back to article Tech hub blames tech: San Francisco fingers Uber, Lyft rides for its growing traffic headache

As any San Francisco Bay Area resident knows traffic is bad and getting worse, but the city's officials think they have found the culprit: ride-hailing companies. In a report [PDF] issued on Tuesday the San Francisco County Transportation Authority acknowledged that a lot of new people have moved into the area, drawn by tech …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

    I'm not a fan of Uber's corporate behavior, but this is unfair. All these "TNC" trips would still be happening if the TNCs didn't exist. Except now, they would be in private cars or taxis.

    The issue is crowding in San Francisco. Business is growing, some residential development is happening, tourists are still in town, and all these people need to get where they are going.

    And I don't agree with the idea that mass transportation in San Francisco is that bad. Some parts, like the Portal tunnel are a bit of a problem, but there are lots of bus routes and they mostly go where people live and work.

    1. ratfox

      Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

      All these "TNC" trips would still be happening if the TNCs didn't exist. Except now, they would be in private cars or taxis.

      Not quite... These trips are arguably easier to do now, and more attractive than in a taxi. Logic of supply and demand implies that people do more trips than before.

      And I don't agree with the idea that mass transportation in San Francisco is that bad.

      Depends what you compare it to, but it's getting worse. The whole region should be trying to solve the traffic problem, but by and large nothing is happening.

    2. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

      Certainly in London, Private Hire journeys, mostly Über, are way up, and public transport trips are down, so clearly people are switching from bus/tube to Über; and the increased congestion means that bus trips take longer, making them less desirable, and more expensive to run.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

        "Private Hire journeys, mostly Über, are way up, and public transport trips are down,"

        I wonder how many of these "ride sharing" operators are only carrying a single passenger? Maybe they should be using their technology to optimise routes and pick-up/drop-off more than one person. They could even begin to use larger vehicles, or standardise routes, maybe paint the vehicles red.

        1. katrinab Silver badge

          Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

          Maximum size of vehicle seems to be around 8 seats. I can't find the rules for London, but East Ayrshire has 8 seats, Tameside has two classes of licence, one for 4 seats, and one for 5-8 seats. Citymapper are doing a shared minicab service with 6 seater vehicles, maybe that was influenced by TfL rules.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

          Yes, if only Uber and Lyft did ridesharing. They could call them UberPool and Lyft Line for alliterative effect.

          Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with the fundamental challenge: cheaper taxis (whatever form) take people off buses and underground rail, which increases traffic.

        3. c1ue

          Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

          I can't speak about Uber because I don't ever use them, but Lyft has a shared ride option. It means the driver picking up multiple passengers going more or less the same way.

          This is much better for both drivers, traffic and cost.

    3. DavCrav

      Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

      "Except now, they would be in private cars or taxis."

      Private cars produce more parked cars, but less congestion. Obviously, since unless the taxi is very well organized, it has to come to you first.

      Of course, in addition, taxis drive round looking for fares, increasing congestion. Taxis are generally bad for traffic and the environment, per passenger mile.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

        "Obviously, since unless the taxi is very well organized, it has to come to you first."

        Often places where a lot of people want taxis (eg airports, train stations), there'll be a taxi rank with several waiting for passengers. I'd say they only have to be a little bit organised to manage that.

      2. c1ue

        Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

        Actually, I would point out that few taxis circle the roads looking for passengers. In real life, they get routed to some, but many hang out in hotel or other major venue taxi lines.

        TNCs, on the other hand, are *always* forced to travel to the passenger. I would not be surprised at all if TNCs travel 0.5 to 1 mile per mile of passenger transported - in other words, miles driven per passenger mile delivered is low.

        This is very much a structural difference vs. private cars, and is likely a significant difference vs. taxis because taxis can pick up anyone they see.

    4. c1ue

      Re: Just using Uber and Lyft as whipping boys

      Heavily disagree.

      It is well researched that ride share takes passengers out of public transit.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    30 years SF driver here..

    I see no massive upswing car traffic in the last decade. What I have seen is a very large reduction in road traffic capacity through the pandering to the real 1% in SF, those who ride bicycles. Look it up in the Census, they are 1%. And based on years of observation, only about 20% of that 1% on wet days in the rainy season.

