9 ms·

tl;dr People use ridesharing mostly to go out to eat and drink (62% of trips). Riders are actually more likely to own cars. They don't want to drive when they

tl;dr People use ridesharing mostly to go out to eat and drink (62% of trips). Riders are actually more likely to own cars. They don't want to drive when they're going out because they don't want to deal with parking or drive drunk. They don't ride the bus because it's too slow, unreliable or unavailable. If ridesharing didn't exist, two fifths of the time they'd walk, bike or use public transit instead, and a fifth of the trips just wouldn't happen. While ridesharing supports pooling, it also wastes "deadhead" passengerless miles between fares. As a result, ridesharing actually increases total vehicle miles traveled.

samstave 9y ago
It may increase the "total miles traveled" but doesn't it also increase occupancy density in the cars, thus reducing the fuel/pollution consumption? I'm tired of shitty data coming out of Uber and Lyft: I want to know about fuel consumption and the impact on auto insurance rates/accident frequency. Given the known population of drivers, what is their average insurance rate, fuel consumption etc vs the general pop whom are driving their own cars/fuel/insurance? I recall I had a heavy month on city car share where I spent $800 in one month for that service. Fuck that. I cancelled my account after that. There is extraordinarily valuable data these companies (and insurance companies) have they don't share. The fact that they hoard this data to protect their profits should be criminal as this data should be a Utility...
- abalone 9y ago
  > It may increase the "total miles traveled" but doesn't it also increase occupancy density in the cars If it did then it wouldn't increase total VMT. Again there are "deadhead" miles in those cars without any passengers at all, a fifth of those trips wouldn't have happened in the first place, and two fifths would have used alternatives that don't contribute to VMT. (According to the study.)
  - ibejoeb 9y ago
    The fifth of those trips that don't happen sounds bad to me. Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries because they can't carry all of that on a bicycle or a bus? From the article, "Ride-hailing users have higher personal vehicle ownership rates than those who use “transit only”: 52% versus 46%." This point seems like a non-point. First, that's not a very big gap. Also, Do richer people pollute less or congest less than poorer people? I don't think so, so having the car in the garage is better than having it on the road, and no different than not having it at all.
    - bartc 9y ago
      Probably more like people wouldn’t go out to a cross-town bar or restaurant if they couldn’t take a taxi or lyft/uber to get there. For example, if mass transit is prohibitive (two buses at 1 am) and they don’t want to drive drunk. Easy access to quick transportation is a general economic benefit for everyone. That’s not support for uber or lyft specifically, but if people can easily get around town, they’re more likely to make extra trips to bars, restaurants, shows, etc. where they may have otherwise considered just staying home.
      - ibejoeb 9y ago
        Nobody in Los Angeles is ever taking a taxi. The reality, in LA, is that if you're not going via Uber/Lyft, you're driving drunk. Not going is not even on the table. This is FOMO capital of the world.
        samstave 9y ago
        Define FOMO?
        detaro 9y ago
        Fear of missing out?
    - abalone 9y ago
      > Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries Unlikely. Most trips are to bars, parties and restaurants. The point about car ownership is really just refuting the belief that ridesharing leads to an immediate decrease in car ownership. Overall the study tries to focus on VMT as the more important metric, since you could sell your car and switch to ridesharing and still end up with greater VMT.
ibejoeb 9y ago
That all seems like a net positive to me, especially in major urban areas that a very car dependent like Los Angles, Atlanta, Houston... In LA, driving drunk was just the way of life, and it was a real problem. Now, I don't know anyone who prefers driving over ridesharing given the option. Uber Pool makes getting from the east side to the west side faster that public transit for about $10-15, which is less than 1 drink and 1000x less than a DUI. It is disingenuous to fault ridesharing for public transit's problems. Of course people are going to opt for the most value. We could raise taxes and invest in improvements that may materialize in 10 years, but that's a hard sell when you have a really good option right now.
- abalone 9y ago
  I don't think the study is "faulting" anyone. Clearly ridesharing is a very popular and convenient alternative to driving and public transit which are both rife with problems. It is however contributing to traffic and emissions. Those are important facts to establish because previously it was thought that maybe ridesharing is helping with those too, like a dream come true. It concludes, "substantial policy action may be required to ensure that ride-hailing can effectively be woven into the transportation network while reducing congestion and the emissions of transportation services. Absent of these efforts, congestion and emissions appear likely to grow."[1] [1] https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2752 https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/d...
  - TrinaryWorksToo 9y ago
    If we want ridesharing to decrease emissions and traffic, someone should subsidize it as first and last mile transit. That way cars are always at capacity (always picking up or dropping off users) and traffic gets reduced on highways (people will be on transit). In addition public transit will fill to capacity, allowing them to run more often.
    - abalone 9y ago
