Rideshare in San Francisco Isn't Getting People out of Cars

By

A study of automobile travel and traffic congestion in San Francisco, commissioned by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and released last month, found that TNCs were responsible for a substantial share of increases to travel delays and VMT from 2010 to 1016. Part of the reason for this outsized contribution is the circulation of vehicles that are not carrying passengers, as well as drivers from surrounding areas coming in to the city to drive. Pick-up and drop-off can also increase delays by obstructing or slowing traffic.


The researchers ran a model that for a scenario in which TNCs were not introduced during the period of study but changes to population and employment remained the same, and found that VMT was significantly lower. The impacts were not uniform across the city, however. Comparison of the two scenarios—the hypothetical without TNCs and the actual with TNCs—found that TNCs led to substantially increased delays in and around Downtown while having little impact on outlying areas. Much of this is because the impacts of additional vehicles are far greater in areas that are already congested than in those that have lower traffic volumes. While the study was unable to account for increased deliveries or tourism due to lack of data, it is not clear that these would have varied between the two scenarios.

These results fly in the face of Uber and Lyft’s efforts to paint themselves as part of a less auto-dependent future, and comes in spite of their promotion of shared rides. Both companies responded to the report by emphasizing their expansion into bike and scooter share, though rideshare remains the core of their business. It also undermines claims that rideshare can serve to supplement transit as a first-last-mile solution. From this study, it would appear that rideshare, at least in San Francisco, is not an effective means to reduce auto travel or move more people efficiently.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular on the Blog

Final Policy Guidelines

By
Students, I was exceedingly pleased with the quality of your final presentations and wanted to share them publicly.  Here they are: Ridehail (TNCs) - Presentation , Guidelines Micromobility - Bikeshare and Scooter Share - Presentation , Guidelines Freight and Goods Movement - Presentation , Guidelines   Courier Network Services - Presentation , Guidelines Real Estate and Curb Management - Presentation , Guidelines Future Shared Vehicles - Presentation , Guidelines Mobility as a Service - Presentation , Guidelines
Read more

Take to the Streets! The (AV) Revolution is Coming

By
Image
When I think about new mobility and new technologies that enable it, I get most excited about the possibilities to remediate or reverse the inequities and injustices caused by our current autocentric transportation and land use regime. Our transportation system currently and historically on the biggest tools enabling systemic  injustice and exploitation in the United States and globally. Those who control our transportation system have turned it into the largest contributor to the climate emergency, perpetuator of environmental injustices, and catalyst for exploitation and expropriation of oppressed communities Consider the freeway riots, suburbanization and white flight, hyper-gentrification, and pollution burden. Transportation planning is implicated in all of these processes. It will also be instrumental in dismantling them. If we collectively organized ourselves, we could already have livable cities, mobility justice, and (significantly) decarbonized transportation system...
Read more

In TNC wage war, econ 101 is on the driver’s side

By
Image
Hold on tight, passengers, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride We frequently read and hear that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft are money-losers and are unlikely to be profitable in the near future. However, given that both companies are trading on public markets with a combined worth of more than $80 billion, investors must be thinking they will reach profitability at some point. The question is whether this profit will come from higher prices charged to passengers, or lower wages given to drivers. In a recent New York Times Upshot piece, Austan Goolsbee, a well-known economist and former adviser to President Barack Obama, makes the case that, in this scenario, passengers will be footing the bill. Goolsbee substantiates his claim in a way that those of his of economics-trained ilk know how to best--via the theory of "relative price sensitivity." Economic theory predicts that those who are more sensitive to prices changes will pay less, while those who are less pr...
Read more