11 ms·

Cars congest cities. Articles like this encourage policy makers to target users of ride sharing, while ignoring the obvious broader problem. If cities build ap

Cars congest cities. Articles like this encourage policy makers to target users of ride sharing, while ignoring the obvious broader problem. If cities build appropriate multi modal transportation networks and restrict the amount of space allowed for vehicle traffic, people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic.

beguiledfoil 9y ago
Even Seattle is seeing per capita transit ridership drops, odd considering expansion of rail lines. In an urban environment the car is what turns transportation into a game of the prisoner's dilemma. From this point of view ride shares are just the latest way that America has managed to extend the game. My desire is that we develop ways to make cities hospitable to carless families. That goal seems more remote now than it did in 2010.
- mrep 9y ago
  Light rail usage has grown by leaps and bounds [0]. The reason you are seeing a per capita transit ridership decline is because Seattle is the fastest growing city in the country [1] so it's understandable why public transit rates are declining despite the huge investments. [0]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-light-rail-ridership-continue-to-grow/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sou... [1]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-once-again-nations-fastest-growing-big-city-population-exceeds-700000/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-once-...
  - DrScump 9y ago
    because Seattle is the fastest growing city in the country ... it's understandable why public transit rates are declining I don't see how the latter logically resuls from the former. It seems counterintuitive.
- lsc 9y ago
  >My desire is that we develop ways to make cities hospitable to carless families. That goal seems more remote now than it did in 2010. Eh, from where I stand (in silicon valley) being carless is way more practical now than in 2010; I mean, I don't have a child, so I'm not a carless family, but I've gotten rid of my car and more than half of my 'ride sharing' trips are in the actual 'ride sharing' mode where they can pick up other people. I take fewer trips in general (I now use grocery delivery, etc..) and I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic, unless ride shares spend more time driving empty than they spend driving two-up, which isn't my perception. Ride sharing services do make public transit marginally more useful. I usually use the train to get to SF, but because they shut down so early, I usually come home on a rideshare. Before rideshare, I'd have to drive to SF both ways or get a hotel 'cause the train back would be closed by the time I wanted to come home.
  - apendleton 9y ago
    > I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic I don't think it does; your use is in line with the rideshare operators' claims as to why traffic should go down given their service: that it makes it easier for people to not own a car, and that consequently while some of their trips will be ride share, they might be shared, and others will be more likely to be transit. I think what the studies are showing, though, is that not everyone's behavior is like yours. Some people (like me, for instance), didn't ever own a car, but now at least sometimes use Uber or Lyft because it's cheap and convenient when otherwise they/we would have used transit, because it used to be our only option. Apparently we're hurting more than you're helping?
    - closeparen 9y ago
      As far as I can tell, the surveys are asking about specific trips. It's true that I substitute ridesharing for public transit for specific trips (therefore contributing to these results), but also true that if ridesharing were banned, I would buy a car.
    - lsc 9y ago
- guitarbill 9y ago
  Seattle is especially bad in newer areas like SLU, where they could have made it pedestrian/bike friendly. Instead, they put in wide/American-style roads, car-focussed traffic lights (with short pedestrian crossing times that only trigger when you press a button, even on the busiest streets), and barely any new public transport. That, and every shitty construction site is happy to block the sidewalk, so good luck walking two blocks without having to cross over. Anyway, transport-wise it looks and feels like any other American city, which is a shame. (I mean it's not LA-levels of bad, but that's not an achievement.)
tachyoff 9y ago
You’d have to defeat the automotive lobby and voters in the suburbs who have issues with certain types of people being able to visit. I’m hoping those of us who really want it get the public transit everyone deserves, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
closeparen 9y ago
>All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Other people's preferences don't bend to this kind of declaration. If they were preferable, people would choose them. I'm all for building out better transit infrastructure, but there is simply no contest in the midcentury suburban sprawl that dominates American life. Maybe park-n-ride. We're going to have to figure out how to build attractive, livable, and politically credible compact urban environments at scale to really address car dependence.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  > If they were preferable, people would choose them. Balivernes. That’s just a tautology. I’m sure if you ask any American if they think the electoral college system is fair, 99/100 will tell you it isn’t. Yet it persists. Why? Many reasons, among them being institutional inertia. Institutions are big and slow, especially ones involving concrete and steel. There are also power amplification issues. That is to say, certain groups of people might have more power to effect change than others. A majority can seemingly want something, but not know how or not be able to effectively get that change accomplished. In other words, I think it’s a bit more complicated than “if people wanted public transit we would have public transit”.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. The real challenge is in building out the transit infrastructure and dense transit-oriented development that would make these options genuinely preferable to most people. Not in declaring that they're preferable or forcing people into them today.
    - tachyoff 9y ago
