GCC: Study finds ride-sharing companies biggest contributors to growing traffic congestion in San Francisco

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/05/20190509-tnc.html

Researchers from the University of Kentucky and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority have determined that, contrary to the concept and vision, transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft are the biggest contributor to growing traffic congestion in San Francisco.

Using data scraped from the application programming interfaces of Uber and Lyft, combined with observed travel time data, the researchers found that between 2010 and 2016, weekday vehicle hours of delay increased by 62% compared to 22% in a counterfactual 2016 scenario without TNCs. . . .
Presumably to no one's surprise, as it just confirms what's been found to be the case in NYC and elsewhere.
 
Yes I can see the additional traffic on the roads. Ride share needs to make the trip in to pick up and the trip out to drop off and the trip back to whatever home base is. As much as 3 "trips" to move a passenger. Should assist parking though.
 
Nubo said:
I sometimes feel that 2/3 of SF traffic is people looking for a place to park.
It can be higher than that. In "The High Cost of Free Parking", Donald Shoup's students studied a block near UCLA, and IIRR determined that 96% of the car traffic was from people circling the block looking for a parking space. SF at least doesn't have free parking in business areas, and shows real-time availability in many places, as well as adjusting prices every quarter or so to hit the target range (60-80% of spaces taken): https://www.sfmta.com/demand-responsive-parking There are apps (of course): https://www.spotangels.com/blog/know-san-francisco-parking-meters/

They'll probably go to real-time pricing at some point.
 
smkettner said:
Yes I can see the additional traffic on the roads. Ride share needs to make the trip in to pick up and the trip out to drop off and the trip back to whatever home base is. As much as 3 "trips" to move a passenger. Should assist parking though.
AVs have the potential to make things even worse, or better. As they'll reduce the cost of driving, people will likely drive more. One way to avoid this is congestion pricing, not just to enter a high-congestion area, but for all driving within the area. There are various methods to do this, e.g. a rate based on both time and miles - in congestion you move slower, so you pay more.
 
Nubo said:
I sometimes feel that 2/3 of SF traffic is people looking for a place to park.

A now retired San Francisco cop once joked me that the reason people drive the way they do in San Francisco is they're all looking for the only available parking space (singular) in the entire city. He did tell me that for every x number of cars in the city, there is only one available parking space, but I forget what the ratio is now.
 
Going back to the original topic, I think what needs to be addressed is WHY so many people are turning to rideshare. While it's driven the price of taxi service down, it's still not cheap when compared to normal mass transit. Perhaps it's because BART and MUNI have become decrepit and overcrowded?
 
RonDawg said:
Going back to the original topic, I think what needs to be addressed is WHY so many people are turning to rideshare. While it's driven the price of taxi service down, it's still not cheap when compared to normal mass transit. Perhaps it's because BART and MUNI have become decrepit and overcrowded?
Door-to-door service, no parking fees, allows people to spend time on their phones or laptops just like mass transit, but with a guaranteed seat.
 
GRA said:
RonDawg said:
Going back to the original topic, I think what needs to be addressed is WHY so many people are turning to rideshare. While it's driven the price of taxi service down, it's still not cheap when compared to normal mass transit. Perhaps it's because BART and MUNI have become decrepit and overcrowded?
Door-to-door service, no parking fees, allows people to spend time on their phones or laptops just like mass transit, but with a guaranteed seat.

You only have to pay parking fees if you need to drive to a transit center. But parking fees at the BART stations are cheap compared to even a relatively short Uber ride. A quick Google search shows the most expensive BART station parking is by far at West Oakland ($9/day) and how far will that take you on Uber? And most other BART stations with parking are $3/day or less.
 
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
RonDawg said:
Going back to the original topic, I think what needs to be addressed is WHY so many people are turning to rideshare. While it's driven the price of taxi service down, it's still not cheap when compared to normal mass transit. Perhaps it's because BART and MUNI have become decrepit and overcrowded?
Door-to-door service, no parking fees, allows people to spend time on their phones or laptops just like mass transit, but with a guaranteed seat.
You only have to pay parking fees if you need to drive to a transit center. But parking fees at the BART stations are cheap compared to even a relatively short Uber ride. A quick Google search shows the most expensive BART station parking is by far at West Oakland ($9/day) and how far will that take you on Uber? And most other BART stations with parking are $3/day or less.
Thankfully, BART is (mostly) being encouraged to build TODs on their property rather than expanding their parking lots. See https://www.bart.gov/about/business/tod This should also drive BART parking costs higher, if people insist on driving solo to them. As it is, many if not most urban BART stations now have shared electric scooters (and bikes/e-bikes) scattered around them, and while I'm less enthusiastic about scooters than I am about bikes (for public health reasons), they do handle the first/last mile problem well while reducing congestion and pollution, for people who don't want to provide their own power. We really need to get people using the scooters to wear helmets, though, as they've caused a major increase in the frequency of head (and other) injuries seen in ERs.

There's no question that the long-talked about southern crossing for BART is needed now - the transbay tube can't handle any more traffic. And of course, S.F. needs to build a lot more housing, so that people can afford to live and work there instead of having to commute in from the east bay. Mayor Breed is making the right noises about speeding up the permitting and building of affordable housing, but we'll have to see how much if any of it appears.
 
They're building TOD's because they can make much more money right away (by selling land to developers).
 
GRA said:
RonDawg said:
They're building TOD's because they can make much more money right away (by selling land to developers).
Also because it makes sense if you want to reduce pollution/GHGs/incentivize walking/biking/mass transit and dis-incentivize driving, which is why local governments are pushing for them:
AGENCIES ACCELERATE EFFORTS TO BUILD TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
https://bayareamonitor.org/article/...fforts-to-build-transit-oriented-development/

Oh sure. They push them as the green thing to do. But ultimately it's about the money, and BART really needs it to fix their aging system.
 
