Tag Archives: uber

2018 in Review

Most frightening and/or depressing stories:

  • JANUARY: Cape Town, South Africa looked to be in imminent danger of running out of water. They got lucky, but the question is whether this was a case of serious mismanagement or an early warning sign of water supply risk due to climate change. Probably a case of serious mismanagement of the water supply while ignoring the added risk due to climate change. Longer term, there are serious concerns about snowpack-dependent water supplies serving large urban populations in Asia and western North America.
  • FEBRUARY: Cape Town will probably not be the last major city to run out of water. The other cities at risk mentioned in this article include Sao Paulo, Bangalore, Beijing, Cairo, Jakarta, Moscow, Istanbul, Mexico City, London, Tokyo, and Miami.
  • MARCH: One reason propaganda works is that even knowledgeable people are more likely to believe a statement the more often it is repeated.
  • APRIL: That big California earthquake is still coming.
  • MAY: The idea of a soft landing where absolute dematerialization of the economy reduces our ecological footprint and sidesteps the consequences of climate change through innovation without serious pain may be wishful thinking.
  • JUNE: The Trump administration is proposing to subsidize coal-burning power plants. Meanwhile the long-term economic damage expected from climate change appears to be substantial. For one thing, Hurricanes are slowing down, which  means they can do more damage in any one place. The rate of melting in Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating.
  • JULY: The UN is warning as many as 10 million people in Yemen could face starvation by the end of 2018 due to the military action by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The U.S. military is involved in combat in at least 8 African countries. And Trump apparently wants to invade Venezuela.
  • AUGUST: Noam Chomsky doesn’t love Trump, but points out that climate change and/or nuclear weapons are still existential threats and that more mainstream leaders and media outlets have failed just as miserably to address them as Trump has. In related news, the climate may be headed for a catastrophic tipping point and while attention is mostly elsewhere, a fundamentalist takeover of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is still one of the more serious risks out there.
  • SEPTEMBER: A huge earthquake in the Pacific Northwest could be by far the worst natural disaster ever seen.
  • OCTOBER: The Trump administration has slashed funding to help the U.S. prepare for the next pandemic.
  • NOVEMBER: About half a million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan since the U.S. invasions starting in 2001. This includes only people killed directly by violence, not disease, hunger, thirst, etc.
  • DECEMBER: Climate change is just bad, and the experts seem to keep revising their estimates from bad to worse. The Fourth National Climate Assessment produced by the U.S. government is not an uplifting publication. In addition to the impacts of droughts, storms, and fires, it casts some doubt on the long-term security of the food supply. An article in Nature was also not uplifting, arguing that climate change is happening faster than expected due to a combination of manmade and natural trends.

Climate change, nuclear weapons, and pandemics. If I go back and look at last year’s post, this list of existential threats is going to be pretty much the same. Add to this the depressing grind of permanent war which magnifies these risks and diverts resources that could be used to deal with them. True, we could say that we got through 2018 without a nuclear detonation, pandemic, or ecological collapse, and under the circumstances we should sit back, count our blessings, and wait for better leadership. And while our leadership is particularly inept at the moment, I think Noam Chomsky has a point that political administration after political administration has failed to solve these problems and this seems unlikely to improve. The earthquake risk is particularly troublesome. Think about the shock we felt over the inept response to Katrina, and now think about how essentially the same thing happened in Puerto Rico, we are not really dealing with it in an acceptable way, and the public and news media have essentially just shrugged it off and moved on. If the hurricanes, floods, fires and droughts just keep hitting harder and more often, and we don’t fully respond to one before the next hits, it could mean a slow downward spiral. And if that means we gradually lose our ability to bounce back fully from small and medium size disasters, a truly huge disaster like an epic earthquake on the west coast might be the one that pushes our society to a breaking point.

Most hopeful stories:

I believe our children are our future…ya ya blahda blahda. It’s a huge cliche, and yet to be hopeful about our world I have to have some hope that future generations can be better system thinkers and problem solvers and ethical actors than recent generations have been. Because despite identifying problems and even potential solutions we are consistently failing to make choices as a society that could divert us from the current failure path. And so I highlighted a few stories above about ideas for better preparing future generations, ranging from traditional school subjects like reading and music, to more innovative ones like meditation and general system theory, and just maybe we should be open to the idea that the right amount of the right drugs can help.

Fossil fuels just might be on their way out, as alternatives start to become economical and public outrage slowly, almost imperceptibly continues to build.