      > There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. Assuming you live in a bikeable or walkable area, sure. Bus service exists, but it can be patchy and/or underfunded. Some people simply have none of these options. I live in Detroit (yes, Motor City), and this area is crying out for good mass transit. In fact, two out of four necessary counties voted down a regional transit mileage (which amounted to peanuts every year on property tax bills), which would have provided billions to develop rapid transit for southeast Michigan, because of pretty much racial hangups and “screw you, got mine”-ism from the suburbs. These are complex issues. I agree that building out transit infrastructure is complicated, but I think making them politically attractive are equally difficult.
mrep 9y ago
> people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Maybe for you but my girlfriend could write a book about all of the harassment she has received from random strangers in Seattle. She has even been assaulted which is why we are now car shopping after trying to go without one for 2 years and that is just so she can feel safe traveling. She would easily drive multi hour commutes to avoid having our future kids risk/deal with what she experiences while walking around downtown.
- tmnvix 9y ago
  I understand that this might seem rational from an individual's perspective but to exclude your family from society in this way is a tragedy and does not seem like any kind of solution to me.
  - yodon 9y ago
    Moving out to the suburbs when you have kids is a tragedy? That’s some serious first world definition of tragedy.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      I think they mean that blocking problems that would prevent the implementation of their favorite policy are the tragedies. Public transport does not work, and this is just one more reason why. Every few years the police feels the need to spend a month or two catching pickpockets (or worse) on public transport. Train stations in all the big cities are hotbeds of criminal activity. That is a major problem that is not, and probably won't ever be, solved. For me personally public transport fails in 3 massive ways: 1) public transport means I cannot do groceries, shopping for furniture, tvs or other big goods, move houses, ... so I still need a car, public transport or not. 2) governments just don't build out public transport. Even in places with "excellent" public transport, when I pass there (the Netherlands, for example), there are severe capacity problems that COULD have been solved, but aren't. In many places like London or New York, there aren't capacity problems, you're actually unlikely to NOT be delayed at some point. 3) it's not actually cheaper once you take into account that you have to bring 2 kids to school, then go to work. Taking the cost/inconvenience/risk of public transport doesn't even provide a monetary or time reward. This also means that using public transport for family trips is out : driving across Europe (e.g. Netherlands -> South of France) for a weekend or holiday ... train is a LOT more expensive than using a car. (That said, it can provide a big time advantage and I will use it in that case, but I still much prefer a car) Some reading on the subject: http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/06/top-eight-reasons-people-give-up-on-public-transit/#2c059fe4fd84 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/06/top-eigh...
chrismcb 9y ago
Uber and lyft aren't "ride sharing" they are taxi service. And we had rules and regulations to limit tazi services, and congestion was one of the reasons. But everyone complained that these rules are based and antiquated.
- bluntfang 9y ago
  Since you're being pedantic, I think we should call it what it is: Livery service. Taxis, at least in my municipality, are the only vehicles legally permitted to pick passengers up off the street, aka only taxis can be hailed in person. Uber and Lyft cannot do this (where I live), and that is the differentiator.
almostApatriot1 9y ago
Uber and Lyft operate at a loss, even more so if you factor in how little drivers consider the wear and tear on their cars. Ride sharing would go down in favor of public transport if ride sharers paid the true cost.
- idunno246 9y ago
  public transit operates at a loss, sfmta tickets accounted for 20% of the budget, and bart looks like about a third...
lulmerchant 9y ago
>If cities build appropriate multi modal transportation networks and restrict the amount of space allowed for vehicle traffic, people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive This is far from being an established fact. Ignoring the fact that cities can't simple be redesigned from the ground up to maximise the benefits of public transport, there's very conflicting evidence about whether increasing public transport decreases congestion.
- megy 9y ago
  > This is far from being an established fact. Ignoring the fact that cities can't simple be redesigned from the ground up to maximise the benefits of public transport, there's very conflicting evidence about whether increasing public transport decreases congestion. Ok, well I guess if you increase PT and no one catches is then sure. But if you make drivers pay the proper prices for using roads then that will encourage them to take the cheaper option.
stmfreak 9y ago
I prefer being stuck in traffic than sitting on the pissy seats of public transportation. Waiting in the rain for my connection downwind from the smokers. Standing on the train because some piss soaked bum is sprawled across two seats... there are many legitimate downsides to public transit. People make the choices that work best for each of them. For the majority, that means driving in a clean, private car.
- plasticchris 9y ago
  fwiw caltrain is not like this at all used to ride next to a twitter guy who referred to it as the "premium" option...
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Caltrain isn't completely immune to public transit foibles, but it's mostly hazard-free, primarily because people use it exclusively as transportation and not "a place to hang out outside of the elements". Fare evasion is actually checked for regularly, and it's enforced. I always take Caltrain when I go directly to/from the ballpark, even though I have parking passes for all games (which almost always can be sold at a profit).
- discoursism 9y ago
  > For the majority, that means driving in a clean, private car. Not the majority. At least not in sensibly operating cities. https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute
- s0rce 9y ago
  This decision is also largely economic and cars are hugely subsidized in America compared to public transit.
njarboe 9y ago
Yes. When forced to, due to bad traffic, people will use other forms of transport. Fast, enclosed, point-to-point, on-demand personal transport (cars and trucks) seem to be better than other modes. Why don't we fix the problems with personal transport instead making that mode so broken that people are forced to use other methods. Go Boring Company.

