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

Uber drivers Madan Shrestha (left) and Om Adhikari chat while waiting for calls in the TNC lot at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, California, on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. Uber drivers Madan Shrestha (left) and Om Adhikari chat while waiting for calls in the TNC lot at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, California, on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. Photo: Connor Radnovich Connor Radnovich, The Chronicle Buy photo Photo: Connor Radnovich Connor Radnovich, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 47 Caption Close SF demands data from Uber, Lyft on city trips, driver bonuses 1 / 47 Back to Gallery

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.

“No one disputes the convenience of the ride-hailing industry, but that convenience evaporates when you’re stuck in traffic behind a double-parked Uber or Lyft, or when you can’t get a ride because the vehicle isn’t accessible to someone with a disability or because the algorithm disfavors the neighborhood where you live,” Herrera said in a statement.

The subpoenas seek information on “miles and hours logged by drivers, incentives that encourage drivers to ‘commute’ from as far away as Fresno or Los Angeles, driver guidance and training, accessible vehicle information, and the services provided to residents of every San Francisco neighborhood,” Herrera’s office said.

MBA BY THE BAY: See how an MBA could change your life with SFGATE's interactive directory of Bay Area programs.

The companies already compile that information for their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission. But Uber and Lyft maintain that they need to shield the data from each other for competitive purposes — and have persuaded the commission to keep it under lock and key. Herrera is simultaneously pursuing a public records request against the commission for the ride-hailing companies’ annual reports.

The companies have 15 days to comply or face court-imposed penalties.

“We’re more than happy to work with the city to address congestion,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend said in a statement, “but it should be a comprehensive solution including construction, the city’s population increase, and the rise of online delivery services.”

She noted that San Francisco wants to encourage more shared rides and pointed to a fall 2015 survey by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency that said ride-hailing accounted for just 2 percent of car trips in the city. However, given the companies’ rapid growth, that statistic would now be outdated.

She didn’t address whether Uber might try to quash the subpoena, as it is currently doing with a subpoena from the city treasurer’s office seeking drivers’ names and addresses so they can be notified about the city’s business license requirement. Uber previously provided this data under protest, but now says it is fighting to protect drivers’ privacy.

Lyft, which said it is reviewing the subpoena, said its goal is to improve access to transportation.

“In San Francisco, nearly 30 percent of rides take place in underserved neighborhoods and 20 percent of Lyft rides begin or end at a public transit station,” said spokeswoman Chelsea Harrison in a statement. “We also have a track record of working collaboratively with policymakers who regulate us, including the (PUC) here in California, to ensure that our service complements existing transportation options.”

Herrera said the subpoenas will fuel his investigations of possible violations of laws regulating public nuisances, willful obstruction of streets, equal accommodations by businesses, access to streets by disabled people, and minimum compensation for contractors who work more than 20 hours a month.

Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, said that while government has an obligation to enforce the laws, the city’s request looks like a fishing expedition.

“Herrera thinks there might be problems, but needs the data to confirm,” he said. “Normally we disfavor the government coming and saying, ‘We think you’re doing something wrong, so tell us what you’re doing and we’ll decide.’”

Similarly, Arun Sundararajan, an NYU business professor and expert on the so-called “sharing economy,” said the subpoenas seem overly broad.

“It’s perfectly reasonable for a city to periodically request information ... but one would expect that to be more surgical, not a blanket request for a wide range of data,” he said.

The SFMTA, which oversees the city’s streets and transit, chimed in to say that ride-hailing is a problem.

“We are hearing a growing number of complaints from residents, businesses, and our own traffic enforcement staff and Muni operators about the behavior of these drivers and the congestion and pollution caused by the sheer volume of these vehicles on our city’s streets,” SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin said in a statement. “As stewards of the city’s transportation system, we need to understand the effects of these private companies and their impact on San Francisco’s transit, safety, accessibility, and climate goals.”

The SFMTA regulates taxi service in San Francisco, but not ride-hailing companies.

Uber and Lyft have a long history of butting heads with lawmakers by entering markets without a regulatory framework for their model of providing paid rides in private cars. California was the first state to craft regulations to legalize ride-hailing, and the companies welcomed the statewide laws as an approach that fosters innovation.

The latest contretemps underscores the ongoing need for clear-cut regulations, especially as on-demand transportation moves toward an even more complex system of driverless cars, Sundararajan said. “It doesn’t serve anyone’s interest for multiple competing regulatory authorities to have jurisdiction,” he said.

Herrera pointed to the issue of “long-distance” Uber drivers who commute from far-flung corners of California to San Francisco because it has relatively lucrative payouts for drivers, both in terms of high rates and a dense population of riders. He cited a February Chronicle investigation finding that about 10 percent of drivers may log commutes of up to 200 miles before putting in lengthy shifts to meet goals set by the companies for earning bonuses and incentives. Studies show that fatigue can be as dangerous as alcohol on the road, with about one-fifth of fatal accidents attributable to drowsy drivers, according to the AAA auto club.

“These fatigued drivers are not only a threat to themselves, but to San Francisco pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers,” Herrera said. “Policies that encourage or turn a blind eye to drowsy driving by drivers with little or no familiarity with San Francisco’s roads or weather conditions make our city less safe. They are a public nuisance.”