    Almost all the main arterial routes in SF have had a reduction in traffic flow capacity of anywhere from 20% to 33% in the last decade. So we can have empty bicycle lanes. Army St went from being a major traffic corridor to a stop and go parking lot after been reconfigured for the 200 odd cyclists who might use it on a nice day. Just did the same to Masonic. For maybe 100 cyclist. They are about to do the same to Van Ness, the main arterial to get to the Golden Gate Bridge from downtown. But those young white folk on their bicycles, a purely discretionary transport mode I might add, must have their own private lanes.

    I am just waiting for someone to bring the first Civil Rights case again the City for its wasting huge amounts of money to pander to the tiny minority of Critical Mass assholes. Who never seem to be from SF anyway. And never seem to stay around either. Just tourists. Cyclists in SF are overwhelming young whites from an affluent middle class backgrounds. Very very different from the typical passenger mix on the 22 bus. Which is the real San Francisco. Not the parade of young white hipsters and dot com'ers that you will see on one of the very few well used cycle lanes in SF, at the corner of Steiner and Haight. Almost as white as an English Defense League rally. In a City where whites are maybe 40% of the population.

    The passenger mile mix for transportation types has not changed in SF in many many decades. 70% private cars, 30% public transport. Cyclists have always been, and will always be, a rounding error on 0. Rip out all the bike lanes and turn them into something useful. Like bus lanes.

    From someone who also cycled in SF long before most of the down voters were born. It will always be a crap city to cycle in. Does not matter how many cycle lanes you put in or how car unfriendly you make it. If you want to cycle move to Marin. Its great up there. Been cycling it since the late 80's. Cycling heaven. And you dont need cycle lanes to have a safe enjoyable experience. Anyone who does should not be on the public roads in the first place. A danger to themselves. And others.

    1. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

      Re: 30 years SF driver here..

      Trying to fix SF is a lost cause. Parking spaces were removed to make room for driving, so then everybody drives around and around looking for a place to park. Room for driving was removed to make room for bicycles, but the bicycle you rode to work will be stolen before the day is over. You could take public transportation but it's all covered in pee - everything is covered in pee because restrooms are locked to keep drug addicts out. If you invented a magical self-driving hoverboard that could get everyone where they wanted to go, SF residents would find ways to abuse it so much that it gets banned.

    2. jake Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: 30 years SF driver here..

      Shame you posted AC, your message is spot on. Saved me from typing it.

      SF's biggest problem is that it caters to the very vocal minorities who are either politically correct, or green, or "downtrodden" ... if you can manage the trifecta, you can get away with almost anything.

      Consider that SF is spending ~43K/yr EACH on the homeless population. And if a certain ballot measure passes (Prop C), they plan to double that. That's ~86K/yr for each and every homeless person in SF! And you wonder why they are flocking to TheCity?

      San Francisco's administration has been totally and utterly fucked for a LONG time. Somehow they have managed to loose track of priorities. Hopefully what's going on in Washington will get the sane voters off their fat asses and into the voting booth in November ...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 30 years SF driver here..

      Or maybe you could look at it the other way, and conclude that the cyclist population is so low precisely because, until the last decade, nothing was done to encourage cycling.

      10 years is very little time for such ingrained habits to change.

      The victim blaming at the end is shameful. It makes it sound like cyclists are responsible to everything that happens to them. Really? Because car drivers (humans or non-humans around there) are always so good that it's only a cyclist actions that put them in danger?

      Sorry, that's BS of the highest order.

    4. David Nash Silver badge

      Re: 30 years SF driver here..

      You might have one or two valid points (not sure actually) but you ruin it with they way you put it.

      * Civil rights? Get real. All tax-collecting authorities spend money in ways that many of their constituents disagree with. You're trivialising the real civil rights struggles of the past and not-so-past.

      * "Critical Mass assholes" Oh you're so eloquent.

      * Blaming cyclists for the traffic around them

      * it's an unattractive city to cycle in so your suggestion is to make it less attractive to cycle in.

      * Bit of an unjustifiable anti-white rant too

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 30 years SF driver here..

        I see the replies to my post fall into three groups.

        The one person who actually seems to have lived in SF a few decades or is actually from here. Who agrees with me completely.

        A few who have lived in SF a few years, blow ins, and know little or nothing about its history, politics or for that matter, historical traffic patterns. Locals have no problem parking, we know where the secret parking spots are. Pretty much the same places as in the 1980's when I first got to know the City. The worst traffic congestion in SF my experience was just after the earthquake in 1989. A nightmare for about 18 months after wards. Did not really settle down until around the end of 1991. The current downtown construction is a doddle in comparison.

