[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.

[radlad]

I apologize, I misunderstood your point and thought I edited it quick enough, but you were faster!

That said, why did you need an Uber instead of a taxi to get to the station? To be clear, I'm not opposed to ride sharing full stop - I think they do solve some problems and help to reduce car ownership, which is a noble goal. But I am not convinced that they are better for the environment (i.e. emissions) than private vehicle ownership.

And I still believe that prioritizing ride hailing vehicles over mass transit (i.e. buses) on public roads will disincentivize mass transit on said roads. Rail is obviously not negatively affected as the infrastructure is not shared.

[JumpCrisscross]

> in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile

I don’t want to gamble on whether I’ll hail a taxi in time to make the train. And if I’ve spent a few minutes hailing such that it’s questionable if I’ll make the train, I’ll just gun for the airport.

> I am not convinced that they are better for the environment (i.e. emissions) than private vehicle ownership

If you can get people to not own a car, ridesharing wins hands over feet. In most of America, ridesharing just decreases private miles driven. There, the environmental impact is more mixed.

> prioritizing ride hailing vehicles over mass transit (i.e. buses) on public roads will disincentivize mass transit on said roads

I think anything that makes mass transit more accessible, or which pays its bills, is good. Because the default in most of the country isn’t busses. It’s private cars. If we get self-driving cars while busses are still on a legacy model, those systems will be shut down.