There is real progress in the fight against disease, which alleviates enormous quantities of human suffering. I mention AIDS, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease above. We can be happy about that, of course. There are ideas about how to grow more food, which is going to be necessary to avoid enormous quantities of human suffering. Lest anyone think otherwise, my position is that we desperately need to reduce our ecological footprint, but human life is precious and nobody deserves to suffer illness or hunger.

Good street design that lets people get around using mostly their own muscle power. It might not be sexy, but it is one of the keys to physical and mental health, clean air and water, biodiversity, social and economic vibrancy in our cities. Come to think of it, I take that back, it can be sexy if done well.

Good street design and general systems theory – proof that solutions exist and we just don’t recognize or make use of them. Here’s where I want to insert a positive sentence about how 2019 is the year this all changes for the better. Well, sorry, you’ll have to find someone less cynical than me, and/or with much better powers of communication and persuasion than me to get the ball rolling. On the off chance I have persuaded you, and you have communication and/or persuasion super powers, let me know.

Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:

Whatever else happens, technology and accumulation of human knowledge in general march on, of course. Computer, robotics, and surveillence technology march on. The human move into space is much slower and painful than many would have predicted half a century ago, and yet it is proceeding.

I’ll never drop the waterless sanitation thing, no matter how much others make fun of me. It’s going to happen, eventually. I don’t know whether we will colonize Mars or stop defecating in our water supply first, but both will happen.

The gene drive thing is really wild the more I think about it. This means we now have the ability to identify a species or group of species we don’t want to exist, then cause it not to exist in relatively short order. This seems like it could be terrifying in the wrong hands, doesn’t it? I’m not even sure I buy into the idea that rats and mosquitoes have no positive ecological functions at all. Aren’t there bats and birds that rely on mosquitoes as a food source? Okay, I’m really not sure what redeeming features rats have, although I did read a few years ago that in a serious food crunch farming rats would be a much more efficient way of turning very marginal materials into edible protein than chicken.

The universe in a bottle thing is mind blowing if you spend too much time thinking about it. It could just be bottles all the way down. It’s best not to spend too much time thinking about it.

That’s it, Happy 2019!

ride pooling can (maybe) reduce traffic by a lot

Here’s a new study from MIT that says ride sharing and pooling algorithms could theoretically reduce Manhattan rush hour traffic drastically.

On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment

Ride-sharing services are transforming urban mobility by providing timely and convenient transportation to anybody, anywhere, and anytime. These services present enormous potential for positive societal impacts with respect to pollution, energy consumption, congestion, etc. Current mathematical models, however, do not fully address the potential of ride-sharing. Recently, a large-scale study highlighted some of the benefits of car pooling but was limited to static routes with two riders per vehicle (optimally) or three (with heuristics). We present a more general mathematical model for real-time high-capacity ride-sharing that (i) scales to large numbers of passengers and trips and (ii) dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations. The algorithm starts from a greedy assignment and improves it through a constrained optimization, quickly returning solutions of good quality and converging to the optimal assignment over time. We quantify experimentally the tradeoff between fleet size, capacity, waiting time, travel delay, and operational costs for low- to medium-capacity vehicles, such as taxis and van shuttles. The algorithm is validated with ∼3 million rides extracted from the New York City taxicab public dataset. Our experimental study considers ride-sharing with rider capacity of up to 10 simultaneous passengers per vehicle. The algorithm applies to fleets of autonomous vehicles and also incorporates rebalancing of idling vehicles to areas of high demand. This framework is general and can be used for many real-time multivehicle, multitask assignment problems.

There are plenty of criticisms of this type of study. The major one is that if you make a particular transportation option faster and/or cheaper, economics dictates that people will automatically switch to it from other options over time, eventually making it less fast and/or less cheap until the various modes are balanced again. The study above (based on my quick skim of the abstract) probably took data from one or a few Manhattan rush hours and asked how it could be rerouted in the most efficient possible way. I don’t fault them for doing the study, which is really interesting. The economics and human behavioral feedback loops that happen over longer periods of time just need to be studied too before policy decisions are made based on results like these.

