First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

https://www.sfcta.org/emerging-mobility/tncs-and-congestion

by doener • 8 years ago

88 98 8 years ago

lewis5002• 8 years ago

"TNCs had little impact on congestion in the western and southern San Francisco neighborhoods."

Recently Supervisor Peskin apparently reached a deal to impose a "net fares" tax on the TNC's. I wonder if they will consider differentiating it by neighborhood: imposing larger charges downtown. Peskin has also lobbied for downtown congestion pricing although that is harder to implement, politically and technologically, than such a tax.

SllX2• 8 years ago

Peskin has also lobbied for downtown congestion pricing although that is harder to implement, politically and technologically, than such a tax.

Politically, sure. The idea has been floating around for at least a decade that I know of, and probably longer.

Technologically? License plate readers on every intersection, let's say, for the sake of argument, every intersection along Van Ness and South Van Ness going east, and every intersection along Folsom going Northwest. Maybe put the northern boundary at about Washington Street and also have readers at off-ramps. Maybe give people driving along the Embarcadero a free pass though and set the Eastern boundary there. Every car that enters this section of the City has their plate read, and you either pay with FasTrack or get a bill in the mail at the end of the month. If you live in this part of the City, you can apply for a waiver, oh and since we're reading plates and doing a DMV lookup for the address, the City could even charge extra if the vehicle is commuting in from outside the City. Actually, taking that into consideration, you wouldn't even need to apply for a waiver, any vehicle registered to an address within this zone simply wouldn't be charged.

In fact, to make this more interesting, if someone calls a Lyft or Uber to an address within that zone, you could have them collect a surcharge which will be paid directly to the City.

The technical challenge isn't very hard, actually kind of boring, I think the bureaucratic challenge is a bit harder once you get through the political challenge, which is the real hurdle. That is a potentially large source of revenue for the SFMTA though, between the tolls, the surcharges, and the additional monthly passes sold.

slivym• 8 years ago

It's worth noting that London has had a congestion zone for 15 years now and it wasn't particularly difficult technologically back then.

lewis5002• 8 years ago

Congestion pricing is certainly do-able, and it would have the significant advantage of charging all vehicles rather than just TNC's. But it is technologically more complex to install readers everywhere than to tell TNC's to vary the tax they already pay. In other cities downtown congestion pricing has cost a couple hundred million to set up, and it takes some time.

cavisne• 8 years ago

“TNC information was based on data originally gathered by researchers at Northeastern University from the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) of Uber and Lyft that show the locations of available vehicles to mobile apps, and then was shared with the Transportation Authority.”

Why would they use such a terrible data source. I had always assumed the cars in the Uber map are indicative anyway, not the actual location. Uber gives trip data to cities why not get real data

Hansenq• 8 years ago

The issue with conclusions of reports like these is that yes, Uber/Lyft contributed to a congestion increase, but what would that increase have looked like without Uber/Lyft? How much would congestion have increased by without Uber/Lyft (due to the strong economy, jobs, etc)?

Would people instead have purchased cars and driven them around instead? Would we actually have had higher congestion?

Publishing reports like these without controlling for the economy/jobs/popularity of these cities seems to me to be an unfair attack on Uber/Lyft, where the real culprit might just be a strong economy.

burlesona2• 8 years ago

How exactly would you control for all the rest? Where is there another San Francisco that doesn’t have Uber that we can go measure?

I think these estimates pass the sniff test at least. Downtown SF has very little parking relative to demand, so Uber / Lyft are practically the only way to get there in a car.

baddox• 8 years ago

The fact that it’s extremely difficult or impossible to control for these things doesn’t mean that any analysis which doesn’t control for these things is valid or useful.

almost_usual6• 8 years ago

Downtown SF has very little parking relative to demand, so Uber / Lyft are practically the only way to get there in a car.

Why do you need to get there in a car?

pm24601• 8 years ago

Is this a trick question?

I use Muni and Caltrain.

chaboud• 8 years ago

"Downtown SF has very little parking relative to demand, so Uber / Lyft are practically the only way to get there in a car."

So, wait... Your argument is that there is a natural disincentive to go downtown with a car, unless one uses Uber or Lyft... But you also somehow doubt that the car traffic that is downtown has been caused by Uber and/or Lyft?

So is everyone an idiot because they just drive around downtown, give up, and go home? Or they aren't in on this Uber/Lyft secret that nobody has heard about?

