
SF blasts Uber, Lyft for downtown traffic congestion - prostoalex
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-blasts-uber-lyft-downtown-traffic-congestion/
======
JumpCrisscross
Do we have supporting data? Or is the taxi lobby just smarting up?

In New York, the taxis made the same case--that Uber _et al_ increased
traffic. This claim was found wanting [1].

In God we trust; all else bring data.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/nyregion/uber-not-to-
blame...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/nyregion/uber-not-to-blame-for-
rise-in-manhattan-traffic-congestion-report-says.html)

~~~
bigethan
As a downtown sf commute cyclist, my anecdotal experience is that traffic now
is much worse than the same time last year. And almost all the bad actors in
traffic who are causing slowdowns and jams have uber and lyft stickers in
their windows.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that if I get hit on my bike
uber/lyft will be responsible.

~~~
friedman23
The population of SF has been growing, it makes sense that traffic is worse.
Until there is evidence of a causal link between ride sharing and traffic I'd
be hesitant to believe any of it.

~~~
bigethan
So your initial assumption (population growth increases traffic) without
evidence is true, but my experience is unbelievable? Seems like a weird way to
reply if you want to have a meaningful conversation.

~~~
friedman23
[https://www.google.com/search?q=population+density+and+traff...](https://www.google.com/search?q=population+density+and+traffic&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS722&oq=population+density+and+traffic&aqs=chrome..69i57.9218j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

2 seconds to search for this.

------
aclimatt
We should at least start by taking this with a grain of salt, because
according to the article:

> Notably, no study has been completed to study Uber or Lyft’s effects on San
> Francisco traffic

However, similar to what others have said, anecdotally I definitely agree. In
the last four years, particularly Gough and Franklin have gone from a viable
alternative to Van Ness to completely unusable -- particularly because Google
Maps and Waze (what 99% of drivers use) route them down there instead of other
streets. I have a habit of asking where drivers are from, and the vast
majority of them are from out of town and commute to SF to drive for Uber /
Lyft. Again, it's still anecdotal, but ask drivers next time you get in a ride
and I think it'll become pretty clear where all the traffic is coming from.

But you know what? I blame the SFMTA. This isn't User's fault, this is SF's
fault for not building a functional transit system (and the voters for not
funding it) 30 years ago. Uber began because Travis couldn't catch a cab. If
Travis lived in Madrid, he would have taken the subway, he would have got
there on time, and Uber never would have existed. SF's transit mismanagement
created an environment that could only be solved by something like Uber (or
Scoot, which I now almost use exclusively).

If San Francisco wants to fix its traffic problems, it needs to stop
prioritizing private cars driving faster, and needs to focus on more subways,
more bus only lanes, more cycling lanes, and more pedestrian-only streets.
Private automobiles are not the way most of the developed world (outside of
America) gets around, and if Tokyo, a city of 31 million people can get around
efficiency without traffic, so can paltry San Francisco.

We should be building 10 subway lines at a time, and if that means tripling
our taxes to pay for it, count me in. But so far all the willpower I've seen
is to run busses faster down Van Ness and one new subway that goes a bit over
a mile. I'm pretty sure the folks in the Richmond have been saying this ever
since BART pulled out in the 70s.

Maybe self-driving cars will fix it all, but I'm still skeptical. So far I
haven't seen a permanent solution to traffic past a proper heavy-rail, grade-
separated train.

~~~
closeparen
>and more pedestrian-only streets.

Where in SF is this an actual problem? The only inadequate sidewalks I've ever
encountered were due to construction encroachments, not actual design.

~~~
aclimatt
Powell Street. Sweet lord. Private automobiles should /never/ be allowed to
drive on Powell south of at minimum Post. All vehicles other than cable cars
should be banned from driving down Powell, and the sidewalk should be doubled
in size to take over the current automobile lanes. Nearly every major city in
Europe has pedestrianized its central shopping backbone, and the fact that SF
hasn't yet (with the amount of pedestrian traffic down there) is encroaching
on dangerous.

EDIT: And to add, to see what a pedestrian downtown San Fransisco could look
like, check out the Winter Walk on Stockton over the Central Subway
construction. It's amazing, and I'm so terrified that when the construction is
finished they're going to let automobiles drive down there again. It's
ridiculous that people are second-class citizens to cars in the downtown of a
major world city.

------
mathattack
This seems very silly. You're trying to minimize the amount of cars on the
road. The amount of people-miles of passengers is roughly constant. The only
thing that reduces car-miles is ride sharing. Uber (and Lyft and possibly
Waze) is much more efficient at this than Taxis. And Uber drivers have every
incentive to not be idle.

The issue isn't too many cars. It's too many solo drivers or single
passengers.

~~~
jdavis703
Why is Uber more efficient than taxis? Friendlier, faster to dispatch, no
discrimination, no tipping, sure Uber/Lyft wins those hands down. But at the
end of the day what stops a cab from having the same load as a TNC vehicle?

