قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / All the bad things about uber and lifting in a simple list – Streetsblog USA

All the bad things about uber and lifting in a simple list – Streetsblog USA



Here's the latest proof that Uber and Lyft are destroying our world: Students at the University of California Los Angeles take each other an astounding 11,000 app-based taxi tours that begin and end within the framework of campus.

The report in the Daily Bruin again showed that Uber, Lyft, Via and the like are enormously increasing car journeys at many of the most common and transit-friendly locations in the United States

It comes after a number of recent studies have found negative effects from Uber Lifting, for example, increased congestion, higher traffic accidents, large declines in transit traffic and other negative consequences. It is becoming increasingly clear that Uber and Lyft have some rather harmful effects on public health and the environment, especially in some of the country's largest cities.

We decided to compile everything into a comprehensive list and you judge for yourself. Here we go:

They increase driving ̵
1; much

U.C.L.A. Tours are an example of what is happening on a much larger scale: A much more driving.

For example, Uber and Lyft give 90,000 rides a day in Seattle now. It's more than being worn daily by the city's light rail system, reports the Seattle Times.

One study estimates that in cities with the highest adoption rate for Uber and Lyft, driving is increased by 3 percent compared to the cities with the lowest. It's a huge amount of miles.

And transport consultant Bruce Schaller estimates that app-based taxis have added 5.7 billion kilometers to the nine major cities they primarily operate. (By comparison, in their first year of distribution in the United States, e-scooters operated by private tech companies conducted between 60-80 million trips.)

At the end of this year, Schaller estimated that all taxi riders would exceed Traveling on buses in the US

 uber ad

The promise of companies like Uber and Lyft was that they would "liberate" city dwellers to sell their cars or not buy them in the first place. And car ownership has declined among higher wage earners.

But a study from the University of Chicago found the presence of Uber and Lyft in cities actually increasing new vehicle registrations. That's because companies encourage low-income people to buy cars, even advertise in some markets how people should put the new car into use – like a Uber.

They spend half their time & # 39; deadheading & # 39;

Every mile a Uber or Lift car drives with a passenger, it crosses so many miles – if not more – without passengers, a practice known in the industry as "deadheading." Estimates of total deadheading time range from 30 percent to as much as 60 percent.

Uber and Lyft's policies make this worse by encouraging drivers to continuously cycle to reduce waiting times for users, according to John Barrios, a researcher at the University of Chicago, who has studied Uber and Lyft. 19659005] They operate in transit-friendly areas

Transit systems around the nation lose riders to Uber and Lyft, suggesting that companies only show the need to remedy transit service across the country.

But if you tease yourself, something else is at work because Uber and Lyft operate primarily in areas best best served by transit. For example, in Seattle, about half of the rides come in Uber and Lift in just four neighborhoods: downtown, Belltown, South Lake Union, and Capitol Hill, according to David Gutman at the Seattle Times.

  Graph: Bruce Shaller "width =" 382 "height =" 411
Graph: Bruce Shaller

Besides, according to Schaller, about 70 percent of Uber and Lyft tours take place in only nine US cities: Boston , Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC

Meanwhile, traditional taxi service, Schaller, serves estimates still more total trips in suburban and rural areas than Ubers and Lyfts.

Why would Uber and Lyft be so high in dense, transit-rich areas? Surveys are not crucial, but on average, Uber and Lyft riders are not surprisingly rich and crooked young.

In the top nine cities for Uber and Lyft people with an income of over $ 200,000, it is by far the most likely to use service. Lower income people without cars in some smaller urban markets use Uber and Lyft, but their use is dwarfed by those with high incomes, Schaller finds.

They mostly replace cycling, walking or transit

In an ideal world, Ville Uber and Lyft do well on their promise to reduce private car ownership because city dwellers would feel more comfortable selling their cars, thanks to their presence of Uber and Lift.

But the data show that Uber and Lyft are mostly "free"

A survey of 944 Uber and Lift riders at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in Boston last year found that 42 percent of riders would have taken transit if the services had not been available. Another 12 percent (as the U.C.L.A students and their 11,000 on-campus taxi rides a week) said they would have cycled or traveled. Another 5 percent would have just avoided the trip altogether.

Only 17 percent – less than one in five – said they would have made the journey in a private car otherwise. (The rest said they would have used a traditional taxi.)

Uber and Lyft are just not competitive priced with private car ownership, Schaller says, except in areas with expensive parking. Even with Uberpool and other shared services – which account for a small part of the total business, says Schaller – Uber and Lyft, the car environment on urban streets increases. For every kilometer of driving removed, they add about 2.6 miles, he estimates.

The Damaged Transit

Uber and Lyft just crush transit service in the United States. A recent study, for example, had reduced bus service in San Francisco, such as 12 percent since 2010 – or about 1.7 percent annually. And every year, the services are offered, the effect grows, researcher Gregory Erhardt found.

Any person lured from a bus or a train to a Lift or Uber, adds overload to the streets and emissions to the air. Even in cities that have made huge investments in transit – like Seattle, which is investing another $ 50 billion in light rail – Uber and Lift riders have recently surpassed light riders.

Transit agencies cannot complete with private driver service which is subsidized under the real cost of venture capitalists. And maybe that's the point.

For example, Erhardt estimated that San Francisco would have had to increase the transport service 25 percent overall to neutralize the effects of Uber and Lyft.

Worse is the story of two city effects: Relatively wealthy people in Uber's overload of Manhattan and San Francisco streets lower buses full of relatively low-income people. By giving people who can afford to escape from the subway, Uber and Lyft also reduce social interaction between people of different classes and lead to a more stratified society.

They reduce political support for transit

As an additional park in shins, Uber and Lyft, political support breaks down transit. If relatively good to make people jump into a Uber or a Lift every time the bus or train is late, the political need to solve the problem is reduced. The richer people who replace Uber and Lyft for transit have a disproportionate political influence.

Cities are already capitalizing. Last week, Denver collaborated with Uber in a final drawback to win back some riders who had jumped to the app.

In addition, right-wing ideologists have argued that Uber and Lyft make transit investments unnecessary.

They Increase Traffic Accidents

The study from the University of Chicago mentioned earlier that Uber and Lyft increased traffic accidents last year with an astounding 1100 – a huge human toll. The study also surprisingly found that Uber and Lyft have no effect on full driving.

In addition, Uber and Lyft basically do not require any safety training for their drivers at all. In fact, the presence of these companies has motivated cities such as Toronto to eliminate security training requirements the city previously required for taxi drivers, for apparently playing out.

They claim their data

One qualification with this list: Much of the information we have about Lifting and Uber is imperfect. The two companies make it difficult to study the social consequences of their activities because they jealously preserve their data.

Last year, when Barrios launched a study that showed many negative effects from Uber and Lyft, the Lyft business attacked the study that called it "Bad Fault".

But Barrios had to use Google's search numbers to estimate Uber and Lift penetration in some markets because even academic researchers do not have access to Uber and Lyft's raw tour data. If Uber and Lyft are honest in their denials, the release of the data may refute it. But so far they have mostly refused.

Oh, and one more thing …

These are just transport-related disadvantages. Saying nothing about these companies treating their employees, or the behavior of top management or their major financial losses.


Source link