6 ms·

I don’t understand why this study is receiving so much attention. It’s not peer reviewed. It doesn’t contain actual data collection (the estimates are all extra

I don’t understand why this study is receiving so much attention. It’s not peer reviewed. It doesn’t contain actual data collection (the estimates are all extrapolated in a way the author considers reasonable, not measured data from traffic detectors or surveys). Schaller is not a researcher or engineer, but a consultant mainly working for taxi regulation. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But I’m surprised the study gets so much press because some guy published something on his personal website.

DogOnTheWeb 8y ago
For what it's worth, the article also links to a study with the same conclusion out of UC Davis. https://steps.ucdavis.edu/new-research-ride-hailing-impacts-travel-behavior/ https://steps.ucdavis.edu/new-research-ride-hailing-impacts-...
- lewis500 8y ago
  The Davis study doesn't make any of the big claims that are getting attention here. Being academic and from a good department, it is much more measured: "Net vehicle miles traveled (VMT) changes are unknown." "While this data provides initial insights into the travel behavior changes associated with ridehailing, it is still limited in that it does not provide a complete picture of individual travelers’ trip generating activities, the modes they used before ride-hailing services, and the potentially new patterns of behavior that have since emerged." Meanwhile, here is coverage of this study: "Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180 percent in major cities, says report" https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyft-cause-traffic-streets-congestion-bruce-schaller-tnc-report https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyft-cause-tra...
blondie9x 8y ago
Are you kidding yourself? You think people continuing to rely on cars whether they drive or they are being driven is going to reduce traffic? Buses and rail reduce traffic not cars. Mass van pooling and what not can also help. We have to get off of cars and empty seats. Apps pushing cars and pushing ride sharing are pushing laziness and congestion. Why kid ourselves into thinking that Uber and Lyft are fixing the car traffic problem and climate change? Imagine for a second all these cars as chairs. Imagine sitting in your chair with a wheel attached then getting onto a freeway and propelling forward. All these people in chairs with empty chairs in their walled off metal combustion tank. We need to stop all this empty chair insanity and use more efficient ways to move people sitting down going from place to place. Want to combat obesity? Fight climate change? Prevent accidents? Motor deaths? Depression and isolation? Do away with cars.
- kitsunesoba 8y ago
  I agree that public transport should be both more efficient and readily available, but that shouldn’t be the only focus. For people used to the amenities afforded by owning a car to adopt public transport, you also have to make using public transport a good experience. It can’t have passengers packed like sardines or be smelly and grubby and constantly late like much of America’s public transport is… many who drive instead of taking public transport do so for those exact reasons.
- dantheman 8y ago
  Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Could it make owning a car more vialble? Could it increase the density of a city (due to less parking)? Could this make it more walkable? Could it make mass transit more effective? We should be encouraging ride sharing and working to eliminate parking; parking requirements make cities unwalkable thus making public transit ineffective.
  - blondie9x 8y ago
    You don't need cars if you have better transit and more dense cities. You would need less parking also. Ride sharing makes congestion worse because people are less likely to use mass transit for the route.
    - dantheman 8y ago
      If you want to get from a car based city to one with mass transit (most us cities). The only way to get the city dense enough is to remove parking requirements, and that only works if people can get by without a car. If the public option isn't good enough, then ride sharing can be a bridge until the public option is good enough. In LA the biggest difficulty facing new dense/affordable construction is the number car spaces required per apartment. http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2014/parking-requirements-housing-development-regulation-reform-los-angeles/ http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2014/parking-requiremen...
    - blackrock 8y ago
nine_k 8y ago
Maybe some people, especially urban-based, just like the anti-car narrative, so they link to it as to something that confirms their favorite POV. I bet city officials in most places don't like ride-hailing companies, too, so they would gladly link to something like this, for the same reason. Maybe every other reader would look at it and say: "Hey, this has no data, and the author's position produces an obvious conflict of interests". But the headlines, without this notice, would already be in many places, and look like a more or less established fact. All publicity is good publicity, you know.
- gammateam 8y ago
  Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Come on this is just classic "I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" A form of limited licensing for ride-hailing companies can exist without any of the inputs from the taxicab lobby and work out really well.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Because there is an ideological (i.e. irrational) component to some objections. It's true. >Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place Taxi lobby pressuring municipal governments? I cannot imagine you using the past system as an example of a well-run program. There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. There were good reasons for some regulations, such as driver registration, transparent pricing, vehicle standards, but not regulations around limiting number of vehicles. >"I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" There is no new problem recreated. Your argument went away when EVERYONE could afford a car and clogged the streets anyway. In the present day, any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good.
    - axlprose 8y ago
      > any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good. Are companies offering to pay you to drive people around, with little barrier to entry, in a tough economy where it's getting increasingly difficult to afford living in urban centers, not also an incentive to own a car? More so, since the problem isn't so much about car ownership, but rather about the number of cars actually on the road at any given time: are these companies not also creating additional incentive for many existing car owners to drive their cars more in the hopes of earning extra cash? Because even when they're not actively giving rides, many of these drivers are still going to be driving around waiting for their next client. Then we have to take into account the fact that the shifts these drivers can potentially work are much longer than the amount of time an average driver would normally stay on the road for. Incentives in a complex system are not an easy clear-cut thing to figure out, so it shouldn't be surprising that the incentives in one direction might actually outweigh and completely counteract the intended incentives of a plan in the opposite direction. Not saying that's actually the case here, but it's far from an impossibility, and it wouldn't require any malevolent bias to happen.
quxbar 8y ago
Wow, that's gross. Braess's Paradox says adding more capacity to roads can cause more congestion, I guess the narrative would be 'rip up roads to solve traffic' then? It really makes me sick to my stomach how often 'authorities' lack any background in formal reasoning, and see no need to apply it to decisions for the public welfare.
- huebomont 8y ago
  yeah, pedestrianizing or making roads into transitways does actually solve quite a bit of traffic locally. The trick is to do it holistically - most of the time everyone on both sides is looking far too short term and pounces on the results after making changes to a block or two.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  This actually happened: The Embarcadero in SF was turned into a surface road after the Loma Prieta earthquake permanently damaged it: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html Chonggyecheon, Seoul was restored as a stream after the highway capping it was demolished: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/09/14/braess-paradox-the-cheonggyecheon-restoration-project/ https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/09/14/braess-paradox...
aeternus 8y ago
There have been a few studies that searching for parking causes a significant amount of congestion. According to this theory, Uber/Lyft may actually be reducing traffic by encouraging fewer people to drive across the city & search for parking. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_On-street_parking_Effects_on_traffic_congestion https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_On-street_...
bcheung 8y ago
While not very well supported the arguments do make sense logically and it is enough to get people thinking about the problem. Sure, more rigor is nice but it's not necessary to get people to start looking at a problem. I don't think someone needs to be an authority to raise legitimate concerns. That shouldn't be a requirement because otherwise we run into "appeal to authority" types of fallacies. It does make an interesting argument that ride sharing makes transportation by car available to a wider audience (walking, bike, public transportation) and that is why it is causing congestion. Those people would have just suffered through it or not moved to a city that required them to do those things in the first place before ride sharing. I found this statement funny though: > There’s no way that ride hailing could move people around as efficiently as mass transit. Efficiency is subjective to the actual metric. Clearly the metrics people actually care about (time and convenience most likely) are not being addressed; otherwise, they would be using public transportation more. I personally drive to work despite being walking distance to Caltrain on both ends because it takes me 25 minutes door to door. If I take public transportation it is 60-90 minutes. Plus my time options are extremely limited. No train options past 7:30 AM. Plus it's more expensive than the gas, wear, and tear.
- lewis500 8y ago
  I am more expressing surprise that a consultant can get their ideas covered so widely by posting a paper on their website. I searched and there are dozens of articles reporting these claims. I think it speaks to a general scorn for Uber and lyft that any bad news about them gets clicks. But the estimates could be true just like half the estimates or double the estimates could be true also.

