
Ride-Sharing Congests City Traffic - old-gregg
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/02/ride-sharing-actually-congests
======
BurningFrog
At least in San Francisco, the old Taxi system was a deliberately
undersupplied crony capitalist disaster.

It served to enrich a few Taxi medallion owners and left most people without
any reliable way to get a ride from A to B most of the time.

Now that we have functioning ride sharing systems, people actually _can_
reliably get a ride from A to B. So of course we do that more than before, and
there is more traffic. This is a symptom of a better functioning society with
a better life for its residents.

~~~
w-ll
It should still be said that if the availability of taxis matched uber/lyft,
the fact that NO cash is involved. Meaning when you reach the drop off the
riders can just exit the car, most likely saves an unbelievable amount of time
and lane blockage compared to taxis.

~~~
vegashacker
And you don't have to explain the driver where you want to go. Other than
being an extremely nice feature, I could see that decreasing lane blockage
time as well.

~~~
raducu
Also nice for the driver wanting to retire for the day that he can get fares
that get him closer to his home.

~~~
yoz-y
Is that a feature Uber/Lyft drivers have? I always thought they could not see
the destination before picking up the client.

~~~
raducu
I recently talked with a Uber driver, they cannot see the destination of the
client, but he said he can specify the rough area where he wants to
(eventually?) go and fares will take him close enough to that direction.

------
kelnos
I think this is a shame, but for SF at least, it's kinda "well, duh". I would
love to take transit more often, but when I have to go somewhere, and map it,
I see things like:

Car: 12 mins

Transit: 40 mins

Walking: 55 mins

If I have the time, I'll walk. If I don't have the time, I'll take a Lyft
(pre-Uber/Lyft I would usually drive myself, and then have to deal with the
pain of parking). Why would I _ever_ take the bus?

I would love it if SF had a transit system like Tokyo's, or hell, even NYC's.
But we don't, and there's little political will and money available to dig
more subways. The new central subway is a start, but we really need to be
building 5 of those, simultaneously, at all times. So... what's the solution
here?

~~~
dionidium
“Even” NYC? I know New Yorkers love to complain about the MTA, but don’t take
it too seriously. New York’s subway is extraordinary. It has no match in the
U.S. (by a long shot) and is still very, very big by world standards.

The next time a New Yorker feels like complaining that they had to wait 20
whole minutes for a 7 train in far out Queens, they might do well to remember
that most cities in the world wouldn’t have a station there at all.

Lots of fun stuff here: [https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-largest-
metro-syst...](https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-largest-metro-system-
world-1361)

~~~
carlmr
>The next time a New Yorker feels like complaining that they had to wait 20
whole minutes for a 7 train in far out Queens, they might do well to remember
that most cities in the world wouldn’t have a station there at all.

Living in Germany, almost all the far out places have train stations. And
30min to 1h wait times between trains.

~~~
dionidium
As part of the primary subway system? Crucially, we're only looking at
"subway" stops here (i.e. places where there is no system transfer to the
primary, inner-city subway).

New York also has the LIRR, Metro-North, and Path, which are commuter rail
systems that reach even further and wider (and with headways more like what
you describe).

I'm just poking fun at New Yorkers. I understand why late trains are
frustrating, but a little perspective never hurts.

~~~
carlmr
Most cities in Germany have 2-3 primary "subway" systems, one operated by the
national railroad company, and the other usually municipal.

Above that the national railroad operates regional trains (RB, RE), express
trains (IC and ICE).

IC and ICE is what you would take from Stuttgart to Frankfurt.

RB, RE is what you would take from Stuttgart to some surrounding town like
Tübingen.

Then there's the S-Bahn, U-Bahn and Strassenbahn (not always), which are the
somewhat local trains.

The S-Bahn usually comes every 30 mins (but often multiple trains on the same
line lead you to have enough selection for a 10 minute wait in the city) and
fans far out (~30-50km in many cities), but often it's the fastest local
train. The stops are about 2-5km apart.

The U-Bahn is more local and doesn't fan out as far, usually goes every 10min
and has stops every km.

The Strassenbahn stops every 500m-1km and is above ground (so not technically
a subway), also this doesn't exist in all the major cities.

I was referring to the S-Bahn. For me it's my city train service, It's the
closest station and takes 10 min to downtown with a train running roughly
every 10min. I can take it far out of town as well.

I'm putting all three in the same pool because you usually buy a single ticket
valid for S-Bahn + municipal transport (U-Bahn, Strassenbahn and Buses).

The S-Bahn is both a primary subway for many people and it goes far out like
some commuter trains in NYC.

------
wils1245
The availability of ridesharing lessens the need for car ownership, which is a
huge win for cities because it reduces the need to devote space for the
storage of automobiles.

The article ignores this benefit entirely, then makes the contradictory points
that a) ridesharing apps actually increase traffic, and b) ridesharing apps
siphon riders from public traffic.

All in all it’s written from the perspective of someone who hasn’t had to
drive much in a high density urban area, where parking is nearly as much of a
headache to figure out as traffic.

