[danans]

> Uber and Lyft have long said their services may relieve urban congestion by facilitating access to public transit

This was always questionable for a place like SF or any high density city.

Few people take a ride share to get to a bus or a MUNI light rail stop in SF. If you are paying for the Uber/Lyft, why would you pay again for a bus ticket, especially given the inconvenience of then waiting for the bus. You'll just stay in the car to your destination, after all San Francisco isn't that big.

The exception is perhaps people in SF getting to BART to go to a suburb, but that's not a very significant use case.

Edit: removed potty language, and superlatives.

[sparky_z]

I use it this way all the time. Bart into the city from a suburb and then if it's not in walking distance and there's no convenient bus, I take a Lyft to my destination.

[danans]

So do I, but that's a different use case than people within SF using ride-sharing.

I said few journeys go from ride share to bus/Muni, excluding BART, which goes a much longer distance than bus/Muni and therefore serves different types of journeys.

And journeys originating from within SF probably still account for the majority of ride shares in the city, not journeys from outside SF.

[aeternus]

Many people at my company take Uber/Lyft to get to BART and Caltrain.