Or... And I'm just spit-balling here... Maybe you just argued against yourself very effectively.

joering2• 8 years ago

I guess your assumption is that every one gave up on buying car and instead every day they drive to work. The impression i have from my friends is different: they use lyft when they cant take car or want to drink while with strong economy the can afford having car as well. I dont know any single person who would sell their car because they can travel with lyft to work every single day.

my_usernam33• 8 years ago

Really? My experience has been extremely different, albeit both of us only really have antidotes.

My friends/coworkers who got jobs in the city directly after college all don't have cars. Think 2013-2018 graduates. The only ones with cars, either grew up in the bay, or have worked outside the city at some point. Mind you these are all people who have a license in their prior state/country.

Brotkrumen• 8 years ago

At the most basic level: YYou take your congestion per citizen metrics before the market entry of uber, which should be linearly related, and extend that line. Then you draw another line with the metrics after uber. If you see a difference and you can't explain those away wwith other causes, you're confident it's ddue to uber.

The study very likely threw some more statistical tests, controls And models at it, but that's the gist.

Not an unexpected rresult either: personal vehicle use means the car is on the road twice per day, uber twice per passenger and the distance between passengers.

make3• 8 years ago

"and you can't explain those away wwith other causes" feels very ambitious to be sufficiently confident that there couldn't possibly be another cause, but I guess that's the best we can do

helpingout• 8 years ago

Agreed. At least also post the increase in number of employees in the same area.

dirkgently• 8 years ago

Typical HN reaction - smug intelligent-sounding question to doubt the validity of a hypothesis backed by data and detailed analysis, by completely ignoring the details in a given linked article.

Your question is answered on page 15 (How Do We Determine the Causes of Changes in Congestion?) of the report you are happy to debunk so eagerly.

Link (PDF): https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/T...

bovine3dom2• 8 years ago

It's hardly rocket science - the cost of driving/being driven has gone down, so usage has gone up.

I think real issue here is that road usage is mispriced. Singapore does it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing.

A tax on just ride hailing is mad. They are cheaper than owning your own vehicle, in part, due to real efficiencies in terms of maintenance and depreciation. Why on earth would anyone want to incentivise individual car ownership?

kartan• 8 years ago

Publishing reports like these without controlling for the economy/jobs/popularity of these cities seems to me to be an unfair attack on Uber/Lyft, where the real culprit might just be a strong economy.

I agree. That is why this report is so good. The section "How Do We Determine the Causes of Changes in Congestion?" covers this question.

" this time to systematically estimate the individual contributions to changes in roadway congestion of the factors of transportation network supply change, population change, employment change, and TNCs."

I agree that they have done a good job and that the conclusion that Uber/Lyft contributes to congestion increase is very valid and should be considered to take actions in the city.

crb002• 8 years ago

They packed SF like a clown car, of course all commute times went up. Not sure how it is Uber's fault.

wool_gather• 8 years ago

Who is "they"?

product5012• 8 years ago

Uber is really a heaven sent product for me and my family. We have to pick up and drop off our daughter at her day care on a daily basis and without Uber, I am not sure how would we have done it. I hope we can expand studies like this with the quality of life improvement which services like Uber have been responsible.

Also, there are other things which have improved too. Such as less drunk driving, improved safety especially when traveling at nights, predictability vs. taxis etc.

liotier• 8 years ago

We have to pick up and drop off our daughter at her day care on a daily basis and without Uber

I'm amazed that Uber is considered an affordable commute device. Is that a SV phenomenon ?

almost_usual6• 8 years ago

It’s a phenomenon for people wanting to live in the suburbs not in the suburbs.

superfrank2• 8 years ago

Eh, it depends on how you look at it. If you are comparing Lyft/Uber to public transit, yeah they lose out by a lot, but I don't think a lot of people are doing that. I think a lot of people are comparing Lyft/Uber against the cost of owning a semi-new car in a major city and that's much more comparable.

Here's a super ball park monthly cost breakdown:

- Car payment: $250

- Parking: $200

- Insurance: $85 (~$500 every 6 months)

- Gas: $50

- Registration: $40 (~$500+ a year)

- Saving for maintenance: $50 (assuming $600 a year, which is probably low)

That's super super napkin math, but that's almost $700 a month for a car, which is basically the same as $30 each work day for a month. On top of that, you don't have to deal with the hassle of parking in a city, which has to be worth something.

dgoldstein03• 8 years ago

In SF, Uber pool rides are cheap ($20 can usually get you anywhere in the City, and shorter distances at off peak times are often under 10). Compared with just cost of parking which is easily 300+ a month at many apartment buildings and only a piece of the cost of car ownership, commuting via Uber/Lyft actually makes economic sense.

newnewpdro• 8 years ago

Ever heard the phrase "has more money than sense"?

dsfyu404ed3• 8 years ago

I'm amazed that Uber is considered an affordable commute device. Is that a SV phenomenon ?

