Depends where you live -- if I'm heading downtown, i really don't want to drive... if I drive, I need to park my car (which is expensive), and it means that I have to stay around where my car is - if I want to park near the theater then hop a bus to meet some friends at a restaurant across town, I've got to go back to where my car was to get back home. It's much easier to hop on a bus to the theater, go to dinner, then call a cab for the ride home since I don't feel like waiting 20 minutes for a bus at 11pm
Car costs (Score:2)
There's even more to it especially in extreme downtowns. You mention that parking downtown is expensive - but picture if we managed to have a transportation system efficient enough that we didn't even need that much parking downtown. That parking garage could be another skyscraper. A few more of those and you might be able to justify some fancy people moving system like airport slideways, automated shuttles, etc...
You can even end up with a situation where an suburbanite like myself ends up walking more
Re: (Score:2)
Communists had Zil lanes. Lanes on the roads reserved exclusively for the ruling class being driven around in their bullet-proof limousines. Olympic officials did the same.
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't the prices set by law too?
Cabs are regulated similar to the post-office, there are more and less profitable routes, and some subsidize others.
They don't want non-licensed services that can charge whatever they want to snipe profitable routes at a lower rate.
I'm not saying it's good, but it's really not a case of artificial scarcity. I know I've gone on routes that are higher than they like, and others where they'd be happy to negotiate a lower price.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the prices set by law too?
The point is that they are set higher than a free market would provide.
Cabs are regulated similar to the post-office, there are more and less profitable routes, and some subsidize others.
Which is, of course, idiotic. There is no reason for routes to "cost the same". Should the government also regulate grocery stores so that oatmeal is the same price as filet mignon? That way all meals will cost the same.
They don't want non-licensed services that can charge whatever they want to snipe profitable routes at a lower rate.
You cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. If you fix the price of bread, you get empty shelves. If you fix the price of taxi fares, you will have plenty of cabs lining up for the profitable routes, and no one
There is a case (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a case to be made for taxi regulation. It protects passengers, which is really the main reason taxi regulation exists. In order to fund that regulation, they allow companies artificial monopolies.
The last thing you want is a totally unregulated taxi industry. There is a reason these kinds of things became regulated in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
There usually is not any said restriction. There is a licensing fee and your service provider has to comply with the regulations, and then you are allowed in.
Now, New York and some cities actually restrict the number of cabs on the street. That, I think, is silly, and is indeed crony-ism.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of cities don't even have "taxi medallions" so I think you are looking at a limited set. The only cities that have medallions according to wikipedia are Boston, NYC, and Chicago.
The "level playing field" taxi companies demand (Score:1)
And making a big city taxi system more efficient helps the existing taxi companies how?
Re: (Score:3)
This can reduce waiting times in "taxi rush hour" - would you prefer to wait 15 minutes for "your own" taxi, or share one that comes in 5 minute?
Also, if the cab carries two different passengers, cab drivers get payment from each.
In Athens, Greece, the cabs that carry one passenger might stop and take another one that goes in the same direction (and get full payment from one passenger and partial or full payment from the other). It helps a lot with the "I can't find a cab at this time"
Re:The "level playing field" taxi companies demand (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation. If everybody were willing to wait the 5 minutes, that would be better for everybody. But the ideal situation for an individual is if everybody else shares while they themselves do not, thus avoiding even the 5 minute wait. Each person acting in their best interest individually leads to a poor outcome for everybody.
The bus is the same. If everybody decided (at once) to start riding the bus, it would be faster than everybody driving cars because there would be so little congestion on the streets, and so many bus routes. But since only a few people take the bus, the busses slog thorough the congestion, AND (being busses) have to stop all the time. So the situation persists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bus is the same. If everybody decided (at once) to start riding the bus, it would be faster than everybody driving cars because there would be so little congestion on the streets, and so many bus routes. But since only a few people take the bus, the busses slog thorough the congestion, AND (being busses) have to stop all the time. So the situation persists.
But if everybody started taking the bus, the stops would be more frequent and longer. The congestion might be better, but your overall trip length might still be long due to all of the stopping that the bus has to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if the cab carries two different passengers, cab drivers get payment from each.
Changing this, maybe so that each passenger only pays 75% or whatever, would fix the urge to have their own taxi. Saving ~$10 can do that.
Re: (Score:1)
In situations where people are a lot of people are waiting for not many taxis—like the airport—sharing doesn't just mean a cost incentive but a time incentive too. Sharing in these situations is beneficial to both passengers and taxis, who spend less time waiting in long lines, and it benefits the transportation hub and the city as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
less wasted time and fuel on empty cabs...
Why would a taxi company want this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two problem with the ride share services. First is liability. Those who provide the service are often d
"Dolmush" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I bet you a Dolmush guided by a computerized transportation-sharing network would be even more efficient and profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharing pilots in NYC (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a pilot for this program 4 years ago in NYC:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02... [nytimes.com]
Also there was strike that mandated it 7 years ago for a few days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09... [nytimes.com]
In short, no one liked it. If people wanted to have a delayed trip and people with them, they'd just take the Subway.
Law (Score:2)
Problem is in New York... (Score:5, Interesting)
Long story short, a system that requires you provide both the pickup AND arrival points will require some serious clampdowns to keep uptowners and outer-borough folk from being left out in the cold.
.
Maximising the wrong thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as cabbies are concerned, the optimum algorithm will be whatever maximises their revenue. Any algorithm that doesn't will probably be vulnerable to cheating, i.e. a rogue cabbie that can make more money exploiting some aspect of the algorithm will do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Not how taxi drivers want it (Score:2)
I had a friend tell me about the time he filled in for a day as a dispatcher for a cab company. He said he tried to do it efficiently by looking at where the customer was and where the closest non-busy taxi was and sending that one. Turns our the taxi drivers didn't like it. They wanted him to send them out in order so they all got the same number of fares.
Solution (Score:2)
Split all the fairs evenly to all drivers - since fairs are decided by millage anyway it shouldn't be a big deal... unless they figure it out and realize fewer miles are being driven with a efficient system. If they don't charge for the distance to the pick up, then that factor would be a lower overhead cost and save them money.
Tips. Well, that is not actually randomly distributed so I could see complaints about not getting more time around certain areas at certain times. They won't ever agree to pool tip
Extend this idea to all cars and traffic lights (Score:1)