3 ms·

Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? I'm not sure I consider them "mass transit" since they still typically only carry 1-3 peo

by radlad 1y ago

Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? I'm not sure I consider them "mass transit" since they still typically only carry 1-3 people. While they may require less parking infrastructure, they likely spend more time idling, and they don't reduce congestion on the road. Some problems with buses are that they can be slow, require more planning, and may not drop you off exactly at your destination. There are three primary reasons people choose them anyway: Ethics (i.e. environmental concerns), convenience (in some cities, public transit is actually faster on average) and cost. Bus lanes are meant to make buses more appealing by increasing their speed and reliability (i.e. convenience.) Filling a bus lane with Ubers will slow down buses, making them less attractive which also hurts the price conscious (i.e. lower class) the most.

mmooss 1y ago
> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? They are worse. When they have no passengers, they still are driving around.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > When they have no passengers, they still are driving around You're ignoring the environmental impact of parking. Also, Ubers by and large aren't aimlessly driving around. That's taxis. (Where TNCs fail is in their deadheading costs [1].) [1] https://www.cmu.edu/ambassadors/december-2021/pdf/bloomberg_that-uber-or-lyft.pdf https://www.cmu.edu/ambassadors/december-2021/pdf/bloomberg_...
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > You're ignoring the environmental impact of parking. Interesting - what impact? Driving around looking for a space? Parallel parking wouldn't seem to be a problem, unless you're not very good at it. :) > Ubers by and large aren't aimlessly driving around They drive to me, which by itself increases their driving for my trip by ~~~~~50% (I have no idea). I suppose in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > what impact? Driving around looking for a space? That. Plus desensitisation, requiring more driving in general. > in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile Congestion charge. (And a lot of the traffic is caused by private cars. Hired cars move.)
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? Yes. They're more-closely monitored for emissions. Because they run through quicker, they're usually newer metal, which tends to be more efficient. And if you can get saturation as it is in New York, where car ownership decreases, you lose the massive footprint of manufacturing and distributing a private fleet of cars.
- radlad 1y ago
  More-closely monitored for emissions by who? I would believe that some municipalities monitor taxi emissions, but I haven't heard of anything like this for Uber. Many states have emissions tests for private vehicles too. I was just in DC and noted that the taxis were all at least 10-year old models. I specifically noticed many Ford Fusions, because I own one myself. Mine gets about 23.5mpg on average, and that's including lots of highway driving. I think the reason NYC has so little car ownership is due more to the subway than taxis... edit: Just found this report which suggests "A non-pooled ride-hailing trip is 47 percent more polluting than a private car ride": https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Ride-Hailing's-Climate-Risks.pdf https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Ride-Hailing...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the reason NYC has so little car ownership is due more to the subway than taxis It's a combination. Car ownership is lowest in Manhattan [1]. We're rich. And we're well served by subways and taxis. Not owning a car makes sense because you never have to compromise. If you planned, take the subway. If it's raining or you're in a rush, you have the option of a cab. (We also tax the living shit out of private parking. That helps.) As a side note, the number of people I know who take the LIRR to the airport went up significantly after Uber came on the scene. Because suddenly getting to Penn or Grand Central wasn't the pain it used to be. [1] https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-Light-NYC-Infographics-May-2024.pdf https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L...
    - radlad 1y ago
cyberax 1y ago
> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? They are, although not by much. And that's not counting the main source of pollution in an Uber car: the driver.
macspoofing 1y ago
>Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? Yes. They are part of general non-car transit. You would never build an entire public transit infrastructure on taxis, but they are a component of it. A person who doesn't need to own a car because they use taxis/ubers is a net benefit to the environment, and city congestion - not to mention limiting need for parking spaces.

by radlad 1y ago

mmooss 1y ago

> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? They are worse. When they have no passengers, they still are driving around.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> When they have no passengers, they still are driving around You're ignoring the environmental impact of parking. Also, Ubers by and large aren't aimlessly driving around. That's taxis. (Where TNCs fail is in their deadheading costs [1].) [1] https://www.cmu.edu/ambassadors/december-2021/pdf/bloomberg_that-uber-or-lyft.pdf https://www.cmu.edu/ambassadors/december-2021/pdf/bloomberg_...
- mmooss 1y ago
  > You're ignoring the environmental impact of parking. Interesting - what impact? Driving around looking for a space? Parallel parking wouldn't seem to be a problem, unless you're not very good at it. :) > Ubers by and large aren't aimlessly driving around They drive to me, which by itself increases their driving for my trip by ~~~~~50% (I have no idea). I suppose in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > what impact? Driving around looking for a space? That. Plus desensitisation, requiring more driving in general. > in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile Congestion charge. (And a lot of the traffic is caused by private cars. Hired cars move.)

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? Yes. They're more-closely monitored for emissions. Because they run through quicker, they're usually newer metal, which tends to be more efficient. And if you can get saturation as it is in New York, where car ownership decreases, you lose the massive footprint of manufacturing and distributing a private fleet of cars.

radlad 1y ago
More-closely monitored for emissions by who? I would believe that some municipalities monitor taxi emissions, but I haven't heard of anything like this for Uber. Many states have emissions tests for private vehicles too. I was just in DC and noted that the taxis were all at least 10-year old models. I specifically noticed many Ford Fusions, because I own one myself. Mine gets about 23.5mpg on average, and that's including lots of highway driving. I think the reason NYC has so little car ownership is due more to the subway than taxis... edit: Just found this report which suggests "A non-pooled ride-hailing trip is 47 percent more polluting than a private car ride": https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Ride-Hailing's-Climate-Risks.pdf https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Ride-Hailing...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the reason NYC has so little car ownership is due more to the subway than taxis It's a combination. Car ownership is lowest in Manhattan [1]. We're rich. And we're well served by subways and taxis. Not owning a car makes sense because you never have to compromise. If you planned, take the subway. If it's raining or you're in a rush, you have the option of a cab. (We also tax the living shit out of private parking. That helps.) As a side note, the number of people I know who take the LIRR to the airport went up significantly after Uber came on the scene. Because suddenly getting to Penn or Grand Central wasn't the pain it used to be. [1] https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-Light-NYC-Infographics-May-2024.pdf https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L...
  - radlad 1y ago

cyberax 1y ago

> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? They are, although not by much. And that's not counting the main source of pollution in an Uber car: the driver.

macspoofing 1y ago

>Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? Yes. They are part of general non-car transit. You would never build an entire public transit infrastructure on taxis, but they are a component of it. A person who doesn't need to own a car because they use taxis/ubers is a net benefit to the environment, and city congestion - not to mention limiting need for parking spaces.