New study shows Uber and Lyft are making traffic 50% WORSE in San Fran

BurgerTiime

Well-Known Member
Full story: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-cars-clog-SF-streets-study-says-13309593.php

Uber and Lyft cars contribute heavily to San Francisco’s traffic slowdowns, especially in the downtown and at night, according to a report being released on Tuesday, which both companies said used a flawed and incomplete approach.

The report from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority crunched data from November-December 2010 and the same two months in 2016 to get snapshots of how traffic changed over those six years.
 

seymour

Well-Known Member
It's just going to get worse. Construction on Lombard, Geary now is under construction from Stanyan to Market - two center lanes will be used just for buses. Gough St is undergoing construction for a year starting next month. Van Ness is what it is. That whole area is going to be one big clusterfk. Fun Fun Fun!

I know people complain about traffic in this city but I don't think it's too bad. New York and Chicago are far worse.
 

SanFranant

Well-Known Member
Full story: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-cars-clog-SF-streets-study-says-13309593.php

Uber and Lyft cars contribute heavily to San Francisco’s traffic slowdowns, especially in the downtown and at night, according to a report being released on Tuesday, which both companies said used a flawed and incomplete approach.

The report from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority crunched data from November-December 2010 and the same two months in 2016 to get snapshots of how traffic changed over those six years.

I agree but it’s mostly because guys don’t know where to stop or turn.

Nobody wants to make a right turn or left turn into one way on red here.

It’s like everyone doesn’t know if you make a complete stop you can turn.

They all wait till the pedestrians get the green again

Also if pedestrians are crossing and the light isn’t green for them I let them have it as long as I don’t have a passenger.

To many SF nerds walking looking at their phones
 

BurgerTiime

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Here drivers are staging in the very limited meter parking spots which causes others looking for parking to circle and circle and circle. They also double park everywhere and block traffic. It also doesn’t help people requesting in places that are illegal zones and no stoping. I stay away from DT and chose to do residential requests. It’s too congested especially with all the construction.
 

JPilla

Well-Known Member
B.S.
Traffic is caused by fearful idiot drivers
Which are uber and Lyft drivers from Sac, tracy, etc

I agree but it’s mostly because guys don’t know where to stop or turn.

Nobody wants to make a right turn or left turn into one way on red here.

It’s like everyone doesn’t know if you make a complete stop you can turn.

They all wait till the pedestrians get the green again

Also if pedestrians are crossing and the light isn’t green for them I let them have it as long as I don’t have a passenger.

To many SF nerds walking looking at their phones
Nailed it on every point.
 

dragnet

Well-Known Member
Of course it’s a flawed study. All independent studies are flawed that throw shade on Uber and Lyft.
Read the article. Both Uber and Lyft give access to their data to regulators for the purposes of doing reports like this.

I don't think they're disputing the problem at all. In fact, they have every incentive to help find ways to address the problem since it would expand both of their businesses if fewer people took public transit.

Right now, downtown at rush hour, it's a mess in SF. I avoid it like the plague, even with high surges. Every time I'm down there I get stuck for an hour in traffic without a pax. Even getting a ping is nuts because it takes forever just to get to the pax. Only occasionally can I actually time it to get a pax on board during a surge downtown. Then, by the time you finish that ride, rush hour is over. One ride. I can do 4-6 rides in the east bay in the same time frame... where there are also surges happening.
 

dennis09

Well-Known Member
Of course it’s a flawed study. All independent studies are flawed that throw shade on Uber and Lyft.
Well since they refuse to reveal the relevant information then I guess we'll go with the flawed studies.

They should make the number higher. 80% sounds better. Maybe that will force the city to cap the invasion.

Especially with all the warriors flooding in from Fresno, Sac, Modesto etc etc etc etc etc.
 

mrwy

Well-Known Member
bias article.

if there were only mass transportation and no cars there would be less vehicals on the road, yes.

Take away Uber and many people would use cars
 

sanchez15

Active Member
This statement indicates that this is a moronic study: "crunched data from November-December 2010 and the same two months in 2016"

How many new high rises have been put in place since 2010 with no coinciding housing??

It will take a much more in depth study to know if ridesharing is causing more traffic than non-ride sharing. My first hand experience would say ridesharing is helping traffic given the popularity of pool. Without pool there would be as many extra cars as drivers, assuming all the people that can are taking BART or MUNI. Again, a complex study would be needed --it seems everytime this traffic thing comes up in the news it is coming from the billionaires (that put up the giant towers downtown) trying to point the blame elsewhere.

“Congestion is a complex issue, and Lyft is committed to being a part of the solution,” Lyft spokeswoman Lauren Alexander said in a statement.

--not really complex. If only these ivy league idiots would penalize passengers for not being ready when the car arrives, congestion would not exist.
 

DollarFree

Well-Known Member
Time to reign in the Planning Dept car haters & lane removers. They want a central SF congestion zone and will keep adding choke points and gridlock devices till they get one. Then they can create a whole new City department to manage & spend the latest new tax.
Also time for a grown-up to oversee DPW’s multiple endless projects. Don’t rip up 2 streets that do the same job at the same time. Don’t let some dipshit in a hard hat cone off 2 lanes when they only need 1. Make DPW give at least a passing thought to the impact of their projects then plan & schedule them around something other than their own convenience.
 

dragnet

Well-Known Member
My first hand experience would say ridesharing is helping traffic given the popularity of pool. Without pool there would be as many extra cars as drivers, assuming all the people that can are taking BART or MUNI.
Doubtful. The argument is that people are using Pool instead of public transportation.
 

sanchez15

Active Member
"Of course it’s a flawed study. All independent studies are flawed that throw shade on Uber and Lyft."

Read the article. Both Uber and Lyft give access to their data to regulators for the purposes of doing reports like this.

I don't think they're disputing the problem at all. In fact, they have every incentive to help find ways to address the problem since it would expand both of their businesses if fewer people took public transit.

ummm. first sentence says Uber and Lyft claim its a flawed study.

Doubtful. The argument is that people are using Pool instead of public transportation.
People use Uber because there is no adequate transpo. I used to try to use Muni when I lived in West Portal for 20 years --I always wound up driving in. The city is at fault as is Uber and Lyft for not penalizing passengers for not being there the exact moment the driver arrives. Waiting minutes for passengers has a lot to do with the backup.
 

Elephant

Well-Known Member
Between 8:00 - 9:am —always more than 20 rideshares cars on California st. in between Kearny & montogomery.
 

dragnet

Well-Known Member
ummm. first sentence says Uber and Lyft claim its a flawed study.
Yes, but also says they share their data with regulators. They aren’t disputing there is a problem nor that they are part of the problem. They state that the study didn’t account for changes in tourism and freight deliveries.
 

RideshareSpectrum

Well-Known Member
Full story: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-cars-clog-SF-streets-study-says-13309593.php

Uber and Lyft cars contribute heavily to San Francisco’s traffic slowdowns, especially in the downtown and at night, according to a report being released on Tuesday, which both companies said used a flawed and incomplete approach.

The report from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority crunched data from November-December 2010 and the same two months in 2016 to get snapshots of how traffic changed over those six years.
Noshit. Common sense suggests that 10-15k cars entering the city from elsewhere daily to shuttle the entitled class (90% of which would not be here for any other reason) who would otherwise be riding muni might contribute heavily to traffic congestion.
 

dragnet

Well-Known Member
Previously here I said that Uber/Lyft acknowledged they were at least part of the problem. That was wrong. I listened to a whole segment on Forum on KQED yesterday. They had several guests speaking, including the author of the new study. Uber/Lyft are actually saying they don't contribute at all to the increase in traffic, which is just nuts. They don't provide any data to counter the position. They just deny it. Just the mere fact that drivers have about 30% deadheading time is going to add to the traffic congestion, especially downtown and during rush hours.

The other thing Uber/Lyft have said is, tourism is spiking. But the counter to that is, yes, but tourists spend more time on public transit and walking than taking rideshare.

Dara had this whole bit about "do the right thing." Well, Dara, lying to the public is not doing the right thing. Accepting responsibility and working to help address the issues would be.
 

mrwy

Well-Known Member
Previously here I said that Uber/Lyft acknowledged they were at least part of the problem. That was wrong. I listened to a whole segment on Forum on KQED yesterday. They had several guests speaking, including the author of the new study. Uber/Lyft are actually saying they don't contribute at all to the increase in traffic, which is just nuts. They don't provide any data to counter the position. They just deny it. Just the mere fact that drivers have about 30% deadheading time is going to add to the traffic congestion, especially downtown and during rush hours.

The other thing Uber/Lyft have said is, tourism is spiking. But the counter to that is, yes, but tourists spend more time on public transit and walking than taking rideshare.

Dara had this whole bit about "do the right thing." Well, Dara, lying to the public is not doing the right thing. Accepting responsibility and working to help address the issues would be.

you cant counter an argument or argue with something that is just a general and often non factual statement.

like saying tourist spend more time walking. well, what are they gona have a car drive them door to door then someone carry them around a building?

fact is people use uber in large numbers. what is lacking is one simple thing, an alternative that will beat uber that the masses agree on.
 
Top