beguiledfoil 9y ago

Even Seattle is seeing per capita transit ridership drops, odd considering expansion of rail lines. In an urban environment the car is what turns transportation into a game of the prisoner's dilemma. From this point of view ride shares are just the latest way that America has managed to extend the game. My desire is that we develop ways to make cities hospitable to carless families. That goal seems more remote now than it did in 2010.

mrep 9y ago
Light rail usage has grown by leaps and bounds [0]. The reason you are seeing a per capita transit ridership decline is because Seattle is the fastest growing city in the country [1] so it's understandable why public transit rates are declining despite the huge investments. [0]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-light-rail-ridership-continue-to-grow/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sou... [1]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-once-again-nations-fastest-growing-big-city-population-exceeds-700000/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-once-...
- DrScump 9y ago
  because Seattle is the fastest growing city in the country ... it's understandable why public transit rates are declining I don't see how the latter logically resuls from the former. It seems counterintuitive.
lsc 9y ago
>My desire is that we develop ways to make cities hospitable to carless families. That goal seems more remote now than it did in 2010. Eh, from where I stand (in silicon valley) being carless is way more practical now than in 2010; I mean, I don't have a child, so I'm not a carless family, but I've gotten rid of my car and more than half of my 'ride sharing' trips are in the actual 'ride sharing' mode where they can pick up other people. I take fewer trips in general (I now use grocery delivery, etc..) and I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic, unless ride shares spend more time driving empty than they spend driving two-up, which isn't my perception. Ride sharing services do make public transit marginally more useful. I usually use the train to get to SF, but because they shut down so early, I usually come home on a rideshare. Before rideshare, I'd have to drive to SF both ways or get a hotel 'cause the train back would be closed by the time I wanted to come home.
- apendleton 9y ago
  > I'm having a hard time seeing how my use of ridesharing services instead of driving myself could increase traffic I don't think it does; your use is in line with the rideshare operators' claims as to why traffic should go down given their service: that it makes it easier for people to not own a car, and that consequently while some of their trips will be ride share, they might be shared, and others will be more likely to be transit. I think what the studies are showing, though, is that not everyone's behavior is like yours. Some people (like me, for instance), didn't ever own a car, but now at least sometimes use Uber or Lyft because it's cheap and convenient when otherwise they/we would have used transit, because it used to be our only option. Apparently we're hurting more than you're helping?
  - closeparen 9y ago
    As far as I can tell, the surveys are asking about specific trips. It's true that I substitute ridesharing for public transit for specific trips (therefore contributing to these results), but also true that if ridesharing were banned, I would buy a car.
  - lsc 9y ago
guitarbill 9y ago
Seattle is especially bad in newer areas like SLU, where they could have made it pedestrian/bike friendly. Instead, they put in wide/American-style roads, car-focussed traffic lights (with short pedestrian crossing times that only trigger when you press a button, even on the busiest streets), and barely any new public transport. That, and every shitty construction site is happy to block the sidewalk, so good luck walking two blocks without having to cross over. Anyway, transport-wise it looks and feels like any other American city, which is a shame. (I mean it's not LA-levels of bad, but that's not an achievement.)

