5 ms·
Do transportation network companies decrease or increase congestion?
- rdiddly 7y agoObviously. They are making it worse by exactly the number of trips that would otherwise have been done by transit, bike, walking or not at all. edit: or now scooters
- unreal37 7y agoActually, you take that number, PLUS the number of empty Uber cars, PLUS the number of empty taxis that would not have been empty if there wasn't Uber...
- the_economist 7y agoEmpty taxis drive around looking for a fare. Empty ubers park and wait.
- akiselev 7y agoIn my experience empty Ubers identify the nearest hotspot (usually from experience) and drive in that direction.
- blondie9x 7y agoThat just isn't true. They often do drive around and look for fares or go back to a place where they can collect a fare from where one did not exist. Example you pick up Passenger A in dense urban center drop them off in suburb no fares exist there. You need to drive back to the urban center to pick up another Passenger. You have worsened traffic and created extra carbon pollution.
- unreal37 7y agoThey're empty sometimes. Even if they park at some spot.
- ademup 7y agoI don't think it is so simple. Eg: people now taking extra trips because it is easy and cheap to do so. Eg: "I'll just Uber the 6 blocks to my next shopping spot" instead of walking. This happens in my friend group all the time. Plus people traveling to the city at all BECAUSE Uber makes intracity travel easy. Eg: I live in the East Bay and hate driving within the city, but am happy to be escorted around it on a whim but would have otherwise stayed more local.
- matt4077 7y agoThe comment specifically mentioned non-consumption, i. e. "Not at all".
- baby 7y agoIf the city was denser you wouldn't have to uber from one shop to the other. But the city was built for cars.
- ademup 7y agoOh for sure. I see so many areas in the city where I reimagine as pedestrian only and basically weep inside for the lost opportunity.
- damnyou 7y agoClearly a trip that is taken has utility to the person taking the trip, so the "not at all" outcome is a bad one. People will use the best option they have out of the ones available to them. Transit is usually faster than Uber for trips to downtown or the Mission, but try getting to Miraloma with it.
- rdiddly 7y agoEvery trip has a cost. It's a transaction. If it costs me $1,000,000 to get to the park (and it's fairly likely I won't make $1M at said park), I will maximize utility by not taking the trip. In addition, every trip by you, has various costs to everyone else, namely the traffic congestion we're talking about here, plus many other things we're not talking about like pollution, publicly-subsidized police/EMT/fire for cleaning up your car wrecks, etc. Transport modes that allow you to take up less space on the roads per person, or that use separate parallel networks, or that don't pollute or involve wrecks, cost everyone less on these particular axes.
- seppin 7y agoAlso every driver I meet in SF has driven from somewhere else to "work" in the city.
- abeppu 7y agoThere's also a larger impact for cars that block traffic by stopping in the lane in front of a pickup or drop address where there isn't room to pull over. And there's an impact from out-of-town weekend drivers that don't know where they're going and take a dumb route because of that unfamiliarity.
- ProfessorLayton 7y agoFunny you say that because most of my Uber/Lyfts consist of me going to and from public transit for my intended destination. Although it is more complicated than that, as I often take a shared ride home because Bart shuts down too early on weekends to be useful on the way back. Additionally the math gets complicated when I have multiple people with me, as often times it's cheaper to uber/lyft somewhere to our destination than it is for all of us to individually pay for a Bart ticket.
- matt4077 7y agoThis is called multimodal transport. I'm unsure how big the effect is for Uber/Lyft where booking the ride would seem slightly more involved than, say, using a bike. But it's an area of great interest especially for public transit planners.
- rdiddly 7y agoI'm only comparing what happens in the world we have, where Uber & Lyft exist, vs. what would happen if they didn't, or would've happened back when they didn't. Obviously some of this is guesswork kind of like "Gee what would've happened if I'd married my high school crush" or whatnot. But in general if you would've walked or biked to transit before, and now you take Uber & Lyft, that makes congestion worse. If you would have driven to transit, using Uber/Lyft has no effect. If you would have driven the whole way, it's a partial improvement (by riding transit for that one segment).
