Smartphones May Help Reduce Traffic In the Near Future

crazyvas writes "From the New York Times: 'Experts say services that use smartphones to connect drivers and passengers could help end the reign of single-occupant cars (and unending traffic) in Los Angeles.' One would hope that combined with a recent article from Time stating that Generation Y doesn't think car ownership is cool this might pave the way for less car traffic, more efficient public transit, more pedestrians and bikers, even leading to a healthier population?"

Comments

Link is broken

[HalcyonBlue]

Here's an updated link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/In-Los-Angeles-Where-Car-Is-King-Smartphones-May-Cut-Traffic.html

Re:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

Thanks for the link.

They are taxi's that found a loop hole and will soon be shut down. It's unfair to the real taxis and the government isn't getting their cut. This won't last.

Also the article sites people using them as an alternative to taxis when coming home from the bar. Yes, that's a good way to watch a car trend. Since drunk driving is illegal, and these people are using 'taxis', they don't want cars and no longer ride alone...

These articles are just writers trying to get out ahead of a trend. If they are wrong no one will remember, if they are right, they can point to how they saw the trend comming. They are BS articles filled with outlier data. I'd be more apt to believe Gen Y doesn't want cars because they are all deep in debt due to college and don't have jobs to pay for them.

Re:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

The ride sharing services, are trying to skirt the law. They are taxis but they try to act like they are somehow something else. As if they are just all friends giving each other rides, thus the name..

from the article,
"In addition to franchise and inspection fees, regulated taxis have to serve far-flung and low-income parts of the city where Lyft drivers need not venture. The city also requires cab companies to offer disabled-accessible vehicles, "

The ride sharing services don't have to do any of that.

Re:Link is broken

[Flozzin]

And that is not a taxi service how? There are regulations set up for taxis that they must follow. The government and people of the city/state/

If you want to argue on if the government should be involved in this sort of transaction, that's another conversation.

Also, disagreeing with a law, doesn't give you the right to skirt it. We have a system in place to change laws. Use it. In the mean time if you wish to live in this society, obey its laws.(this is more of a general statement against a ton of people lately that seem to think that breaking the law is ok if you don't think its just, not necessarily you entroplus)

Re:Link is broken

[ShanghaiBill]

And that is not a taxi service how?

It is not a taxi service because the transaction is pre-negotiated with a specific driver. When I hail a taxi off the street, I do not know the driver, he does not know me, and at least one of us usually does not want to negotiate the fare (me on a rainy night; him at a taxi-stand with twenty other cabs). So it is reasonable for the government to step in with regulations and standard fares. But with ride sharing, I can read the driver's reviews and ratings, and negotiate the rate in the comfort of my home or office. It is a different type of transaction.

The real problem here is not "regulation", but pricing. In nearly all cities, taxi fares are far above what they would be in a competitive market, which results in under utilization. Maybe we should fix the taxi system instead of trying to outlaw the competition.

Re:Link is broken

[ShanghaiBill]

But I would have thought a taxi service is someone taking me from A to B for a charge.

Nope. Limousine drivers provide that service, and they are not regulated or licensed as taxis, and there is no government price-fixing of their rates*. They do have to have a "chauffeur" driver's license, but that is just a little extra testing and a small fee beyond a normal driver's license.

*One exception: There is usually a government enforced racket to jack up prices for limos and shuttles going to/from airports. So there is usually a special permit required for that. When I have taken a ride share to an airport, the driver usually asks me to pay before reaching the drop off, so the government goons patrolling the curb don't see the money changing hands.

Lies

[Flozzin]

"If they had to pick between a smartphone or a car, they would pick the phone." What sort of choice is that anyway? They aren't comparable. A phone is a few hundred dollars. A car is thousands. Why would you have to choose between them? The second article is also riddle with 'Gen Y would'. Didn't hear from an actual Gen Y person. Just a bunch of old fuddy duddies trying to predict a future market, acting like they are in the know. That always works out. Some old guy telling you what kids think...

Re:Lies

[Ogi_UnixNut]

As a "Generation Y" person (according to their stats) who lives in the UK , I can tell you that most people of my generation (that I've known/met across Europe), and the one below it (born mid-late 90's), would love to own a car. However many just can't afford it, the costs, the fuel, the taxes, the insurance (espcially this) are just too high.