tachyoff 9y ago

You’d have to defeat the automotive lobby and voters in the suburbs who have issues with certain types of people being able to visit. I’m hoping those of us who really want it get the public transit everyone deserves, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

closeparen 9y ago

>All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Other people's preferences don't bend to this kind of declaration. If they were preferable, people would choose them. I'm all for building out better transit infrastructure, but there is simply no contest in the midcentury suburban sprawl that dominates American life. Maybe park-n-ride. We're going to have to figure out how to build attractive, livable, and politically credible compact urban environments at scale to really address car dependence.

tachyoff 9y ago
> If they were preferable, people would choose them. Balivernes. That’s just a tautology. I’m sure if you ask any American if they think the electoral college system is fair, 99/100 will tell you it isn’t. Yet it persists. Why? Many reasons, among them being institutional inertia. Institutions are big and slow, especially ones involving concrete and steel. There are also power amplification issues. That is to say, certain groups of people might have more power to effect change than others. A majority can seemingly want something, but not know how or not be able to effectively get that change accomplished. In other words, I think it’s a bit more complicated than “if people wanted public transit we would have public transit”.
- closeparen 9y ago
  There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. The real challenge is in building out the transit infrastructure and dense transit-oriented development that would make these options genuinely preferable to most people. Not in declaring that they're preferable or forcing people into them today.
  - tachyoff 9y ago
    > There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. Assuming you live in a bikeable or walkable area, sure. Bus service exists, but it can be patchy and/or underfunded. Some people simply have none of these options. I live in Detroit (yes, Motor City), and this area is crying out for good mass transit. In fact, two out of four necessary counties voted down a regional transit mileage (which amounted to peanuts every year on property tax bills), which would have provided billions to develop rapid transit for southeast Michigan, because of pretty much racial hangups and “screw you, got mine”-ism from the suburbs. These are complex issues. I agree that building out transit infrastructure is complicated, but I think making them politically attractive are equally difficult.

mrep 9y ago

> people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive. All three are preferable to being stuck in traffic. Maybe for you but my girlfriend could write a book about all of the harassment she has received from random strangers in Seattle. She has even been assaulted which is why we are now car shopping after trying to go without one for 2 years and that is just so she can feel safe traveling. She would easily drive multi hour commutes to avoid having our future kids risk/deal with what she experiences while walking around downtown.

