Link to the study exactly. <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau2670" rel="nofollow">https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau2670</a>
Having just read the study the results make sense. The authors look at car ownership reduction. They find that Uber and Lyft are not actually helping with that.
We do not observe a meaningful change in car ownership, with an average of 1.08 cars per household in 2010 and 1.10 cars per household in 2016 (36).<p>This is because as people move towards dense urban centers they are now sometimes electing to use Uber and Lyft instead of transit. The thing is because parking and driving is so expensive as is living in a dense prolific city, you probably wouldn't have wanted a car anyway.<p>The findings clearly show Uber and Lyft create traffic.
The speed data used in this study confirm this trend, showing that the average speed decreases from 25.6 miles per hour (mph) in 2010 to 22.2 mph in 2016 and that the vehicle hours of delay (VHD) increase by 63% over the same period.<p>In addition to the 20% of TNC VMT that is out-of-service, 70% of San Francisco TNC drivers live outside the city<p>It makes sense that Uber and Lyft actually worsen traffic. They bring cars and congestion into the city and create public transit competitors.<p>I have the one for NYC here also <a href="http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/unsustainable.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/unsustainable.pd...</a><p>The question is what is the best response to help the environment? It seems that supporting Uber and Lyft is contrary to sustainable objectives. Is that partially why many cities and countries do not want them to operate in their jurisdiction?
> The new findings, based on a computer model that simulated the speed of traffic with Uber and Lyft vehicles removed<p>Not sure if that's actually what's going on, but if it is, it's a ridiculous conclusion. Let me rephrase: "Japanese cars are making traffic in the USA worse, based on a computer model that simulated the speed of traffic with Japanese vehicles removed."
It's not just the number of cars causing issues; the number of roads with ad hoc lane closures due to ride sharing pick-ups and dropoffs makes a huge difference. Many three lane streets get choked down to one lane if a delivery truck blocks a right lane and a ride share blocks the left. It's very visible every rush hour in SF.
Anything that makes it more convenient for people to get from A to B in a _car_ will, of course, create more traffic. Convenience increases usage.<p>Uber/Lyft may make it unnecessary for some folks to own a car, but a reduction in car ownership does not mean a reduction in car usage.
Obviously. They are making it worse by exactly the number of trips that would otherwise have been done by transit, bike, walking or not at all.<p>edit: or now scooters
Yes, there are cars that are performing transport and some that are part of traffic that are waiting to be hailed and not performing transport - those are certainty congesting. There is also the effect of rideshare drivers coming from different areas and thus not knowing the city they are in. Reliance on GPS/map apps helps but there will still be “I don’t know where I am going and am not accustomed to city traffic” effect that compounds the others drivers who exhibit that behavior. I’m sue we’ve seen the effect of a single driver desperately trying to cross lanes to make their turn, scale that up.<p>Cities should really get this data from the companies to figure this out. That should be a necessity for operation in the city.
I found it ironic that Lyft/Uber has been a godsend to the Phoenix area. Cabs were always horrible / impractical here.<p>When I'm in SF and other major cities, I tend to lean towards cabs more.
Anytime there is no passenger in the vehicle, it's an extra vehicle on the road. Normally, our cars don't continue to drive around after we've arrived at our destination.
Good to see this. Earlier assumptions that rideshare would reduce traffic ignored how the transport system would change. Also similar to the way Airbnb can make housing more expensive or unavailable.
I live in San Francisco. Public transport is a joke. Buses are so dangerous that I won't take them (took them twice when I moved here and almost got beaten up the first time, witnessed someone getting mugged the second time (near tartine)).<p>I went from exclusively using public transport (previously living in UK/France) to exclusively taking uber/lyft. Thanks humanity my work provides shuttle to do the commute to south bay, I would never be able to do that with the caltrain. Mad respect to those who have to do it.<p>You can probably tell I'm salty about the state of things here. As a matter of fact I just passed my driving writting exam today because for the first time of my life I feel like I need a car.
I remember when Uber was “supposed” to be a ride sharing service where you could make extra money along your intended destination. It wasn’t touted as a taxi service.
Presumably this is the standard problem with Uber/Lyft:<p>Uber/Lyft make the vast majority of their income in areas that are already well-served by taxis. Consequently, they make the problem worse.<p>Presumably, in the cities not well-served by taxis, they improve the situation. However, they don't generate anywhere near the income.
NYC area driver here... TLDR the entire article but I'll give my first hand perspective to say that "T" (taxi) and "L" (livery) plated vehicles on the highways in the NY metro area DO significantly add to congestion as the drivers keep their speeds well under the limit while traveling in passing lanes. Frequently I see these non "cab" "T" and "L" vehicles that I assume are "transportation network" company contractors driving unusually slow because they're either on their mobile devices (looking for pickups?) or driving so under the limit that I assume to not break any GPS speed monitoring rules enforced by these "transportation network" companies, or just generally inept.<p>I'm not advocating speeding by any means, but after driving 500k+ miles in the NYC metro area you can spot the ineptness and/or driving under fear of speed monitoring of these "T"/"L" plated vehicles. All it takes is for one to be driving 45 mph in a 55 zone on a two lane road with an already congested merge ahead, or they travel in the left passing lane at speeds well under the limit preventing other motorists from advancing, or overall poor driving, then it's a chain reaction of braking and delays mounting behind them.<p>I've always assumed that the monitoring of these drivers adherence to speed limits is the reason why they travel noticeably slower than the average driver in normal traffic. If that's the case it unfortunately causes the average capable driver to become indirectly part of the "transportation network"'s speed monitoring resulting in delays for everybody.<p>In the relative absence of these "T" and "L" plated vehicles, I've driven in moderate to heavy volumes where the average speeds are in the 60-65+ MPH range. However, when the livery vehicles start to increase within similar volumes of traffic the average speeds seem to drop and the congestion related delays seem to increase.<p>So if you were to ask me "Do transportation network companies decrease or increase congestion?" My answer would be "yes". Why? Based on my observations, I suspect it's related to the speed monitoring of the "transportation network" company and a tendency of the drivers of these vehicles being inept relative to other non "transportation network" drivers.
The Uber/Lyft driver strike a couple days ago was a good demonstration of this; my drive to work was significantly easier that day, as was the drive home, with noticeably fewer cars on the road.
On the flip side, car owners make traffic worse for Lyft and Uber users.<p>I'd rather we penalize normal car owners than penalize Lyft and Uber. I use Uber Pool every day to get to my bus stop, and there's no good alternative.
Url changed from <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/uber-and-lyft-may-be-making-san-francisco-s-traffic-worse" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/uber-and-lyft-may-be...</a>, which points to this.
> Uber and Lyft have long said their services may relieve urban congestion by facilitating access to public transit<p>This was always questionable for a place like SF or any high density city.<p>Few people take a ride share to get to a bus or a MUNI light rail stop in SF. If you are paying for the Uber/Lyft, why would you pay again for a bus ticket, especially given the inconvenience of then waiting for the bus. You'll just stay in the car to your destination, after all San Francisco isn't that big.<p>The exception is perhaps people in SF getting to BART to go to a suburb, but that's not a very significant use case.<p>Edit: removed potty language, and superlatives.