- matt4077 7y agoAnd, following this, these different effects probably have different values for society, i. e.: - Replacing public transit = unmitigated bad - Replacing walking, bike = even worse, bikes are unbeatable for health, space efficiency, energy use, noise, and really any other category - Replacing using own car = close to neutral, maybe slightly positive, especially when it allows people on the margin forgo car ownership entirely - Non-consumption = likely positive, taking a trip you otherwise wouldn't take is a sign of increased freedom/participation in society and would tend to outweigh environmental concerns in my subjective judgement
- Mirioron 7y agoSo, we consider people being able to do something in a way they would much rather do it as a negative? If you have the choice between walking and an Uber, and you really want to walk, then just walk. If you have the choice between walking and walking, but you really don't want to walk, then you're worse off.
- metabagel 7y agoAnytime there is no passenger in the vehicle, it's an extra vehicle on the road. Normally, our cars don't continue to drive around after we've arrived at our destination.
- dpflan 7y agoYes, there are cars that are performing transport and some that are part of traffic that are waiting to be hailed and not performing transport - those are certainty congesting. There is also the effect of rideshare drivers coming from different areas and thus not knowing the city they are in. Reliance on GPS/map apps helps but there will still be “I don’t know where I am going and am not accustomed to city traffic” effect that compounds the others drivers who exhibit that behavior. I’m sue we’ve seen the effect of a single driver desperately trying to cross lanes to make their turn, scale that up. Cities should really get this data from the companies to figure this out. That should be a necessity for operation in the city.
- chrischen 7y agoAlso drivers circle a block every time they need to add a passenger. The one way streets may make left turns safer, but they increase the time a car has to be on the road in any given area.
- robertAngst 7y agoAlternative: More Parking
- danans 7y ago> Uber and Lyft have long said their services may relieve urban congestion by facilitating access to public transit This was always questionable for a place like SF or any high density city. Few people take a ride share to get to a bus or a MUNI light rail stop in SF. If you are paying for the Uber/Lyft, why would you pay again for a bus ticket, especially given the inconvenience of then waiting for the bus. You'll just stay in the car to your destination, after all San Francisco isn't that big. The exception is perhaps people in SF getting to BART to go to a suburb, but that's not a very significant use case. Edit: removed potty language, and superlatives.
- sparky_z 7y agoI use it this way all the time. Bart into the city from a suburb and then if it's not in walking distance and there's no convenient bus, I take a Lyft to my destination.
- danans 7y agoSo do I, but that's a different use case than people within SF using ride-sharing. I said few journeys go from ride share to bus/Muni, excluding BART, which goes a much longer distance than bus/Muni and therefore serves different types of journeys. And journeys originating from within SF probably still account for the majority of ride shares in the city, not journeys from outside SF.
- aeternus 7y agoMany people at my company take Uber/Lyft to get to BART and Caltrain.
- madengr 7y agoI remember when Uber was “supposed” to be a ride sharing service where you could make extra money along your intended destination. It wasn’t touted as a taxi service.
- arebop 7y agoI remember before that, when it was touted as the more convenient and cheaper alternative to black car service (which was already cheaper than taxis for airport runs!).
- mrosett 7y agoMaybe that’s true of Lyft, but Uber started with black cars and originally had the tag line “everybody’s private driver”. Hell, the original name was UberCab. UberX cane pretty late in the game.
- blondie9x 7y agoLink to the study exactly. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau2670 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau2670 Having just read the study the results make sense. The authors look at car ownership reduction. They find that Uber and Lyft are not actually helping with that. We do not observe a meaningful change in car ownership, with an average of 1.08 cars per household in 2010 and 1.10 cars per household in 2016 (36). This is because as people move towards dense urban centers they are now sometimes electing to use Uber and Lyft instead of transit. The thing is because parking and driving is so expensive as is living in a dense prolific city, you probably wouldn't have wanted a car anyway. The findings clearly show Uber and Lyft create traffic. The speed data used in this study confirm this trend, showing that the average speed decreases from 25.6 miles per hour (mph) in 2010 to 22.2 mph in 2016 and that the vehicle hours of delay (VHD) increase by 63% over the same period. In addition to the 20% of TNC VMT that is out-of-service, 70% of San Francisco TNC drivers live outside the city It makes sense that Uber and Lyft actually worsen traffic. They bring cars and congestion into the city and create public transit competitors. I have the one for NYC here also http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/unsustainable.pdf http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/unsustainable.pd... The question is what is the best response to help the environment? It seems that supporting Uber and Lyft is contrary to sustainable objectives. Is that partially why many cities and countries do not want them to operate in their jurisdiction?
