Studies Are Increasingly Clear: Uber, Lyft Congest Cities (apnews.com) 370
One promise of ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft was fewer cars clogging city streets. But studies suggest the opposite: that ride-hailing companies are pulling riders off buses, subways, bicycles and their own feet and putting them in cars instead . From a report: And in what could be a new wrinkle, a service by Uber called Express Pool now is seen as directly competing with mass transit. Uber and Lyft argue that in Boston, for instance, they complement public transit by connecting riders to hubs like Logan Airport and South Station. But they have not released their own specific data about rides, leaving studies up to outside researchers. And the impact of all those cars is becoming clear, said Christo Wilson, a professor of computer science at Boston's Northeastern University, who has looked at Uber's practice of surge pricing during heavy volume. "The emerging consensus is that ride-sharing (is) increasing congestion," Wilson said. One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over four weeks in late 2017 in the Boston area. Nearly six in 10 said they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps weren't available. The report also found many riders aren't using hailed rides to connect to a subway or bus line, but instead as a separate mode of transit, said Alison Felix, one of the report's authors.
self driving cars will do the same in fleet mode (Score:2)
self driving cars will do the same in fleet mode where they park in remote holding areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like going to and from your place of work twice a day would create more congestion and more wear on the roads and more pollution than doing it just once.
The key is to build towns and cities around public transport. It's much harder to retrofit it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: self driving cars will do the same in fleet m (Score:5, Funny)
"In reverse."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: self driving cars will do the same in fleet mo (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not ripping you off. Uber is dumping the service on customers below cost. When you take an Uber, half your ride is being paid for by some billionaire venture capitalist.
Uber's business model only works without drivers.
Re:self driving cars will do the same in fleet mod (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Utopian dream that we can build large scale cities around individual automobile transport was long ago realized to be just that -- a dream, not just a fantasy but a dangerous fantasy at that!
Except that's our reality, and it works out just fine. Sure, there's congestion, but congestion is still better than public transit.
Re:self driving cars will do the same in fleet mod (Score:4, Insightful)
This is literally physically impossible. At some point those cars in those 1000 lanes have to go to 1000 different places, and those places have to exist where the highway isn't. The issue is not large enough roads. If all we needed to do was move one 100,000 car parking lot from A to B, then you might have a point. But that's not what the challenge is. The issue is density, pure and simple, something you can achieve with trains and buses and not with cars.
And public transport isn't "the government". Good lord.
Re: self driving cars will do the same in fleet mo (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany tried the stupidity you are suggesting in the 1960ies. It sucked and resulted in quite the expenses to rebuild everything back for public transportation. The cities are for the people, not for their cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather my car park 5 minutes from my work rather than 25 minutes. Then I can send my car over at the last possible minute, and not have my car congest the highways by making double the trips to suburbia.
But I fear people are going to do exactly what you suggest. And the traffic is going got be epically bad.
Re: self driving cars will do the same in fleet mo (Score:2)
Maybe, but most traffic is concentated in time and direction. Your vehicle will be traveling the opposite direction and after or before the major rush hour.
Re: (Score:2)
However the real question with Self driving cars is if their travel itinerary will be more optimized. With the current ride/sharing/taxi in terms of congestion, is the fact there are people driving around, awaiting a customer. So these cars are just driving around with no place to go, causing the congestion. However with a Autonomous fleet, they can be parked outside of the City, and moved into production, based on more data. Because a car is patient, while a driver isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A simple solution would be multi-passenger ride-sharing during peak hours. This would be even more efficient with a transfer point. One car picks up 2, 3 or 4 commuters from your neighborhood, and drives to the transfer point. Then the passengers switch cars based on their final destination.
This is the way jeepneys [wikipedia.org] work in Manila.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Now that sounds a lot like a bus"
A personalized bus. Not an awful idea. There is the non-trivial problem of how you and your ride identify each other in a tangle of 2000 pedestrians, 716 of whom are waiting for their transportation to arrive, and 336 vehicles. Not counting the 415 vehicles trying to find their way to your area to pick up passengers and the 296 vehicles who have picked up one or more passengers and are trying to exit the area.