      At best that would only help with relatively long distance trips, and the study notes it has already led to and increase in commuter rail use. (Which is offset by greater VMT in other cases.) Also it probably still involves deadhead trips within those last miles.
bluedino 9y ago
>> because they don't want to deal with parking or drive drunk. That's what my friends use it for. It's a shame, because in the smaller midwestern towns, we don't really have Uber yet so it can't be used. Drunk driving here isn't even given a second thought.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Most bars have the names of taxi services to call if you're over the limit. To still drive because that's inconvenient is quite literally criminal.
  - Impossible 9y ago
    In many smaller towns, and even larger cities where taxies are not common, this isn't an option. When I lived in Mesa years ago I'd call cab services multiple times and they'd just never show up. Many smaller towns just don't have taxi services.
    - serf 9y ago
      It's espescially cruel when you consider that rural/small towns are usually the ones least set up for pedestrian traffic. Not only are there no taxis/uber/buses , there are no sidewalks, street lights, few traffic signals, etc.
      - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        Even worse, if you do walk after the bars close, you are more likely to get stopped by the police simply because you are out walking. Living a mile outside the city, you can get stopped because you are walking on the side of the major road. You are supposed to take the slower route through the countryside.
        StudentStuff 9y ago
        This only seems like an issue if your in what I'd call a bad area. The definition of this seems to be "bored, overstaffed cops policing minor incidents & creating crime", which you see often in the more affluent *burbs here on the West Coast. IMO that is why areas like Lake Oswego, Shoreline, etc are slum as far as I'm concerned. I would never want to live in a place where my power goes out every other month, my house costs $800k+, and the police and local gov't are trying to fuck me at every turn. Why pay a premium for a shit community?
ilamont 9y ago
Does anyone know the impact of ride-sharing on restaurants, entertainment venues, shopping, and other activities not close to rapid transit or bus stations?
c3534l 9y ago
The one fifth of trips that wouldn't exist seems like a positive to society in that it is providing a service that is actively making a difference the choices people are making, providing them with value and choice. Additionally, restaurants are happy because they're getting more customers and selling more drinks. The reduction in drunk driving is also good. I'm not sure that justifies the rest of the traffic increases. I would bet that overall it is a net benefit to society, but I am certainly less enthusiastic about ride-sharing now.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  if you imagine that they'll transition to all electric self driving cars, it would only be a net benefit right? the transactions are still happening, in increasing volume, and the environment won't be more adversely affected just because there might be congestion isn't a negative
  - c3534l 9y ago
    Congestion is certainly a negative externality. At the extreme, traffic can increase to the point where roads can no longer function to facilitate the movement of cars - constant traffic jams and decreased speed relative to walking or biking. Additionally, driving in traffic is unpleasant, increases accidents, reduces the desirability of living in the surrounding area, is smelly and noisy to be around, and increases wear and tear on the road. Increased use of public transportation is one of those weird things that probably benefits drivers as much if not more than the people who actually take it.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      Well, if we were actually reasonable about mass transit in the US, you wouldn't see cities like LA giving priority to cars over light rail (with poor excuses like "cars can only wait 50 seconds at an intersection"). Quite a bit of LA could also do with dedicated HOT lanes for buses, bikers and those accessing local destinations (eg: within 4 blocks), combined with signal priority for buses you could easily see a bus beating driving by 5 to 10min, but LA's car culture is toxic to reasonable ideas.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chrischen 9y ago
Recently one of my daily routes actually takes longer by lyft line than by public transit, if the lyft line has two intermediate pickups and drops. I feel like once it reaches peak car pooling sustainable fiscal efficiency it no longer becomes superior or conpetitive against public transit.
racer-v 9y ago
They don't ride the bus because it's too slow, unreliable or unavailable. Yes - Uber showed up the inadequacy of public transit in the US just as much as they disrupted the taxi industry. Transit seems designed only for consumers who can't afford any other option. If public services want people to choose to ride the bus over taking a car, they need to substantially increase the quality of the riding experience.
- api 9y ago
  Part of the issue with buses is the maps. Trains usually have nice schematic style maps but there seems to be a law mandating that bus maps be illegible tangles of purple lines with little hard to read numbers and a table of what those numbers mean on a different page.
  - jakecopp 9y ago
    Is that because buses stop more frequently, and so don't lend their routes to geographically simplified schematics as well as trains? What do you think would be the perfect bus route map design? I'm really interested in this!
  - racer-v 9y ago
    Personally I think the biggest problem with bus maps is that when you get on a bus, you can't find one. The inside is plastered with advertisements and "public service announcements" telling you to go to the opera and not drink soda. Instead if could look at the wall (or grab a pamphlet) and see where I need to get off for my transfer, that would already be a huge improvement.

