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

[GRA]

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/0 ... 9-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.

[Nubo]

I sometimes feel that 2/3 of SF traffic is people looking for a place to park.

[smkettner]

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.

[GRA]

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-sa ... ng-meters/

They'll probably go to real-time pricing at some point.

[GRA]

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.

[RonDawg]

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.

[RonDawg]

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?

[GRA]

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.

[RonDawg]

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.

[GRA]

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.