Congestion? Baby, you haven't seen congestion yet.
Re: self driving cars will do the same in fleet mo (Score:3)
There is the non-trivial problem of how you and your ride identify each other in a tangle of 2000 pedestrians
That's what the AR is for - well, besides smiley faces.
Re:self driving cars will do the same in fleet mod (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that sounds a lot like a bus.
A bus that is available at any time, takes you exactly where you want to go, will help you move cargo (like, say, a new refrigerator), is willing to do on-the-spot negotiations for special circumstances, such as groups traveling together, or odd destinations, and can be pre-scheduled.
... so nothing like a bus.
Re: self driving cars will do the same in fleet mo (Score:2)
What we should be doing is incentivizing employers to allow flexible work hours. The problem isn't the amount of people or the form of transport; it's that everyone is traveling at the same time every day.
Re: (Score:2)
However the real question with Self driving cars is if their travel itinerary will be more optimized. With the current ride/sharing/taxi in terms of congestion, is the fact there are people driving around, awaiting a customer. So these cars are just driving around with no place to go, causing the congestion. However with a Autonomous fleet, they can be parked outside of the City, and moved into production, based on more data. Because a car is patient, while a driver isn't.
It might be more optimized, but OTOH I might be perfectly willing to bear an hour of congested commute if I can kick back and do some work or watch a movie, or eat my breakfast and shave (not simultaneously of course)
Re: (Score:2)
I might be perfectly willing to bear an hour of congested commute if I can kick back and do some work
Good luck with that once it becomes harder to find an affordable compact laptop computer whose operating system respects its users. (System76 laptops aren't especially compact.)
Re: (Score:2)
good luck, uber and lyft are already lobbying to ban privately owned autonomous vehicles from cities. They only want their fleets allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
self driving cars will do the same in fleet mode where they park in remote holding areas.
I've talked about this before, Autonomous vehicle tech could significantly increase the number of vehicles on the road. They create new uses for cars, they enable more people to 'drive' by themselves. Car sharing may increaes but those vehicles will spend more time the road, including possibly time with nobody in the car.
Not only might they draw people off buses and trains, but also off of planes. I'd be happy to sleep overnight in my car as it travels long distances.
As a side note, its kind of funny
Re: (Score:3)
As a side note, its kind of funny to think that those crappy cab companies may have had some unintended benefit.
If I understand your comment correctly, the 'benefit' is not unintended at all. Why do you think they carefully plan and limit the number of medallions available and regulate the rates so that the whole thing is sustainable. We're only having this conversation because Uber and Lyft have refused to play along, and so are creating these problems.
Re: (Score:3)
and some rural congressmen will ban that Amtrak (Score:2)
and some rural congressmen will ban that to save the union Amtrak we can't have no long distance sleep autos.
Re: overnight SDC (e: self driving cars will do th (Score:2)
Businesses aren't going to be sending people overnight in a car. People who travel for business overnight expect hotel rooms. Self driving cars are too slow for business too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd rather have drunk people on mass transit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe if cities did a better job of keeping mass transit free of ... and I know this sounds bad, and I feel bad saying it.... but bums, people wouldn't be so reluctant to use it. I mean real bums, like a dude who's got 3 coats on but you can someone still smell the vomit and feces. I know that's horrible, I'm not proud to say that, and maybe I have an over-sensitive nose, but it is what it is. Until then, I'll keep taking an Uber when I'm unable to take my own vehicle for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, you're polluting the world more than they are, which we all have to live with.
Isn' this a good thing??? plus the claim is BS (Score:2)
If you walk, take the bus or ride the subway, it seems like, from your own personal point of view, that this is actually a good thing! Much less congested for you personally.
Another way this might be good is if this means that more people are going places as opposed to not going places because for various reason such as time or weather or schedules or carried packages that a bus or walking or subway would not have worked. SO yes more congestion but not because people are not taking other modes but because
I road the bus for years in college (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of congestion though (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two kinds of congestion in cities - cars just going somewhere, and cars looking to park/parked.
Uber/Lyft reduce the second kind, which means traffic flows more smoothly even with more cars. A car just dropping people off does not impact traffic the way cars circling a block looking for parking will, and also will not fill up valuable parking spots that might have otherwise been filled.
