3 ms·

Uber was supposed to make hailing a vehicle easier. It succeeded at that. Congestion is a matter for traffic engineers and congestion pricing.

dv_dt 3y ago
I guess if fossil fuel companies can do it with CO2 why not Uber and congestion, sure just sign all us up to pay for the externalities.
- MBCook 3y ago
  They’re already doing that. They don’t want to pay for the parking on the robotaxis, or move them further away when not in use, so they just drive in circles taking up space and making traffic worse without even carrying anyone. Who said having 90+ square feet of pavement to haul an average of around one person was a waste? Now we have the tech to average less than one! (Edit: sq ft corrected, was off by 10x)
  - acdha 3y ago
    > Who said having 10+ square feet of pavement to haul an average of around one person was a waste? Now we have the tech to average less than one! Sadly you left out a zero: even a Toyota Camry is a hundred square feet so you’re probably at 150 when you allow space on the sides and buffer zones.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      Wow really? Oh dang. I was using a Chevy Bolt. Its footprint is basically 13k sq in. But I messed up the math. It’s not ~9 sq ft (which I rounded up). I lost a zero. It’s 90 sq ft. I’ll fix my post. Thanks!
  - jprete 3y ago
    > They’re already doing that. They don’t want to pay for the parking on the robotaxis, or move them further away when not in use, so they just drive in circles taking up space and making traffic worse without even carrying anyone. I really expected them to wait for a little more secure of a political position before they started doing exactly the thing that proves that they're entirely out for themselves and don't give a damn about improving traffic or city life.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Did you just make this up? Uber doesn't even operate robotaxis, and a real robotaxi operator is being forced to park further from its market because of politics: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-supervisors-reject-proposed-waymo-private-lot/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-supervisors-rej...
hotnfresh 3y ago
The original ride-sharing concept that they claimed was The Thing they were doing definitely had congestion-reduction as an expected benefit, if not the main point. Whether accidentally or on purpose, they turned into a jitney cab company instead, which does not provide that benefit.
- moate 3y ago
  The point was to deregulate an industry to extract money from it. I say this, because that’s the conclusion they’ve arrived at, and if they were solving for any other problem they wouldn’t be here. All else is spin.
acdha 3y ago
You might want to review all of the hype from when they were getting started. There was a ton of talk about how it’d transform cities not to need parking, which a lot of city leaders liked because it allowed them to suggest cuts to transit and bike funding in favor of something associated with richer people. It didn’t work, of course, due to the inherent inefficiencies of cars and the challenge such an expensive service has: people don’t want to wait if they’re paying that much but that means you need empty vehicles constantly cruising around. Congestion pricing would help only if it included mileage and then only by making the service even more expensive so people would take the bus or bike instead.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Who cares what people said? They are obviously wrong because they argued from false premises. Uber succeeded because they made hailing a ride easier. Trying to credit them or blaming them for traffic is insane. Traffic is the consequence of roadway design and allocation, not how the cost of VMT is packaged and sold (by Uber or Toyota).
  - acdha 3y ago
    Uber encouraged this as part of their campaign for legitimacy. Their policy was to ignore local laws trying to expand as quickly as possible and getting the TED types on their side was part of that. > Trying to credit them or blaming them for traffic is insane. I realize you’re a fan but that doesn’t change the fact that having a large number of empty vehicles circling waiting for fares creates more traffic. This combines both threads: note both that it recognizes Uber and Lyft’s past claims that they’d reduce congestion and their own data show the opposite: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756945/uber-lyft-tnc-vmt-traffic-congestion-study-fehr-peers https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756945/uber-lyft-tnc-vmt...
    - shuckles 3y ago
      I’m not a fan of Uber actually, but I’m also clear headed about the cause of traffic. The data in the study you linked doesn’t show the opposite. It just says about half the VMT of a ride hail is without a passenger. It makes no claims about the total effect on VMT which would benchmark against, eg, time spent parking, substitution effects, etc.

dv_dt 3y ago

I guess if fossil fuel companies can do it with CO2 why not Uber and congestion, sure just sign all us up to pay for the externalities.

MBCook 3y ago
They’re already doing that. They don’t want to pay for the parking on the robotaxis, or move them further away when not in use, so they just drive in circles taking up space and making traffic worse without even carrying anyone. Who said having 90+ square feet of pavement to haul an average of around one person was a waste? Now we have the tech to average less than one! (Edit: sq ft corrected, was off by 10x)
- acdha 3y ago
  > Who said having 10+ square feet of pavement to haul an average of around one person was a waste? Now we have the tech to average less than one! Sadly you left out a zero: even a Toyota Camry is a hundred square feet so you’re probably at 150 when you allow space on the sides and buffer zones.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Wow really? Oh dang. I was using a Chevy Bolt. Its footprint is basically 13k sq in. But I messed up the math. It’s not ~9 sq ft (which I rounded up). I lost a zero. It’s 90 sq ft. I’ll fix my post. Thanks!
- jprete 3y ago
  > They’re already doing that. They don’t want to pay for the parking on the robotaxis, or move them further away when not in use, so they just drive in circles taking up space and making traffic worse without even carrying anyone. I really expected them to wait for a little more secure of a political position before they started doing exactly the thing that proves that they're entirely out for themselves and don't give a damn about improving traffic or city life.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Did you just make this up? Uber doesn't even operate robotaxis, and a real robotaxi operator is being forced to park further from its market because of politics: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-supervisors-reject-proposed-waymo-private-lot/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-supervisors-rej...

hotnfresh 3y ago

The original ride-sharing concept that they claimed was The Thing they were doing definitely had congestion-reduction as an expected benefit, if not the main point. Whether accidentally or on purpose, they turned into a jitney cab company instead, which does not provide that benefit.

moate 3y ago
The point was to deregulate an industry to extract money from it. I say this, because that’s the conclusion they’ve arrived at, and if they were solving for any other problem they wouldn’t be here. All else is spin.

acdha 3y ago

You might want to review all of the hype from when they were getting started. There was a ton of talk about how it’d transform cities not to need parking, which a lot of city leaders liked because it allowed them to suggest cuts to transit and bike funding in favor of something associated with richer people. It didn’t work, of course, due to the inherent inefficiencies of cars and the challenge such an expensive service has: people don’t want to wait if they’re paying that much but that means you need empty vehicles constantly cruising around. Congestion pricing would help only if it included mileage and then only by making the service even more expensive so people would take the bus or bike instead.

shuckles 3y ago
Who cares what people said? They are obviously wrong because they argued from false premises. Uber succeeded because they made hailing a ride easier. Trying to credit them or blaming them for traffic is insane. Traffic is the consequence of roadway design and allocation, not how the cost of VMT is packaged and sold (by Uber or Toyota).
- acdha 3y ago
  Uber encouraged this as part of their campaign for legitimacy. Their policy was to ignore local laws trying to expand as quickly as possible and getting the TED types on their side was part of that. > Trying to credit them or blaming them for traffic is insane. I realize you’re a fan but that doesn’t change the fact that having a large number of empty vehicles circling waiting for fares creates more traffic. This combines both threads: note both that it recognizes Uber and Lyft’s past claims that they’d reduce congestion and their own data show the opposite: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756945/uber-lyft-tnc-vmt-traffic-congestion-study-fehr-peers https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756945/uber-lyft-tnc-vmt...
  - shuckles 3y ago
    I’m not a fan of Uber actually, but I’m also clear headed about the cause of traffic. The data in the study you linked doesn’t show the opposite. It just says about half the VMT of a ride hail is without a passenger. It makes no claims about the total effect on VMT which would benchmark against, eg, time spent parking, substitution effects, etc.