Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by losvedir 3449 days ago
Very interesting. I worry about a selection bias, though. Uber riders are wealthier than average, so the trips won't necessarily reflect all the commutes of those in the city. I hope this doesn't lead to just an improvement in bus routes, road construction, traffic, etc. between nicer sections of the city.
5 comments

I get the impression that much of America has the opposite problem. "The bus" is seen as something for the poor, which no self-respecting middle-class person would ride. The result is more cars on the road, more pollution, and less funding for public transit, since taxpayers are less willing to subsidize a system that's not for them. In places with good public transit, it is seen a something that directly benefits everyone, and not as a welfare program.
I went to LA and took the bus from the airport to the city (my default transit choice when there isn't a train). I had a pleasant ride but I was surprised to find that I was the only white person on a maybe half-full bus. I haven't encountered this kind of self-segregation on public transport anywhere else in the world before or since.
That is the norm in the Southern cities I've been to -- especially Jacksonville (my home). Hell, even in Atlanta, a relatively well-integrated city, the backronym meaning for MARTA[0] has existed practically since it began.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Tra...

In LA, middle class and up mostly have their own car, which leaves the bus for people who can't afford cars. It's been like that for decades. There are some exceptions in pockets.
a bus in my city more than quadruples the time to get anywhere around or near my city. That means a 15minute car ride can take 1.5hours on a bus.

Most people who can afford a car will opt out of spending 3 hours a day on a bus, but for people who don't have any other option, they are burdened with this on top of working long minimum wage hours, and walking their groceries 1/2 mile home in the freezing cold with their children after a 10 hour shift, and judged for not being able to get themselves out of a bad situation.

Whatever the cost of an uber ride is, can be earned back multiple time in the amount of time people could work more, or allow them to come home and spend more time with their children instead of keeping them in after school public welfare programs which is shown to decrease crime over time.

In general, unless you are in Boston or NYC, the option of a bus is really the only option, and it is a disgraceful and absurd option for poor people working long hours at minimal pay. Ive ridden the public bus system in my city. It's a joke. I feel sad for people who have to navigate to work using it everyday, especially considering the majority of jobs that provide any hope of economic mobility are on "the other side of town" taxing their time even more to navigate further.

It is unreasonable to assume the working poor who are more statistically likely to have kids are not at an exponential disadvantage when a 15minute ride to work takes roughly 25% of their waking day, when maximizing hours worked is important with less pay, and kids are left in understaffed public daycare programs or unsupervised in areas with high crime rates at home. What do we expect?

I too am sad that there are people who have to spend a large portion of their day working for minimum wage and on inefficient public transportation.

We're all different, born into different situations, in different geographical areas, with different brains, different athletic abilities (or not), and different opportunities in life. Some people are able to make a better life for themselves than the one they were born into and others squander their initial advantages and end up on skid row.

I expect people to realize their current economic situation, whatever the reason, and have kids only when they can afford to support them. Having sex may be mandatory, but having kids isn't. The easiest way to make a difficult economic situation worse is to have a kid.

Not just wealthier [1], but also younger and more urban. People who have 25 mile commutes from the suburbs--even very wealthy suburbs--are more likely to own cars and less likely to use Uber.

[1] In cities with good public transit (e.g., Boston, NYC), uber can seem more like a luxury but in cities that are very car centric (e.g., Detroit, Miami), Uber is actually cheaper than owning a car for many people. I live in Miami and use UberPool all the time and I meet people from all walks of life. Car insurance here is very expensive, so for a lot of people, using Uber saves them money.

Even in San Francisco I have forgo car in favor of Uber. Using Uber is far cheaper and convenient than having a car.
The question is, when the VC money dries up and they can't subsidize the fares any more, does this still apply?
I prefer having a car - I can put my surfboard on the roof, I can put my bikes on the back. I can always have the boot / trunk full of camping and beach stuff. It's far more convenient than relying on taxis and hire cars.

Really helps when you have kids too.

The convenience of hire cars and Uber covers a limited scope.

As a Boston native, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of their public transit as "good"!
I'd say the goodness of Boston's public transit depends on your comparison set. If you compare to the rest of the US, there aren't many cities with better public transit. If you compare to the rest of the world, it's another story.
Well, you are right that uber users is not a representative sample of the city population. Biased data is not inherently bad, it's just that you need to be aware of biases.
Well of course there's selection bias, but it doesn't affect this use case because cities already concentrate all their transportation efforts on the wealthiest areas first. How it may affect things is that traffic may get redirected to new areas the way Waze caused suburban neighborhoods in LA to become flooded with speeding rush hour traffic.
Traffic is traffic.

Yes only wealthy people's routes are being data mined. However, if someone is going from P to U, you will still learn that R to T is a hot spot. Those hot spots are common to everyone.

Except the potential issue is that while R to T is the worst spot according to the data, there is a route in a poorer neighbourhood, C to F, that is far worse and more deserving of improvement than R to T. And it may be hard to know in practice whether this effect is happening or not.
I understand and agree that you have a valid point, but what is your suggestion? Would you rather have no data?