Also congestion pricing itself naturally means there will be fewer uber/lyft drivers around at peak normal traffic times. The majority of uber/lyft drivers come out during surge pricing, which is when other forms of transport come less frequently or are not available - one person I know who commutes to downtown usually takes a bus, but if he's going in later will sometimes take an Uber if he misses the bus because it will be 30 minutes before the next one.
Re:What kind of congestion though (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two kinds of congestion in cities - cars just going somewhere, and cars looking to park/parked.
Uber/Lyft reduce the second kind, which means traffic flows more smoothly even with more cars. A car just dropping people off does not impact traffic the way cars circling a block looking for parking will, and also will not fill up valuable parking spots that might have otherwise been filled.
That's if you assume an Uber/Lyft car is constantly picking up and dropping off passengers. While this may be the case in certain very busy periods (or places), I'm guessing that it's usually not the case. So what does an Uber driver do when he has a significant "gap" between customers?
1) Drive around in circles aimlessly waiting to be hailed? Or
2) Try to find a convenient parking spot (preferably, free and not time-limited) where next call can be waited for?
Both options seem to increase congestion. Note that traditional licensed taxis have, in most cities, dedicated "taxi stations" - usually curbside parking spot reserved for taxis only. There is no time limit, and they are "free" (the taxi drivers pay for them to the city indirectly, via the licensing fees). Uber/Lyft doesn't have that, they have to use the regular parking.
Also, in many cities, traditional taxis are allowed to use bus lanes - allowing them to both get around quicker and not contribute (as much) to general congestion. Uber vehicles generally are not allowed in bus lanes, but must use the regular lanes, impeding the "normal" traffic. An Uber car can use HOV lanes when transporting a passenger, but not when empty. Taxis are often allowed to use HOV lanes even when empty.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to find a convenient parking spot (preferably, free and not time-limited) where next call can be waited for?
Yes, that one.
But remember I am talking about IN CITIES. Where is such a place (free, unlimited time parking)? There are none, except around the edges of the city.
So that removes a car from the roads in the core of the city.
No driver is going to just drive around burning gas for longer than a few minutes, so I don't really think the first option applies.
Also, in many cities, traditional taxis ar
Common Sense says yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, provide cheap personal taxi service and of course it increases congestion. There are suddenly more ride-sharing cars on the road! Mass transit helps reduce congestion by removing cars from the road although it isn't as comfortable as a personal ride and cycling / running / walking also removes cars from the road. The real question is what happens if congestion gets so bad that Ride Sharing services get stuck in traffic as well. After all I've seen situations where walking is faster than dealing with a traffic jam.
That's easy to correct for (Score:2)
The real question is what happens if congestion gets so bad that Ride Sharing services get stuck in traffic as well. After all I've seen situations where walking is faster than dealing with a traffic jam.
Already at airports the Uber app will tell me where to walk to meet a driver.
It makes sense that Uber/Lyft could direct people to simply walk two blocks away for pickup to save 20 minutes of estimated wait/driving time.
Of a savvy customer could do the same, walk past traffic to the side of town they want to
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, provide cheap personal taxi service and of course it increases congestion. There are suddenly more ride-sharing cars on the road! Mass transit helps reduce congestion by removing cars from the road although it isn't as comfortable as a personal ride and cycling / running / walking also removes cars from the road. The real question is what happens if congestion gets so bad that Ride Sharing services get stuck in traffic as well. After all I've seen situations where walking is faster than dealing with a traffic jam.
Congestion is its own demand management. The real solution to congestion is for some cities to stop trying to grow and grow and grow. Not adding layers and layers of expensive transit and unsustainable infrastructure. Plenty of other cities have seen declines over the decades and would benefit greatly if the major successful cities took a break on the population growth.
