Supes, neighbors block Ford GoBike’s citywide expansion

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

Ford GoBike’s expansion has been halted and slowed across The City, and the reason given is often the same — there wasn’t enough notice given.

From Glen Park to the Haight, the Mission District and most recently, the Marina, residents are pushing back against the rental bike docks, which are usually placed in parking spaces meant for cars.

And as the bike rental service is on the cusp of its planned expansion to 7,000 bikes Bay Area-wide, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is also increasingly pushing back against it and the Lyft-owned company that operates the program, Motivate, by saying that not enough notice has been offered to neighbors about new station installations…

But while each supervisor sees this problem through a neighborhood-focused lense, each individual battle adds up: The bikeshare-slowdown now stretches citywide… (more)

First we want to thank our supervisors for supporting the rights of residents and the public to determine how our streets are used. Stopping the spread of corporate controlled curb space is important. Some people may not be aware that the Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 180089 to allow the public to make these decisions by giving the supervisors greater control and oversight of the SFMTA Board decisions. Look it up if you are not familiar with the ordinance: https://metermadness.wordpress.com/actions/sfmta-review/

We need some data on the number of stations to bikes Motivate and other private entities have installed in the city and the number of vehicles assigned to private parking spots. We have noted a number of GoBikes parked in public bike parking spots that are meant for private bikes and a lot of empty Motivate racks.

Perhaps we need to ask Randy Rentschler, director of legislation and public affairs with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which negotiated Ford GoBike’s exclusivity contract to provide docked bikeshares within the Bay Area, what the intent of that contract was or is. He claims he just wrote the contracts and it is up to us to deal with them. If the public objects to them being placed on our streets they should honor our objections. We don’t need an excuse.

The above mentioned ordinance is a good start in taking back control of our streets, but the voters of San Francisco may want to consider a Charter Amendment as well if these matters and others are not resolved to our satisfaction soon. Let Mayor Breed and the Board of Supervisors and the candidates running for office know how you feel. They are in office to serve the public not the corporations.

Advertisements

A new study says services like UberPool and Lyft Line are making traffic worse

By Faiz Siddiqui of The Washington Post : mercurynews – excerpt

The explosive growth of Uber and Lyft has created a new traffic problem for major U.S. cities and ride-sharing options such as UberPool and Lyft Line are exacerbating the issue by appealing directly to customers who would otherwise have taken transit, walked, biked or not used a ride-hail service at all, according to a new study.

The report by Bruce Schaller, author of the influential study, “Unsustainable?”, which found ride-hail services were making traffic congestion in New York City worse, constructs a detailed profile of the typical ride-hail user and issues a stark warning to cities: make efforts to counter the growth of ride-hail services, or surrender city streets to fleets of private cars, creating a more hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists and ultimately make urban cores less desirable places to live.

Schaller concludes that where private ride options such as UberX and Lyft have failed on promises to cut down on personal driving and car ownership – both of which are trending up – pooled ride services have lured a different market that directly competes with subway and bus systems, while failing to achieve significantly better efficiency than their solo alternatives. The result: more driving overall.

Ride sharing has added 5.7 billion vehicle miles to nine major urban areas over six years, the report says, and the trend is “likely to intensify” as the popularity of the services surges. (The study notes that total ride-hailing trips in New York increased 72 percent from 2016 to 2017 and 47 percent in Seattle over that time. Revenue data from the D.C. Department of For-Hire Vehicles showed the ride-hailing industry’s growth quadrupled in the District from late 2015 to 2017.)

The nine cities studied were New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Miami, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle..

.. (more)

Instead of admitting that the ride-hails are adding to the traffic, the EMERGING MOBILITY | EVALUATION REPORT put out for the SFCTA, blamed the TNCs for not releasing their data. One doesn’t need the TNC’s data to observe that the ride-hails pouring into the city from out of town to compete with all the pubic transit systems are private vehicles. Since they don’t park, but drive around waiting for a ride, there is bound to be more traffic on all the streets. There is an easy solution to that problem. Return the curbs back to the public.

Here is an idea of a pilot project: Remove the special the parking privileges for the TNCs. Return street parking to the public in some neighborhoods and see if more people driving themselves around and parking doesn’t result in less traffic and healthier retail stores. Once the ride-hails lose their customers, they will quit driving into town. That should clear some of the congestion off the bridges and highways, and maybe more people will switch back to public transportation, especially if the bus stops are left in place.

Free bike rental program for SF State students threatened after Lyft buys bikeshare company

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

The City may withdraw funding intended to offer free bike rentals to San Francisco State University’s poorest students due to the program’s connection with ride-hail company Lyft.

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s board does not want taxpayer dollars to be spent on ride-hail companies Uber and Lyft, and now some members of the transportation authority board — who are also The City’s Board of Supervisors — are considering withholding funds for the free bike program because Lyft recently acquired the company providing the bikes.

“It seems to me we have not gone to Lyft and said … ‘do you want to offer low income individuals at SF state a discounted rate?’” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin, at the transportation authority’s regular meeting Tuesday. Lyft is a multi-billion dollar company, he said, and they should offer free bikes.

“I don’t think public dollars should go into that,” he said… (more)

 

What Happens When a Company That Sells Car Trips Gets Into the Bike Trip Business?

By Ben Fried : streetsblog – excerpt

Lyft has acquired the nation’s largest bike-share company, setting up a situation where its bike trip sales will cannibalize its car trip sales.

Lyft, Uber’s smaller but gigantic-in-its-own-right competitor in the ride-hailing business, has acquired Motivate, the company that runs several of the largest bike-share systems in America. The price isn’t public yet, but unconfirmed earlier reports pegged it at $250 million. The new entity is called “Lyft Bikes.”

Lyft gets Motivate’s “current engineering, technology, marketing, communications, legal and supply chain capabilities as well as some human resources and finance functions,” according to a spokesperson. Lyft says the terms of contracts with local governments, including agreements with New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other large cities granting varying degrees of exclusivity, will not be affected…

This is a matter of dispute, that may be cause for legal action.

The optimist sees huge potential in the nation’s largest bike-share operator getting an infusion of capital…

The acquisition by Lyft could change this dynamicMotivate has yet to show what it can do with the dockless and electric-assist bicycles it’s been developing

The announcement yesterday renews Motivate’s relevance, with Lyft explicitly mentioning “dockless and pedal-assist electric bikes” as the type of “innovation” it intends to expedite…

The pessimistic take on the deal is that Lyft’s core businessselling car trips in cities — will put a ceiling on what it will do as a bike-share company. ..

I doubt that Lyft will enthusiastically try to convert its car trips to bike trips without some sort of prompt from policy makers. Bike-share is a very low-margin business. … (more)

As the author points out, there are many directions the company may take, and, since the future of bike stations is uncertain there is no reason to expand the most controversial bike-share programs that infuriates the public.

As one of the North Beach patrons asked when the Central Subway was being presented as an extendable program, “How can you aim a tunnel when you don’t know where it is going to end up?” We need to stop installing bike stations and see what the market does.

This matter will be addressed Tuesday at the SFCTA Meeting. around 10 AM in Room 250 at City Hall.  You may want to comment on Item 9 on the agenda – Adopt the Emerging Mobility Evaluation Report – ACTION*  resolutionenclosure  Including TNCs, on-demand, shared, ride-hails, autonomous vehicles, robots and drones – all those vehicles that are cluttering up the road that used to be full of our private vehicles. How many millions or billions of taxpayers dollars have gone into this failed system that was going to rid the city of cars?

Keep your letters going to the Board of Supervisors on this matter. We need to keep public funds out of the hands of these corporations that have informed us that they intend to take over our streets. Supervisor Cohen needs to hear from you as she is still supporting the Ford GoBikes, that are now the Lyft bikes. We also need to send a message to Supervisor Kim on that matter. NO MORE TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR CORPORATIONS. If they want to help low-income people they can do so with their own money.

RELATED:
Uber Poised to Make Investment in Lime Scooter-Rental Business

STOP THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF OUR STREETS.
Buy an electric scooter for #129 at Best Buy or a Moped for less than $400.

Lyft’s Big Bike-Share Buy Is About Ruling the Streets

By Aarian Marshal : wired – excerpt

Today, Lyft announced it has acquired North America’s largest bike-share operator, Motivate, for a reported $250 million. The move comes just three months after archrival Uber took over Jump Bicycles, a smaller and flashier dockless electric bike-share company, for $200 million. And thus, the urban transportation wars click into a higher gear, as the fight moves to the bike lane…

In a blog post, Lyft said it would take over Motivate’s technology and corporate functions, including, critically, its city contracts...

On its face, the acquisition of Motivate—which will be rebranded Lyft Bikes—makes a ton of sense. Ride-hailing companies are nervous that vehicles like cycles and scooters will cut into their business by giving people cheaper, traffic-free options for making short trips through dense areas. So instead of fighting these new modalities, the ride-hailing giants bought them out…

That could be the sort of advantage Lyft needs to dominate transportation across the city landscape, no matter your mode of choice. If, that is, it can answer a few pesky questions.

Relationships

Motivate has decade-long agreements with some of America’s biggest cities, including Boston, Chicago, New York, the District of Columbia, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of those (including New York, the Bay Area, and Boston) are exclusive, meaning no one else is allowed to operate a bike-share in the area…

Lyft says its acquisition won’t affect Motivate’s existing contracts.

But is that true? Uber also took a close look at Motivate before Lyft cut the check, and a source familiar with those negotiations says Uber worried those contracts left room for cities to renegotiate or even cancel exclusivity if control of the company changed hands…

 A spokesperson for the Bay Area’s transportation authority did not respond to specific questions about its contract with Motivate. …

it’s not crazy to think Lyft could use this new real estate to build what urban transportation nerds have dreamed about for years: “mobility hubs,” where riders switch between a bike and a car and the public bus and the subway. Could a station be a place to charge electric bikes and scooters and maybe even cars?…

Keep your eyes on the corners—and, of course, the limits of Motivate’s contacts, which probably limit what Lyft can do with these spaces... (more)

NOW is the time to DEMAND A PUBLIC HEARING.

ENUF already! Demand they stop removing pubic parking now. This is Airbnb on the streets. Merchants and residents are already having problems with delivery services with the curb parking that we have left now. We cannot afford to loss more curb parking.

Who is on the public’s side? Ask your supervisor and those running for the office in November what they plan to do about the privatization of our streets and the private contracts being signed by the SFMTA. Some supervisors have already taken a stand on our side. Thank them and ask them how you can resolve parking problems using Ordinance #180089.

RELATED:
GoBike expansion fuels neighborhood conflict as Lyft plans bikeshare growth
GM Preps for Robo-Taxis in San Francisco
City report says Uber and Lyft are hoarding vital transit data

 

 

 

 

Report recommends SF slash available taxis to save industry

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

NBTaxis

Taxis in North Beach by zrants

San Francisco may slash the number of available taxi medallions — which dictates the number of cabs — by one-third, in a bid to “reinvigorate” the industry.

That’s one of a number of major recommendations released Wednesday from a respected taxi-industry consultant commissioned by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which regulates taxis but not ride-hails like Uber and Lyft.

It’s those tech titans that have the taxi industry and SFMTA concerned, as the old guard of drivers-for-hire lose significant ground in nearly every respect: There are twelve times more ride-hail trips across The City than taxi trips, according to city data, including lucrative rides to and from the San Francisco International Airport. To revitalize the industry in 2017 the SFMTA commissioned taxi industry expert Bruce Schaller, principal of Schaller Consulting, to analyze trends in San Francisco — and recommend a way out.

“How does the MTA as a regulator help the taxi industry innovate and step up?” Kate Toran, head of taxi services at SFMTA, told reporters in a press briefing Wednesday. That, she said, is the crux of this report… (more)

Parking giant says Uber, Lyft have cut parking business up to 50 per cent in some venues

by Jeanette Steele :  therecord – excerpt

SAN DIEGO — The parking giant Ace Parking says that Uber and Lyft are eating into the parking business — with as much as 50 per cent less traffic at nightclubs and a 25 per cent drop at restaurant valets.

A death knell for paid parking? No, Ace and others say they are going high-tech to survive.

For consumers, the bright side may be lower parking prices.

In downtown San Diego, this trend could colour how much more parking is built, as the city updates its policy this year.

In a September email buried deep in an environmental report, Ace Parking CEO John Baumgardner laid out the ugly truth for the parking business.

At San Diego hotels serviced by Ace Parking, overnight parking has declined 5 per cent to 10 per cent. At restaurant valet stands, business is down 25 per cent.

And, most dramatically, nightclub valets are seeing a 50 per cent drop off… (more)

Could Department of Livable Streets fix SF parking and traffic?

By Matier & Ross  : sfchronicle – excerpt

With the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s parking and traffic management becoming a bigger political issue, plans are being revved up for a City Charter amendment that would hand those jobs to a new Department of Livable Streets.

The MTA board would still hear all parking and traffic matters, but the Board of Supervisors would have the final say over parking rules, stop signs and the like.

“The buck stops with the Board of Supervisors,” said Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, one of the initiative’s sponsors. “I don’t want to be held accountable for something I have absolutely no control over.”..

Safaí cited his frustration over the MTA’s decision to reject a two-year effort by his Excelsior constituents to get a four-way stop sign at the corner of Avalon Avenue and Edinburgh Street — where a pedestrian was later killed.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who is co-sponsoring the ballot move, said the final straw for him was hearing that Mayor Ed Lee, with support from the MTA, was negotiating with ride-hailing giants to turn parking spaces into designated pickup stops for Uber and Lyft.

