Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday August 08 2019, @03:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the solving-the-wrong-problem dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow7671

Uber and Lyft admit they're making city traffic worse

Uber and Lyft may be competitors but as the two major ridesharing companies, they also have a lot in common -- including the challenges they face. To better understand their role in city traffic patterns, the companies jointly sponsored a study to determine their combined vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in six key cities. In a surprising twist, the results got Uber to admit that ridesharing companies, or transportation network companies (TNCs), do in fact contribute to congestion.

"The research shows that despite tremendous growth over the past decade, TNC use still pales in comparison to all other traffic, and although TNCs are likely contributing to an increase in congestion, its scale is dwarfed by that of private cars and commercial traffic," Chris Pangilinan, Uber's Head of Global Policy for Public Transportation, wrote in a blog post.

The study, conducted by Fehr & Peers, looked at Uber and Lyft trips in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC. In San Francisco County, Uber and Lyft were responsible for 13.4 percent of all VMT. In Boston, they accounted for eight percent, and in Washington, DC they represent 7.2 percent of vehicle-miles. Just over half of those miles (54 to 62 percent) were spent actually driving a passenger.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 08 2019, @07:53PM (10 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday August 08 2019, @07:53PM (#877621)

    This is the whole thinking behind yellow cab medallions in NYC. Looking around the "popular" parts of town here on a Friday night, you'll see "UBER" signs glowing in the dashboard circulating up and down the street, apparently hoping to be the closest driver to the next ride requester...

    I still don't understand who does this? After taking out the cost of maintenance/mileage on the car, Uber drivers could make more per hour working minimum wage.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 09 2019, @12:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 09 2019, @12:28AM (#877690)

    I still don't understand who does this? [...], Uber drivers could make more per hour working minimum wage.

    If your income expectation is at minimum wage level, which one are you going to pick: the job with the arsehole, micro-managing boss or the one where you can pick your own hours and are treated with a small modicum of respect? A modest pay cut or slightly longer hours is not an unreasonable trade-off.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 09 2019, @02:48AM (8 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 09 2019, @02:48AM (#877739) Journal

    I still don't understand who does this? After taking out the cost of maintenance/mileage on the car, Uber drivers could make more per hour working minimum wage.

    Unless, of course, they can make considerably more than minimum wage. I figure like most such things, some people have figured out the angles.

    Or they want to work a second job that never conflicts with their main job. You need some extra spending money? Gig economy stuff provides a way to get it with enormous flexibility.

    And there's actual taxi drivers looking to supplement their income. They're out on the road anyway - those costs are going to be paid anyway. You can't find a paying fare? You can up your odds with a ride sharing service.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 09 2019, @12:09PM (7 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday August 09 2019, @12:09PM (#877858)

      I figure like most such things, some people have figured out the angles.

      And I figure, like most such things, there are people who are barely breaking even at the end-game because they don't factor in all the expenses that are hitting them in the future: maintenance and depreciation costs, increased insurance cost and/or liability risk.

      The "average" Uber driver is probably factoring in the cost of gas, those on the less insightful end of the spectrum probably not even that, when evaluating how much money they "made" on a particular night. It's actually the same with "professional" drivers, particularly owner-operators of things like heavy dump trucks - they underbid each other until there's almost no real income at the end of the game, even if they perform their own maintenance.

      Uber corporate is in no danger of bankruptcy, particularly as long as they exploit their workers as heavily as a "home based MLM consultancy opportunity."

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 09 2019, @09:56PM (6 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 09 2019, @09:56PM (#878032) Journal

        And I figure, like most such things, there are people who are barely breaking even at the end-game because they don't factor in all the expenses that are hitting them in the future: maintenance and depreciation costs, increased insurance cost and/or liability risk.

        Well, they can always figure that out and then do something else. It's a solved problem and educates people at the same time.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 09 2019, @11:32PM (5 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday August 09 2019, @11:32PM (#878065)

          they can always figure that out and then do something else

          It's predatory business practice which keeps people on public support, draining MY tax dollars to bail their stupid asses out of the hole they dug for themselves.

          I'd rather regulate Uber and all the other predatory employers than support their victims.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 10 2019, @03:53AM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 10 2019, @03:53AM (#878101) Journal

            It's predatory business practice which keeps people on public support, draining MY tax dollars to bail their stupid asses out of the hole they dug for themselves.

