Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3,000 Ride-Sharing Cars Could Replace Every Cab in New York City, MIT Study Says (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

All 13,000 taxis in New York City could be replaced by a fleet of 3,000 ride-sharing cars if used exclusively for carpooling, according to research published today by MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). From a report: Instead of hailing taxis, passengers that use ride-sharing services for carpooling may lead to reduced traffic congestion, pollution, and fuel use. The CSAIL researchers used public data from NYC taxi rides published by the University of Illinois to develop the algorithm. They calculated that 3,000 four-person vehicles travelling to similar destinations could meet 98 percent of taxi demand in the city with an average wait time of 2.7 minutes. Perhaps the most important part of the system is a dynamic repositioning of vehicles based on real-time demand, which makes the system 20 percent faster.

73 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. But I don't want to ride with others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The major selling point of a taxi is that the backseat is all mine. Now I have to share a car with two other people, or a van with how many people?

    No thanks.

    1. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agree. I hate carpooling. I absolutely hate it.

      Hate getting involved when the other cheapo customer get pissed off with the driver when I think it was fine.

      Hate the car turning back near the original pickup location to pickup someone else after we left for 10 mins.

      I'll rather pay more.

      I love Uber, but I HATE Uberpool.

    2. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New York City has plenty of great public transportation options for folks who are willing to ride with others. Cabs are for the times when you're not.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    3. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      a lot of lazy people here who might work a 15 minute walk from the train and will take a cab to the subway or Penn Station. i'm by the Hudson some days and have no problem walking the walk to Penn but lots of cabs and Ubers around here picking people up at the end of the day

    4. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then you'll ride for longer and more expensive. At some point motorists need to realize it's not sustainable to occupy 20 square meters and 2 metric tons to move 80 kilograms over a few kilometres at a slower pace than a bicycle weighing 12 kilograms.

    5. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely. It will come down to costs.

      Do you want to pay $22 for a human driving private cab or $10 (or even less) for a shared car.

      People will be free to choose their option so everyone wins.

      People do astonishing things for a few pennies. Give up their privacy. Queue up for an an extra 40 minutes. Shop on certain days. Buy two of a product when they are barely likely to use one.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The major selling point of a taxi is that the backseat is all mine. Now I have to share a car with two other people, or a van with how many people?

      No thanks.

      I know. I have the same problem with discount hookers.

    7. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I always considered the main selling point of the Taxi was the sweet-smelling driver, impeccable upholstery, and the stimulating-eloquent dialogue with the well-spoken man being the wheel.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      well said, Anonymous Coward! /sarc

    9. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The worst are those airport taxi vans (like Super Shuttle). It's fine when you can fill up the van with your group, but when you end up splitting the van with several people there is always someone who isn't even remotely ready to be picked up at the scheduled time.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    10. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Uber drivers can and will give you a low rating if you fart in their car!

    11. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      I love Uber, but I HATE Uberpool.

      Does Uberpool make them more money?
      They were pushing it pretty hard before. For a while I had to spend 10-30 seconds to get out of the uberpool offer attempts and order a regular Uber.

    12. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Off topic. This is a story about NYC cabs, so your fart will be totally overwhelmed by the baseline smell of the cab.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love Uber, but I HATE Uberpool.

      Does Uberpool make them more money?

      They were pushing it pretty hard before. For a while I had to spend 10-30 seconds to get out of the uberpool offer attempts and order a regular Uber.

      As an Uber driver, Pool makes Uber money mainly because the pay to the driver is MUCH lower. And this matters because Uber has had to subsidize what drivers are paid versus the fare charged to riders. This is why Uber is losing so much money. Pool rides charge significantly lower fares and pay the drivers far less.

      Meanwhile it does two useful things for Uber: One, it keeps the riders using Uber versus a competing service or transport method. They want that mindshare lock. Two, it keeps the Uber drivers busy and saturated with work in many cases, which keeps them out on the roads and makes them available for other pool riders or Uber Eats or XL services. Uber's biggest weakness is not having cars available when riders want them so this helps address that.

      Uber Eats is Pool for food and it's getting a huge push. It sucks for drivers because you end up stuck at restaurants waiting for food to be ready. Restaurants HATE IT because the Uber tablets nag them to accept the order and immediately dispatch a driver to pick it up long before the food is ready, and if the restaurant does not acknowledge the order in a hurry, Uber starts calling them to nag. Uber Eats also pays drivers a pittance and we end up with bad reviews because the food is cold, which is not our fault. They stack multiple order pick ups and we have to wait wait wait for all of them to be ready, so even if one order IS ready, we have to wait for the next one. And we're sitting there making zero money while all this goes on.

      And then the food stinks up the car which makes human riders mad.

      Meanwhile. Pool is a disaster for drivers who could make, say $15 on an XL run would instead make $3.75 on a Pool ride, both being before gas and taxes are taken out. I've had Pool riders where the trip generated under two dollars to me. Less than bus fare! And that was on a 15 mile trip pickup from the airport far out in the suburbs. With the fuel cost, I absolutely lost money on that run. And it should be noted, Drivers has no idea what the destination is or the fare until after they have picked up the rider. So I didn't know I would only be paid two bucks or even WHY only two bucks.

      Additionally, there is a lot of confusion among riders on what Pool even means. I picked up a couple going to the airport with luggage. They were under a time constraint to make their flight. Not normally an issue but they had chosen Pool because they had two people and figured that's what you do when you have two people. They had no idea what Pool meant.

      Uber immediately paired up these travellers with a sweaty man going home from the gym. It was on our way but it added at least 15 minutes to the trip due to really bad traffic I could have otherwise avoided. It threatened to make these people late and caused a lot of concern. It definitely did make them very unhappy as they'd wanted a fast ride to the airport and got a smelly shared ride with a man who also got angry that the other people were mad at him. The car was also totally full of people and luggage and gym bags at that point so nobody enjoyed any of it and I had a car full of pissed off people.

      I could not cancel Gym Dude before pickup because that would affect my ratings and anyway Uber would just assign another Pool rider to me, maybe worse than the one I had. I could not expedite the airport drop off because Gym Dude was on the way, technically, even if his side trip dragged us into bad traffic. Everybody ended up unhappy on that run, through zero fault of mine. I got one star rated by both parties and of course no tips.

      So I contacted Uber Support and demanded to be let out of Pool. I don't need passengers almost fighting in my car over something I can'

      --
      Sig for hire.
    14. Re:But I don't want to ride with others by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I prefer taxis because I have a very particular fetish for smelly Iranian men yelling at me in broken English.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      (The driver can't because I'm paying him.)

      Thankfully that won't be a problem 6 months in the future (if I believe Slashdot) because by then self driving cars will replace all Uber, taxi and truck drivers. By January 1, 2018 manually driven cars will be illegal.

    16. Re: But I don't want to ride with others by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... on the off chance you can get one of the antiques to actually stop for you, and can get the driver to not pretend he doesn't know where your destination is or how to get there. I've had just plain miserable experience with NYC cabs, worse even than anywhere else. Would be happy to see the ossified, anachronistic monopoly die.

  2. carpool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If NYC people want to carpool, there is a fast, reliable, inexpensive carpool service. Its called the subway.

  3. It makes sense in NYC by SumDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This makes a ton of sense in NYC which is already saturated with high capacity rail systems. If you made these car share vehicles self driving and electric, you have the potential for an amazing last leg solution.

    Ride sharing (zip cars, and eventually automated vehicles) will be the future, but people do need to be aware in such a future, people will most likely not "own" cars any longer. But for this to work, they can only be a last leg. Ride shares and self driving cars will NOT solve the transportation gridlock problem. Cars simply do not have the capacity of real public transit:

    http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/

    1. Re:It makes sense in NYC by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Ride shares and self driving cars will NOT solve the transportation gridlock problem. Cars simply do not have the capacity of real public transit:

      MIT just showed that there is real potential for self driving cars to help the gridlock problem by reducing the number of cars on the road while still meeting the demand for point to point non-mass transit transportation.

      In the sense that new technology can effectively increase capacity of the existing road network it is likely that new growth will simply take up the slack and result in more gridlock. Which is good in the sense that it enables economic growth up to the new capacity, but it would be better if there could be some limits put on that growth below the transportation system's saturation point.

      People will always need lower capacity transportation options for last mile, low frequency routes and off peak transportation so mass transit is no panacea either and suffers from the same type of gridlock problems with over saturation of the network at peak times due to poor planning.

    2. Re:It makes sense in NYC by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Any additional sharing of rides will result in less vehicles on the road. But also no more driving around looking for a parking space so there is a double benefit. If we could get rid of half of the parking lots on the cities and do something more productive with them, we would live in a much different world. I've heard that 65% of the surface area of Los Angeles is dedicated to cars.

    3. Re:It makes sense in NYC by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not "most people", but count me as a data point. I have two cars. I do not want a car, but since I live in the suburbs - mostly for the schools, but there are other niceties as well - I am all but forced to have two of them. I lived in NYC for almost 5 years and did not have a car. The few times I needed one, I rented or used a zip car. No maintenance, monthly payments, parking, insurance, etc. It was very nice.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:It makes sense in NYC by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Any additional sharing of rides will result in less vehicles on the road. But also no more driving around looking for a parking space so there is a double benefit. If we could get rid of half of the parking lots on the cities and do something more productive with them, we would live in a much different world. I've heard that 65% of the surface area of Los Angeles is dedicated to cars.

      Autonomous cars will still need to park somewhere relatively close by to be useful. But parking/car storage can be further away than walking distance, so a 5 to 10 minute drive away instead of 5 minute walk. And if there can be fewer cars then that really does free up space for new development in desirable areas. Where car storage can go into vacant lots and industrial areas further away.

      But I think planners need to be more careful than they have been in the past in permitting greater and greater density in order to avoid over saturating the road network again. So it would be good to see some of that parking used for pocket parks and amenities rather than all for new residential/commercial development. Make the cities more livable and enjoyable for people and not just pack in more people.

    5. Re:It makes sense in NYC by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Ride sharing (zip cars, and eventually automated vehicles) will be the future, but people do need to be aware in such a future, people will most likely not "own" cars any longer. But for this to work, they can only be a last leg. Ride shares and self driving cars will NOT solve the transportation gridlock problem. Cars simply do not have the capacity of real public transit:

      I think for long or cost sensitive rides most people would be willing to swap vehicles, like you do with bus/tram/subway lines in public transport or how you could combine that and taxis today. The big difference is that SDCs barely cost money when they're not moving. Taxi companies set big minimums because the driver has to make a decent wage per hour worked, idle time and unpaid overhead costs tons of money. And once you're out working, you don't turn on and off like a faucet. Sure it would mean more money tied up in the SDC fleet causing capital costs but if you put them in rotation so they all run a lot of miles the operational costs should be almost identical. So I see a lot of potential in hybrid solutions where you merge/split/shuffle rides on demand. The two main reasons people don't use public transport is that it's not a door-to-door ride and that you can spend a lot of time waiting.

      I think SDC industry can do a lot not just on the former but also on the latter by "insuring" the passenger like for example that you're stuck in heavy traffic and can't catch the bus or the bus is severely delayed they make it a taxi ride. If they can deliver you 95% of the time and you get a "free" taxi ride 5% of the time that might be a lot more appealing than today where you're often screwed when that happens. Of course it won't protect you from all traffic chaos, but nothing is more frustrating sitting the on the bus steaming known that if only you'd taken the car you'd already be there long ago.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:It makes sense in NYC by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      If we really want to invest in making cities more livable and in reducing traffic we could employ grade separation. Have all of the sidewalks elevated so pedestrians don't mix with traffic. Normally this is done in a craptastic way making pedestrians go up and down stairs at each intersection. But if sidewalks were uniformly elevated and there were entrances at the elevated level cities would be better for cars and people.

  4. Drunk people create jobs. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "All 13,000 taxis in New York City could be replaced by a fleet of 3,000 ride-sharing cars..."

    Gee, I wonder how many jobs that will create in this new glorious economy.

    "...if used exclusively for carpooling."

    That's one hell of a caveat to put on these efficiency metrics, given the amount of times drunk people not needing a carpool to work use taxi cabs.

    1. Re:Drunk people create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or the fact that buses already exist and for some reason people still take a cab for themselves. Oh, wait, cabs are inherently not a car pooling service. So this isn't even a caveat, its a blatantly screwed up analysis. This is equal to saying the solution to air travel issues is to take the train (in the USA) while ignoring the blatant differences and personal preferences.

    2. Re:Drunk people create jobs. by Sique · · Score: 1
      But one solution to air travel issues is not to use air travel. Air travel is just one piece of the whole solution to the problem of getting from A to B, and it's not even a necessary one, as most travel is not by air.

      There is a whole bunch of offerings, which can be put together to achieve the A->B transfer, and you not using air travel is even a solution for some of the air travel issues of others. They get shorter waiting queues and more available seats for instance, if you are not there on the same flight.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Drunk people create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is a solution and it is one that already exists and people have ignored. FFS are you that dense?

      The point is that if people wanted they can already carpool (or ride the bus) but people have ALREADY decided NOT to car pool because there are functional disadvantages/differences: (going to multiple locations, waiting on others, dealing with other people, lack of privacy, etc.).

      This is a study that shows a mathematical possible state of the world but does not mean that that state of the world is actually possible in anything but a fascist world where everyone's actions are controlled at gunpoint.

      Same with trains as replacement for airplanes. Sure, it would solve a lot of problems but there is a real fucking reason people don't ride the train and it is not because they don't exist or because someone didn't make an app and name it something like: "crowd-sourced rail-guided-ground-based-airplane finder" so as to conflate it as "equal" to airplanes and it is "equal" because it uses an app.

    4. Re:Drunk people create jobs. by Sique · · Score: 1
      On the contrary: People don't use air travel every day. 99% of all travel is not air travel.

      You are messing two things up: deciding against air travel for a specific trip, and abolishing air travel altogether.You are trying to make the one be the same than the other. Many issues with air travel can be solved by simply having less air travel.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Drunk people create jobs. by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      Cabs and shared rides (I assume similar to UberPool) are a point-to-point service. No walking at either end. And 2.7 minute wait is much better than the average wait for a bus/subway. Plus with apps you know when the car is arriving so you can wait inside until the car is a minute or so away. With the bus you have to stand out in the weather for an unpredictable amount of time. Of course buses could also be improved this way. Better route maps (Google Maps does a good job) and real-time updates on when the bus is coming. Also buses get overcrowded and people have to stand up crushed next to each other. Even with a shared ride you're guaranteed a seat. What we're really talking about here are four-person buses (maybe five or six-person once they are self-driving) that are way more convenient. So this really is like the bus without all of the problems of the bus.

  5. Re:MIT math? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's already 35,000+ uber drivers in nyc.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/11/news/companies/uber-new-york-city-union/

    Yes, but they're not following MIT's mathematical model. They're following real life supply and demand, the bastards. If they stop listening to supply and demand and start following mathematical models of where people theoretically should want to go, we would only need 3,000 of them.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  6. Isn't this just reinventing the bus? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like they just came up with a plan to use a bunch of smaller buses to replace taxis. What a novel concept.

    1. Re:Isn't this just reinventing the bus? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      It is nothing like a bus. With a bus, you have to find a bus line that goes somewhere closer to your destination. Then walk to a stop for that bus. (can be several blocks) Then wait for the bus, a bus is not on the way to you, it will get there when it gets there.

      If you want to go "diagonal" in NYC, you're gonna usually need to do this twice.

      With MIT's solution, you get out your phone before you even get on the elevator and tap the place you want to go. It'll obviously remember your last few destinations. By the time you get to the ground floor and to the curb, the autonomous vehicle will be pulling up (average delay of 3 minutes). Get in. It's a 4 seat sedan and if you didn't choose the "I want a single occupancy vehicle for an extra fee" option on your phone's app, there might be someone else in one of the other seats. The vehicle starts heading to it's destination. Ideally, non automated vehicles on the streets would be banned during heavy traffic periods. (so there would just be these and busses)

      If someone else's stop is on the way to your destination with minimal increase in route time, your vehicle might stop to let someone off/pick them up. The vehicle will not wait more than a few seconds to pick someone up, if someone's phone by GPS is nowhere near the curb, it's just going to keep going and let the next auto-carpooling-taxi pick them up.

      So that's how it would work. You would expect for the long term costs to be significantly cheaper than owning and operating your own personal vehicle. Wanna cruise in style? Select a single occupancy vehicle then choose a luxury car to pick you up. Or a limo.

    2. Re:Isn't this just reinventing the bus? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly like a bus. A Taxi is a point to point system. A bus is a multi stop system where the route is developed to provide maximum usage and convenience. The difference here is the route is developed on the fly. It still has the same features as a bus route, but now they know exactly where the bus needs to be, and not just guessing the most convenient place. Originally bus routes were designed to replace trolley lines, which had to follow preinstalled tracks. The bus allowed for changes over time as usage dictated. This new concept takes it a step further, and makes the route changes in real time.

    3. Re:Isn't this just reinventing the bus? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      That's kind of like saying a "Saturn V is exactly like a bottle rocket". It's still an immense improvement in performance. And by on the fly choosing to sometimes carpool with others, you greatly reduce the amount of automated vehicles you need and the traffic added but with minimal increase in trip times. I don't know what the discount would be for choosing the "may be other passengers" option, but I would guess it might be half cost, because while the car can hold 4 I suspect it would often not find 3 other people who want to go to the same place in the next 3 minutes.

      An obvious additional feature would be a way to downvote your fellow passengers after a trip, and/or snobbishly exclude low rated passengers from riding with you.

  7. Re:I thought MIT people were smart by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Or the study was paid by Uber?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  8. C's get degrees by zakonchen · · Score: 1

    Everyone pointing out the invalid assumptions of this study is missing the point. This research isn't about actually improving anything. It's about someone getting their MS or PhD and a couple professors getting their names on something to keep their publication rate up. Academia has no requirement for research to be useful. MIT is no different.

    1. Re:C's get degrees by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      Everyone pointing out the invalid assumptions of this study is missing the point. This research isn't about actually improving anything. It's about someone getting their MS or PhD and a couple professors getting their names on something to keep their publication rate up. Academia has no requirement for research to be useful. MIT is no different.

      I'm sure having a nice job at Uber lined up is one of the goals as well.

    2. Re:C's get degrees by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's about someone getting their MS or PhD and a couple professors getting their names on something to keep their publication rate up.

      I thought it was about a couple of professors moving up the tenure track for bringing in a nice chunk of Uber-sponsored research dollars.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:C's get degrees by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      I would give you mod points if I could.

      People forget that publishing a paper like this is often a requirement of getting a PhD. (the much dreaded "thesis paper")
      Just because they wrote a paper showing that this is the best way to do things, doesn't mean they think it would actually work.

  9. Re:Alternative headlines.. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> "MIT Study advises Eliminating 10,000 New York City Jobs"

    Nice to see someone try the math. (There are just over 13K cabs in NYC today.) However, this only works if one cab = one driver.

  10. Yes- non-fixed route, fixed schedule- buses by Immerial · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This could work... only if people would let it. The main complaint I see is ... but I don't want to sit with a stranger. What if these 3000 cars had individual compartments... complete with a comfy chair, newspaper/video of your choice, and a coffee? That might be enough for some folks. That plus having them dynamically allocated means not having to wait long and if you miss it/run late, schedule another one to pick you up.

    1. Re:Yes- non-fixed route, fixed schedule- buses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more to the point that rarely are people coming and going from IDENTICAL spots, isn't it?

      And if I've just grabbed a cab, I'm obviously not wanting to wait 5 or 10 minutes to pick up the next 1 or 2 people even if they're within a few blocks, and same at the drop-off.

      Sure, it happens people come and go from the SAME spot and are literally outside at the SAME time - in fact, I'd be happy if the algorithm popped up a message "hey that dude next to you is in your same boat, want to split this?"

      But otherwise, fuck that extra 10-20 minutes, I could've taken a bus.

  11. and if there is an accident your on your own by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and if there is an accident your on your own even more so with the GOP healthcare plan. You where in an taxi cash why should we have to pay out you need to sue the taxi co.

    1. Re:and if there is an accident your on your own by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      and if there is an accident your on your own even more so with the GOP healthcare plan. You where in an taxi cash why should we have to pay out you need to sue the taxi co.

      you're

      were

      a

      cab

      Plus a couple of missing periods.

      Yes, I know you wanted to contradict someone, but that doesn't really work well when you come across as illiterate....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On/off cab driver here. Multiple pickups are my bane even though I'd make more money. Someone is always angry when they learn that they're not hiring a private car service, they got in a cab that (sometimes) takes multiple fares if they're going the same direction. Sometimes people are "no-shows" which sucks when everyone's trying to make their train on time. Then they want to haggle over paying the fare ("Then it should be split 3 ways." No, not how that works). Most are understanding and just want to get where they're going to.

  13. Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Medallions cost around $1 million each. Do you really think a ten billion dollar asset is just going to roll over and play dead?

    1. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Giving up $500M in city revenue is not worth some vaguely stated increase in prosperity.

      It's great to be on the cutting edge of technology. But for that kind of revenue, why doesn't the city improve the current taxi system rather than let Uber in? Better systems and apps for drivers seems like a small price to pay in order to hang onto a rather significant revenue source.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they've cost anywhere near this ever since Uber came along. In fact I think they've already lost 50% of their value.

    3. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Giving up $500M in city revenue is not worth some vaguely stated increase in prosperity.

      It's great to be on the cutting edge of technology. But for that kind of revenue, why doesn't the city improve the current taxi system rather than let Uber in? Better systems and apps for drivers seems like a small price to pay in order to hang onto a rather significant revenue source.

      City is going to get revenue one way or another. Autonomous vehicles wouldn't be tax free.

      I wouldn't assume we are talking about Uber.

    4. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It's not clear if autonomous vehicle registration would go to the city or state of NY.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Do you have a different number? The one I have is that NYC is bringing in about $540m/year in revenue, maybe that's wrong. Collectively all the medallions are worth around $16B.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by bigpat · · Score: 1

      It's not clear if autonomous vehicle registration would go to the city or state of NY.

      Sales/Use taxes, income taxes, property taxes, various fees... there are as many ways to collect tax revenue as there are to spend it.

    7. Re:Say goodbye to a lot of tax revenue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Sure but if there are multiple taxes, but one of them isn't applied to autonomous vehicles that means the city won't be collecting the full amount. I doubt the city can get away with a special rate on sales/service tax for autonomous vehicles, and special rate for income tax or property tax seems very unlikely. Also autonomous vehicle operators wouldn't pay as much into taxes related to employment.
      Seems like it will be difficult for the city to recover the tax revenue lost in the switch to autonomous vehicles, I don't think that's a reason to not do them, but we should at least recognize the consequences before we make a decision on it.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. Re:I thought MIT people were smart by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    The person who came up with this is at MIT, which explains a lot.

    The problem is, someone from MIT doesn't know the difference between theory and practice. In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  15. Re:Alternative headlines.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    I am a meat Popsicle

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  16. Re:MIT math? by Holi · · Score: 1

    Uber is not ride-share, it's just another car for hire. I mean how many times are you sharing your Uber with a stranger?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  17. Many New Yorkers don't drive. by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    So I don't see a total replacement of NY Taxis. What I could see is that there would be an impact. The one thing that would be need is that the ride-sharing cars be given exclusive parking spots. And you would need a phone app to open the doors and start the engines. My suggestion is that all of these cars be Electric.

    1. Re:Many New Yorkers don't drive. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If nobody drove in NYC then there would be plenty of parking. There is a point of equilibrium when it comes to the number of cars in NYC, you're not likely to drive it to zero.

      Electric, CNG, LP, Fuel Cell, etc. there are a lot of alternative technology that is cleaner than petroleum fuel. Even wood gas is cleaner burning than gasoline and bio-diesel, not (usually) very efficient though.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  18. +1 informative by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    New Yorkers need to know this secret!

  19. Re:New York by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    It's probably a fake quote, anyway...

  20. Re: I thought MIT people were smart by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    I expect that from some shit hole university from some rural Chinese college.

    I see what you did here (please don't help to spread discrimination)

  21. Math by darkain · · Score: 2

    Well, let's simplify... 12,000 / 4 = 3000... Holyshit, I just figured out their entire study!

    1. Re:Math by dogbert_2001 · · Score: 1

      Someone would have to ride bitch.

  22. Re:MIT math? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

    It will work out if the Taxis are spherical.

  23. Re:MIT math? by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

    Uber offers a ride-sharing service, called UberPool, which combines trips for people traveling in the same general direction. If you use this option, which is cheaper than UberX, you would be sharing the car with strangers.

    --
    End of Line.
  24. smaller size bus by qQ7eBMsfM5gs · · Score: 1

    so taxi cabs becoming smaller size buses
    really?!

  25. Question by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    who you you most like/hate to share a cab with ? Answers below please:

  26. Re:Ugh by sir-gold · · Score: 1

    If you don't use qualifiers such as "could" and "might", then it comes off as a statement of fact, and not a prediction.

  27. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The wait time is only one variable, how about the length of the trip to the destination?

    I have tried Uber Pool, and will never use them again. A trip that should have been 25 minutes point to point took over one and a half hours with Uber Pool, because the pickups/dropoffs forced the driver to stay on congested streets the entire way. Public transit would have been faster and cost 1/12 as much as Uber Pool. Even if this trip was more environmentally friendly than 3 passengers taking 3 separate taxis would have been, that comparison is missing the point. As a passenger, there is no benefit to using such a ride sharing service over public transit.

    Let me know when a ride sharing service will be way faster than public transit, or when it when its cost and environmental impact will be comparable to public transit. I'm simply not interested in having the worst of both worlds.

  28. Re:MIT math? by vittal · · Score: 1

    And in a vacuum.

  29. Re:MIT math? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    So it's sort of like a bus?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."