        Buses smelling of pee. Thats because the City handouts attract so many street people from out of town. About 75% have zero connection with the City. And because until the 1970's the City had clean safe buses because it enforced the law on buses just like they do in LA. But then "Civil Rights" activists brought a lawsuit again MUNI because a "disproportionate" number of the people cited for anti-social behavior were not white. Result. Basically no law enforcement on City buses and streetcars since the early 1980's. Try the sort of anti-social behavior thats common on SF buses down in LA and you will soon end up in jail. Saying that since Three Strike cleared the streets MUNI has rarely been outright unsafe like it was before the mid 1990's. The 22 and 9 were pure MadMax after dark about 30 years ago..

        And the rest of the replies were as expected. Know zero about SF. Driving here. Cycling here. Taking MUNI. etc. Just typical middle class suburban class marking discretionary cyclists. Typical Critical Mass assholes. By the way that characterization is based on 25 years interaction. At first I was somewhat sympathetic but due to their utterly selfish boorish and juvenile behavior they are universally hated by people who are actually *from* SF. The quickest way of shutting up their rant about "cyclists rights" is to ask them how long they have been in SF (months to a year or two), and how long have they been big city cyclists. Maybe a year or two at most. But never main mode of transport. As I said, assholes with a huge sense of entitlement.

        Me, big city cyclist since mid '70's. In Europe. California cyclists since mid '80s. SF cyclist starting 1988. Every last bike activist I have run into, both US and European, was never from the large city they wanted to utterly reconfigure to pander to their hobby activity, had only started living there not soon before, and would have moved on within five or ten years. Max. Back to a suburb just like the one they grew up in. Leaving a traffic disaster behind them which all the locals have to live with.

        Other stuff. Taxis in SF, apart from Downtown, were unobtainable before Uber and Lyft. Need a ride to the airport and you did not live Downtown. You never ordered a taxi because it would never arrive. You asked a friend to drop you.

        All Ubers/Lyfts are basically filled to capacity when possible. Very few single passenger cars. A friend bought me Uber rides a few time. A 20 min cross city drive, 30 min in the Uber, 1hour 20 plus by MUNI. The passengers are almost all hipster / dotcomers. Majority women.

        So very much the people who dont own a car and boast about it, cycle at the weekend, vote for the most progressive virtue signalling politicians but wont use public transportation because its full of anti-socials attracted to the City by the self same politics. The drivers are great. The typical Uber customer seems to ignore them like the household servants they actually are. I chat to drivers, they are always very glad to talk after been ignored for hours. Heard some great stories from the drivers. The passengers almost without exception are typical dot comers and hipsters, the most boring and dreary group of sad fucks you could possibly meet. Even Marina People are not this bad. So a rerun of the dotcomers 1.0 and slackers of the 1990's..

        Plus ca change.

        1. Glen 1

          Re: 30 years SF driver here..

          Paraphrasing:

          These people, coming out we here, taking jobs from hard working locals, putting strain on public services, having different opinions to me....

          Looks like you get fist shaking daily mail types everywhere

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 30 years SF driver here..

            > Paraphrasing:

            These people, coming out we here, taking jobs from hard working locals, putting strain on public services, having different opinions to me....

            Looks like you get fist shaking daily mail types everywhere <

            Nah. Just actually live here, have many decades of direct personal experience, and actually know something about the subject. Unlike people who make "witty" snark comments. Who never ever know anything about the subject in hand.

            So what were you doing last Saturday night? Me? I was in the ER in SF General on Potrero Av. Making sure than a street person who was in great pain after been hit by a car a few days before, downtown, was getting some proper treatment. He was a bad luck rather than bad decisions guy and from around here. So pretty unusual for someone in a shelter. Although obviously in great pain, tears streaming down his face, several dozen of those dotcom/hipster types who have gentrified the Mission over the last decade had walked right past him. Despite their massive progressive political "principals". It was left to a bunch of older mexicans, the real Mission people, to take an interest in the poor guy but as the only anglo around willing to step up and do something, I was the one who actually took him to the ER. Where he was trying to get to.

            Not the first time this has happened either. Lots of progressive types walking right past some person in obvious distress and doing nothing. The only people actually giving help being locals - either native born, immigrants, or working class whites. Thats why I have utter contempt for the virtue signaling progressives in SF. Almost always young white suburbanites or trust fund babies. They will never lift a finger to help an actual a person in need when the situation presents itself. Always someone elses problem. Something the government should "fix" or "do something about". But they would never inconvenience themselves. Ever. To deal with the "icky" realities of big city life.