It isn't that they are not interested, just that they cannot do it. They are not stupid, they see what a money sink it has been turned into for them, and most just cycle, walk, take public transport, or use a car-sharing service if they really need a car (This is for those of us in the inner cities who have this alternative). Others have taken to using motorcycles as they are cheaper to run.

I have a car, but then, my income is above average for my age, and the place I live was built in the 80's, when it was assumed everyone would have a car, so they made off-street parking available. A lot of newly built properties are "car-free", where if you buy/rent there, not only do you not get your own parking, you are forbidden from owning a car parked/registered at that address. The local council will not let you.

Coolness has nothing to do with it. We are being forced away from them. Those old guys are telling us what kids think because it is those old guys who have made owning a car (or a home for that matter) impossible for us.

Next thing I'll hear is how "Generation Y" thinks its uncool to own a home, and we'd rather spend our lives renting due to the "flexibility" it offers us.

(Yes, I know this is somewhat UK/Europe centric, but I'm sure there are similar concerns across the pond as well).

Re:Lies

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Actually I thought you would just keep living at home until your parents died and then you would have a home.

It makes it somewhat tricky to have relationships, or generally socialise.

If I stayed with my parents, I'd have to share a room with my bro, and that would have made it a lot harder to bring a girl round.

Indeed a lot of us do still live with our parents, but being cooped up in a little room when you're in your thirties with your parents is just a recipie for arguments and family disputes (I know, because I have an older friend in this situation). From things like going out, to bringing people home, to being able to live your life on your terms, it just doesnt work to live at home. I had massive disputes with my parents because they didn't approve of my lifestyle, until I left, and things calmed down.

Especially now, as youth unemployment is really high. Of my friends only 2 of us have full time jobs. The others are either unemployed, or doing temp/part-time jobs for near minimum wage.

That is why we tend to socialise at each others places, going out has become a luxury, and things like your own pad, or a car, are just waaay out there. If you have a job and are lucky enough to have friends with jobs, you can get together and house-share.

Yes, I know very rich people who have like 5 bedroom houses, and yes, then those Gen-X'ers can just stay at home until they build up enough money to move out, or their parents die.

However, I don't know about others, but me waiting till my parents die for a place to live is not appealing (especially as thanks to medical advances, I could easily expect to live to my 50's before my parents are likely to die).

Re:Lies

[C0R1D4N]

Anywhere in the city nice enough to live isnt worth the expense. I have a five bedroom house, acre of land and four car garage in central NJ cheaper and my taxes are ~500 month. Renting the rooms out to friends my home expenses zero out. An apartment in NYC when I make 30k/year seems impossible.

Re:Lies

[0123456]

The major obstacle to denser urban planning is that most people don't want to live like that. Few people choose to be crammed into a Stalinist tower block if they can have a house with a garden instead.

Yep, they'll fix everything...

[Anne_Nonymous]

http://analienmind.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/28_att00031.jpg

Re:Generation Y

[CohibaVancouver]

Did you RFTA? It doesn't say they don't *drive* - It says millennials don't care about *owning* cars. They're fine with car sharing, car co-ops and using alternate transportation methods. My wife has a large circle of younger cousins (Catholic family) and they're all like this - All in their 20s and not one of them owns a car.

Cars Not Cool?

[newcastlejon]

I don't drive to impress others, I drive because it's necessary. Give even the most pretentious hipster the choice between a one hour drive and a three hour bus journey to work (and back) each day, and we'll soon see how "cool" cars become.

Re:My car is cheaper than your smartphone

[Rockoon]

but then thats because i drive old junk... no loan, low maintenance, cheap insurance.

In my experience, the cost of maintaining a car doesnt really change over time. Doesnt matter if the car is new or old. Older cars have more frequent problems, but they are often much cheaper to resolve (good luck finding a 2010 Honda at the local salvage yard to pull parts off of.)

You are right about loans and the then necessary comprehensive insurance. The best vehicle buying advice ever is to actually buy a car, not finance one.