~~~
stochastic_monk
It may reduce parking, but it does cause a net increase of miles driven
compared to people driving themselves.

It is also true that as more people rideshare, fewer take public transit,
which is more efficient in fuel and the number of people-miles driven.

These points are not in conflict.

~~~
briandear
Public transportation is not more efficient in terms of my time or usability.
When I have to transport my four kids somewhere or go grocery shopping, public
transport is a nightmare.

Let’s not assume people needing transportation are all single people carrying
a backpack with perfect physical abilities. Ever tried to get a stroller down
the subway steps in New York? In those relatively few stations that have
elevators, they’re all filled with piss and shit. Don’t want my 3 year old
walking around amongst that. Even in “enlightened” European cities, subway
elevators are often disgusting messes, not to mention more unsafe than having
an Uber driver drop you at your front door.

Public transport could be great — but I live in real-ville where it isn’t —
except maybe in Zurich — which is an extremely rich small, and compact city —
you could put twenty Zurichs in the Los Angeles metro at least. On paper,
places like New York have great public transport — but the UX is about 100x
harder than using Uber — especially with kids: walking up and down multiple
stairs, down long corridors, waiting on station platforms literally next to
crazy people, getting on a train, finding a seat — then trying to get back
home doing all that in reverse. Compare that to the literal seconds it takes
to order an Uber, wait outside your door, hop in, ride in quiet, mostly
pathogen-free comfort directly to your destination.

Public transport is “efficient” the same way a prison cafeteria is efficient.
I am not against public transport — it serves a valuable purpose as one facet
of a comprehensive transportation policy. But to claim it is more efficient is
really a matter of opinion — there are a lot of variables that make up what
“efficient” means.

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
I have used a good number of metro systems in Europe and Asia and practically
never smelled piss or shit, or encountered crazy people.

Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Prague, Paris, Stockholm, Beijing, Singapore, Hong
Kong, Seoul... not a single negative experience in these cities, and I have
seen plenty of people with kids in the metro.

Edit: OK, in Madrid they tried to take my old iPod from my coat pocket once,
in a very crowded car. But that was once in a lot of times using that metro
and it's not the kind of bad experience for kids that you are referring to.

In Rome I did find some stations somewhat shabby, as in New York. In Los
Angeles I had a good experience, but I only took the metro once there so it
may have been just luck.

~~~
isostatic
I was in central Paris last week, I saw crazies and people pissing. Reminded
me how bad the shadier parts of London was 20 years ago. That was just one of
the metro lines though, the other 10 trips on bus, 2 or 3 other metros and a
couple of RERs were fine, although metros were always crowded.

I agree with London, Berlin, Beijing, Singapore, Hong Kong etc.

(The reason we took the metro late at night with 2 young kids and a large
suitcase was because uber/taxis is a right pain with kids - trying to get one
with 2 car seats)

------
thebradbain
This is probably anecdotal evidence at best, but:

As a current college student who was just beginning highschool in Dallas when
Uber first starting becoming a real thing rather than a curiosity, I used Uber
all the time to get around even before I had a license (sometimes even taking
it to school in the morning), and continued to use the service once I did.
Almost all of my peers did, too.

I go to college in Los Angeles now and haven't had my car for a few years, so
I mostly rely on a mix of the Metro in addition to Uber for the last mile
problem.

I figured if I can make LA work without a car, I can make it work anywhere. I
have no plans to buy a car after college, instead choosing to rely on public
transit + Uber. Discussions with my friends from home and college reveal this
is not an uncommon plan upon graduation.

Perhaps these studies are looking at the "long-term" effects of Uber too
early? Could it be plausible that there's an "uber-generation" which will
contribute to a sharp decline in car sales?

~~~
JshWright
> I figured if I can make LA work without a car, I can make it work anywhere.

I assume by "anywhere" you mean "any reasonably urban area".

~~~
dannyw
I live in a very suburban, if not 'literally next door to large national
rainforest' area in Australia. Uber is not 100% reliable, but it works well
95% of the time and the rest can be solved via taking the bus.

~~~
JshWright
Fair enough, my comment doesn't apply to countries with functional public
transit system (the US is not one of those countries...)

------
twblalock
This reveals that people who were previously reliant on public transit are
making use of newer, better options.

If cities don't like that, they should improve public transit.

~~~
mikepurvis
Note as well— transit authorities are often balancing conflicting requirements
from their political overlords. In particular, maximizing profit vs. access.
Politicians (especially non users of transit) often want to see as many of
their constituents as possible "covered" by the transit system, which leads to
meandering, infrequently serviced routes of limited usefulness. But then when
this is done, there are complaints that the transit authority hasn't done
enough to "build ridership" and justify its own existence.

In a world where ride sharing is out-competing buses, perhaps there can be
more attention given to straightening out bus routes and increasing service
frequency accordingly.

More on coverage vs. ridership: [http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-
explainer-the-ridership...](http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-
the-ridership-recipe.html)

~~~
twblalock
Pretty much every other rich country manages to deliver good public transit,
and I'm sure they face the same combination of incentives.

------
cdoxsey
At least in NYC the congestion has many causes:

\- the continued growth of the population

\- active measures taken to eliminate lanes and slow traffic (the avg speed is
down to 6mph)

\- the continued decline of the transit systems (the subway system is dirty,
full of homeless people and unreliable... on time arrival has declined
significantly)

\- also its not just the subway, nj transit and lirr both have major
reliability and cost problems. I take a train from nj every day and I consider
myself lucky if my train isn't cancelled once every other week, leading to 3
hour commutes. I dread the next major tunnel failure leading to a week or more
of no transit options

\- the inability to add more capacity to aging infrastructure. It took over 50
years to add the 2nd ave subway and it still isn't finished. almost everything
is packed at rush hour leading to a deeply unpleasant commute

\- taxi service was artificially limited which led to the proliferation of
ride sharing services. They're all subsidized by the companies though, so its
hard to know if they're actually viable businesses

\- recently enforcement has been more strict in midtown. You will see traffic
police at most intersections, and drivers are ticketed for blocking lanes. The
blatant disregard for laws is a major issue. Cars and cyclists regularly run
red lights and people walk into traffic ignoring crossing signals, which leads
to cars slamming on their breaks, and then because traffic stops, all the
other people on the sidewalk decide to cross, and the whole thing grinds to a
halt.

------
spikels
Not a very good article. The underlying studies are pretty weak so I would say
the jury is still out on ride-sharing's impact on congestion. I advise anyone
really interested to read the actual research as this has become highly
politicized.

------
headsoup
Well at least parking should become more available for those that still do
drive themselves around I suppose...

As a public transport user I would appreciate less people being on the trains
at least.

I think the other point to consider is that a lot of those driving are
probably from out of town, where catching a ride-sharing service in peak hours
is going to be prohibitively expensive and therefore not viable. Perhaps ride
sharing services could be banned during peak hours, which puts us back to
yesterday.

~~~
mikepurvis
A lot of cities have wised up to the insanity that is on-street parking, and
converted it where possible into protected bike lanes, seating/parkettes,
wider sidewalks, etc. There's something to be said for lessening the demand
for parking in enabling that process.

~~~
jopsen
Indeed, you'll see this a lot of Europe. What's amazing is that American
cities are new, have wide streets, and thus lots of room if they wanted to do
something.

------
scythe
>Nearly 60 percent said they would have used public transportation, walked,
biked or skipped the trip entirely

Skipping the trip entirely is _not_ a desirable economic outcome. The whole
point of all this technology is to enable people to go places. If it doesn't
do that, it's broken.

~~~
chhs
I think you make a good point. The study[0] broke down the numbers further.

> When asked how they would have made their current trip if ride-hailing
> hadn’t been an option, 12% said they would have walked or biked, and over
> two-fifths (42%) of respondents said they would have otherwise taken
> transit. Some of this "transit substitution" takes place during rush hours.
> Indeed, we estimate that 12% of all ride-hailing trips are substituting for
> a transit trip during the morning or afternoon commute periods; an
> additional 3% of riders during these times would have otherwise walked or
> biked. _Overall, 15% of ride-hailing trips are adding cars to the region 's
> roadways during the morning or afternoon rush hours._

[0] Fare Choices - A Survey of Ride-Hailing Passengers in Metro Boston Report
#1 [http://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Fare-
Choices-...](http://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Fare-Choices-
MAPC.pdf)

------
Pelam
Captain obvious here again! There could be a danger of false dichotomy here.

It needs to be kept in mind that generally there are more options than A) lots
of people using ride sharing services or B) lots of people mainly using
personal cars.

Of course many cities in the US of A and the world in general are designed to
support A to B single passenger rides. This means lots of are covered by
parking spaces and assorted infrastructure.

