-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Uber, Lyft increased traffic delays in San Francisco by 40%, study says
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
No snark, but I would really like to see the stats on that.
You actually do not. You just need a government ready to build and fund it. The government should be bending over backwards to provide reliable public transportation as it is a proven method to actually make money and plan your cities. Take Hong Kong for example, they literally said, "We are getting more people, how the fuck do we deal with traffic?" Then they commissioned a study to see what should be done. The MTR was made, and the MTR is fan-fucking-tastic -- it also makes a lot of money. There's no egg or chicken here, it's just a shitty government not thinking ahead. Like, more and more people would take transit if it was designed well and provided the things you need.
Guess you have never rode septa in philly at 11 at night. I will keep using Lyft at night time thank you very much.
In Scotland Uber drivers are licensed private hire drivers. The council's control the amount of people getting these licenses and they can be removed for criminal behaviour.
This is demonstrably false. 10% are from out of state and nearly 70% are from SF when they become homeless
http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/upl...Point-in-Time-Count-General-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf
Last edited:
Fair points. Asian cities benefit from much looser zoning and relatively passive populations, though. In North America, people actively resist new subway or stations because they don't want their single-family-home neighbourhoods to change.
California is highly regulated which means it takes fucking forever to get any transit projects done even on a small scale and it costs a shit ton to do it as a result. It's not as simple as you say it is here.
This is the problem with discussing SF public transportation with people, they don't understand the system. SF does not own, operate or maintain any aspect of BART. It's a regional transportation district that owns and operates on their own right of way rail system.
On the other hand there is MUNI which is SF County's public transportation system. This is a mixture of light rail and busses. It's daily ridership is higher than BART, its operating budget is 600 million a year and has It's own set of challenges and issues that are completely separate from BART.
MUNI is effected more by Uber and Lyft because they provide a last mile/door to door solution. MUNI operates at roughly 8mph which is slower then average for that ridership but it also has the most frequent number stops for pickup and drop off then systems of their size.
Due to the geography of the city, traversing it has always taken longer then average. SF is only city the on the west coast of the United States in which the closer you get to Pacific Ocean, the cheaper housing becomes, historically due to weather but the last 30 years its due to commute times. There is ~70 city blocks between the ocean and Divisadero, there is another 40 to the financial district. MUNI has to stop to pick up and drop off passengers at almost every block and or other block depending on the distance.
In a seismically active region, how do you solve the problem of the time it takes to make all the stops that the systems usage requires?
More isn't a panacea, it might be a solution to a specific line or route, but even that's highly debatable.
SF as it was designed and is currently structured is at capacity. You need to fundamentally redistribute business concentration in hopes of having any real impact on traffic.
Ridesharing is the problem and the symptom at the same time. It's enabled anyone with a phone, who doesn't own a car, the ability to take private transportation to circumvent the speed of MUNI. The influx of ridesharing cars exacerbates public infrastricture because it was never intended for that many vehicles. It creates gridlock, which is the major cause of traffic. The increased volume of cars is also debilitating the freeway bottlenecks getting in and out of the city because the vast majority of rideshare drivers in SF don't live in the city.
I do not use MUNI and BART anymore because I own cars and live in Clarendon Heights now. Ed Lee was the worst thing that happened to SF.
Last edited:
I also hear a lot of anecdotal stories from my coworkers about assaults and stalking from individuals riding MUNI (sounds like those individuals are clearly mentally ill)
I personally have not had any problems and I've been living in the city for 3 years now
Any Era detectives willing to look up statistics on public transportation crime in SF? Is it really a widespread problem or is it way overblown?
I personally have not had any problems and I've been living in the city for 3 years now
Any Era detectives willing to look up statistics on public transportation crime in SF? Is it really a widespread problem or is it way overblown?
I'll have to lookup the stats but I don't believe it is significantly higher than other cities when adjusting for the increase in per capita homeless rate. Though we should have a slightly higher rate, the real issue comes to positioning. The hotspots are right next to, almost on top of, the major tourist and office zoning spots. FiDi and SoMa has the majority of businesses and Union Square/Embarcadero/Fishermans wharf have the highest tourist density and these major areas are in close proximity to the tenderloin/soma SROs (single room occupancy) that house a lot of the SF homeless. This combination makes the frequency of events much more visible.
So not only do we have a statistically higher amount of homeless, but they are very very visible, which makes anecdotes and word of mouth paint an extra bad picture of SF.
That said, we do have a problem.