~~~
acchow
Cab doesn't pick up more passengers during a ride (a la Uber Pool/Lyft line).

Also, dropping off a passenger in a uber/lyft is much less disruptive to
traffic flow than a traditional cab which has to process a payment.

~~~
joshjje
Now, if we could only institute/implement a tuck and roll deployment system.

Tuck and roll, grandma!

------
iambateman
I was just in SF for the first time and couldn't believe that the public
transit was painfully loud.

We switched to Uber because of how uncomfortable the transit ride was. For all
the hand-wringing over too many cars, they might consider quieting the metro.

~~~
jacobolus
Where are you comparing it to? In my experience the quietest subways are from
the past 20 years or so. BART first started running in ~1970.

~~~
codemac
Well bart is famous for having super loud screeching wheels[0], but they will
be replaced by around 2021..

The screeching is absolutely loud for a subway, though I think the noise all
together isn't so bad relative to other subways.

[0]: [https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/08/02/why-are-bart-trains-
so-...](https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/08/02/why-are-bart-trains-so-loud/)

[1]:
[https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160831](https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160831)

~~~
shinymark
Yes, it is awful. I've spent significant time in Japan and can't believe how
quiet the trains are - including the high-speed bullet trains - compared to
the awful screeching of the train I grew up riding: BART.

------
abalone
What precisely is SF's theory here re: congestion? Previously taxis would
circle streets much less efficiently than a smartphone-hailed pickup. Also
they wouldn't pool rides anywhere nearly as effectively. So if they're seeing
more traffic on the road, what's the cause?

Has there been population growth of riders? That wouldn't be Uber/Lyft's
fault. In fact they may have handled the growth more efficiently than just
putting more traditional taxis on the road.

Are riders shifting from public transit to rideshares? That would be
Uber/Lyft's fault. But also public transit's.

Is it that more availability has lowered the wait times vs taxis? That would
definitely be Uber/Lyft's fault. But it also makes riding a much nicer
experience, saves riders a lot of time, etc.

~~~
bigethan
Have you actually been in sf traffic in the uber/lyft world? My observations
from my life:

-Double parking everywhere waiting for pickup / dropoff /routing. Blocking car and bike lanes.

-riders getting out into traffic

-erratic drivers (new to SF, easily lost)

Its pretty terrible.

If they painted their cars yellow, and made them pickup and drop off at
corners / out if the flow of traffic things would be way better (imho).

~~~
CptJamesCook
They double parking everywhere needs to be dealt with by Uber / Lyft
immediately. It's everywhere, all the time, and it's going to end up getting
their services regulated more heavily than they should be.

~~~
closeparen
What do you think they could actually do? I doubt either could exist if
restricted to pick up and drop off in actual loading zones + available parking
spaces. Bus stops are drastically more abundant than either of those.

~~~
abalone
They actually do steer riders to designated pick up zones. But it's optional
and most people probably just stick with their exact address. They could make
it mandatory, but it wouldn't be competitive. I'd hope regulators look at this
before more drastic restrictions, as there are many environmental benefits to
ride sharing vs how things used to be.

~~~
closeparen
The nearest white/yellow curb is usually 10+ blocks away, AFAIK. In SF they
are only outside major buildings.

~~~
bigethan
Doesn't have to be a white/yellow curb. Put your location to a spot that has a
place where the cab can easily pull over eg, driveway, fire hydrant, etc.

------
abritinthebay
That's great SF - get some functioning, not-shitty, well funded public
transport and people won't feel the need to use Uber..

... what's that? Not a chance in hell? Well then.

(But seriously - BART is chronically underfunded, Muni trains are unreliably
scheduled, Muni busses are the most dangerous and shady public busses I've
used in the western world... and very little of it actually serves anywhere
other than the busses which have to fight the same traffic...)

~~~
Tempest1981
Extending BART is very expensive ($billions), esp. in a city that is already
"built out", like SF is. On the other hand, we managed to fund High Speed Rail
at over $60 billion.

------
kevinkimball
SFMTA should remove parking and replace it with passenger loading zones. That
way, they wouldn't be blocking traffic, including public transportation. It's
well known that free and subsidized parking encourages driving. Currently,
passenger loading zones must be requested and paid for by businesses that want
it, to the tune of thousands of dollars a year. [1] They don't, so rideshare
and taxi drivers just block traffic lanes. There is no mechanism for passenger
loading zones to be requested by citizens or designated by the city for public
benefit.

[1] [https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/parking/curb-
colors](https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/parking/curb-colors)

------
jmspring
I've not cycled in SF for commute reasons since the pre uber days.

That said, other cyclists -- bike messengers -- were the largest danger to
other cyclist, second was other cyclists, third was Muni.

From a damage perspective, Muni would be number one in the injury case.

Drivers, cyclists, and Muni, to this day, are selfish assholes.

Blaming it purely on Uber, no. SF transit policies have lead to this.

Drive mission, you used to go straight most of the route... now only muni,
taxis and assholes ignoring the law.

The problems aren't just due to muni/Lyft

~~~
bigethan
Try cycling in SF again. Things have changed a lot in the last year or so.