I don’t necessarily want UberPool to be the answer to all our infrastructure problems. I love the idea of subway and above-ground rail and bus rapid transit as much as the next person. But as the opening of the most recent segment of New York subway recently showed us, these projects are taking decades to build in the U.S. and costing enormous amounts of money. Europe and Asia are doing much better than us, so maybe we could learn some lessons from them, but our recent political challenges shed some doubt on the idea that we can improve any time soon. (Europe generally manages to do somewhat better with high-wage union labor, while some Asian countries build extremely cost-effectively by issuing temporary work visas to low-wage labor from developing countries. There are political and moral issues on both ends of this spectrum, obviously, but the point is the U.S. doesn’t do either approach well. Much like our health care system, we spend 2 or 3 or 5 times more than everyone else and get worse results.)

If the criticism of the study I mentioned above is that demand projections made before the new infrastructure options or technologies are in place are not going to be accurate, that criticism certainly applies to a subway system that takes decades to build. The entire population, land use, and employment pattern of the area served could change in that time, not to mention that whatever technology is chosen is almost guaranteed to be obsolete the day operation begins. With the ride-sharing algorithms, even if the projections are wrong at first at least you have a system that should be easy to adapt and tweak over time. I don’t see why public bus systems and bus rapid transit can’t be integrated into a system like this. And if people want a vehicle to themselves for some trips sometimes, the algorithms and pricing schemes should be able to accommodate that. You could even imagine an algorithm managing passenger vehicles, freight and delivery vehicles in urban areas so they are less in conflict with other at various times of day and night. The algorithms could be run by government or non-profit entities if we are really afraid of private control, or private algorithms and entities could be forced to communicate and coordinate with one another.

more on taxi medallions

The value of a Philadelphia taxi medallion has plunged from a peak of $545,000 in July 2014 to $50,000 in March 2015. That’s a pretty shocking collapse in less than a year, and it’s pretty much all due to UberX.

Since coming to Philadelphia without regulatory approval in October 2014, Uber has pulled the safety net out from under taxi drivers and claimed their place in the city. In the Philadelphia metro area, Uber says, it now has more than 12,000 active drivers – who have taken a ride in the last 28 days – and more than half a million active riders who have used the app in the last three months. In July, Uber pledged $2.5 million to expand its service in the suburbs and subsidize surge pricing, those times when prices jump for passengers in high-demand areas. This came after SEPTA announced that a third of its Regional Rail cars would be off the tracks for the summer due to fatigue cracks in a beam and the need for emergency repairs.

For a while, the PPA tried to keep Uber at bay, refusing to legalize UberX, which allows drivers to use their own cars and personal insurance to shuttle passengers.

But in July, with the Democratic National Convention bringing in 50,000 visitors and SEPTA’s Regional Rail line in turmoil, the PPA conceded to Uber. It agreed to legalize UberX as long as the company paid $350,000 – rather than the millions in fines it had initially slapped on the company – when the state legislature comes back in session and passes regulatory legislation.

As a person who chooses to live without a car, Uber X has made my life a lot better. Taxis were an okay way to get around the busiest part of the city, and to get from the busy part of the city to the airport and back. But they were never a good way to get from a less busy part of the city back to the busy part. I got stranded many times in out-of-the-way places and/or in bad weather, when I would call for a taxi and be told by a surly dispatcher that none were available, or even after being dispatched they just never showed up. Add to that the payment hassles where you had to try to keep small change in your wallet because they often wouldn’t change a 20 and were unable or unwilling to take credit cards. Miscommunications and misunderstandings about where you wanted to go. With UberX, all of this is almost 100% solved.

Now, I will say that some taxi drivers are wonderful people. They work long hours under risky conditions. Many lift heavy luggage and are kind to children, the elderly and disabled. The problems I mention above are not the drivers’ fault for the most part. By limiting the supply of medallions, the government has produced an artificial shortage of transportation. There just weren’t enough taxis to go around, so they stayed in the busy areas where they had a better shot at making a profit and the underserved neighborhoods stayed underserved. The dispatching companies made sure it was hard on the drivers – they had to pay to lease a car for their shift, then fill it up with gas, then try to pick up enough fares to break even, and then enough to make a living. When they are honking at me or trying to run me over in a crosswalk, I try to remember that they are the victims of perverse incentives in a broken system.