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
RonDawg said:
They're building TOD's because they can make much more money right away (by selling land to developers).
Also because it makes sense if you want to reduce pollution/GHGs/incentivize walking/biking/mass transit and dis-incentivize driving, which is why local governments are pushing for them:
AGENCIES ACCELERATE EFFORTS TO BUILD TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
https://bayareamonitor.org/article/...fforts-to-build-transit-oriented-development/

Oh sure. They push them as the green thing to do. But ultimately it's about the money, and BART really needs it to fix their aging system.
We've given them a big infusion of funds from various taxes and tolls for that. As it is, they're having issues with their brand new new cars.
 
Yet another confirmation of ride-hailing effects, via GCC:
Santiago study finds ride-hailing increases VKT
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/05/20190520-santiago.html

Researchers from the Universidad de Chile in Santiago, Chile have found that unless ride-hailing applications substantially increase average occupancy rate of trips and become shared or pooled ride-hailing, their overall impact is an increase in vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT). Their paper appears in the International Journal of Sustainable Transportation.

The authors used survey results on Uber use by residents of Santiago, Chile, and information from other studies to parameterize a model to determine whether the advent of ride-hailing applications increases or decreases the number of VKT. They used a Monte Carlo simulation for a range of possible parameter values.

  • Our base scenario indicates that ride-hailing applications have increased VKT. This occurs because many trips made using ride-hailing services come from mass transit or are new trips (induced demand). However, as the occupancy rate of ride-hailing trips increases, the possibility that ride- hailing decreases VKT is higher. If ride-hailing becomes shared or pooled ride-hailing, in more than 50% of our simulated scenarios VKT is reduced if mean occupancy rate is 2.9 pax/veh or higher. Thus, the average occupancy rate among ride-hailing users is a key parameter that determines the impact on VKT.

    —Tirachini & Gomez-Lobo. . . .
 
And one more. GCC:
New analysis suggests Uber adding significantly to pollution and traffic in European cities
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/11/20191123-uber.html


. . . In France, which liberalized the taxi market in 2015, the number of reported PHV drivers doubled in three years (from more than 15,000 in 2016 to 30,000 in 2019). The number of Uber drivers in London almost doubled in three years (from 25,000 in 2016 to 45,000 in 2018), accounting for roughly half the total PHV licence number.

This has made Uber one of the biggest taxi services in Europe, with 3.6 million users in London in 2019 and with 2.7 million users in France in 2017. According to company documents issued for its stock market launch, Uber is looking to increase massively its operations worldwide and is eyeing Europe in particular, identifying Germany, Spain and Italy as priority markets for expansion.

The number of taxi licenses has been capped through licenses; however Uber has seen rapid growth. Since Uber’s arrival in London, its biggest European market, taxi and PHV trips have increased by roughly 25% in the capital. This data strongly correlates with a 23% increase in overall CO2 emissions for the taxi and PHV sector in the UK in the same period.

The analysis estimates that in London and Paris alone, the emissions of Uber taxi services could be as high as 515 kilotonnes of CO2—more than one half a megatonne. This is equivalent to adding the CO2 emissions of an extra 250,000 privately owned cars to the road.

These kilometers have predominantly been driven by gasoline and diesel cars, exacerbating the air pollution crisis in European cities. French government data from 2017 show that 90% of the registered private hire vehicles, which includes Uber, were diesel cars.

The high share of diesels in the PHV fleet can be also found in the traditional taxi market. It’s thought that other European cities where Uber operates have similar levels of diesels in their fleet. . . .

The findings confirm that cities in Europe face the same challenges as American ones, such as New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, where Uber and Lyft have been shown to exacerbate pollution and congestion.

A broad coalition of green NGOs in the US, Germany, France, the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium has just launched the #TrueCostOfUber campaign. This collective action aims to tell concerned citizens and city authorities that Uber needs to clean up its act in order to operate in cities across Europe and the US. The company therefore needs to help their drivers switch to zero-emission cars as it is already doing in London due to the ultra-low emission zone in the capital.

The campaign in Europe calls on Uber to go 100% clean in large cities by 2025. . . .

Transport represents more than a quarter (27%) of Europe’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Cars emit 44% of transport emissions; these are still rising.
 
GCC:
CARB: ridesharing vehicle fleet CO2/PMT in 2018 approximately 50% higher than the statewide passenger vehicle fleet average
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/12/20191220-ridesharingco2.html


. . . Among the top-level findings and estimates:


  • CARB staff estimates that the 2018 TNC vehicle fleet emitted 301 gCO2/PMT, approximately 50% higher than the statewide passenger vehicle fleet average of 203 gCO2/PMT.

    The analysis indicates that the industry-wide TNC fleet has a 7% lower passenger occupancy than the California statewide passenger vehicle fleet.

    TNC vehicles operate approximately 61% of its vehicle miles traveled with a passenger in the car; the remaining VMT are deadhead miles.

    The 2018 average fleet occupancy for the TNC industry is 1.55 (an average of the occupancy in “pooled” and “non-pooled” rides) passengers.

    The TNC fleet is relatively more fuel efficient than the California fleet due to having higher fraction of newer model year vehicles and higher percentage of passenger cars versus light trucks.

    Total 2018 TNC fleet electric VMT (eVMT) is about 33.7 million miles—roughly 0.8% of the total VMT generated by the TNC fleet.

    The TNC fleet has a larger fraction of high-mileage hybrid vehicles as compared to the average California passenger vehicle fleet.

Although the vehicles employed by TNCs make up 2.5% of the vehicle population, they are growing at a rapid pace. . . .
 
Back
Top