4 ms·

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 p

by 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.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
      That can certainly have an effect. At the end of the day, a lot of people in LA prefer serene private transport in an environment under their control that runs on their own schedule over public transport. I commuted via bike and public transit for 3 years more or less every day. I work remotely now, but I'd be reluctant to use it regularly even if it was faster and free.
solidsnack9000 9y ago
> The one fifth of trips that wouldn't exist seems like a positive to society... But it does still mean more traffic.
- SilasX 9y ago
  It may not mean the traffic we actually care about. If vehicle miles increase at 3am, when no road is at capacity, there is virtually no externality or negative impact buses. If people are mainly using Uber/Lyft for those mid-late evening barhopping trips, then the same logic basically applies -- those aren't the times when roads are near capacity. It would mainly be a problem if they're using it near rush hours, where it would in fact increase the vehicles/person o on the road.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Capacity isn't the only issue of transportation. There are plenty of negative externalities besides this, like emissions, pollution, noise. Reducing VMT and converting it to transit use would be beneficial at any time of day. On the other hand, off-peak capacity on transit is often near free. The line is built anyway, or the services have to be provided anyway, or the shifts are 8 hours anyway, so providing extra off-peak trips is often not a big strain. If the displaced trips are done by people who usually don't take transit, it means they'll pay more expensive fares (single tickets), which could even be cost-neutral wrt to subsidies. At the same time, those trips can get drivers used to the idea of taking transit, possibly encouraging them to take more transit in the future.

by c3534l 9y ago

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.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    That can certainly have an effect. At the end of the day, a lot of people in LA prefer serene private transport in an environment under their control that runs on their own schedule over public transport. I commuted via bike and public transit for 3 years more or less every day. I work remotely now, but I'd be reluctant to use it regularly even if it was faster and free.

solidsnack9000 9y ago

> The one fifth of trips that wouldn't exist seems like a positive to society... But it does still mean more traffic.

SilasX 9y ago
It may not mean the traffic we actually care about. If vehicle miles increase at 3am, when no road is at capacity, there is virtually no externality or negative impact buses. If people are mainly using Uber/Lyft for those mid-late evening barhopping trips, then the same logic basically applies -- those aren't the times when roads are near capacity. It would mainly be a problem if they're using it near rush hours, where it would in fact increase the vehicles/person o on the road.
- ant6n 9y ago
  Capacity isn't the only issue of transportation. There are plenty of negative externalities besides this, like emissions, pollution, noise. Reducing VMT and converting it to transit use would be beneficial at any time of day. On the other hand, off-peak capacity on transit is often near free. The line is built anyway, or the services have to be provided anyway, or the shifts are 8 hours anyway, so providing extra off-peak trips is often not a big strain. If the displaced trips are done by people who usually don't take transit, it means they'll pay more expensive fares (single tickets), which could even be cost-neutral wrt to subsidies. At the same time, those trips can get drivers used to the idea of taking transit, possibly encouraging them to take more transit in the future.