Just the cost of registering a car in CA buys you a lot of Uber rides. Then there's parking and maintenance (the HN demographic is taking their cars to the dealer, not down the street to the neighbor who fixes cars as a side gig) and the fact most people rich enough to afford to use Uber every day are comparing to the payments on a Tesla, not a one time purchase of an old Civic.

It's an upper-class phenomenon that's exacerbated by some SV and CA specific economic circumstances.

faitswulff• 8 years ago

Do Ubers have carseats?

product5012• 8 years ago

We carry a small makeshift ones always. But almost all our travel is exclusively on city streets with speed limit of 25mph..

lathiat• 8 years ago

I think this exists in some markets but not all (and perhaps not most).

jeffrallen• 8 years ago

How does the logistics of Uber and child seats work?

The fact that child restraints are not required on public transport (which is itself mysterious) makes it preferable to car transit, for our family.

austenallred• 8 years ago

This is why it blows my mind that scooters are effectively banned in San Francisco. They’re such a perfect solution for inner-city travel.

pmiller2• 8 years ago

They would be perfect if people rode them in the street, in the bike lanes.

sirlantis• 8 years ago

You mean the Uber parking lanes?

radicalbyte• 8 years ago

I don't understand why cities even allow cars. For example Amsterdam would work so much better if the roads became bike/electric-scooter* lanes with limited car access.

In New York (well, Manhattan), London and Paris it would work even better because you have a subway.

That would also solve the air quality problems of those cities in one fell swoop.

* Gas scooters - particularly two-stroke - are a relic from the past and need to be banned.

listic• 8 years ago

The kick scooters, you mean? Not the motor kind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y6fYNT3es4

pandapower2• 8 years ago

Electric scooters in particular.

These things look pretty amazing. https://www.gogoro.com

dgoldstein03• 8 years ago

Scooters aren't banned. They are now regulated. Scoot and Skip just showed up.

That said the regulation does sounds a bit overbearing

httpz2• 8 years ago

Two companies got the permit from the city and started service yesterday.

antpls• 8 years ago

Scooters are not a perfect solution. They are maybe part of the solution to the global problem of congestion, but how do you travel the last miles when you are 70 years old or you have a baby and it's raining ? Scooters only solve the problem for a specific segment of the population, not for everyone.

TangoTrotFox3• 8 years ago

In many ways, I think solutions like this are just kicking the can. Travel in a place like Bangkok for one day. Red lights look like the start of a motocross rally. There are even motorbike taxis. And motorcycles deciding the sidewalk doubles as a bike line is a common sight. But traffic is still completely brutal. That's also with city wide subway and airtrain transport options as well.

The problem is simple. People need access to the roadways in a fashion that grows linearly to low exponentially. But the capacity of the roadway capacity stays constant with an occasional constant bump. Even if you suddenly toss every single driver on a scooter, it's just one of those constant time bumps. You'll eventually bump into the exact same problem of a constant road capacity against an increasing roadway access demand.

You need a way of linearly, and indefinitely, increasing traffic capacity, not one-off constant value work-arounds.

TheCoelacanth• 8 years ago

Amount of potential traffic can't grow without limit. People need space to do other things. That puts a natural limit on the amount of traffic because people don't go places just to get there. They go places to do something when they get there.

njarboe2• 8 years ago

Check out the Boring Company. This could be the solution. Tunnels can be stacked below the city just as deep or deeper than you can build up.

almost_usual6• 8 years ago

A MUNI bus ride is 1/10 the cost of an Uber or Lyft and people would rather spend the extra money to not deal with the SF public. Ride share to work, your favorite restaurant, bar, and then home. It’s like living in the suburbs in the city.

I wonder how many people who can’t afford a vehicle but don’t want to deal with public transit would leave SF if ride sharing was banned outright.

dahdum• 8 years ago

TNCs creating congestion makes sense to me for the same reason, so many of my trips simply wouldn’t happen if I had to take public transport.

Retric• 8 years ago

Worse they add an extra leg to all trips, not just more trips. At best it’s last drop off location > pickup location > drop off location. On top of that many drivers will go to a fourth location to wait for their next passenger.