If however cities are already designed or can be transformed in a way that
most people are assumed to not own a car and even ride sharing systems can be
accounted for, then most likely the congestion situation is affected as well.

~~~
cimmanom
That isn't even happening in NYC, where most people in fact don't own a car,
and virtually nobody (who lives in the 5 boroughs) commutes in one.

We're still prioritizing on street parking above transit, cycling, and even
pedestrianism - and the streets are clogged with Ubers and with the vehicles
of suburban commuters, to the point that buses might as well be pedal powered
for how fast they move, and cycling is suicidal.

~~~
vonmoltke
> We're still prioritizing on street parking above transit, cycling, and even
> pedestrianism - and the streets are clogged with Ubers and with the vehicles
> of suburban commuters

I'm not sure what part of the city you are referring to, but this is not what
I see in the lower half of Midtown. I see few personal vehicles, and none are
parked on the street. In fact, most street parking is explicitly commercial-
only during the day on weekdays.

I agree that a large amount of the congestion is caused by hired cars of one
sort or another, but contractors, delivery trucks, and sidewalk vendors are #2
and the primary drivers of street parking availability (in Midtown).

------
tytytytytytytyt
> While outfits like Uber are typically more efficient than traditional taxis,
> they both spend a significant amount of time milling about on the street as
> they wait for a fare.

Instead of just finding a place to park or wait? That doesn't sound right.

~~~
kelnos
Parking is still a reasonably scarce resource; I'd expect there wouldn't be
enough parking available at any given time to accommodate all the drivers not
currently giving someone a ride. In many cities there aren't really places you
can just "stop". And often the parking that _is_ available is metered, which
might cut into a driver's income more than burning gas circling around would.

~~~
tytytytytytytyt
That's why I said "or wait". It should have been obvious I meant sit in a spot
until you get a ride and not actually pay for a spot or leave the vehicle...
You don't need an official parking spot to wait for 15 minutes, as long as you
aren't blocking the bus.

~~~
kelnos
I addressed that: there really aren't that many places you can just "stop" in
many cities, certainly not enough to cover all the ride-share drivers roaming
around.

------
umanwizard
Good! More people are using public infrastructure. Must mean it's worth it to
them, right?

------
pdonis
The problem described in the article is a short term problem. The reason for
the increase in congestion is that the new services, Uber and Lyft, have added
vehicles, not displaced them. The taxis and buses that were there before are
still there, plus now there are ride sharing vehicles.

But that situation won't last. If usage of taxis and buses decreases, fewer of
them will be needed, so the number of them on the city streets will gradually
decrease. That hasn't happened yet because those services are propped up by
fees and taxes, so the fact that they are being out-competed can be hidden--
for a while. Sooner or later that will cease to be feasible.

The real question is whether, after all this has shaken out, congestion on
city streets will be better than it was before ride sharing services came
along. It seems like it ought to be, since ride sharing seems like a more
efficient way to allocate vehicle space. But we won't know for sure until the
experiment is done.

~~~
acabal
Oh I certainly hope usage of buses doesn't decrease. One person hailing an
Uber takes up an entire car's worth of space on the road: 4 seats, an engine,
and a trunk. One person riding a bus takes a single bus seat on a vehicle that
can hold 20+ people in a minimum of space.

If each individual hailed a single Uber for each ride, it's obvious congestion
would greatly _increase_ versus each individual taking a bus, simple because
one person in a private car takes up much more physical space than one person
on a shared bus.

(I hope Uber doesn't continue to increase for many other reasons, congestion
being just one of them.)

~~~
ballenf
The only time public transport is efficient space-wise is during rush/peak
hours. But the same buses/trams are used during off-peak hours. Haven't we all
ridden nearly-empty public transport many times?

Maybe just restricting ridesharing during peak hours and reducing public
transport during off-peak (even subsidize ride shares like has been tried).

~~~
zaroth
Not to mention that the bus’s limited maneuverability and constant stopping,
and pulling over (usually not out of the flow of traffic) to discharge/pickup
passengers, means it contributes to traffic congestion significantly more than
the equivalent number of cars taking the same linear feet.

~~~
ufo
Instead of looking at it as buses using up a lane that could have been used
for cars, look at it as cars using a lane that could have been bus exclusive.

The throughput of a bus is so massively larger than that of cars that it will
outweighs the frequent stopping. And if you give buses a dedicated lane they
become much more efficient as well.

~~~
vkou
I don't understand why you're being downvoted.

Ever since bus-only lanes, as well an HOV has been added to SR-520, my commute
by bus during peak became faster then my commute by car.

That one HOV lane has more throughput then both of the regular, non-HOV lanes
on the highway combined.