I've been bike commuting in SF for 10 years, and the last year has been by far
the worst. And most bad actors are uber and lyft cars.

------
dangero
I was recently in SF and I was surprised to find that Uber Pool cost was very
similar to Bart cost going to and from SFO. Uber is certainly preferable to
having everyone drive their own car. Talk about congestion. Why doesn't SF do
what Paris just did: Make public transit free. If they did that I would
definitely use Bart more.

~~~
idlewords
I don't think BART could handle the extra load.

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-can-t-keep-
pace-w...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-can-t-keep-pace-with-
rising-crush-loads-6192950.php)

------
cerrelio
SF needs to worry about its own transit issues. MUNI stops at rush hour are
poorly serviced. I can't get on most of the trains that pass through Civic
Center, so I usually end up going inbound to Montgomery or Embarcadero so I
can actually board.

------
clhodapp
I'm pretty sure that a lot more people are using ride sharing services in the
SF Bay Area because all of the public transit systems are overcrowded during
peak hours and most have additional major issues. BART is too expensive. Muni
is prone to unexpectedly large time gaps between buses/trains and doesn't have
sufficient subway coverage. Caltrain runs too infrequently. The ferries also
seem to run pretty infrequently (though I have less experience with them than
the other modes of transit).

I don't have any direct evidence for this but it feels pretty obvious: when
your public transit systems are already running at full capacity during peak
hours and you have people moving into your area, the roads are going to end up
completely congested. It certainly isn't the fault of whatever entity is
putting cars on the road that the roads are full. After all, people are going
to try to live their lives and there really isn't another reasonable way to
make more-than-a-few-blocks trips during these hours.

I only see a few ways to improve things: a) Increase public transit capacity
and then make it more desirable to take public transit (and continually repeat
because now your public transit is overcrowded again) and b) Spread out the
"peak hours" time over more of the day.

Unfortunately, improving public transit can take years or even decades. So we
won't get much mileage out of this for a while, but we should still be
investing a lot more heavily than we are because this is the only "scalable"
fix.

It can only be done a limited number of times, but I think we could do a lot
better at improving the situation on a shorter timescale with the other
option: spreading "peak hours" over more of the day. This can be accomplished
by incentivizing companies to shift their workdays so that they start before
or after 9 (with a corresponding change at the end of the day).

PS: I haven't lived in the peninsula for a couple years at this point, but
when I left, Caltrain had just started running a "ridership campaign" while
all of its commute-hour trains were standing-room-only. This is _ridiculous_.
The problem is not that not enough people _want_ to take public transit, the
problem is that there's not enough capacity!

------
azinman2
Public transport is a joke, the city is unable to adequately engineer traffic
well or plan for it, and when something comes in to meet actual demand --
that's the problem?

Travel around other cities and it's apparently which city cares about
advancing its transport: Berlin, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, Kyoto, Barcelona,
Nyc, even Boston, DC and Beijing are better. If subways aren't possible, use
light rail or BRT. But don't blend them with equal priority on the traffic
lights -- it defeats the point.

I hate MUNI so much!!!

~~~
idlewords
The subway in DC is a diaster, with antiquated cabling causing a constant risk
of fires. The agency is prevented from running all-eight-car trains because
the power system wouldn't be able to handle it.

[http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-
releases/Pages/PR20150608.asp...](http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-
releases/Pages/PR20150608.aspx)

~~~
azinman2
That was the "or even" part ;)

Honestly I'd rather have the option than no option at all. It got me around
D.C. last time I was there...

------
larryjounce
I'd love to see some real data from San Francisco as well, but I'm almost
certain San Francisco is well above capacity. The following article points out
some interesting facts about vehicles in motion in relation to gridlock.
Unregulated ride sharing is definitely having an impact, how much is the
question.

[http://thepenngazette.com/uber-gridlock/](http://thepenngazette.com/uber-
gridlock/)

------
khuey
San Francisco really needs to get rid of a bunch of curbside car storage to
make room for loading zones.

------
rodrickbrown
This makes no sense what do they think would happen if Uber and Lyft went
away????

~~~
slaveofallah93
Perhaps they think people would switch to public transit like buses or
Caltrain.

~~~
pizzacowboy
Precisely. Although, they're a little naïve if they think that's a realistic
alternative. The transit system is horrific, having used it for 3.5 years.
We're largely in this mess because the transit system is such a mess.

I'm surprised the article didn't also mention the congestion issues at SFO.
The departures deck is a mess now that all Lyft/Uber riders are directed there
for pick-up.