DogOnTheWeb 8y ago

For what it's worth, the article also links to a study with the same conclusion out of UC Davis. https://steps.ucdavis.edu/new-research-ride-hailing-impacts-travel-behavior/ https://steps.ucdavis.edu/new-research-ride-hailing-impacts-...

lewis500 8y ago
The Davis study doesn't make any of the big claims that are getting attention here. Being academic and from a good department, it is much more measured: "Net vehicle miles traveled (VMT) changes are unknown." "While this data provides initial insights into the travel behavior changes associated with ridehailing, it is still limited in that it does not provide a complete picture of individual travelers’ trip generating activities, the modes they used before ride-hailing services, and the potentially new patterns of behavior that have since emerged." Meanwhile, here is coverage of this study: "Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180 percent in major cities, says report" https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyft-cause-traffic-streets-congestion-bruce-schaller-tnc-report https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyft-cause-tra...

blondie9x 8y ago

Are you kidding yourself? You think people continuing to rely on cars whether they drive or they are being driven is going to reduce traffic? Buses and rail reduce traffic not cars. Mass van pooling and what not can also help. We have to get off of cars and empty seats. Apps pushing cars and pushing ride sharing are pushing laziness and congestion. Why kid ourselves into thinking that Uber and Lyft are fixing the car traffic problem and climate change? Imagine for a second all these cars as chairs. Imagine sitting in your chair with a wheel attached then getting onto a freeway and propelling forward. All these people in chairs with empty chairs in their walled off metal combustion tank. We need to stop all this empty chair insanity and use more efficient ways to move people sitting down going from place to place. Want to combat obesity? Fight climate change? Prevent accidents? Motor deaths? Depression and isolation? Do away with cars.

kitsunesoba 8y ago
I agree that public transport should be both more efficient and readily available, but that shouldn’t be the only focus. For people used to the amenities afforded by owning a car to adopt public transport, you also have to make using public transport a good experience. It can’t have passengers packed like sardines or be smelly and grubby and constantly late like much of America’s public transport is… many who drive instead of taking public transport do so for those exact reasons.
dantheman 8y ago
Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Could it make owning a car more vialble? Could it increase the density of a city (due to less parking)? Could this make it more walkable? Could it make mass transit more effective? We should be encouraging ride sharing and working to eliminate parking; parking requirements make cities unwalkable thus making public transit ineffective.
- blondie9x 8y ago
  You don't need cars if you have better transit and more dense cities. You would need less parking also. Ride sharing makes congestion worse because people are less likely to use mass transit for the route.
  - dantheman 8y ago
    If you want to get from a car based city to one with mass transit (most us cities). The only way to get the city dense enough is to remove parking requirements, and that only works if people can get by without a car. If the public option isn't good enough, then ride sharing can be a bridge until the public option is good enough. In LA the biggest difficulty facing new dense/affordable construction is the number car spaces required per apartment. http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2014/parking-requirements-housing-development-regulation-reform-los-angeles/ http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2014/parking-requiremen...
  - blackrock 8y ago

nine_k 8y ago

Maybe some people, especially urban-based, just like the anti-car narrative, so they link to it as to something that confirms their favorite POV. I bet city officials in most places don't like ride-hailing companies, too, so they would gladly link to something like this, for the same reason. Maybe every other reader would look at it and say: "Hey, this has no data, and the author's position produces an obvious conflict of interests". But the headlines, without this notice, would already be in many places, and look like a more or less established fact. All publicity is good publicity, you know.

