New Study Finds Ridesharing Actually Increases Pollution, Congestion (nytimes.com)
- Reference: 0153818603
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/21/10/17/1948248/new-study-finds-ridesharing-actually-increases-pollution-congestion
- Source link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/17/opinion/uber-lyft.html
And he adds that now a new study "is punching [1]a hole in another of Uber and Lyft's promised benefits: curtailing pollution ."
> The companies have long insisted their services are a boon to the environment in part because they reduce the need for short trips, can pool riders heading in roughly the same direction and cut unnecessary miles by, for instance, eliminating the need to look for street parking. It turns out that Uber rides do spare the air from the high amount of pollutants emitted from starting up a cold vehicle, when it is operating less efficiently, [2]researchers from Carnegie Mellon University found . But that gain is wiped out by the need for drivers to circle around waiting for or fetching their next passenger, known as deadheading. Deadheading, Lyft and Uber estimated in 2019, is equal to about [3]40 percent of rideshare miles driven in six American cities.
>
> The researchers at Carnegie Mellon estimated that driving without a passenger leads to a roughly 20 percent overall increase in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared with trips made by personal vehicles.
>
> The researchers also found that switching from a private car to on-demand rides, like an Uber or Lyft, increased the external costs of a typical trip by 30 percent to 35 percent, or roughly 35 cents on average, because of the added congestion, collisions and noise from ridesharing services. "This burden is not carried by the individual user, but rather impacts the surrounding community," [4]reads a summary of the research conducted by Jacob Ward, Jeremy Michalek and Constantine Samaras. "Society as a whole currently shoulders these external costs in the form of increased mortality risks, damage to vehicles and infrastructure, climate impacts and increased traffic congestion."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/17/opinion/uber-lyft.html
[2] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c01641
[3] https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133756_study-taking-uber-or-lyft-costs-society-and-environment-more-than-driving-yourself
[4] https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2021/october/emissions-study.html
Duh (Score:2)
A bunch of cars that would be otherwise be parked are now idling and crawling in circles around city blocks.
Re: (Score:1)
> A bunch of cars that would be otherwise be parked are now idling and crawling in circles around city blocks.
Why? Unless you're in a remote area what's the point of driving around without a passenger?
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't, so you shouldn't be doing it, unless the driver himself is the passenger with a need to get somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only this, but a bunch of trips via car are done which would otherwise have happened.
As soon as you are making it less costly and less cumbersome to have a trip, you increase the number of trips. People will go out for longer and party longer, because they can always hail a trip via ride sharing companies and don't have to pay a premium for a taxi service. People who would otherwise used a bus or a train are now using a ride sharing company, because it's providing door to door service. Everything incr
See. Taxi companies after all (Score:5, Informative)
But that gain is wiped out by the need for drivers to circle around waiting for or fetching their next passenger, known as deadheading.
If you're driving around looking for a passenger, you're not "ride sharing". If you're fetching your next passenger, again, you're not "ride sharing". You're a taxi company.
Ride sharing is when you are already going to a particular destination and take someone with you who happened to be going to the same location.
Re: (Score:2)
Not getting at you really, but was there actually anyone that believed they weren't a taxi company? I just figured anyone mentioning that was a shill/had an agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not getting at you really, but was there actually anyone that believed they weren't a taxi company? I just figured anyone mentioning that was a shill/had an agenda.
That was the literal interpretation both Uber and Lyft touted their companies as. In fact, [1]this is from Uber's own site [uber.com] while [2]this is what Lyft has to say [lyft.com] from their own site. Further, when you look at articles about the two companies, the only words used are ride sharing companies. Not taxi companies.
Apparently all those writers are shills for the companies.
[1] https://www.uber.com/us/en/careers/teams/ridesharing/
[2] https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013078848-About-Shared-rides
Yep, this. (Score:2)
The trouble with Ridesharing is that once somebody drops you off you still need to get home. And most people need to do it on a strict time limit for work/school/pick up kids, etc.
Hmm, maybe tax per-minute and per-mile? (Score:1)
It would be too easy to cheat with today's cars, but tomorrow's cars might include tamper-proof "engine time odometers" along with tamper-proof distance odometers.
Taxing car owners every year for their license plates based on the previous year's "engine time on" plus "mileage driven" would drive up the cost of every minute and every mile of "deadhead" time, which would be passed on to customers. Either ride-sharing services would have to shift to a more efficient model, like "scheduled services" rather tha
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA we have a "per the mile" and "per hour of engine on time" tax in effect. It's called the "gas tax". No fancy gadget add ons sending telemetry required - one pays this tax at the pump when filling ones tank. Those who run their cars more pay more, and those who run their cars less pay less. It's a very fair system.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. As you said, it doesn't cut down on pollution, and it probably causes even more.
And there's also the people who would have walk, biked or taken public transport if "ride sharing" wasn't available.
We have the technology to build (Score:3)
> ... greenhouse gas emissions ...
If only there was a vehicle that didn't use an Internal Combustion Engine but electricity. If only the government demanded business vehicles must soon be these new-fangled electric vehicles.
This is a environment and health problem we do have the technology to fix. We just need the political will, which some states and countries are slowly gaining.
Where's the beef? (Score:2)
Also, don't eat egg yolks and for God's sake don't use ANY salt!
Need nuclear fission power and synthesized fuels (Score:2)
There's no good replacements for hydrocarbon fuels so we will have to find a better source than petroleum. We know how to use nuclear fission to synthesize "zero carbon" hydrocarbon fuels, we need only develop the technology to lower costs and scale it up to replace petroleum. I put "zero carbon" in scare quotes because everyone should know nothing is truly zero carbon, not even battery electric vehicles, but we can get really close to zero.
Use of synthesized hydrocarbons will address the problem of CO2 a
Glad I was sitting down for this story (Score:3)
Seriously, isn't this at the "thank you Captain Obvious" level of cognition? You're pretty obviously increasing the number of miles being driven per person-trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Provide proof or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious? When I first heard about "ride sharing" I assumed that meant the app would help people organize ad-hoc car-pools so that they could ... share a ride. That's not what happens.
It's just a taxi service. That's obviously going to be less efficient than individuals driving themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's just a taxi service. That's obviously going to be less efficient than individuals driving themselves.
Taxis have all the same environmental costs. So why would the taxi industry fund this study?
Also, there is no "taxi industry". Most taxi medallions are owned by individuals or local dispatchers. The main defenders of the taxi industry are municipal governments who make money from the medallion racket.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the New York Times. What more needs to be said?
[1]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FB... [twimg.com]
[2]https://twitter.com/ggreenwald... [twitter.com]
They never let facts interfere with an agenda.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBJA3EVWEAItTRd?format=png&name=small
[2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1397623499888463872
Re: (Score:2)
> Obviously.
Seems an odd study for them to fund since they'd be just as problematic.
I think there is a way they could reduce pollution overall, increasing density through elimination of street parking, the production of fewer vehicles overall, and possibly the incentive to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. But the fact is that under a "ride-sharing"/taxi model the total distances driven will rise.