SllX2• 8 years ago

“A MUNI bus ride is 1/10 the cost of an Uber or Lyft…”

How I wish that were true. Certainly it can be depending on whether it is Prime Time and some other variables, but generally taking a shared Lyft or even a private one, MUNI is more like 1/2 to 1/4 the cost.

Now the thing working against a shared Lyft is if a trip on the bus to my destination will take 30 minutes, a shared ride will be about 20 or 25, so for my use case I’m almost always calling a private car except when time isn’t a factor but overall comfort is.

That is to say, it isn’t cheap, but it is competitive if you’re willing to pay a tiny bit extra for a much more comfortable ride. That said I still try to stick to public transit when possible, except when time is a factor and I can’t rely on the bus.

archagon• 8 years ago

Sounds to me like we should ban sharing outright.

If you can't deal with "the SF public", then you have no place living in SF.

pftburger• 8 years ago

To be clear, Uber and Lyft are in cash burn phase, still... Yes, this is essentially still a free market economy but the prices of rides are largely subsidised to bring them to a point where they compete with public transport.

That said, public transport is often a last mile problem. How do you get to and from the node, with a baby, in bad weather etc. Public transport is far from ideal and TNCs fill the gap willingly.

TNCs fill the gap so easily by piggybacking off the Auto Lobby. If we had more, denser public transport coupled with reliable safe bike lanes (heck sometimes the whole sidewalk is missing...) public would be much more attractive.

httpz2• 8 years ago

I'm not sure how credible this is but someone who work at one of the ride sharing company told me most of the cash burn happens in new markets for rapid growth and established markets like SF are profitable.

godzillabrennus• 8 years ago

I’ve heard the same.

Though reaching “profitability” is not really a focus for them until automated vehicles are ready to replace the humans on the road.

grandmczeb• 8 years ago

I’ve been told the same thing by friends who work at Uber.

treerock• 8 years ago

prices of rides are largely subsidised to bring them to a point where they compete with public transport

Is this location based? I'm in the UK and my recent trips with Uber have cost around the same as a standard taxi and nowhere near as cheap as a bus would have cost.

superseeplus• 8 years ago

I’m sure this is comparing Uber Pool or similar rather than riding the car all by yourself. Also, San Francisco has multiple transit agencies and transferring between them means paying another fare.

spiralx• 8 years ago

I'm in the UK and my recent trips with Uber have cost around the same as a standard taxi ...

My experience is that they're about 10-20% more expensive on short local trips, but about 20-30% cheaper on medium distance trips, where Uber drivers have the benefit of not having to return to the area where their company operates from.

Evidlo• 8 years ago

TNC - transportation network company

TangoTrotFox3• 8 years ago

It seems tautological that uber/lyft would increase congestion. The one and only way it would not be true is if every single person who used the service had a previous option that they were readily utilizing. Though even there nonpassenger driving hours would probably cause a net increase in congestion anyhow. But I think it goes without saying that there are countless people that end up 'driving' far many more miles thanks to uber/lyft, myself being one of them.

In other words as you make transport more desirable, available, and affordable - congestion will increase. The natural retort against this is public transport, but route/time restrictions as well as other passengers will always pose a limit on both the desirability and availability of public transport, though it certainly tends to nail the third criteria at least.

njarboe2• 8 years ago

I've heard that at many times 1/3 of cars on the road in SF are looking for parking. Don't really believe it is that high, but, if true, would be a way for uber/lyft use to decrease congestion in a meaningful way.

meriimekko• 8 years ago

TNC - since when was this acronym used? Call it what it is, not some vague NASA-like revision.

notacoward• 8 years ago

I use Lyft a lot when I travel, but I'm also acutely aware that such services have their downside. For example, using Lyft the way I do spares me both the hassle and the liability of a rental car in two unfamiliar and notoriously bad traffic environments (Silicon Valley and Seattle). How is that possible? Because that hassle and liability are pushed onto the driver, whose livelihood would be far more affected by an accident than mine would be. :(

With respect to congestion, there is definitely a problem that so many rides leave the driver somewhere other than where they'd want to be. Taking rides to and from dinner is one thing, because those trips balance out pretty well. Using a TNC as a commute alternative is quite another thing, because everyone wants to go one way in the morning and the other way in the afternoon, leaving every car occupied only half the time. Even worse, the effect is most concentrated in exactly the places people least want to drive themselves because of the pre-existing congestion. Every bad place gets worse.

I don't know of any solution that others aren't already likely to mention, but it's definitely a problem looking for a better solution.

First analysis of how Uber and Lyft have affected roadway congestion in SF

Related Stories