gammateam 8y ago
Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Come on this is just classic "I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" A form of limited licensing for ride-hailing companies can exist without any of the inputs from the taxicab lobby and work out really well.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Because there is an ideological (i.e. irrational) component to some objections. It's true. >Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place Taxi lobby pressuring municipal governments? I cannot imagine you using the past system as an example of a well-run program. There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. There were good reasons for some regulations, such as driver registration, transparent pricing, vehicle standards, but not regulations around limiting number of vehicles. >"I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" There is no new problem recreated. Your argument went away when EVERYONE could afford a car and clogged the streets anyway. In the present day, any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good.
  - axlprose 8y ago
    > any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good. Are companies offering to pay you to drive people around, with little barrier to entry, in a tough economy where it's getting increasingly difficult to afford living in urban centers, not also an incentive to own a car? More so, since the problem isn't so much about car ownership, but rather about the number of cars actually on the road at any given time: are these companies not also creating additional incentive for many existing car owners to drive their cars more in the hopes of earning extra cash? Because even when they're not actively giving rides, many of these drivers are still going to be driving around waiting for their next client. Then we have to take into account the fact that the shifts these drivers can potentially work are much longer than the amount of time an average driver would normally stay on the road for. Incentives in a complex system are not an easy clear-cut thing to figure out, so it shouldn't be surprising that the incentives in one direction might actually outweigh and completely counteract the intended incentives of a plan in the opposite direction. Not saying that's actually the case here, but it's far from an impossibility, and it wouldn't require any malevolent bias to happen.

quxbar 8y ago

Wow, that's gross. Braess's Paradox says adding more capacity to roads can cause more congestion, I guess the narrative would be 'rip up roads to solve traffic' then? It really makes me sick to my stomach how often 'authorities' lack any background in formal reasoning, and see no need to apply it to decisions for the public welfare.

huebomont 8y ago
yeah, pedestrianizing or making roads into transitways does actually solve quite a bit of traffic locally. The trick is to do it holistically - most of the time everyone on both sides is looking far too short term and pounces on the results after making changes to a block or two.
bobthepanda 8y ago
This actually happened: The Embarcadero in SF was turned into a surface road after the Loma Prieta earthquake permanently damaged it: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html Chonggyecheon, Seoul was restored as a stream after the highway capping it was demolished: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/09/14/braess-paradox-the-cheonggyecheon-restoration-project/ https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/09/14/braess-paradox...

aeternus 8y ago

There have been a few studies that searching for parking causes a significant amount of congestion. According to this theory, Uber/Lyft may actually be reducing traffic by encouraging fewer people to drive across the city & search for parking. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_On-street_parking_Effects_on_traffic_congestion https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_On-street_...

bcheung 8y ago

While not very well supported the arguments do make sense logically and it is enough to get people thinking about the problem. Sure, more rigor is nice but it's not necessary to get people to start looking at a problem. I don't think someone needs to be an authority to raise legitimate concerns. That shouldn't be a requirement because otherwise we run into "appeal to authority" types of fallacies. It does make an interesting argument that ride sharing makes transportation by car available to a wider audience (walking, bike, public transportation) and that is why it is causing congestion. Those people would have just suffered through it or not moved to a city that required them to do those things in the first place before ride sharing. I found this statement funny though: > There’s no way that ride hailing could move people around as efficiently as mass transit. Efficiency is subjective to the actual metric. Clearly the metrics people actually care about (time and convenience most likely) are not being addressed; otherwise, they would be using public transportation more. I personally drive to work despite being walking distance to Caltrain on both ends because it takes me 25 minutes door to door. If I take public transportation it is 60-90 minutes. Plus my time options are extremely limited. No train options past 7:30 AM. Plus it's more expensive than the gas, wear, and tear.

lewis500 8y ago
I am more expressing surprise that a consultant can get their ideas covered so widely by posting a paper on their website. I searched and there are dozens of articles reporting these claims. I think it speaks to a general scorn for Uber and lyft that any bad news about them gets clicks. But the estimates could be true just like half the estimates or double the estimates could be true also.