So I really don’t feel too bad for the dispatching companies. They could have improved their service, or one of them could have invented UberX. But they didn’t, they just assumed nothing would ever change and they were creatively destroyed. I don’t feel too bad for the drivers who used to lease cars from the taxi companies, because they can just switch to Uber (at least until the cars start driving themselves in a couple years, I don’t think driving any vehicle is a good long-term career choice for any human at this point). I do feel sorry though for the independent driver who saved and borrowed to buy their own taxi medallion at a high price, only to find that it is now worthless and they are in debt. Although I dislike almost everything about the industry, there was an understanding that it was an industry regulated by law, and the rule of law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. I can understand some affected people feeling like the law suddenly is not being enforced evenly on all parties, and they are left holding the bag. It seems like they might have some legal recourse against the regulatory agency that chose not to enforce the law.

subsidizing Uber as an alternative to transit

A suburb of Orlando plans to subsidize 20% of all Uber rides, and 25% of ones that begin or end at a train station. It kind of makes sense that a small city with no previous investment in transit would choose to do this. There is no capital investment required, so they could just set a budget and stop the program for the year if they exceed it. They seem to think it will also help with road building and maintenance costs. I don’t quite get that – you assume people take trips because they need to get from point A to point B, and changing the economics of what vehicles they choose may not affect overall demand or reduce wear and tear. It might even increase demand if people take trips they would not have previously. It could drastically reduce the amount of space needed for parking, and that space and expense could be repurposed for something else. It could definitely cut down on drunk driving. They mention that it could hurt the poor, but I think all you need there is a hotline with operators who can book calls and arrange payment for people who don’t have an internet connection. It could provide jobs for laid-off taxi dispatchers.

more Uber than taxis in NYC

According to BBC, there are now more Uber cars than traditional taxis in New York City. That happened fast. For now, there are still more trips taken by taxi. The article uncritically quotes traditional taxi advocates (without quoting Uber advocates) who think it is unfair that they are no longer allowed to jack up prices by limiting the supply of transportation available to people. They’re right, it’s no longer unfair in their favor.

taxi medallions and creative destruction

The Washington Post has a pair of interesting articles on taxi medallions. The first article claims that taxi medallions have been the “best investment in America for years”:

In New York, taxi medallions have topped $1 million. In Boston, $700,000. In Philadelphia, $400,000. In Miami, $300,000. Where medallions exist, they have outperformed even the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. In Chicago, their value has doubled since 2009.

A medallion is an asset that an entrepreneur or corporation can buy. They then rent out the right to use the medallion, receiving an income while hoping the asset will appreciate, which in the past it always has. Not surprisingly, since they have been such a good investment, there is a whole financial industry that has grown up around them, which is the focus of the second article. There are companies who specialize in lending to taxi medallion investors.

The 23-page market report warns of “financial ruin” for Medallion Financial Corp., a 70-year-old company that has long lent money to drivers and investors in New York, Chicago and Boston looking to buy expensive taxi medallions. The coveted assets give owners the right to operate taxicabs, and for decades they have been the best investment in America, providing a steady business for a company that goes by the ticker symbol TAXI.

But the market report, released to the media on Thursday at a time when transportation companies Uber and Lyft are threatening established taxi markets across the globe, predicts a much darker future. “Medallion Financial,” it reads, “has left itself and its shareholders exposed to an economic reckoning rarely observed in free-market economies – the collapse of an asset class propped up by decades of government-sponsored, monopolistic entry barriers with the sudden, unconstrained introduction of new supply.”

So it’s very clear why the owners of these assets are fighting for government regulation to outlaw use of the new technologies that might provide better service and better value. They might hold back the tide for awhile, but technology and consumer expectations will continue to evolve, and ultimately history is not likely to be on their side.

 

the sharing economy

In an IGM Forum poll of whether economists agree or strongly agree that services like Uber and Lyft are good for the economy, only 56% strongly agreed. The other 37% only agreed. (Some didn’t respond.) Meanwhile, the Guardian has printed an op-ed by one grumpy old man who hates the sharing economy:

Given vast youth unemployment, stagnating incomes, and skyrocketing property prices, today’s sharing economy functions as something of a magic wand. Those who already own something can survive by monetising their discomfort: for example, they can earn cash by occasionally renting out their apartments and staying with relatives instead. Those who own nothing, on the other hand, also get to occasionally enjoy a glimpse of the good life – built entirely on goods they do not own.

You don’t get it, grumpy old man. If the knowledge that you own an object sitting in your basement or garage gives you some feeling of pleasure or status, then more power to you and nobody should take that away from you. But for most people, I don’t think it does. The point is to get the same utility out of less stuff taking up less space. Cars are a particularly important example, because they take up such enormous amounts of space when most of them are just sitting there most of the time.