tmnvix 9y ago
I understand that this might seem rational from an individual's perspective but to exclude your family from society in this way is a tragedy and does not seem like any kind of solution to me.
- yodon 9y ago
  Moving out to the suburbs when you have kids is a tragedy? That’s some serious first world definition of tragedy.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    I think they mean that blocking problems that would prevent the implementation of their favorite policy are the tragedies. Public transport does not work, and this is just one more reason why. Every few years the police feels the need to spend a month or two catching pickpockets (or worse) on public transport. Train stations in all the big cities are hotbeds of criminal activity. That is a major problem that is not, and probably won't ever be, solved. For me personally public transport fails in 3 massive ways: 1) public transport means I cannot do groceries, shopping for furniture, tvs or other big goods, move houses, ... so I still need a car, public transport or not. 2) governments just don't build out public transport. Even in places with "excellent" public transport, when I pass there (the Netherlands, for example), there are severe capacity problems that COULD have been solved, but aren't. In many places like London or New York, there aren't capacity problems, you're actually unlikely to NOT be delayed at some point. 3) it's not actually cheaper once you take into account that you have to bring 2 kids to school, then go to work. Taking the cost/inconvenience/risk of public transport doesn't even provide a monetary or time reward. This also means that using public transport for family trips is out : driving across Europe (e.g. Netherlands -> South of France) for a weekend or holiday ... train is a LOT more expensive than using a car. (That said, it can provide a big time advantage and I will use it in that case, but I still much prefer a car) Some reading on the subject: http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/06/top-eight-reasons-people-give-up-on-public-transit/#2c059fe4fd84 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/06/top-eigh...

chrismcb 9y ago

Uber and lyft aren't "ride sharing" they are taxi service. And we had rules and regulations to limit tazi services, and congestion was one of the reasons. But everyone complained that these rules are based and antiquated.

bluntfang 9y ago
Since you're being pedantic, I think we should call it what it is: Livery service. Taxis, at least in my municipality, are the only vehicles legally permitted to pick passengers up off the street, aka only taxis can be hailed in person. Uber and Lyft cannot do this (where I live), and that is the differentiator.

almostApatriot1 9y ago

Uber and Lyft operate at a loss, even more so if you factor in how little drivers consider the wear and tear on their cars. Ride sharing would go down in favor of public transport if ride sharers paid the true cost.

idunno246 9y ago
public transit operates at a loss, sfmta tickets accounted for 20% of the budget, and bart looks like about a third...

lulmerchant 9y ago

>If cities build appropriate multi modal transportation networks and restrict the amount of space allowed for vehicle traffic, people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive This is far from being an established fact. Ignoring the fact that cities can't simple be redesigned from the ground up to maximise the benefits of public transport, there's very conflicting evidence about whether increasing public transport decreases congestion.

megy 9y ago
> This is far from being an established fact. Ignoring the fact that cities can't simple be redesigned from the ground up to maximise the benefits of public transport, there's very conflicting evidence about whether increasing public transport decreases congestion. Ok, well I guess if you increase PT and no one catches is then sure. But if you make drivers pay the proper prices for using roads then that will encourage them to take the cheaper option.

stmfreak 9y ago

I prefer being stuck in traffic than sitting on the pissy seats of public transportation. Waiting in the rain for my connection downwind from the smokers. Standing on the train because some piss soaked bum is sprawled across two seats... there are many legitimate downsides to public transit. People make the choices that work best for each of them. For the majority, that means driving in a clean, private car.

plasticchris 9y ago
fwiw caltrain is not like this at all used to ride next to a twitter guy who referred to it as the "premium" option...
- DrScump 9y ago
  Caltrain isn't completely immune to public transit foibles, but it's mostly hazard-free, primarily because people use it exclusively as transportation and not "a place to hang out outside of the elements". Fare evasion is actually checked for regularly, and it's enforced. I always take Caltrain when I go directly to/from the ballpark, even though I have parking passes for all games (which almost always can be sold at a profit).
discoursism 9y ago
> For the majority, that means driving in a clean, private car. Not the majority. At least not in sensibly operating cities. https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute
s0rce 9y ago
This decision is also largely economic and cars are hugely subsidized in America compared to public transit.

njarboe 9y ago

Yes. When forced to, due to bad traffic, people will use other forms of transport. Fast, enclosed, point-to-point, on-demand personal transport (cars and trucks) seem to be better than other modes. Why don't we fix the problems with personal transport instead making that mode so broken that people are forced to use other methods. Go Boring Company.