I can sympathize with those not wanting to ride SF's public transportation in spite of whatever benefits and coverage it offers. Whether it's perceived or actual, many people experience discomfort when riding MUNI and BART, especially late in the evening. I'm from SF and even though I can take care of myself, I can never shake off the feeling that you can never be too careful. That just isn't a thing when riding Uber and Lyft. Traffic is an issue, but for many, it's not enough to override the convenience and personal safety of a vehicle.
It also depends on things like your gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background. Would anyone in good faith recommend a woman, tourist or young person who's alone to ride MUNI at night? Or someone who has just gone shopping.
(When I'm in town, I ride BART and MUNI during the day time. I use rideshares after 11PM)
It also depends on things like your gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background. Would anyone in good faith recommend a woman, tourist or young person who's alone to ride MUNI at night? Or someone who has just gone shopping.
(When I'm in town, I ride BART and MUNI during the day time. I use rideshares after 11PM)
Are they taking in account that in an alternative version of the city with people not taking Uber/Lyft, these people would take their own cars?
The assumption is probably that most don't have cars and would have to take public transportation instead.
Taxis are limited if I'm not mistaken. They are definitely limited to the number out there in other states. There's no limit on Uber and Lyft like there are on taxis.
In general I can see that argument. I feel totally comfortable taking public transport at any time but pretty much all the women I work with won't do it after dark (and for many during the day), safety is a legitimate concern.
At the same time this is in part because so few people catch public transport and at least where I live it tends to mostly be people of a low socioeconomic background. If more people would actually make use of public transport it would be safer for everyone. The same as most walkways as well, the reason they end up being dangerous is because everyone just drives so if you do chose to walk you can end up being the only person in sight.
Also I do wonder how much of it is a perception thing. How many people are injured or killed driving their car vs catching public transport? I think driving is often seen as a far safer mode of transport than it actually is.
I've met people while in Boston that won't take it because "those people" take it.
They're all overprivileged white college kids, naturally.
are those computers also going to tell you when you're allowed to take the car? or where to go?
because if not, you're just putting more movable 2-ton 5m² boxes of steel on public roads, housing like 1 person on average.
it's not rocket science, and you certainly don't need AI to fix an issue that had been fixed literally 100 years ago.
yeah... the dehumanisation of the poor going on in the U.S. is kinda concerning. And sadly, that crap seems to spread abroad as well, although not quite to the same extend yet.
Though I wonder... is there any overlap between people hating on the poor and those fighting for minority rights on the other hand? because tbh I'm kinda baffled by some of the replies here.
the US government? unless you elect someone like OAC or bernie... and replace most democrats with "democratic socialists", no. It's a growth industry and one the US sees its own competitive advantage in. It's also a surplus export industry, as such... nope. The US is not going to do anything about it. The EU might... but uber/lyft just aren't that big of a deal in europe, so I don't see that happening either.
The only thing they're disrupting are the formerly empty bottoms of their wallets.
I mean, after 11 people can ride whatever the hell they want. Traffic is bad, but generally it clears up after 8 PM.
But to answer your question more seriously, I don't generally have a problem recommending BART to somebody as long as it's open. It's easy enough to navigate and most stops are safe. Caltrain is the same, as long as you don't get off at Bayview in the middle of the night LOL. Muni, you're right, it's more of a case by case -- where you headed sort of question. But how does that differ from any big city in the world? I mean maybe Tokyo, but otherwise there's always gonna be places you don't want to go at night. I don't think that's exclusively an SF problem
The thing about being the victim of a crime is that it is inherently random and all down to luck. Just the mere notion of keeping a mental checklist of what's safe and what isn't and when such advice is applicable is enough to turn some people off entirely. I can't blame them for turning to Uber and Lyft.
Someone called Uber a cancer of a company above and while they do have their issues (just as any other company), they're essentially offering something public transport has been unable to do in a sustainable manner.
As for me, I live in Tokyo now. I never have to worry about public transport safety. Uber is also not a thing here because cabs are ubiquitous and usually offer great service. (Also, parking is expensive, but even if it weren't, I doubt car ownership goes up substantially)
I try not to compare Tokyo and SF too much as there are a lot of other cultural aspects at play. That said it's hard not to compare as I'm temporarily working in Tokyo and on my first day, right after I get of at shiny clean shinjuku station, my employee back in SF messages me that his bus got taken off the route because a homeless person got on, shat on the floor, and got right off on the next stop.
Zoning is cancer. It's basically boomer fucking up the young people.
