6 ms·

>pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. Public transit degrades because bus lanes are

>pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. Public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car.

delusional 1y ago
> The public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? That would be nice. In the real world they would be congested with Uber buses that purposefully block the public option to ruthlessly "out-compete" it. Maybe uber will start transporting their food delivery in the bus. Now you have a congested bus lane full of burgers. > taxis > anything besides a car kek.
- underlipton 1y ago
  Taxis typically don't need long-term parking at every location they visit. That makes them hugely different from personal vehicles.
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.
- 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...
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car This attitude is part of why public transit in America is failing. Americans love their cars. We're not going to recondition that. Designing systems that are anti-car doesn't lead Americans to ditch their cars. It leads them to ditch public transit. This shuttle is a good example. Shuttles running between busses increases throughput while decreasing latency. It increases the chances that I go to the bus station versus reflexively calling a car. If I have to look up a timetable, though, I'm not going to do that: I'll call a Waymo. Another missed opportunity is RORO rail stock, where folks can take their cars on a family vacation on a train. We don't have it because the rail folks are all anti-car. As a result, their projects get cancelled.
- convolvatron 1y ago
  i dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse. Amtrak in the US used to heavily advertise the auto-train. they still run it along the southeast coast.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse Train people aren't. Transit advocates, particularly in cities, have a tendency to be.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Attempting to vaguely level the playing field is not "anti-car". Nobody in the US is "anti-car". The reality is that we have conceded such an absurd amount of money, space, safety, noise, you name it, to automobiles that even if we reeled that back 90% we'd still be squarely in the "pro-car" space. On one side, you have one concession that we spend trillions of dollars subsidizing and spend the majority of all space in our country getting to work. And then, on top of that, it's the primary cause of death for multiple demographics. And we still subsidize it. On the other side, you have something we don't put any money into.

delusional 1y ago

> The public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? That would be nice. In the real world they would be congested with Uber buses that purposefully block the public option to ruthlessly "out-compete" it. Maybe uber will start transporting their food delivery in the bus. Now you have a congested bus lane full of burgers. > taxis > anything besides a car kek.

underlipton 1y ago
Taxis typically don't need long-term parking at every location they visit. That makes them hugely different from personal vehicles.

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.

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...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car This attitude is part of why public transit in America is failing. Americans love their cars. We're not going to recondition that. Designing systems that are anti-car doesn't lead Americans to ditch their cars. It leads them to ditch public transit. This shuttle is a good example. Shuttles running between busses increases throughput while decreasing latency. It increases the chances that I go to the bus station versus reflexively calling a car. If I have to look up a timetable, though, I'm not going to do that: I'll call a Waymo. Another missed opportunity is RORO rail stock, where folks can take their cars on a family vacation on a train. We don't have it because the rail folks are all anti-car. As a result, their projects get cancelled.

convolvatron 1y ago
i dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse. Amtrak in the US used to heavily advertise the auto-train. they still run it along the southeast coast.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse Train people aren't. Transit advocates, particularly in cities, have a tendency to be.
const_cast 1y ago
Attempting to vaguely level the playing field is not "anti-car". Nobody in the US is "anti-car". The reality is that we have conceded such an absurd amount of money, space, safety, noise, you name it, to automobiles that even if we reeled that back 90% we'd still be squarely in the "pro-car" space. On one side, you have one concession that we spend trillions of dollars subsidizing and spend the majority of all space in our country getting to work. And then, on top of that, it's the primary cause of death for multiple demographics. And we still subsidize it. On the other side, you have something we don't put any money into.