Sure studies like these can maybe lead to squeezing more out of existing infrastructure. But it seems more like a cynical justification
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Common Sense says yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber allows you to walk (Score:2)
If you ever get stuck in a jam where it would be easier to walk you could do nothing about it if you were in your own car. You cant leave it in the middle of the road but if you are in an Uber you can get out and walk
Re:Common Sense says yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Then a certain U.S. Presidential candidate [wikipedia.org] ruined it. He ran an ad criticizing Korea for having unfair trade barriers. You could buy a Hyundai in the U.S. for $10k, but a Ford Escort in Korea was taxed to cost $30k. He conveniently left out that that the Hyundai also cost $30k in Korea. His deception worked (though his presidential campaign did not), and Americans were outraged and demanded that Korea rescind this "unfair" tax. Korea did so, and suddenly the masses in Korea were able to afford their own car. And the streets immediately became gridlocked. What used to be a 5-6 hour bus ride from one end of the country to the other (250 miles / 400 km) during the Lunar New Year now regularly takes 24 hours because of all the cars.
In that respect, I think these studies are missing a crucial stat - how many people take Uber/Lyft instead of driving their own car or even owning a car?
Re: (Score:2)
Mass transit is of limited use (Score:5, Interesting)
Mass transit is of limited use. It is a pain when you have to do a transfer or your destination is a long ways from a stop. I can easily see Uber which offers door to door service pulling people off from a mass transit system that doesn't really go where they need it to.
Boston also has a special problem of the north commuter rail system not being connected to the south one. So if you have to cross this boundary it forces a transfer onto the subway. Subway and commuter rail are separate systems and require two fares. When you add this up, an Uber Pool is definitely price competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass transit is of limited use. It is a pain when you have to do a transfer or your destination is a long ways from a stop. I can easily see Uber which offers door to door service pulling people off from a mass transit system that doesn't really go where they need it to.
Boston also has a special problem of the north commuter rail system not being connected to the south one. So if you have to cross this boundary it forces a transfer onto the subway. Subway and commuter rail are separate systems and require two fares. When you add this up, an Uber Pool is definitely price competitive.
Yeah, last I checked mass transit in my area (fairly populated suburbs), I was looking at taking two buses to travel 15 miles to work, with a 1 hour wait and 1(2?) mile walk between them.
Re: (Score:2)
Boston has another special problem: a lousy spoke-hub design. By bicycle, Harvard Square to Coolidge Corner is about 10-15 minutes apart (riding quickly and maybe, uh, taking some liberties...). Via T? At least an hour down the Red Line to the Green Line at Park, then out to Coolidge.
If you want to go downtown, the T is great. If you want to get across town, time spent on the T vs. in a car is a wash.
Re: (Score:2)
Via car Google maps quotes 21 minutes form my house to Harvard Square. Via mass transit the estimate is an hour and 45 minutes. Plus I have to wait 45 minutes before I can start the trip. This is because it is impossible to do the trip on mass transit without a transfer.
Re:Mass transit is of limited use (Score:5, Insightful)
Mass transit apparently is of limited use where you live. Try Europe for a change. I live in Amsterdam, which, like other Dutch cities, has a dense public transport network, and the country's railway system is one of the densest in the world. In many cases I find it far more convenient to use public transport than to go by car.
It is possible to have good public transport. It does take a willingness to spend resources on the public interest. Perhaps that willingness is stronger in Europe than in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they are. (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies aren't actually "sharing" rides, they are taxiing people about.
Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
I think buses congest traffic more than regular cars. They stop practically every 10 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cars won't all be following the same line like the bus,
Re: (Score:3)
In my area the bike lanes are wide enough for buses to make their stops without disrupting traffic. It's wonderful. The world needs more bike lanes to get buses and bikes out of our way!
Anecdote! (Score:2)
Anecdotally I only use Lyft/Uber in place of overpriced/unreliable taxis. I would not even begin to think of using them in place of buses, walking, subway, or whatever.
This is so funny and not a surprise (Score:2)
According to the article, studies are showing that people who take Lyft and Uber are people who don't have cars. So it's not keeping cars off the road, it's pulling people who normally would have taken public transportation, walked, or biked, or not made the trip at all, out of their houses and into privately-owned automobiles.
Of course, these studies are being done in cities which already had some public transportation infrastructure. So this is happening where people already could comfortably live lifes
Re: (Score:2)
In Boston try one-way on commuter rail $7.50 plus $2.25 for the subway. Round trip is $20-25 depending on destination. Uber Pool is cheaper than mass transit if you need to travel to the suburbs. Plus it is door to door. Of course mass transit is cheaper with a monthly pass, but it is still not cheap.
