[macspoofing]

>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.

[radlad]

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]

> 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]

> 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_...

[mmooss]

> 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]

> 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]

> 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]

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...

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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-L...

[radlad]

I've only been a tourist in NYC, but I've found that it's generally faster to take the subway (which tends to run frequently) than to wait for an Uber. Maybe taxis are faster - I've never hailed one!

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's generally faster to take the subway (which tends to run frequently) than to wait for an Uber

It depends on where you are, where you're going and when it is. For the most part, yes, the subway tends to be faster the further you're going, unless you're in the netherlands between Brooklyn and Queens.

> This is mass transit - taxis and Uber are not

My point is the Ubers were complimentary with the mass transit. Absent Uber, those folks--myself included--would have taken a taxi to the airport.

[macspoofing]

>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.

[cyberax]

> 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.

[delusional]

> 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]

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

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[const_cast]

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.

[convolvatron]

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]

> 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.