            I most certainly am not one of those do-gooder types, quite the opposite. But after decades of seeing literally tens of thousand of street people and hearing every bullshit sob story imaginable its pretty easy the tell the truly needy (the minority) from the drunks, junkies and parasites (the majority) on the streets The bad luck guys I will help if the opportunity presents. The rest can fuck off. Go scrounge off welfare and the progressive idiots in City Hall until the inevitable backlash happens.

            In the venn diagram of the politics of people in SF the union of bike "activists" and class marking virtual signally progressive politics is almost perfect. The fact that this people are only living in the City for a short spell, know zero local politics or history ( Name the three majors before Moscone? - Wait, Moscone was a real person, and mayor too?. I am not making this up..) and make terrible neighbors is even more reason to despise them.

            Or is the honest (and I might add typical) comment of someone who is by this stage very much a local too "Daily Mail" for you?

    5. c1ue

      Re: 30 years SF driver here..

      I don't disagree there is at least some militancy among bike riders in SF, but lane reductions aren't just for bike lanes.

      There are many bus only lanes now, at least in downtown SF.

      However, my view is that a big part of the congestion is due to construction and events. There are now 2 events / 2 weeks a year where a key road in downtown is completely blocked off for the Sales Force and Oracle conferences. Both events also deploy masses of private buses to ship conventioneers around to the many venues being used to wine and dine them.

      Ultimately, many people aren't going to use public transit unless forced to. The only way to fix the congestion problem is going to be big city congestion pricing as seen in Singapore, London and other places.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 30 years SF driver here..

        > However, my view is that a big part of the congestion is due to construction and events. There are now 2 events / 2 weeks a year where a key road in downtown is completely blocked off for the Sales Force and Oracle conferences. Both events also deploy masses of private buses to ship conventioneers around to the many venues being used to wine and dine them.

        But there were just as many conventions back decades ago. With equally screwed up traffic. I say this as someone who went to their first MacWorld in the Moscone in 1985. I was on a stand. You should have seen the traffic problems for the exhibitors back then even though Moscone was only 1/10'th its current size. The big difference now is street capacity on key streets like 6'th and Folsom have been reduced by up to 30% due to stupid bike lanes etc. Which has a knock on effect for 4 to 6 blocks beyond. So basically everything south of Market St is screwed by incompetent road engineering to pander to a tiny minority.

        I wont even touch the whole Embarcadero Freeway debacle. Ugly as hell but if sure kept traffic moving in most of the greater downtown area. No downtown gridlock everyday within 10 blocks of the Bay Bridge on-ramps for starters. That only started when they ripped down the Embaracdero Freeway. But hey, the tourists must have their pedicab rides on the new tree lined boulevard. Its so pretty...

        Bus lanes, like on Mission, went in sometime back in the 90's. It actually improved traffic flow quite a bit. The insanity of street markings on Market St can be safely ignored. The Board of Supes accepted about 3 or 4 years ago that the experiment was a disaster and was to be abandoned. But they could not be arsed to actually repaint the street markings to the old configuration. Given the traditions of this City I would be too surprised if they repaint the obsolete road markings next time the street is resurfaced. It would not be the first time.

        At least two cyclists have died at the intersection of Oak and Franklin because the ambiguous road marking where repainted incorrectly in the late 1990's. The markings are still to code and correct. The previous ones were less ambiguous about the lane merges. Its just if you dont know the California Vehicle Code, never have had a drivers license, you might make an assumption about the intersection a driver would nt. And get yourself killed.

        I had zero sympathy for the victims because no responsible cyclist would ever think of cycling on either street in the first place. They are both major arterials. And for the last ten plus years there have been low traffic streets with cycle lanes about one block away from both. So no excuses. In both cases the cyclists were completely in the wrong. So the vehicle driver was not cited. In fact in the last 25 odd cycle deaths in SF I dont think a single driver of the other vehicle involved was cited. Because the accident was caused by the cyclist. Back in the old day, before there were cycle lanes everywhere the number of cyclist was not that much different from today, the number of fatal cyclist accident was about 1/4 the current rate, and responsibility for the accident was about 50/50. But very few affluent whites from the suburbs on bikes in SF back then.

