Submitted by giuliomagnifico t3_11j7a4c in science
Reply to comment by N8CCRG in Study reveals that although private automobiles continue to be the dominant travel mode in American cities, the share of car trips has slightly and steadily decreased since its peak in 2001. In contrast, the share of transit, non-motorized, and taxicab trips has steadily increased by giuliomagnifico
Taxi/rideshare also require less parking. The typical car requires 2-3 spaces because people need one at their home and destination. Spreading that out across many people via taxi/rideshare means we need less parking, and instead can have green space or housing.
It does contribute to congestion however which slows mode's of transit which need to use the road (EMTs, buses).
Less vehicles on the road wouldn't slow emergency vehicles.
But these aren't less vehicles on the road. Instead of driving from destination to destination taxi services need to drive to pickup points, Wich adds another trip.
They reduce parking but not the number of vehicles on the road.
A single ride share can move multiple people around during the day so it can definitely still reduce the number of cars on the road, just not by as much as a bus or train.
Does your Uber or taxi driver pick up others when you are using them?
No, but whereas you may have had multiple cars being brought into any one area from people going shopping etc, it's possible a single Uber may shuttle multiple people into one area over time.
Probably matters more for places where you have a lot of traffic from outside the city into the city being replaced by ubers/taxis than driving around within the city, and it's far eclipsed by the efficiency of actual public transportation of course.
Yes, if you have that setting turned on and are in a market in which Uberpool is present.
Less cars compared to everyone driving themselves, but more miles driven by cars because that one car needs to commute between dropoff of one person and the pickup of the next.
In some situations, a big chunk of traffic is people looking for parking. You don’t need to reduce the number of vehicles very much to significantly reduce the amount of traffic.
I think the best example of this is SFPark, where parking prices were (are?) managed to maintain 60-80% parking occupancy. People being able to park easily reduces congestion.
It’s obviously not a perfect example, as you could argue that not knowing the cost of parking is going to also reduce the number of drivers, but the study I read suggested the real benefit was from increasing parking efficiency. Taxis also increase parking efficiency by not really needing parking.
So taxis do kind of reduce the number of vehicles on the road (but obviously not as much as a bus!)
Maybe in city centres like NY or something.
Not for normal people.
It does reduce number of vehicles. A person using taxi or rideshare to get everywhere is a person not using a personal car. At the very least 1 less vehicle is on the roads as a result.
Except now you have to add in the taxi, so it's -1 for the individual car and +1 for the taxi = net 0 / no change.
Except it's not a 1:1 ratio of taxi users and taxi cars. If a taxi covers the commute for 15 people in a day, then it's +1 and -15. It is less vehicles on the road. But.... It's more miles driven because the taxi has to get from fare to fare.
ETA: taxis subsidize the cost of car ownership, they don't reduce congestion.
Succinctly put! The only other item to point out is that between rides/fares, the taxi then drives to the next one while the personal car is parked. So they may actually increase congestion slightly. However, I'm hoping that's minor enough that its not taken into consideration for most of these calculations!
The taxi already existed though, many of them being cars driven to 500,000 miles. With the proliferation and usage of rideshare and taxi the people who would be adding 1 to the total amount of cars on the road are now not, the rideshare/taxi driver, already bought in but can contribute to as many as 100 people no longer needing a personal vehicle. It's a net loss, not a net negation. At the macro level, more cars are being taken off the road by virtue of the driver who already bought in, being able to negate a need for other people to get vehicle to begin with.
Cara on the road == cars on existence.
Cars on the road are cars that are driven at that point in time. Not parked cars
The reality is that many cities are seeing more cars on the road due to ride share services. Ride share doesn't work if there's not some capacity existing to offer service relatively quickly when a user opens the app, so now there are lots of cars driving around looking for their next ride.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/ride-sharing-intensifies-urban-road-congestion-0423
True, but there's an aspect that should be included, which is taking trucks off the roads too. Live in Texas, trucks everywhere and even drive one myself, but they're not fuel efficient in comparison to a passenger car when it comes to just transporting people.
I think the best way to solve that is to start to require additional licensing and taxes to vehicles above a certain weight. Vehicles have gotten heavier to improve the safety of their occupants, but it makes all other road users less safe.
I'm not sure that vehicle type is a particularly big driver of congestion though. Their footprint compared to an SUV is not that different and SUVs are popular for ride share.
If cities do end up going mostly car share/taxi, there’s a ton of parking that could be new functional lanes.
Most smaller streets in Manhattan could fit 2 proper lanes and a 2 way bike lane if it weren’t for the free parking.
Except in many cities they're trying to force the issue by building housing without parking, and all it does is fill the surrounding streets with cars parking there instead of in a building.
It doesn't actually fix anything.
Around here the only houses without parking are at regional rail stations which are situated in walkable areas. It is totally possible to not have a car in my neighborhood.
Lemme guess.. Young, fit, no motion disabilities, no kids, don't cook at home much?
In the Netherlands, there are plenty of old people who walk or ride bikes. There is even a type of bicycle that is stereotypically for grandmas- "omafiets".
If you're not fit, you can become fit by walking or riding a bike.
There are plenty of disabilities that prevent you from driving, and plenty of motion-based disabilities that let you get around perfectly well with a wheelchair or an adaptive cycle.
They make child seats for bicycles so you can bring along kids who are too young to ride their own bikes.
I'd expect not because there are presumably a lot of good restaurants within walking distance, however, assuming there is a grocery store within walking distance (because "walkable areas" implies that everyday necessities like grocery stores are within walking distance), you can also transport groceries on foot or by bike.
So you're saying that everyone should ride bikes, and there's never a reason not to own one?
Edit: oh you post in r/fuckcars. Never mind - I can't expect to have a rational answer from you.
I'm almost 30, Obese, Cook at home, and watch my nephews regularly. I started biking for transit almost exclusively about 4 months back. Admittedly, it's a pain in the ass sometimes, because of the prevalence of black ice in the winter, lots of hills where I live, my slowly shrinking fat ass, and the beginning of urban sprawl. However, it has generally had a cascading positive effect on my life, and I would generally recommend that everyone who can should bike around as much as possible.
Electric Bikes are getting pretty inexpensive now, too. You can get one that pedal assists up to 20 mph and has saddlebags for only about $1200, so it's a good budget option instead of a car.
I'm going to wait on getting an ebike until I can leave it chained outside a store without expecting people to show up with bolt cutters to steal it - which is the reality for Seattle right now.
You do miss the point entirely though:
You can't take two kids to school on your ebike.
You can't ride your bike if your knees are giving out.
You can't get a week's worth of groceries for a family of five on a bike.
You can't drop kid A off at elementary school, and kid B off at middle school across town, and do the reverse before you run out of after school care, if you're on a bike.
The reality is that we need solutions that work for a variety of different people. That solution for many has to include a car, because in the US our cities are huge, and we need to get around and across them.
So while biking is great and I'm all for it, it's not a blanket solution for everyone and never will be. It's not even a blanket solution for most people - in Seattle biking drops to near zero in the winter along normal bike commuter routes. Are those people getting the bus? Maybe. Not all of them. Many of them are just taking their car in the winter.
[deleted]
Try reading what I wrote again, in context.
The whole point is that walkable neighborhoods rapidly become "I need a car because..." the moment you're not a hip young urbanite without walking problems, or kids, or needing to bring groceries home to feed a family.
Seattle checking in...
Exactly. Howdy, neighbor.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments