Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tnc Congestion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City officials cite large TNC trip volumes and enforcement findings as congestion rises; committee seeks more regulatory tools
Summary
Data presented to the committee showed declining travel speeds, an estimated 170,000 daily TNC trips that start and end in San Francisco, and enforcement results finding a majority of targeted violations involved TNCs; supervisors pressed for more enforcement options and urged state action on regulatory authority.
A committee hearing on citywide traffic congestion centered on data the Transportation Authority and SFMTA presented showing slower corridor speeds, large numbers of trips by transportation‑network companies (TNCs), and enforcement operations that found TNC vehicles were disproportionately represented among violations in congested corridors.
Jeff Hobson, Deputy Director for Planning at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, said preliminary congestion monitoring over the last eight years shows declining speeds on major streets (recent May measures showed average speeds of just over 12 mph in the afternoon and about 14 mph in the morning) and noted the city has added more than 50,000 residents and roughly 120,000 jobs since 2009. Hobson summarized the TA's 'TNCs Today' data: about 170,000 daily trips start and end within San Francisco (roughly 15% of internal trips) and on the order of 6,000 TNC vehicles may be on the road at peak times; in South Of Market at peak the TA estimated TNCs made about 1 in 4 vehicle trips.
Commander Robert O'Sullivan, SFPD liaison to SFMTA, described targeted enforcement operations in South Of Market and other hot spots and reported that in a series of 10–12 operations focused on transit‑lane and bike‑lane violations, roughly 64–65% of citations were issued to vehicles identified as TNCs. The commander said those operations also produced misdemeanor and a small number of felony arrests incidental to traffic stops.
Supervisors pressed departments on practical responses. Ideas raised included expanding protected bike lanes (Valencia, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth), redeploying parking control officers (PCOs) to neighborhood hot spots and funding them via mitigation fees assigned to shuttle companies, improved curb management and 311 reporting for double parking, and continued pressure on the California Public Utilities Commission and the legislature (Senate Bill 182 was discussed) to restore stronger local regulatory authority over TNCs.
Why it matters: The TA and SFMTA framed congestion as a multimodal and land‑use problem compounded by recent growth, construction, and a notable presence of TNC activity in hot spots. Hobson cautioned the TA cannot yet precisely apportion responsibility for congestion among population, jobs, construction and TNCs, but said TNCs clearly contribute to peak‑period congestion in key areas and that more detailed analysis is forthcoming.
Public commenters — including business representatives, the Bicycle Coalition and transportation advocates — urged more protected bike lanes, better curb allocation and deeper enforcement, and asked for better data collection (for example, using 311 for double‑parking reports). The committee continued the item to the call of the chair for further work and interagency follow‑up.
Next steps: The agencies will continue analysis (TA expects a fuller report this winter), the committee asked for more data on enforcement outcomes and sources of authority, and the item was continued to the call of the chair for further consideration.
