4 ms·

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 red

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
    Mass transit will never be solved. I think it's time to give up on this dream. In a sprawled out city like Los Angeles, the suburbs that people live in, are too far away from the job centers. It's even too far away from a supermarket, or the shopping mall. Mass transit is a failure when it takes 2 hours to get to your destination, when it is just 15 miles away. Where you may have to walk to a bus stop to catch your bus, and then transfer to a light rail line. And then, the light rail drops you off, 4 miles away from where you need to be. It's easier to just sit in your car, stuck in traffic. At least you have air conditioning in the hot sun. You can listen to your own music. And you won't be in danger of being violently attacked, robbed, or physically assaulted. But I think there can be a few solutions to the last mile problem. 1. Dockless bicycles. I don't think this can work in America, the way it worked in China. The bicycles are too massive, and can get crammed up on the sidewalk, at some destination point. 2. Dockless electric scooters. I think this can actually work in America. They are small enough, that several units take the same amount of space as a single bicycle. 3. Uber to drive you the last few miles. A taxi service won't pick you up. And it might not even be profitable for an Uber driver to pick you up. But at least this is an option. 4. Fully electric and autonomous robotic vehicles that will drive you from point to point. This has to be the ultimate dream, and can actually be the real solution to the mass transit problem.
    - huebomont 8y ago
      "violently attacked, robbed..." - I've spotted the guy who doesn't ride mass transit but has opinions on it!
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Uber and Lyft are not ride sharing.
  - nomel 8y ago
    With Lyft, you can pay a few bucks less to possibly ride with others that are somewhat along the way.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  >Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Anecdotally, yes. In the time that I drove for Uber, I met a number of people who gave up their cars because Ubering was cheaper than having a car. To me, that makes sense because every time I move from a small city to a large city, the first thing I do is sell my cars. Then when I move from a big city to a small town, I end up buying new cars again. Though I haven't lived in a large city since Uber became widespread, my family managed just fine with public transit, Zipcars, and taxis.

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
  Mass transit will never be solved. I think it's time to give up on this dream. In a sprawled out city like Los Angeles, the suburbs that people live in, are too far away from the job centers. It's even too far away from a supermarket, or the shopping mall. Mass transit is a failure when it takes 2 hours to get to your destination, when it is just 15 miles away. Where you may have to walk to a bus stop to catch your bus, and then transfer to a light rail line. And then, the light rail drops you off, 4 miles away from where you need to be. It's easier to just sit in your car, stuck in traffic. At least you have air conditioning in the hot sun. You can listen to your own music. And you won't be in danger of being violently attacked, robbed, or physically assaulted. But I think there can be a few solutions to the last mile problem. 1. Dockless bicycles. I don't think this can work in America, the way it worked in China. The bicycles are too massive, and can get crammed up on the sidewalk, at some destination point. 2. Dockless electric scooters. I think this can actually work in America. They are small enough, that several units take the same amount of space as a single bicycle. 3. Uber to drive you the last few miles. A taxi service won't pick you up. And it might not even be profitable for an Uber driver to pick you up. But at least this is an option. 4. Fully electric and autonomous robotic vehicles that will drive you from point to point. This has to be the ultimate dream, and can actually be the real solution to the mass transit problem.
  - huebomont 8y ago
    "violently attacked, robbed..." - I've spotted the guy who doesn't ride mass transit but has opinions on it!
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Uber and Lyft are not ride sharing.
- nomel 8y ago
  With Lyft, you can pay a few bucks less to possibly ride with others that are somewhat along the way.
reaperducer 8y ago
>Could apps pushing car services increase the number of people who don't have cars? Anecdotally, yes. In the time that I drove for Uber, I met a number of people who gave up their cars because Ubering was cheaper than having a car. To me, that makes sense because every time I move from a small city to a large city, the first thing I do is sell my cars. Then when I move from a big city to a small town, I end up buying new cars again. Though I haven't lived in a large city since Uber became widespread, my family managed just fine with public transit, Zipcars, and taxis.