        This is mainly a SF phenomenon. The first thing that strikes me when I'm back in Europe is just how law abiding and responsible the local cyclists are compared with SF. It might come as a surprise to people in places like London but your cyclists are absolutely delightful courteous and thoughtful compared with the typical SF cyclist. Its nice to be able t return to my default manner of being considerate to fellow cyclists rather than ones default mode as a driver or pedestrian in SF, the sooner you guys get run over the better. You are a danger to everyone.

  3. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Politics 101

    Rule 1: find a scapegoat.

    Rule 2: if you can't find one, see rule 1.

  4. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Humans are stupid...

    Allow me to explain...

    Transportation services such as Uber, Lyft, or taxi cabs, when used to transport single passengers, naturally and inherently increase road congestion.

    That claim will mystify the thick.

    It's because they need to drive from somewhere else to get to your location to pick you up. Their paid mileage is only about 50% of their total mileage. They're driving roughly twice the distance as would be driven by personal vehicles.

    It's perfectly expected that congestion would increase by a ratio not much different than two if everyone used Uber instead of their own vehicle. Your own vehicle is quietly parked in your driveway, and the distance efficiency is pretty close to 100%. Your car doesn't wander off empty searching for its next paying fare.

    Humans are stupid because hardly anyone could figure out this rather obvious factor in advance. Uber riders don't see the extra mileage, so they don't think about it. And Uber certainly isn't going to go around highlighting the roughly double mileage ratio.

    Yes, yes, yes... There are other pros and cons. Parking is a good benefit. But stopping locations out front would be required. Anyway, the subject here is road congestion.

    The fact is that the reasonable first approximation is that congestion would be increased in the direction of two with an increase in Uber, Lyft, and taxi cabs.

    In some areas, directionality may reduce the doubling effect. But within the downtown core, this counter balancing secondary consideration would not have any significant effect.

    Same rough doubling happens to fuel usage, CO2, etc.

    Now that your brain has hoisted aboard this obvious factor, you'll be forced to see the truth in the post title.

    Cue the Uber paid social media squad idiotic rebuttals.

    1. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Humans are stupid...

      Also, 2 or 3 Übers will take up the same road space as a bus that can carry maybe 30-50 people.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Humans are stupid...

        "Also, 2 or 3 Übers will take up the same road space as a bus that can carry maybe 30-50 people."

        Absolutely. But then you need a lot of buses at peak times which then run (nearly) empty or sit idle for the rest of the time. It's quite a dilemma really. Buses seem to work best when operated as a community service by the city/state *IF* it's done with real concern for the benefits they can bring and not as the cheapest option on a limited budget. Commercial operators will always cherry-pick the profitable routes and do their best to get out of operating non-profitable routes.

      2. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: Humans are stupid...

        "...bus..."

        In certain circumstaces, far more common than is widely assumed, an Aerial Tramway (Cable Car) system can outperform buses by a huge ratio. Less labour. Quicker. More attractive.

        Smoke belching, engine blasting, road blocking, environmentally ruinous heavy diesel buses with their 140dB noisy squealing brakes are what you get when nobody thinks beyond the end of their nose. Pedestrial only streets are pleasant mostly because the horrifically obnoxious buses are kept out.

        Aerial Tramways are the secret solution that's being widely ignored.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Humans are stupid...

          Last time I looked, the pedestrial was obsolete.

          Aerial Tramways cost too much in maintenance and visual blight, to say nothing of right-of-way concerns. Otherwise, they are probably a good idea.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Humans are stupid...

        "Also, 2 or 3 Übers will take up the same road space as a bus that can carry maybe 30-50 people."

        The two most common states for busses seem to be (a) so full that you may not even be able to get on - 80+ passengers - and (b) almost or completely empty save for the driver - fewer than 7 passengers.

        Given that they do not run 24 hours on most routes, take about 4 times as long as a car to get to your destination, and useful rush hour routes only run for 5 or 6 hours a day, it is not surprising that people will take a better alternative if offered. This is not a failure, this is a success... at least in terms of the actual users.

        If you are a corporate executive or government official with a corporate vehicle and driver, of course, getting people out of cars and out of your way is a priority. Pack 'em all on busses and be done.

      4. wayward4now
        Mushroom

        Re: Humans are stupid...

        "Also, 2 or 3 Übers will take up the same road space as a bus that can carry maybe 30-50 people." Only if those 30-50 people don't mind the piss, shit and vomit.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like