No buses on Sundays (Score:2)
vehicle will arrive for pick up "pretty soon" rather than "sometime in the next 45 minutes or perhaps not at all if there is some event or mechanical breakdown"
Or in the case of bus systems that don't run at all on Sundays or major holidays, "pretty soon" rather than "36 to 60 hours from now". Such systems include those of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Not surprised (Score:2)
Poor Urban Planning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't the city get more revenue from other sources? Where does their money go now that they can only finance things through additional one time revenues?
Taxis? (Score:2)
Couldn't you say exactly the same thing about taxis?
Re:Taxis? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's also remember here that Uber rides are priced artificially low. After taxis are out of business they will move to charging rates that will make them money. It would be interesting to know what level that rate would be at today. Significantly more expensive than they are now, probably similar to a taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Uber cost the same amount as a taxi, I'll still choose an Uber every single time.
I'll choose an option where I don't have to worry about being cheated by the driver, and he won't have to worry ab
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt (Score:4, Informative)
I'll choose an option where I don't have to worry about being cheated by the driver, and he won't have to worry about me robbing him.
Boystown: Facing 20 Felonies, Uber Driver Accused Of Sexually Molesting Man In 2014 Gets Probation [cwbchicago.com]
2 women sue Uber, alleging sexual assault by drivers [chicagotribune.com]
Man Robbed At Gunpoint By Fake Uber Driver In Lincoln Park; Woman, Two Juveniles Charged [cwbchicago.com]
NEW: Fake Uber Driver Robbed Second Man Last Weekend; Pile Of Robbery Proceeds Found [cwbchicago.com]
Ride Share Driver Pulled Gun On Boystown Couple, Cops Say [cwbchicago.com]
Prosecutors: Lyft driver accused of zip-tying, sexually assaulting passenger [chicagotribune.com]
Couple Robbed After Taking "Fake Uber Ride" From Boystown Club [cwbchicago.com]
I'll choose an option where I can hop into the car and hop out with payment handled electronically instead of actual money or credit cards changing hands.
Taxis are required to take credit card where I live, there's a reader in the back seat of each car.
I'll choose an option where the vehicle will be clean and reasonably well maintained, and the driver reasonably courteous.
Usually not a problem with taxis either.
I'll choose an option where the names of both parties involved are known, and all details of the ride can be recovered in case something goes wrong.
Every taxi I've been in lately has video and audio surveillance and the taxi number and driver's license are posted in the back seat.
And most of all, I'll choose Uber because I know that if they ever start to go bad, another ride sharing company can compete with them, instead of them being protected as a government-regulated monopoly.
You think there's a taxi monopoly?! There's more than 20 companies operating in my city! [cityofchicago.org]
You've clearly drunk the "ride-sharing" Kool-Aid, but taxis are not nearly as awful as you make them out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
That means taxis priced artificially high.
Re: (Score:2)
obviously (Score:2)
"One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over four weeks in late 2017 in the Boston area. Nearly six in 10 said they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps weren't available"
Well, OBVIOUSLY that broad range is going to be a catchall for alternatives.
What's the other chocie? Buy a car? A horse?
"The report also found many riders arenâ(TM)t using hailed rides to connect to a subway or bus line, but instead as a separate mode of tran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good lord, thanks for pointing this out. It's a self-reported study asking participants a hypothetical. This is about as weak as it gets.
Sounds Logical (Score:2)
The premise behind "ride-sharing" (stupid name) services is that your car spends most of its time idle, and that by changing that you can turn into a source of income.
If you give people a financial incentive to start driving around their previously mostly-parked cars, it increases the amount of vehicles on the road...and hence congestion. It's a no brainer, really. Also, since Uber is just a cheaper taxi service you call up with an app, no wonder it's pulling in mostly non-driving passengers (traditional ta
Misleading title (Score:4, Insightful)
The title implies, actual congestion — the number of traffic jams and the average amount of time we spent waiting them — has gone up.