            Then don't spend your tax money on them. It's not that hard. It amazes me how people make these problems and then propose to make them worse by adding more of the same anti-solutions that caused the problems in the first place.

            I'd rather regulate Uber and all the other predatory employers than support their victims.

            I don't really feel this concern myself, particularly since we've already heavily regulated all these alleged predatory employers for generations without seeing that desired improvement. You got what you wanted, and well, there's still predatory employers by your viewpoint. Maybe it's time to change that viewpoint.

            As I noted, the "victims" can simply just stop doing that work, if it really is a problem for them. And in the meantime, Uber and related businesses provide very valuable services - they do far more than merely predatorily employ people.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday August 10 2019, @11:58AM (3 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday August 10 2019, @11:58AM (#878184)

              the "victims" can simply just stop doing that work

              They can, but apparently they don't - judging from the legion of part-time WalMart employees, 40 year old minimum wage fast food slingers, and massive lines at the Social Security benefits offices, free food for the poor in the public schools, etc. there are far too many corporations in this country using people for cheap labor and those self-same people are making ends meet with public assistance.

              The pattern is well established, for decades, not a transient thing. Business as usual needs improvement, and it's not going that way on its own.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 10 2019, @12:50PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 10 2019, @12:50PM (#878207) Journal

                They can, but apparently they don't - judging from the legion of part-time WalMart employees, 40 year old minimum wage fast food slingers, and massive lines at the Social Security benefits offices, free food for the poor in the public schools, etc. there are far too many corporations in this country using people for cheap labor and those self-same people are making ends meet with public assistance.

                I notice third deep flaws with your post. First, you haven't shown there is a problem. Second, the primary value of those people to the rest of society is their cheap labor. Take that away, and you've just grown the group performing the above behaviors. Third, one would think that predatory employers, namely those who employ the poor (notice the lack of any further distinguishing feature!), would be a good thing.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday August 10 2019, @04:11PM (1 child)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday August 10 2019, @04:11PM (#878307)

                  the primary value of those people to the rest of society is their cheap labor

                  The flaw is in your accounting methods: you count what is paid for them by the employer. What you're not counting is the public assistance they are on paid for by taxes, the lack of insurance which translates to lack of preventative healthcare and overall higher healthcare costs - costs borne by who? Not the employee/employer where your blindered analysis ends.

                  These people have children, children that are even less "parented" than normal because: long hours, little money = poor child care opportunity. When these kids come around stealing from your home, car, place of business, that's another unaccounted cost of keeping the parents poor and working long hours. Are all children of poor parents doomed to a life of crime and drug abuse? Absolutely not, but - the statistics all point toward increased risk and we'd have less crackhead petty thievery if we had more parents who could earn a decent living in 40 hours or less per week.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 11 2019, @12:41PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 11 2019, @12:41PM (#878830) Journal

                    the primary value of those people to the rest of society is their cheap labor

                    The flaw is in your accounting methods: you count what is paid for them by the employer. What you're not counting is the public assistance they are on paid for by taxes, the lack of insurance which translates to lack of preventative healthcare and overall higher healthcare costs - costs borne by who? Not the employee/employer where your blindered analysis ends.

                    Note that I speak of value, you only speak of cost. I think we're a bit in error on who is blindered.

                    As to your earlier accusation of "predatory employment", this game has been played [soylentnews.org] before. I think it's profoundly mendacious to interpret the good of employing poor people as an evil. Note that employing poor people near the legal minimum wage is all that predatory employment really means.

                    These people have children, children that are even less "parented" than normal because: long hours, little money = poor child care opportunity. When these kids come around stealing from your home, car, place of business, that's another unaccounted cost of keeping the parents poor and working long hours. Are all children of poor parents doomed to a life of crime and drug abuse? Absolutely not, but - the statistics all point toward increased risk and we'd have less crackhead petty thievery if we had more parents who could earn a decent living in 40 hours or less per week.

                    Do it for the children. I'm sure that making their standard of living worse will lower the amount of public assistance they siphon from your taxes. Where's these jobs going to come from when the value of their labor is less than what they would be paid?