samstave 9y ago

It may increase the "total miles traveled" but doesn't it also increase occupancy density in the cars, thus reducing the fuel/pollution consumption? I'm tired of shitty data coming out of Uber and Lyft: I want to know about fuel consumption and the impact on auto insurance rates/accident frequency. Given the known population of drivers, what is their average insurance rate, fuel consumption etc vs the general pop whom are driving their own cars/fuel/insurance? I recall I had a heavy month on city car share where I spent $800 in one month for that service. Fuck that. I cancelled my account after that. There is extraordinarily valuable data these companies (and insurance companies) have they don't share. The fact that they hoard this data to protect their profits should be criminal as this data should be a Utility...

abalone 9y ago
> It may increase the "total miles traveled" but doesn't it also increase occupancy density in the cars If it did then it wouldn't increase total VMT. Again there are "deadhead" miles in those cars without any passengers at all, a fifth of those trips wouldn't have happened in the first place, and two fifths would have used alternatives that don't contribute to VMT. (According to the study.)
- ibejoeb 9y ago
  The fifth of those trips that don't happen sounds bad to me. Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries because they can't carry all of that on a bicycle or a bus? From the article, "Ride-hailing users have higher personal vehicle ownership rates than those who use “transit only”: 52% versus 46%." This point seems like a non-point. First, that's not a very big gap. Also, Do richer people pollute less or congest less than poorer people? I don't think so, so having the car in the garage is better than having it on the road, and no different than not having it at all.
  - bartc 9y ago
    Probably more like people wouldn’t go out to a cross-town bar or restaurant if they couldn’t take a taxi or lyft/uber to get there. For example, if mass transit is prohibitive (two buses at 1 am) and they don’t want to drive drunk. Easy access to quick transportation is a general economic benefit for everyone. That’s not support for uber or lyft specifically, but if people can easily get around town, they’re more likely to make extra trips to bars, restaurants, shows, etc. where they may have otherwise considered just staying home.
    - ibejoeb 9y ago
      Nobody in Los Angeles is ever taking a taxi. The reality, in LA, is that if you're not going via Uber/Lyft, you're driving drunk. Not going is not even on the table. This is FOMO capital of the world.
      - samstave 9y ago
        Define FOMO?
        detaro 9y ago
        Fear of missing out?
  - abalone 9y ago
    > Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries Unlikely. Most trips are to bars, parties and restaurants. The point about car ownership is really just refuting the belief that ridesharing leads to an immediate decrease in car ownership. Overall the study tries to focus on VMT as the more important metric, since you could sell your car and switch to ridesharing and still end up with greater VMT.

ibejoeb 9y ago

That all seems like a net positive to me, especially in major urban areas that a very car dependent like Los Angles, Atlanta, Houston... In LA, driving drunk was just the way of life, and it was a real problem. Now, I don't know anyone who prefers driving over ridesharing given the option. Uber Pool makes getting from the east side to the west side faster that public transit for about $10-15, which is less than 1 drink and 1000x less than a DUI. It is disingenuous to fault ridesharing for public transit's problems. Of course people are going to opt for the most value. We could raise taxes and invest in improvements that may materialize in 10 years, but that's a hard sell when you have a really good option right now.

abalone 9y ago
I don't think the study is "faulting" anyone. Clearly ridesharing is a very popular and convenient alternative to driving and public transit which are both rife with problems. It is however contributing to traffic and emissions. Those are important facts to establish because previously it was thought that maybe ridesharing is helping with those too, like a dream come true. It concludes, "substantial policy action may be required to ensure that ride-hailing can effectively be woven into the transportation network while reducing congestion and the emissions of transportation services. Absent of these efforts, congestion and emissions appear likely to grow."[1] [1] https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2752 https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/d...
- TrinaryWorksToo 9y ago
  If we want ridesharing to decrease emissions and traffic, someone should subsidize it as first and last mile transit. That way cars are always at capacity (always picking up or dropping off users) and traffic gets reduced on highways (people will be on transit). In addition public transit will fill to capacity, allowing them to run more often.
  - abalone 9y ago
    At best that would only help with relatively long distance trips, and the study notes it has already led to and increase in commuter rail use. (Which is offset by greater VMT in other cases.) Also it probably still involves deadhead trips within those last miles.