Isn't the issue of homelessness in SF kind of a self made problem due to the bad mental healthcare or something?
Can't find the source but I heard that it wasn't really due to there being THAT many poor people but more like mental health places letting people go for some reasons.
Regardless, the homelessness issue is really a failure of the collective rather than the failure of individuals.
have people take public transportation.
Can't find the source but I heard that it wasn't really due to there being THAT many poor people but more like mental health places letting people go for some reasons.
Regardless, the homelessness issue is really a failure of the collective rather than the failure of individuals.
It's funny because a competent AI will find the same solution :are those computers also going to tell you when you're allowed to take the car? or where to go?
because if not, you're just putting more movable 2-ton 5m² boxes of steel on public roads, housing like 1 person on average.
it's not rocket science, and you certainly don't need AI to fix an issue that had been fixed literally 100 years ago.
have people take public transportation.
But yeah, that's exactly what I mean.
You get in your car, punch in your destination.
The computer system takes over. It communicates with all the other cars on the road. The computing power figures out your path in real time and adjusts accordingly. Traffic will be seamless, or moreso than it is now.
Ask 200 people to sort themselves in line from tallest to shortest. It will take time.
Have a computer do it. It'll take less than a second.
Even in a manufacturing plant - the machines/computer systems move everything around quickly, far quicker than a bunch of humans trying to sort, pack, etc.
Computers will be far better at logistically organizing traffic, getting people's cars where they need to be (including switching lanes, exiting, reacting to red/green lights). Traffic comes from the stupid decision of people driving cars, not just because there's so many cars. All it takes is one dumb driver not paying attention at a red light or driving below speed limit to fuck it up for miles behind them.
I have a lot of faith in self driving cars once they all get on the same system and coordinate with each other.
Unless you build them more housing how exactly are you gonna solve this? Just FYI, I live in LA and it's just as bad here. Skid is essentially an entire district in downtown full of homeless people.
Cab drivers have always been fucking dangerous in Boston. Uber/Lyft had an opportunity here, but their drivers are shit too. Public transportation is annoying at best here, but at least you have a lower chance of a harrowing experience. It's really the only way to go.
That gif assumes everyone is going in the same direction...are those computers also going to tell you when you're allowed to take the car? or where to go?
because if not, you're just putting more movable 2-ton 5m² boxes of steel on public roads, housing like 1 person on average.
it's not rocket science, and you certainly don't need AI to fix an issue that had been fixed literally 100 years ago.
yeah... the dehumanisation of the poor going on in the U.S. is kinda concerning. And sadly, that crap seems to spread abroad as well, although not quite to the same extend yet.
Though I wonder... is there any overlap between people hating on the poor and those fighting for minority rights on the other hand? because tbh I'm kinda baffled by some of the replies here.
the US government? unless you elect someone like OAC or bernie... and replace most democrats with "democratic socialists", no. It's a growth industry and one the US sees its own competitive advantage in. It's also a surplus export industry, as such... nope. The US is not going to do anything about it. The EU might... but uber/lyft just aren't that big of a deal in europe, so I don't see that happening either.
The only thing they're disrupting are the formerly empty bottoms of their wallets.
But i do agree we need better public trans everywhere. Public trans outside other loop in chicago sucks.
Is it really that bad in SF? I ride the bus in Oakland twice a day every weekday and have never in my life seen someone shit on the bus and no one do anything. That's ridiculous.
I've seen someone shitting on a bus once and of course in the market street area in front of a shop with their ass facing the sidewalk. That was at 6pm too.
On the bus most people got off when they stopped but yep it's pretty bad.
On the bus most people got off when they stopped but yep it's pretty bad.
It's not a logistics issue, it's a space issue. You can have the most efficient system on the planet, it still would not change anything about the available space and infrastructure. There's only so many cars you can put on a road. Automation isn't going to reduce the number, rather the opposite. Also, what you guy seem to forget, you cannot automate pedestrians, so cross-walks and traffic lights will still be a thing, meaning there's always going to be congestion.
As I said above, this issue has been solved 100 years ago. People who don't want to see the solution and would rather believe in fucking magic are, as some user earlier suggested, just egoistical.
It's a waste of public space, and in times of climate change, there is no justification
And I'm pretty sure that those people riding the subway with me atm aren't going in the same direction either, yet we will all end up where we want to go.
But that was not the point. It is a simple visualisation of how much public space we're wasting in out cities because everyone feels entitled to ride around in his own private room. It's not sustainable.
Last edited: