If it wasn't a problem before self-driving, then it's not reasonable to place that burden on everyone owning a truck just because someone decided to let these on the road. Seiously, I thought Slashdot was generally against regulations but this is a silly one.
Cities don't have enough corporate tax money for public transit, and that's all there is to it. It's expensive, and corporations should really be chipping in. Many of their employees use the service to come into work, after all.
Maximizing individual choice means we allow individual choice when it makes sense. It doesn't mean we provide individual choice for the sake of doing so, even when it causes a problem like congested roads.
I think the biggest problem that isn't talked about is that cities put themselves on a race to the bottom. Businesses complain about paying taxes and taxes get lowered, but then there isn't enough money to build a decent transit system for the employees of those companies to get to work. Let's face it, public transportation is more important than ever but cities get less and less of a share of taxes to pay for it.
A community is made of individuals, obviously. The problem here is that people (millennials) don't like services that are designed to work for the community as a whole. They're too slow, too smelly, too inconvenient. Well that's what we have to put up with if we don't want our cities to be crap. People keep thinking Uber is some kind of clean and cheap balance that is struck and we no longer need community planning for transportation but this article shows allowing Uber free reign on our roads is turning out to be a mistake. The balance that milennials want doesn't really exist. So either use your Uber and admit you don't care about everyone else in your city, or use the travel option provided by your city.
Buses are created for the very purpose of reducing congestion. In fact, many of the undesirable aspects of using buses come from the fact that your city is trying to use them to reduce congestion. Ubers are not. You can never solve the problem of congestion by getting rid of busses and using Ubers, that just defies logic.
If they really wanted ot fix a flawed system, they would have worked to fix it instead of totally ignoring it. You're "perfect" taxi system is on its way to causing big problems and is not sustainable.
Public transportation can only be as good as a city has taxes to build the system. Do any corporations in Silicon Valley really pay taxes? They should be paying enough taxes to allow the city to build a public transportation system that works for their employees. It's called city planning. I would think with all the money flying around, these major centers would be collecting enough taxes to build the best public transportation in the world.
Yes captain obvious. A necessary evil in order to prevent congestion. I guess you're trying to insinuate if it is artificially high it must be bad, but if that is a method by which we reduce problems, then it isn't bat at all.
Public transport is designed by the city to be a sustainable solution for a city. By extension taxi regulations are for the same purpose. If you use a service that you find is 'better' but is not beholden to some sort of overall city planning then you are likely contributing to something that is a bigger problem for someone in your city. Previous generations understood this and were willing to play along for the sake of everyone. Apparently millenials just want it cheap and clean and easy and don't care about the problems, so history is doomed to repeat itself.
..and in choosing to use a service that does not feel the need to subject itself to sustainable limits set by the city you live in, you are burdening your society at large with increased congestion.
IT would have been up to Uber to try to work with the cities and arrange something like that. Sadly, they chose to avoid any kind of cooperation so we get what we get.
As a side note, its kind of funny to think that those crappy cab companies may have had some unintended benefit.
If I understand your comment correctly, the 'benefit' is not unintended at all. Why do you think they carefully plan and limit the number of medallions available and regulate the rates so that the whole thing is sustainable. We're only having this conversation because Uber and Lyft have refused to play along, and so are creating these problems.
Slashdot Mirror
If it wasn't a problem before self-driving, then it's not reasonable to place that burden on everyone owning a truck just because someone decided to let these on the road. Seiously, I thought Slashdot was generally against regulations but this is a silly one.
I've taken the bus in Bethesda. It was our only time in the city and we went to see a movie. It seemed to work just fine.
OOo they're getting features that my first 35mm camera had.
Cities don't have enough corporate tax money for public transit, and that's all there is to it. It's expensive, and corporations should really be chipping in. Many of their employees use the service to come into work, after all.
I don't really see what is wrong with that. Part of sustainability is to have a method for low income people to travel around a city.
Maximizing individual choice means we allow individual choice when it makes sense. It doesn't mean we provide individual choice for the sake of doing so, even when it causes a problem like congested roads.
You mean like tax businesses more? These days that will get you called a socialist!
Then you get more places where original inhabitants are losing their homes due to increased price pressure, such as in Silicon Valley.
If there is a passing lane open, then the road isn't congested.
Only very large cities have subways. I've never lived in a city with a subway. For a lot of people, buses are as mass transit as it gets.
I think the biggest problem that isn't talked about is that cities put themselves on a race to the bottom. Businesses complain about paying taxes and taxes get lowered, but then there isn't enough money to build a decent transit system for the employees of those companies to get to work. Let's face it, public transportation is more important than ever but cities get less and less of a share of taxes to pay for it.
A community is made of individuals, obviously. The problem here is that people (millennials) don't like services that are designed to work for the community as a whole. They're too slow, too smelly, too inconvenient. Well that's what we have to put up with if we don't want our cities to be crap. People keep thinking Uber is some kind of clean and cheap balance that is struck and we no longer need community planning for transportation but this article shows allowing Uber free reign on our roads is turning out to be a mistake. The balance that milennials want doesn't really exist. So either use your Uber and admit you don't care about everyone else in your city, or use the travel option provided by your city.
Buses are created for the very purpose of reducing congestion. In fact, many of the undesirable aspects of using buses come from the fact that your city is trying to use them to reduce congestion. Ubers are not. You can never solve the problem of congestion by getting rid of busses and using Ubers, that just defies logic.
If they really wanted ot fix a flawed system, they would have worked to fix it instead of totally ignoring it. You're "perfect" taxi system is on its way to causing big problems and is not sustainable.
Public transportation can only be as good as a city has taxes to build the system. Do any corporations in Silicon Valley really pay taxes? They should be paying enough taxes to allow the city to build a public transportation system that works for their employees. It's called city planning. I would think with all the money flying around, these major centers would be collecting enough taxes to build the best public transportation in the world.
Yes captain obvious. A necessary evil in order to prevent congestion. I guess you're trying to insinuate if it is artificially high it must be bad, but if that is a method by which we reduce problems, then it isn't bat at all.
Public transport is designed by the city to be a sustainable solution for a city. By extension taxi regulations are for the same purpose. If you use a service that you find is 'better' but is not beholden to some sort of overall city planning then you are likely contributing to something that is a bigger problem for someone in your city. Previous generations understood this and were willing to play along for the sake of everyone. Apparently millenials just want it cheap and clean and easy and don't care about the problems, so history is doomed to repeat itself.
Yes, you're a snowflake that deserves better. Many of those here.
..and in choosing to use a service that does not feel the need to subject itself to sustainable limits set by the city you live in, you are burdening your society at large with increased congestion.
IF I have a self driving car, I am NOT paying to use a parking lot if it is cheaper to drive it back home.
IT would have been up to Uber to try to work with the cities and arrange something like that. Sadly, they chose to avoid any kind of cooperation so we get what we get.
As a side note, its kind of funny to think that those crappy cab companies may have had some unintended benefit.
If I understand your comment correctly, the 'benefit' is not unintended at all. Why do you think they carefully plan and limit the number of medallions available and regulate the rates so that the whole thing is sustainable. We're only having this conversation because Uber and Lyft have refused to play along, and so are creating these problems.
How do you drive so that you aren't bound to the speed of the traffic in front of you?
.. or another thought, maybe tax those companies enough so that the city has enough money to build a state of the art transit system.
The only way to stop cities from growing in disgusting proportions is to convince companies to not all set up shop somewhere like Silicon Valley.