bluedino 9y ago

>> because they don't want to deal with parking or drive drunk. That's what my friends use it for. It's a shame, because in the smaller midwestern towns, we don't really have Uber yet so it can't be used. Drunk driving here isn't even given a second thought.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Most bars have the names of taxi services to call if you're over the limit. To still drive because that's inconvenient is quite literally criminal.
- Impossible 9y ago
  In many smaller towns, and even larger cities where taxies are not common, this isn't an option. When I lived in Mesa years ago I'd call cab services multiple times and they'd just never show up. Many smaller towns just don't have taxi services.
  - serf 9y ago
    It's espescially cruel when you consider that rural/small towns are usually the ones least set up for pedestrian traffic. Not only are there no taxis/uber/buses , there are no sidewalks, street lights, few traffic signals, etc.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Even worse, if you do walk after the bars close, you are more likely to get stopped by the police simply because you are out walking. Living a mile outside the city, you can get stopped because you are walking on the side of the major road. You are supposed to take the slower route through the countryside.
      - StudentStuff 9y ago
        This only seems like an issue if your in what I'd call a bad area. The definition of this seems to be "bored, overstaffed cops policing minor incidents & creating crime", which you see often in the more affluent *burbs here on the West Coast. IMO that is why areas like Lake Oswego, Shoreline, etc are slum as far as I'm concerned. I would never want to live in a place where my power goes out every other month, my house costs $800k+, and the police and local gov't are trying to fuck me at every turn. Why pay a premium for a shit community?

ilamont 9y ago

Does anyone know the impact of ride-sharing on restaurants, entertainment venues, shopping, and other activities not close to rapid transit or bus stations?

c3534l 9y ago

The one fifth of trips that wouldn't exist seems like a positive to society in that it is providing a service that is actively making a difference the choices people are making, providing them with value and choice. Additionally, restaurants are happy because they're getting more customers and selling more drinks. The reduction in drunk driving is also good. I'm not sure that justifies the rest of the traffic increases. I would bet that overall it is a net benefit to society, but I am certainly less enthusiastic about ride-sharing now.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
if you imagine that they'll transition to all electric self driving cars, it would only be a net benefit right? the transactions are still happening, in increasing volume, and the environment won't be more adversely affected just because there might be congestion isn't a negative
- c3534l 9y ago
  Congestion is certainly a negative externality. At the extreme, traffic can increase to the point where roads can no longer function to facilitate the movement of cars - constant traffic jams and decreased speed relative to walking or biking. Additionally, driving in traffic is unpleasant, increases accidents, reduces the desirability of living in the surrounding area, is smelly and noisy to be around, and increases wear and tear on the road. Increased use of public transportation is one of those weird things that probably benefits drivers as much if not more than the people who actually take it.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Well, if we were actually reasonable about mass transit in the US, you wouldn't see cities like LA giving priority to cars over light rail (with poor excuses like "cars can only wait 50 seconds at an intersection"). Quite a bit of LA could also do with dedicated HOT lanes for buses, bikers and those accessing local destinations (eg: within 4 blocks), combined with signal priority for buses you could easily see a bus beating driving by 5 to 10min, but LA's car culture is toxic to reasonable ideas.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

chrischen 9y ago

Recently one of my daily routes actually takes longer by lyft line than by public transit, if the lyft line has two intermediate pickups and drops. I feel like once it reaches peak car pooling sustainable fiscal efficiency it no longer becomes superior or conpetitive against public transit.

racer-v 9y ago

They don't ride the bus because it's too slow, unreliable or unavailable. Yes - Uber showed up the inadequacy of public transit in the US just as much as they disrupted the taxi industry. Transit seems designed only for consumers who can't afford any other option. If public services want people to choose to ride the bus over taking a car, they need to substantially increase the quality of the riding experience.

api 9y ago
Part of the issue with buses is the maps. Trains usually have nice schematic style maps but there seems to be a law mandating that bus maps be illegible tangles of purple lines with little hard to read numbers and a table of what those numbers mean on a different page.
- jakecopp 9y ago
  Is that because buses stop more frequently, and so don't lend their routes to geographically simplified schematics as well as trains? What do you think would be the perfect bus route map design? I'm really interested in this!
- racer-v 9y ago
  Personally I think the biggest problem with bus maps is that when you get on a bus, you can't find one. The inside is plastered with advertisements and "public service announcements" telling you to go to the opera and not drink soda. Instead if could look at the wall (or grab a pamphlet) and see where I need to get off for my transfer, that would already be a huge improvement.