But the actual study finds only that people use Uber to get places because it is more convenient than the alternatives:
In other words, Uber/Lyft are guilty of offering a good and convenient service.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Uber/Lyft are guilty of offering a good and convenient service.
What benefits the individual does not automatically benefit a community as a whole.
Maximizing indivudal choice seems like a good idealogy to follow. But there are consequences to holding such a philosophy. So I would recommend we carefully weigh and consider everything that we do, rather than rigidly following a dogmatic practice as mentioned above.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "community as a whole", only a collection of individual user benefits which only appears in aggregate to be "the community as a whole." For the most part people defining the benefits to the community as a whole are just pushing a specific agenda that they think actually benefits everyone more or less equally.
History is just repeating itself (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They really should modernize the medallion system to allow companies to lease out the medallions by the hour. So services like Uber could still operate with a limited number of drivers based on Uber's medallion count. They could even work out deals with traditional taxi companies to lease under-used medallions. Thus they'd still be controlling the number of cars on the road, but they'd also allow technology to progress.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad they did - they have shown what a good, modern taxi service can look like. They would have stood no chance at all against the entrenched interests. This isn't a good vs. evil thing, it's more like a flawed system vs. flawed entity fight. The good news is that both the system and Uber have moved in a positive direction as time went on.
I hate to mention it, since it is such a buzzword at the moment - but electronic taxi medallions might actually be a decent use of a blockchain.
Re: (Score:2)
Of -course- people will choose Lyft or Uber (Score:2)
Studies like this one make me wonder if the people writing them ever ride public transportation themselves, or if they drive to work every day while trying to figure out ways to get everyone else off the road.
I live about 1.5 miles from my office. Some days I walk, some days I drive, and some days I walk two blocks to catch a bus. If I time everything just right, the bus is actually the fastest commute, because I don't have to waste several minutes looking for a parking space.
However - the bus only runs e
Not new (Score:2)
> a new wrinkle
Not new to anyone who's heard of Jevons Paradox, the rebound effect, or the trend of many (most?) technologies that increase efficiency. From Wikipedia:
In economics, the Jevons paradox (/dvnz/; sometimes the Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely kn
There are as many as 10000 Uber/Lyft cars in SF (Score:2)
"and putting them in cars instead" (Score:2)
"and putting them in cars instead" ... which is apparently where they want to be.
We can't have that!
This is a wake up call to Public Transportation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Boston's public transport is unreliable (Score:2)
Unreliable, overcrowded, and slow. That's why people take Lyft/Uber. My last commute, from a close-in suburb to Copley Square, would have taken me over an hour on the T, with two changes (bus to Harvard Sq., Red Line to Park St., Green Line to Copley. Often, I"d have to let two or three Red Line trains go by before there was one with enough room for me to cram on.
By contrast, the same commute took me just over 30 minutes by bicycle, even with my slow, old, fat ass. And I wasn't crammed onto a train car
Makes sense (Score:3)
I primarily use Uber as a way to avoid parking. I imagine most heavy users - like me - live in congested areas with no parking.
Duh, of course (Score:2)
When you have a scale of well... "ideal" to "non-ideal" means of transport where say the least ideal is single person in a big gas guzzling SUV and the most ideal is someone walking/cycling everywhere they go that ideal is too impractical for most. So you start having HOV lanes and EV credits and bus/tram/train lines and taxis and every time you add something "in between" there's the risk that more people choose to slide down the scale than up the scale. And then there's the question of how much hassle it i
Other bad side effects? (Score:2)
Could these services be encouraging people to go to the bars downtown and get wasted? Hey, if I can manage to crawl from the pub to my Uber ride, I can make it home.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that the level of congestion is the sole criteria of "worse".
Re:Amusing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amusing (Score:5, Funny)
It's amusing how what people thought was the second coming of transit just makes it worse.
The root problem is that ride-sharing gives poor people options that they didn't have before. They need to know their place. They should go back to walking or taking the bus so it easier for me to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
They do offer ridesharing, though. There is UberPOOL and Lyft Line. They are even going to start bus-like routes. [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The other four did not change their behavior in response to the rise of taxi replacements:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)