- devindotcom 7y agoThe Science Advances paper is here: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau2670 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau2670 The corresponding author told me it was the basis for an earlier report issued by the SFCTA: https://www.sfcta.org/projects/tncs-and-congestion https://www.sfcta.org/projects/tncs-and-congestion
- Barrin92 7y ago>The question is what is the best response to help the environment? invest in public transit that can transport people in a denser fashion instead of relying on cars. The fundamental limitation of the car is the low amount of passengers / area it can transport. http://i.imgur.com/G7cAK4Y.gif http://i.imgur.com/G7cAK4Y.gif >Is that partially why many cities and countries do not want them to operate in their jurisdiction? Among other things, yes. But arguably the bigger issue is their inability to comply with regulations, in particular their skewed relationship to nominally indepdenent drivers gives them an advantage over companies who have more obligations towards both customers and workers. This isn't unique to Uber but applies to other "sharing economy" companies like Airbnb
- icey 7y agoIt's not just the number of cars causing issues; the number of roads with ad hoc lane closures due to ride sharing pick-ups and dropoffs makes a huge difference. Many three lane streets get choked down to one lane if a delivery truck blocks a right lane and a ride share blocks the left. It's very visible every rush hour in SF.
- hkmurakami 7y agoIn HK I believe that city centers have designated areas around town for taxi pickups for this reason. It seems to work quite well.
- cowmix 7y agoI found it ironic that Lyft/Uber has been a godsend to the Phoenix area. Cabs were always horrible / impractical here. When I'm in SF and other major cities, I tend to lean towards cabs more.
- bwl 7y agoWhy can't they just teach drivers to leave a bunch of space in front of them and help improve the traffic? Use the app to reinforce it...
- kenneth 7y ago> The new findings, based on a computer model that simulated the speed of traffic with Uber and Lyft vehicles removed Not sure if that's actually what's going on, but if it is, it's a ridiculous conclusion. Let me rephrase: "Japanese cars are making traffic in the USA worse, based on a computer model that simulated the speed of traffic with Japanese vehicles removed."
- _jal 7y agoWell, no. Japanese cars are not otherwise distinguishable by their frequent mid-block stop-and-wait actions, for instance, nor for diverting commuters from public transportation.
- no_username 7y agoIf you remove any amount of cars you improve traffic which is why the conclusion is weak.
- bsder 7y agoThe problem is that in SF those people were already using taxis in a lot of cases but people were limited by price. By making taking a taxi cheaper, you are practically guaranteed to increase the number of cars in flight at any one time.
- Zarath 7y agoI don't understand why they don't just replace the Uber vehicle with a "normal" driver then draw conclusions from that. How much worse do they make traffic compared to a "replacement driver"?
- javawizard 7y agoThat's fair, but a certain percentage of Uber and Lyft customers are people who would otherwise drive their own car, so any study that removes the effects of Uber- and Lyft-operated vehicles altogether paints an inaccurate picture.
- toast76 7y agoAnything that makes it more convenient for people to get from A to B in a _car_ will, of course, create more traffic. Convenience increases usage. Uber/Lyft may make it unnecessary for some folks to own a car, but a reduction in car ownership does not mean a reduction in car usage.
- EduardoBautista 7y agoOne thing Uber/Lyft do for sure is reduce the need for parking spaces, which are at a premium in SF.
- mgbmtl 7y agoNot having to worry about parking would therefore be an incentive to go somewhere by car (Uber/Lyft) instead of public transportation.
- randyrand 7y agoNot necessarily. Making car-pooling easier can reduce the numbers of cars while also making it more convenient to get places by car.
- dajohnson89 7y agoThey certainly make Manhattan traffic worse.
- bsder 7y agoPresumably this is the standard problem with Uber/Lyft: Uber/Lyft make the vast majority of their income in areas that are already well-served by taxis. Consequently, they make the problem worse. Presumably, in the cities not well-served by taxis, they improve the situation. However, they don't generate anywhere near the income.
- baby 7y agoI live in San Francisco. Public transport is a joke. Buses are so dangerous that I won't take them (took them twice when I moved here and almost got beaten up the first time, witnessed someone getting mugged the second time (near tartine)). I went from exclusively using public transport (previously living in UK/France) to exclusively taking uber/lyft. Thanks humanity my work provides shuttle to do the commute to south bay, I would never be able to do that with the caltrain. Mad respect to those who have to do it. You can probably tell I'm salty about the state of things here. As a matter of fact I just passed my driving writting exam today because for the first time of my life I feel like I need a car.
- Lammy 7y agoI feel just as safe on Muni as I have on the handful of other American transit systems I've lived near. Feel free to read that either way :) Polls have been pretty constant at least https://www.sfmta.com/reports/customer-rating-feeling-safe-and-secure-muni https://www.sfmta.com/reports/customer-rating-feeling-safe-a...
- paulorlando 7y agoGood to see this. Earlier assumptions that rideshare would reduce traffic ignored how the transport system would change. Also similar to the way Airbnb can make housing more expensive or unavailable.
- randyrand 7y agoOn the flip side, car owners make traffic worse for Lyft and Uber users. I'd rather we penalize normal car owners than penalize Lyft and Uber. I use Uber Pool every day to get to my bus stop, and there's no good alternative.
- dang 7y agoUrl changed from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/uber-and-lyft-may-be-making-san-francisco-s-traffic-worse https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/uber-and-lyft-may-be..., which points to this.
- wmij 7y agoNYC area driver here... TLDR the entire article but I'll give my first hand perspective to say that "T" (taxi) and "L" (livery) plated vehicles on the highways in the NY metro area DO significantly add to congestion as the drivers keep their speeds well under the limit while traveling in passing lanes. Frequently I see these non "cab" "T" and "L" vehicles that I assume are "transportation network" company contractors driving unusually slow because they're either on their mobile devices (looking for pickups?) or driving so under the limit that I assume to not break any GPS speed monitoring rules enforced by these "transportation network" companies, or just generally inept. I'm not advocating speeding by any means, but after driving 500k+ miles in the NYC metro area you can spot the ineptness and/or driving under fear of speed monitoring of these "T"/"L" plated vehicles. All it takes is for one to be driving 45 mph in a 55 zone on a two lane road with an already congested merge ahead, or they travel in the left passing lane at speeds well under the limit preventing other motorists from advancing, or overall poor driving, then it's a chain reaction of braking and delays mounting behind them. I've always assumed that the monitoring of these drivers adherence to speed limits is the reason why they travel noticeably slower than the average driver in normal traffic. If that's the case it unfortunately causes the average capable driver to become indirectly part of the "transportation network"'s speed monitoring resulting in delays for everybody. In the relative absence of these "T" and "L" plated vehicles, I've driven in moderate to heavy volumes where the average speeds are in the 60-65+ MPH range. However, when the livery vehicles start to increase within similar volumes of traffic the average speeds seem to drop and the congestion related delays seem to increase. So if you were to ask me "Do transportation network companies decrease or increase congestion?" My answer would be "yes". Why? Based on my observations, I suspect it's related to the speed monitoring of the "transportation network" company and a tendency of the drivers of these vehicles being inept relative to other non "transportation network" drivers.
- yellowapple 7y agoThe Uber/Lyft driver strike a couple days ago was a good demonstration of this; my drive to work was significantly easier that day, as was the drive home, with noticeably fewer cars on the road.
- tech-hacker69 7y agodecrease!