Safaí and Peskin need four more supervisors to sign onto the Charter amendment to get it on the June 5 ballot. They’re confident they’ll get there…(more)

Now we know more details about the proposed SFMTA Charter Amendment and what pushed the supervisors over the edge – lack of response from SFMTA to a citizens’ request, and the privatization of public streets. We have all experienced these problems and been helpless to solve them. The elected Board of Supervisors should be able to get a bit more done to clean up this mess.
If you agree with the plan to put the Charter Amendment on the ballot, let the supervisors and everyone else know. Contacts

RELATED:
Advocates Align to Fight Proposal to Split Muni/SFMTA
The San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Walk San Francisco, and the San Francisco Transit Riders have come out hard against a proposal to split Muni, operator of San Francisco’s buses and trains, from the rest of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which also oversees street design, stoplights, signs, and taxi and parking regulations.
The Board of Supervisors will decide whether to put the amendment on the June, 2018, ballot tomorrow/Tuesday, 2 p.m., at its regularly scheduled meeting.

SB-182 is on the Governor’s desk now to be signed. We need to stop it.

SB-182  would prohibit cities from regulating TNCs by handing regulation of the TNCS over to the state PUC. We just heard today at the SF Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee hearing that the TNCs are responsible for most of the traffic violations in the SOMA area and the downtown area. We also know that TNCs are responsible for a huge percentage of the vehicle miles traveled in SF and that they spend more time driving around without a passenger than most residents spend in our cars.

PLEASE CALL OF WRITE THE GOVERNOR ASKING HIM TO NOT SIGN SB 182 INTO LAW SO THAT CITIES MAY DEAL WITH THEM.

Links to the governor: Calling the office may be the best way to get the message to him. Email form is on this page:
href=”https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/”>https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov39mail/

Mailing address:
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841 
Fax: (916) 558-3160

Details on the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB182

SB-182, Transportation network company: participating drivers: single business license.

The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to regulate charter-party carriers in California, including transportation network companies that provide prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers.

Existing law authorizes the legislative body of an incorporated city and a county board of supervisors to license businesses carried on within their respective jurisdictions and to set licensing fees for those businesses.

This bill would prohibit any local jurisdiction, as defined, that requires a driver, as defined, to obtain a business license, as defined, to operate as a driver for a transportation network company, from requiring that driver to obtain more than a single business license, as specified, regardless of the number of local jurisdictions in which the driver operates.

Local Readers blast their horns about Uber and Lyft

By David Talbot : sfchronicle – excerpt

Tuesday’s column about the flood of Uber and Lyft cars on the streets of San Francisco triggered a tsunami of reader email and social-media outbursts. So I’m turning over today’s platform to my impassioned readers. The public is clearly reaching its tipping point on the out-of-control ride-hailing industry. The last time something like this happened, Airbnb cut a sensible deal with the city. So who knows? The boys-will-be-boys bro-ocracy at Uber might also finally accept some reasonable regulations…

My column also provoked howls from those who thought I was unfair to the ride-hailing corporations. “The reason people take Lyft and Uber is because Muni and taxis suck,” stated Jamey Frank. “Neither are reliable nor convenient, especially for my disabled parents. We take (the TNC) cars rather than climbing down a filthy (Muni) staircase due to a broken escalator and elevator, to a filthy and dark platform and wait a random amount of time for a train. … The MTA’s policy is not solution-based. Instead, they prefer to punish people out of their cars through red lanes, road diets and parking confiscation, creating huge amounts of artificial traffic congestion. But no amount of driver punishment overrides the fact that San Francisco has one of the least reliable, least pleasant transportation systems in the world.”

Speaking of solutions, Philip Macafee proposes a sensible new approach on his website, the Rideshare Justice Project (www.ridesharejustice.org). “The web, mobile devices and GPS location technology offer a great advance in secure, trustworthy and fair transportation,” he writes. “But only if implemented properly. States and municipalities need to step up to the plate by setting standards that blend the benefits of game changing new technology with time proven practices of reinforcing good behavior on the part of workers. (They also need to ensure) fair wages and safety for drivers. And they need to do it before the problem gets worse.”

I like what he’s driving at…(more)

Comments go to dtalbot@sfchronicle.com

SF demands data from Uber, Lyft on city trips, driver bonuses

By Carolyn Said : sfgate – excerpt

It’s a San Francisco truism: Every other car on the streets these days seems to sport a logo for Uber or Lyft — and many double-park or block traffic as passengers climb in or out.

Now the city wants Uber and Lyft to share details on how many ride-hailing cars are roving the streets and when, so it can ensure that they comply with local laws; assess their impact on traffic congestion, safety, pollution and parking; and ascertain whether they are accessible for disabled and low-income riders.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera on Monday subpoenaed Uber and Lyft to disgorge records on four years of driving practices, disability access and service in San Francisco. The companies have steadfastly declined to share data other than that they have about 45,000 drivers in the Bay Area… (more)

The “Sharing Economy” has lost favor in San Francisco as citizens and politicians now realize the circle of benefactors is very limited.

%d bloggers like this: