Showing posts with label automobility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label automobility. Show all posts

Sunday, June 7, 2020

June 9, 1860: The First Automobile in San Francisco



And on that same date: the first automobile accident in San Francisco


Sectional elevation of Barran's road locomotive, from The Practical Mechanic's Journal, September 1, 1860. This vehicle weighed eleven tons and required two operators, one steering in front, and one in back controlling the engine. (archive.org).


At 11:30 Saturday morning, June 9th, 1860, an automobile—a steam traction engine, or “steam wagon”—embarked on a test journey through San Francisco’s streets. Imported from Leeds, England, and weighing eleven tons, including its necessary water and fuel, it looked “much like a locomotive,” with four rear wheels seven feet in diameter, each with seven-inch wide tires. With an engineer in back controlling the engine, and a “pilot or helmsman” steering in the front, along with a number of (literal) hangers-on, the machine exited the Vulcan Foundry on First street in San Francisco’s industrial district, headed over to the Howard street plank-road, and chugged off to Mission Dolores, arriving in a mere three-quarters of an hour. A Daily Alta California reporter, one of the riders, breathlessly recounted that
the fuel consumed on the outward, as well as the homeward trip, was inconsiderable—a single bag of coal and a few armsfull of firewood sufficing. About two hundred and fifty gallons of water was all that was requisite for the boiler. (Daily Alta California 6/10/1860)

On the return trip, a few stops had to be made, “inasmuch as bolts, nuts and screws had to be tightened, the machinery being new, and heretofore untried.” Back in the city, the steam wagon took a victory lap through downtown, where “throngs of persons, of all ages and both sexes, crowded the streets, and expressed astonishment at the huge machine.” It then returned to south of Market, where history was made yet again—this time, with San Francisco’s first automobile accident.

This 1865 photo by Lawrence & Houseworth shows the incline on First street between Folsom and Harrison, where San Francisco's first automobile accident took place. (Online Archive of California)


Despite the general enthusiasm of the crowds, the steam wagon had encountered some hostility on its trip through the city from several drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, for instance from a bus driver who “kept the middle of the street, refusing to let the engine pass.” While the wagon was descending the steep incline of First street, from Harrison towards Folsom, the driver of a brick cart, coming up the hill and thus having the right-of-way, refused to turn aside for the ponderous locomotive. The Alta reporter described the ensuing crash:
the steersman motioned to the driver to turn out, but he shook his head and positively refused, keeping the middle of the street, and it was with great difficulty that a serious collision was avoided; as it was, there was a slight concussion which sent the bricks flying ten feet in the air.

This “slight concussion”—which sent bricks flying ten feet—appears to have been the first recorded automobile accident in San Francisco (and, possibly, in the United States). The driver of the brick cart did have the right of way, though it seems a bit reckless to have insisted on this technicality when facing down an eleven-ton, barely steerable monstrosity. In any event, the promoters of the steam wagon—much like those of autonomous vehicles today—blamed the accident on the stubbornness of old-fashioned drivers and old-fashioned technology, the Alta even threatening that
if any more gentlemen, driving brick carts, undertake to block the way, they must take the consequences, and if iron and steam gain the day, it will be a fair fight—the hardest stands the best chance of winning.

After giving up on "road locomotives," the Vulcan foundry had more success with regular rail locomotives, such as the Calistoga, produced for the Napa Valley Rail Road in May 1867. (progress-is-fine.blogspot.com)

Another demonstration of the steam wagon was made four days later, when a more skeptical reporter for the Bulletin noted that the start was delayed for over an hour while the engine “got up steam.” It finally departed the Vulcan yard after noon:
To get into the street, from the yard where it stood, the machine had to start directly up a sharp ascent. As soon as the steam was turned on, up it came, without hesitation or demur—making a scream or two, and a contemptuous puff at the difficulty. It then ran rapidly up First street towards Rincon Hill; ascended that street as far as Folsom, though the grade is pretty severe; turned round with ease, and came slowly back to its point of starting and there turned round and backed up its load, consisting of a train of freighted trucks. (Daily Evening Bulletin, 6/13/1860)

These trucks were loaded with pig iron, in order to test the engine’s strength. As soon as they were attached,
there was a scramble among the people to get standing room on the trucks. Not one inch was left unoccupied—and some men and boys were even hanging on to the axles and sides of the conveyance. The Engineer moved his lever, and the wagon started off boldly, and though it evidently felt the immense load—which must have been near 50 tons—it moved along briskly enough for a short way. Then the wheels of the iron laden truck sunk down through the cobble pavement, and soon a heap of sand and stones were piled up in front of those wheels.

The trucks had to be taken off, and the train reassembled some blocks away on the plank road, which was able to support the weight. After pulling the trucks successfully, the locomotive was hitched to a fully-loaded omnibus, which it dragged along at eight miles an hour. The Alta reporter pronounced it a success, while the Bulletin dissented, “for the present, we do not believe that the steam will run horses and mules off of our common roads.”

No collisions were reported during this second trip; however, some houses caught fire on Third street soon after the wagon passed, and some witnesses “averred with great positiveness that it was kindled by a spark from the chimney of the Steam Wagon, but by others this is denied.”

The story of this vehicle, marking San Francisco’s entry into the automotive era, has some resonance with our own time, as autonomous vehicles promise to bring us into a new, third age of the carriage. Although the design of horseless carriages had still to improve dramatically before they would be able to operate effectively in the city, we can already glimpse, with the Vulcan steam wagon, how the city would, in turn, be transformed to accommodate the automobile. Cobble-stone pavement—and even the sturdier planking—would be replaced with asphalt; and rules of street behavior and movement would be rewritten, to prioritize the needs of the heavier, faster vehicles of the auto age.

Ogden & Wilson hoped to sell many more road locomotives, but this was not to be. (Sacramento Daily Union, 1/30/1860).

The fate of the Vulcan steam wagon

Ogden & Wilson, the owners of the Vulcan Iron Works, had caught the auto bug a year earlier, when Wilson, travelling in Europe, had seen an exhbition of Joseph Barran’s new traction engine prototype. He excitedly ordered an engine of this design manufactured, by the Leeds firm of Joseph Witham and Son, and shipped to San Francisco, where it was assembled in the Vulcan foundry. Ogden & Wilson clearly imagined a great future for their import, advertising themselves as “sole agents for the sale of Barran’s Patent Traction Road Locomotive.”

These “road locomotives” were not, in fact, intended for urban use, but for hauling resources extracted from the hinterland, over terrain that animals found difficult. The engine imported from Leeds had been promised to a silver mine in Patagonia, Arizona; another engine, to be built by Vulcan on the same model, was to be sent to the Russian River to haul timber for Alexander Duncan (after whom Duncans Mills is named). This second engine, however, never seems to have been built, and at some point the Patagonia silver mine backed out of the deal for the Leeds engine, which was instead sold to Phineas Banning, impresario of the growing port at San Pedro.

If Banning's name sounds familiar, it is probably because of these dinosaurs near Banning, CA. (Wikimedia)

Banning was a showman, and seems to have bought the steam-wagon as much as a publicity stunt, as for the practical purposes of hauling freight from the port to Los Angeles. Harris Newmark, writing fifty years later, recalled the excitement with which AngeleƱos greeted the news that “The steam-wagon has arrived at San Pedro!” and how they waited, “anxiously, hourly, expecting to see Major Banning heave in sight at the foot of Main Street” in his road locomotive. The enthusiasm was finally punctured with a sad report from San Pedro:
The steam-wagon, we regret to learn, has at last proved a total failure. It was freighted at San Pedro, and on Wednesday morning of this week, set in motion for Los Angeles. The failure took place on the first piece of sandy road encountered. (Los Angeles News, 8/3/1860)

Bannings' base of operations at Wilmington harbor, San Pedro, in 1860. The steam wagon became stuck in the sand only a short distance along the eighteen-mile road to Los Angeles. (California State Library)

In the media, the steam wagon became an object of state-wide ridicule, stranded in the sand near San Pedro. One more attempt appears to have been made to put the engine to use, in the service of agriculture in San Joaquin county; this, however, turned out also to be a failure. In October, 1861, the engine was shipped back to San Francisco and to the Vulcan foundry for a last time, its most likely fate to be scrapped, and its parts used for other machinery.



The Oregon Pony, the oldest West-Coast-built locomotive engine, was manufactured by the Vulcan Iron Works in 1862 for service in Oregon. It can still be seen at the Cascade Locks Historical Museum.



Thursday, March 16, 2017

We need better reporting from NPR about Uber

Here is the rant I just sent to NPR, regarding their recent Marketplace segment, "Why ride sharing companies are absent from SXSW":
As a transportation scholar who has conducted research on e-hailing services, including Uber and Lyft, I was surprised and disappointed to hear Molly Woods’ one-sided reporting from the SXSW conference. Your segment, “Why ride sharing companies are absent from SXSW” is 1) misleading (there are plenty of e-hailing companies in Austin, including both taxicabs and “ridesharing” services), and 2) your segment did not actually address the question of why Uber and Lyft are absent!
Uber and Lyft voluntarily left the city to avoid regulations which the voting public approved of. Regulatory limitations on Uber and Lyft, as well as AirBnB, are based on serious considerations of economic and social welfare—but these were dismissed as “quirky” on NPR, the one network from which we expect a more critical and even-handed perspective, now more than ever.
Just as infuriating were the implications that, for daring to challenge these corporations, Austin is somehow backwards, or non-tech-friendly. While other cities are still stuck with Uber and Lyft, Austin is incubating the next generation of e-hailing services—more responsible, and more accountable than the corporate giants. 
What the world wants to know—and what NPR can more responsibly report on—is how well these new, non-Uber-and-Lyft e-hailing companies are servicing Austin. We all know that companies like Uber are unsustainable. Austin is the place where we see what will happen next—please give us some reporting on that


I normally try to stay away from comments or emails like this, but this time I couldn't help it. I think I showed great restraint by not even asking them why they are still calling it "ridesharing" (though they must know better by now)...

I haven't looked closely at what has been happening in Austin since my early post about "ridesharing" apps swarming into Austin, right after Uber and Lyft left. It would be great to see some real reporting on how the new, local apps are working out. For a good start at this, see this recent article on Shareable.



Sunday, May 29, 2016

The Jitney Stand at 18th and Castro in 1915


Jitneys at 18th and Castro, July 12, 1915. Detail of SFMTA photo U04909. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

On a Monday afternoon, July 12, 1915, United Railroads photographer John Henry Mentz set up his camera on Castro street at 18th and took a photograph of the intersection:

SFMTA Photo U04909. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

He then moved his camera to the north side of the intersection, and took another photo, facing south:

SFMTA Photo U04910. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
Mentz was just interested in the details of the tracks in the middle of the street, but fortunately for us his camera also captured the wealth of street-life that characterized San Francisco in that era. Castro was pretty lively, even 101 years ago:

The jitney stand, as seen from the north. Detail of SFMTA photo U04910. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
There is the jitney stand, of course, which Mentz captured not only from the front (as featured in a previous post) but also seen here from the back, with a slightly different set of cars in it.

A three-wheel curbside gasoline pump selling Red Crown Gasoline for 10 cents. Detail of SFMTA photo U04910.  SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
Yes folks, that is a movable gasoline pump on wheels, which someone has pulled up to the curb at the end of the jitney stop, no doubt to sell gas to the loading jitneys. How safe does that sound?

If you noticed the passenger in the rear jitney pointing off to the side in a previous photo, this is what he appears to be pointing at:

Palm Bar. Detail of SFMTA Photo U04910.  SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
The Palm Bar, apparently attached to Moses Bodes' pool hall, advertises steam beer, "hot lunch," and "Boxing Next Tuesday" — admission, 25 cents.

Marquee of Castro Street Theater, advertising Lois Meredith in "Help Wanted". Detail of SFMTA Photo U04910. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo  

Across the street, the old Castro Theater, at its original location (now Cliff's Variety) was playing the silent film "Help Wanted" starring Lois Meredith.

Zerolene horse truck. Detail of SFMTA Photo U04910. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
Zerolene may have been "the standard oil for motor cars," but it was delivered by horse. Maybe to help prevent explosions?

Detail of SFMTA Photo U04910. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
In the upper stories, windows advertise the offices of a dentist and a surgeon.

Detail of SFMTA photo U04909. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo.
The 8-Market streetcar turns onto Castro, amid horse-drawn wagons, automobiles, laundry trucks, and a horde of jitneys which have been poaching along its line.

Detail of SFMTA Photo U04910. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

Oh yes, and lots of pedestrians. The newsboys hawking their papers in the middle of the street just might be hamming it up for the camera.

Newsboys at 18/Castro, 1915. Detail of SFTMA Photo U04909. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
Detail of SFMTA Photo U04909. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

(For more on San Francisco jitney history, see here).


Saturday, May 21, 2016

Ride-hailing Apps Swarm Into Austin



Uber alternatives are fine with being regulated, and do not use surge pricing.


In the wake of Uber and Lyft huffily leaving Austin, a swarm of lesser-known "ride-hailing" or "soft cab" services are rushing in to fill the void. Unlike the giants Uber and Lyft, these companies seem to be fine with following local regulations. And the big news is: not a single one of these Uber alternatives uses "surge pricing", the dynamic pricing system which Uber and Lyft use to manipulate the market.


Dallas-based GetMe shows an absolutely insane number of cars available on their app. Uber always tried to make their over-saturation less noticeable by limiting the number of visible cars to 8 or so. GetMe shows so many cars available it actually interferes with the screen refreshing rate. It might also be daunting to would-be GetMe drivers -- how easy can it be to make money with this much competition?



Playing the Lyft to GetMe's Uber is Fare, founded in Phoenix. Part of Fare's selling point is that they claim to be friendlier to drivers. They appear to be far, far behind GetMe in terms of drivers available, but that might be a good thing as far as sustainability of the network is concerned.


Back in 2012, when Uber was just a limousine dispatching service, Tickengo was one of the first companies to go the "ridesharing" route. Since rebranding as Wingz, they have focused exclusively on airport rides--until now. Their new "WingzAround" service, available only in Austin, gets back to their roots. It's interesting that, while both Fare and GetMe's apps follow the map-based style which has become the e-hailing standard, Wingz is sticking with a text-based alternative format, as you can see from this screenshot.


Finally, there is Austin's licensed taxi app, Hail A Cab. Unfortunately this app uses a very old-fashioned (circa 2010) style of map-based format in which you can't see the available cabs until after you have ordered one. Nobody likes that, guys. The licensed cab industry in Austin might want to try attracting a more up-to-date taxi app such as Flywheel.

Certainly the time to roll out a competitive alternative is now, while the elephants are out of the room. If any of these smaller, more driver and passenger friendly alternatives can take hold before Uber and Lyft come crawling back, Austin could invent the future of e-hailing: locally regulated, and free of surge-pricing.


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Golden Gate Avenue in 1911

Golden Gate Avenue in 1911. Detail of SFMTA photo U02934 . SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
The past and future of transportation history mingle in this great photo of Golden Gate avenue in 1911, from the SFMTA photo archive. I don't just mean the mix of horse-drawn and motorized vehicles in the street: what's most interesting about this photo is the presence of a livery stable, a full-service garage, and a taxicab company, all in the same shot.

At the center, the Santa Clara Stables, one of the great old livery stables of the city. In the 1800s, if you needed to rent a horse or a carriage, or a place to keep a horse and carriage, this was where you came. Like many livery stables, the Santa Clara also ran a small fleet of hacks. Rebuilt after the fire, in 1911 the Santa Clara only had one more year of existence left before it would be shut down and its inventory sold at auction.

In the foreground can be seen the Mission-style facade of the Golden Gate Garage. This beautiful old garage has been described as "surprisingly lyrical" by Mark Kessler, author of an amazing book on The Early Public Garages of San Francisco. Kessler notes that, by adopting an architectural style associated with Southern Pacific railroad stations, the Golden Gate “relies upon a continuity of imagery to assert that the garage is the successor to the train station, and the car is successor to the train.” More obviously, it was the successor to the livery stable up the street. Boasting a lounge for chauffeurs (waiting around the garage while their employers shopped, dined, etc.), the Golden Gate was also involved in the auto livery business, and at one point housed a taxi service. Now a mere parking garage, the building still stands at 64 Golden Gate, somewhat neglected and under-appreciated, like most old garages.

Alco Taxicab Company, 360 Golden Gate. Detail of SFMTA photo U02934. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo
And in the distance, the sign for the Alco Taxicab Company peeks over a building. This is the kind of cab company that would last out the Twentieth Century, long after livery stables and full-service garages had been forgotten. In this year of 1911, one of Alco's drivers was a young Malcolm Loughead, who would later found the Lockheed corporation with his brother Allen.

(See here for more on livery stables and cab history in San Francisco.)

Alco Taxicab ad, San Francisco Call, 1910. (California Digital Newspaper Collection)


Saturday, March 5, 2016

San Francisco's Early Jitneys

The story of San Francisco's early jitneys is a lot more complicated, and interesting, than the Free-Market fables that are being told about them.

On Fillmore at Sutter in 1920, a jitney driver waits for passengers to cross the street.
Detail of SFMTA photo U06961. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

As I wrote last week, San Francisco’s famous jitney tradition may have just come to an end after a little over 100 years. The timing is ironic: jitneys are being claimed as inspiration by a whole host of new “disruptive” app-enabled transportation companies. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick even proclaimed  his own company as the modern equivalent of the jitneys, which he believes were “regulated completely out of existence” by over-regulation soon after they started. The message: don’t regulate Uber!

The real history of the jitneys is a good deal more complicated than this. It does not fit conveniently into the fantasies of deregulation enthusiasts like Kalanick, but instead illustrates how both regulatory systems and markets (“free” or otherwise) are produced through power struggles between competing interests. Here are a few inconvenient facts about jitney history:

  • Jitneys helped promote the automobilization of city streets.
  • The numbers of early jitneys were unsustainable.
  • Jitneys survived because their drivers unionized. 
  • In an important sense, Uber is more like the old streetcar monopoly, than like the jitney.

We can get a glimpse of this history in some beautiful photographs of early San Francisco jitneys from the SFMTA Photo Archive.

One of the most fascinating things about most of the photos in the MTA's archive is how utterly boring their intended subject matter would be to anyone but the wonkiest transport historian. In most images, the focus is on streetcar tracks before, during, or after repair work.

Streetcar tracks at 18th and Castro. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

But the sides of the frame are filled with the life of the city, captured unintentionally. This photo of a summer afternoon at 18th and Castro in 1915 includes pedestrians, window shoppers, horse-drawn carts, an approaching streetcar, and newsboys hawking papers. This accidental richness reveals the lively street life of the economically diverse, and very pedestrian, city that streetcars, cable cars, and early jitneys served. Most interesting for our purposes is the line of jitneys busily loading passengers:

Jitneys at 18th and Castro, July 1915. Detail of photo U04909 at SFMTA archive.
SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

“Jitneys,” named after the slang term for a nickel, got their start in late 1914 in Los Angeles, where down-on-their-luck auto owners first got the idea of driving along street car routes, giving rides for the same 5-cent price as the streetcar. The idea caught on quickly due to a rise in unemployment that came with the beginning of World War One. Automobile ownership had been expanding rapidly in the previous years, and among the ranks of the first jitney drivers were many recent auto buyers who, having lost their jobs, had to find a way to put their “Can’t af-Fords” to work. Jitneys were on the streets of San Francisco by December 1914, and the idea spread like wildfire through the cities of the West.

The earliest jitney drivers simply put signboards in their windshields indicating a route (in the above photo, “Castro — Ferry”). They followed this route picking up and dropping off passengers along the way. Unlike the streetcar, stuck on its rails, jitney drivers could make detours, go off route to take passengers to their doors, or turn around and reverse direction at will to maximize business. Just like empty taxicabs do today, they mostly followed established streetcar lines, trying to entice waiting passengers. This antagonized the streetcar companies, which complained that they were losing money because jitneys were poaching their riders.


Valencia-Street jitney at Front and Market, 1915. Detail of photo U04980 at SFMTA archive. 
SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

The conflict with streetcars was not the only controversy that assailed the early jitney. As viewers of the famous 1906 film shot from a Market Street cable car can attest, urban street traffic was very different before the ascendancy of the automobile (and even in the 1906 film the number of automobiles is exaggerated by the fact that the same half-dozen or so keep circling the camera). Pedestrians—like this Sam Spade-looking character stepping out across Market in front of a jitney in 1915—shared the streets with vehicles on a much more equal basis than today. To such urban walkers, jitneys could be a menace. Though autos had been on the city streets for over a decade, jitneys brought them out in force, travelling en masse down crowded streets. Jitneys were blamed for a wave of collisions with pedestrians and other vehicles, as a natural consequence of the rising numbers of automobiles on the streets, with a lot of inexperienced, amateur drivers at the wheel.

(A few seconds of footage of jitneys driving on Market in 1915 can be seen in the film "Mabel and Fatty Viewing the World's Fair at San Francisco," starting at 5:21).

Jitneys in traffic at 6th and Market, 1916. Detail of photo U05299 at SFMTA archive. 
SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

Jitneys were just as popular with riders, however, as they were dangerous for pedestrians. For the same price as a streetcar, you could get a much faster and more comfortable ride. For many riders, this was their first experience riding in an automobile, which had formerly been a privilege of the rich. Jitneys were said to spread the automobile bug—after all, anyone could join the ranks of auto owners by buying a used car and driving it as a jitney!

Jitneys helped promote the automobilization of city streets. Like TNCs today, they competed directly with fixed-route transit, and possibly even with walking, by making short, quick trips by auto convenient and cheap. They spread the desire for automobiles, and helped normalize the image of city streets filled with cars, heralding the day when urban pedestrians would be relegated to sidewalks, or derided as “jaywalkers.”

Like modern TNCs, the ad-hoc character of jitneys could cause confusion. Remember all the stories about people jumping into a random Prius on the assumption it was the Uber they ordered? This Popular Mechanics story from 1915 will sound familiar:


"Not A Jitney" placards. From Popular Mechanics, June 1915.

San Francisco has become so thoroughly infested with “jitney busses” that drivers of private cars are continually having to explain to would-be passengers that their machines are not for hire. Hundreds of these cars competing with the traction lines are plying the streets of the city. Several motor-car owners, tiring of being frequently mistaken for “jitney” drivers, have labeled their machines with signs reading, “NOT a Jitney,” the “not” being emphasized by an encircling ring. This placard is placed on the windshield, or in some other position where it is plainly visible to the jitney-hunting public. (Popular Mechanics Magazine, 23:6, June 1915, p. 839).

(And as if on cue, here is a new story about someone getting into the wrong car...)

The numbers of early jitneys were unsustainable. Wave after wave of drivers swarmed onto the streets with dreams of making money with jitneys, only to be driven out of business by the oversupply of drivers and the unexpected costs of driving a personal vehicle as a bus. This is eerily similar to Uber’s labor situation today (though it is doubtful that early jitney drivers ever commuted from Stockton or slept in the Safeway parking lot). For a while, each new wave of jitney drivers going out of business was replaced by new drivers jumping into the game, but this couldn’t continue forever.

Economic pressures led drivers to defer maintenance, and to speed and compete in the quest for passengers. These in turn led to a decline in the reputation of the jitney. This might already be implied in Charlie Chaplin's 1915 film A Jitney Elopement, filmed in San Francisco. The little two-seater Chaplin drives in the film would have been no use as a jitney, but it does need to be kick-started a few times, and tears through the city in a high-speed chase.

New regulations put restrictions on jitneys, in part to protect the streetcar industry, but also to protect the safety of passengers and pedestrians. Accused of overcrowding Market street, and undermining the profitability of streetcar lines, the jitneys were pushed off Market to Mission. The results were lauded by the San Francisco Call, but the Jitney Weekly, a trade publication of the Jitney Bus Operators’ Union, portrayed it as class warfare:

Cartoon protesting the limitation of jitneys to Mission Street. Jitney Weekly, September 9, 1916.
Jitneys survived because their drivers unionized. To save their industry, jitney drivers formed associations and unions. In San Francisco, the Jitney Bus Operators’ Union affiliated with the Teamsters and sought to improve the jitney industry’s reputation and viability by promoting moderate regulations (insurance requirements, and limits on numbers of drivers) that would stabilize the industry and head off attempts to quash jitneys altogether.

San Francisco Values: The sign on a jitney at Sutter and Fillmore in 1920 announces that a "Union Driver" is at the wheel. Higher on the windshield, that is no "Lyft" or "Uber" sign, but the Teamsters logo. Detail of photo U06961 at SFMTA archive. SFMTA Photo | sfmta.com/photo

San Francisco was a stronghold of the labor movement, and unionizing was an obvious step for San Francisco’s jitney drivers. Being unionized was seen as a necessary sign of working-class respectability. Blue-collar jitney riders would have largely been union members and supporters, and many people made a point of not patronizing anti-union establishments. One of the reasons San Franciscans preferred jitneys to streetcars in the first place was because so many of them hated—absolutely hated—the United Railroads, which was the dominant streetcar company before the growth of Muni. The URR had a long history of bloody confrontations with workers, and had faced down a series of very public, and popularly supported, strikes. As the URR was also the jitney drivers’ strongest political opponent, unionizing was a good way for jitney drivers to gain public support and good will.

Which leads to a significant point of contrast between TNCs and jitneys: in an important sense, Uber is more like the old streetcar monopoly, than like the jitney.

Whereas jitney drivers were self-organized, Uber operates through a top-down centralized network controlling information, pricing, and access. The jitney expansion was unplanned; Uber hired teams of lawyers before a single car ever hit the street. Jitneys were peer-to-peer; Uber only pretends to be. Uber has also taken an openly anti-union stance, much like the URR of yore, and has even gone so far as to invest money in the development of driverless cars, in the hope of doing away with drivers altogether.

Could Uber drivers put together an actual peer-to-peer network that could challenge Uber on its own turf—much like the jitney drivers challenged the URR? Unfortunately, any such attempt would face massive difficulties simply because of the size of the incumbent, Uber. While the URR’s monopoly was based on the physical control of streetcar tracks, Uber’s is based on the network effect: smaller networks just can’t compete. And like the URR, Uber is willing and able to spend a lot of money trying to drive competitors out of business, and to stop unionization. Though the mechanisms by which the URR and Uber achieved monopoly are different, the effect of de facto spatial control is substantially the same.


The Jitney Matures

Through the teens there was a long struggle over just who would regulate the jitney industry, and how. Though their numbers never returned to 1915-1916 levels, San Francisco jitneys survived, owing to a good extent to the organizing efforts of the early jitney unions. They became a San Francisco institution: Jack Kerouac described his experience riding in a Mission Street jitney in On The Road:

 She let me take a shower and shave, and then I said good-by and took the bags downstairs and hailed a Frisco taxi-jitney, which was like an ordinary taxi that ran a regular route and you could hail it from any corner and ride to any corner you want for about fifteen cents, cramped in with other passengers like on a bus, but talking and telling jokes like in a private car. Mission Street that last day in Frisco was a great riot of construction work, children playing, whooping Negroes coming home from work, dust, excitement, the great buzzing and vibrating hum of what is really America’s most excited city—and overhead the pure blue sky and the joy of the foggy sea that always rolls in at night to make everybody hungry for food and further excitement. (On the Road, p. 218)

Jitney 97 in 2008. Creative Commons photo by Chris (Flickr).

As documented by the late automotive historian (and San Francisco taxi driver) Mike Sealey, San Francisco’s jitneys got bigger over the years, following a pattern seen in other cities as well (such as with Mexico City’s peseros). Long-wheelbase limousines were used for many years, followed by vans. Jesus Losa, the city’s last jitney driver, drove 23- and 25-passenger buses on his route between 4th and Market and Caltrain. It is no accident that jitneys tend, over time, to look more and more like buses: though there was no love lost between the streetcar and the jitney, modern motorized bus systems carry the dna of both.

San Francisco’s jitney industry entered a terminal decline in the 1970s, and all but expired in the 1980s. Several culprits can be blamed: competition from BART; insurance expenses; and new laws forbidding the transferal of permits. Another contributing factor seems to have been disorganization and hostility among the city’s jitney drivers, which prevented them from uniting to protect their industry.

Until January 20, 2016, Jitney 97, piloted by Jesus Losa, carried on the tradition alone. Uber, far from picking up the torch, may have helped drive the last real jitney out of business.


Thanks to Jesus Losa for sharing his story. Thanks also to Katherine Guyon and others at the SFMTA photo archive for enthusiastic help and great work. The archive is a great resource and everyone interested in San Francisco history should check it out at sfmta.photoshelter.com.



Wednesday, March 2, 2016

San Francisco's Last Jitney Has Been Driven Out Of Business

While pundits and CEOs spout platitudes about jitneys, San Francisco’s last real jitney has been driven out of business.

Real San Francisco: Jitney 97 in groovier times. Creative Commons photo by Mark Wahl (Flickr).

RIP: The San Francisco Jitney, 1914-2016

On January 20, 2016, San Francisco’s last jitney ceased operation. Strangely, there was no media fanfare or lament, even though jitneys are frequently in the news—not real jitneys, mind you, but the jitneys of folklore. Jitneys are being claimed as ancestors by all sorts of new “disruptive” modes of transit—including Uber, Lyft, Leap, and (more plausibly) Chariot. Yet while jitneys are being celebrated in legend, the last real jitney quietly expires.

Jesus Losa, operator of Jitney 97, blames operating expenses and a decline in passengers for his troubles. He also tells a shocking tale of harassment by parking officials around Caltrain, racking up $10,000 in tickets, even though his is not a private vehicle, but a licensed San Francisco jitney. It’s as if a Muni bus were ticketed each time it stopped in a bus zone.

This harassment has also cost him passengers. Losa’s loading zone at Caltrain was moved far from the entrance, to the white-curb zone behind the taxi stand on Townsend—where, he says, passengers have trouble finding him. On top of this, parking officers, once again, ticket him if he stands in this zone for more than five minutes, even though he drives a public jitney, not a private vehicle, and often needs more time to fill his 23-seat bus with passengers walking over from the Caltrain entrance.

Jitneys (technically: semi-fixed route shared vehicles for hire) first hit the streets of San Francisco just over a hundred years ago, in late 1914. Their fortunes waxed and waned until the 1970s, when a combination of competition from the newly-built BART system, increased insurance costs, and changes in licensing rules pushed them into a decline. Losa started driving his jitney in 1972. Since 1985, his jitney, number 97, has been the only remaining one in operation in San Francisco.


Urban Legend

Just under a month after Losa stopped driving, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick told a story about jitneys at the 2016 TED talks in Vancouver. (The presence of the CEOs of Uber and AirBnB at the once-progressive TED talks led to some controversy, and the speculation that “we have reached peak TED”). The version of the jitney story that Kalanick told is one that has been tossed around by free-market apologists for the last few decades: the jitney was a disruptive transit innovation that moved people in shared vehicles instead of private ones; this innovation, despite being popular, was quickly quashed by the streetcar lobby. Jitneys, according to this story, were a long-ago innovation ahead of their time. They are claimed as the inspiration for the new “ridesharing” services like Uber, Lyft, etc, and serve as a lesson about the negative consequences of over-regulation.

There are several problems with this story—not the least being that jitneys did not disappear, but survived (almost) up to the present, precisely in those places (such as San Francisco) where they were regulated. The real history is a lot more complicated than Kalanick’s neoliberal fable (I’m planning to write about some of this history in an upcoming post). As far as the demise of jitney 97 is concerned, regulators do not look innocent—but neither does Uber.

While Losa was pushed to the back of the line on Townsend, Uber and Lyft drivers (as documented by Kelly Dessaint) drive right up to the front, using a zone officially reserved for Muni and bikesharing. Mind you, they can get $288 tickets for stopping there! But this doesn’t stop passengers from hailing there. In fact, Uber’s passenger app encourages them to do so, indicating this as a “Suggested Pickup Point.”

The Uber app encourages Caltrain passengers to hail from a "suggested pickup point" on Townsend, where drivers risk a $288 ticket.

It is no concern of Uber’s whether neophytes among its rapidly turning-over horde of expendable drivers get stung by these tickets. Any drivers who wise up and learn to avoid picking up there are quickly replaced by clueless new recruits. So as long as Uber drivers continue to spawn at a high enough rate that they can throw themselves against the bus stop like wave after wave of kamikazes, Uber can continue to service passengers right at the Caltrain entrance. The rules are just different when you're as big as Uber.


Thrown Under The Bus

While they try to claim its heritage, Lyft and Uber are no replacement for the jitney. A Lyft Line or Uber Pool trip between Caltrain and Fourth and Market (Losa’s route) costs about $5, over twice the jitney fare, which is tied to the rate charged by Muni. Lyft Line and Uber Pool carry between one and four passengers per trip; Jitney 97 had seats for 23. Which means that, at their most efficient, it still takes more than five TNC cars to carry the capacity of the last jitney. And while Losa served the streets of San Francisco for 44 years, the typical Uber driver is lucky to last six months.

It is powerfully ironic that the last public, licensed jitney has been driven out of business, even while the city cuts deals with Silicon Valley corporations to allow private tech shuttles to use the city’s bus stops. But sadly, it isn’t really surprising that the powerful get their way while the little guy gets squeezed out. As for Losa, he says his plan now is to relax, and he doubts he will be able to get back in business. When I ask him about getting some journalists interested in telling his story, he laughs, and is skeptical that it will do any good.

Nevertheless, I’m writing this post in the hope that some journalist (a real one, not the writer of some dorky blog about “taxicab subjects”) will pick up Losa’s story. It deserves to be heard.


Sunday, September 20, 2015

Sidecar, the MySpace of Ridesharing


During Friday morning rush hour, only one Sidecar is available in all of San Francisco.

Sidecar, which once had the largest network of “ridesharing” vehicles in San Francisco, is now barely on the map.

When I was conducting interviews in 2012 and 2013 with drivers for the brand-new app-based ridesharing services Sidecar, Lyft, and Tickengo, Sidecar was the largest and busiest of the three. Back then, all three companies (along with Uber, which at that time dispatched only licensed limousines and taxicabs), were under a cease-and-desist order from the state Public Utilities Commission. Lyft, in those early days, kept a lid on the number of drivers and passengers (and even shut down its app at night); Tickengo offered only prearranged, as opposed to on-demand, rides. That left Sidecar as the first “ridesharing” app with a network of drivers large enough to compete effectively with the city's licensed cab fleets.

What a difference a few years make. Uber, after initially accusing Sidecar and the rest of “regulatory arbitrage,” changed its mind and rebranded its mid-range UberX service into what would become the largest and most well-known “ridesharing” service. Lyft expanded, ditching its controversial mustaches along the way. Other startups joined the mix, and at one point there were at least six companies offering “ridesharing” service in San Francisco: Hitch, Lyft, Sidecar, Summon/InstantCab, UberX,  and Wingz/Tickengo.

But today, after “pivoting” out of the crowded ridesharing space into the at-least-as-crowded courier/delivery space, Sidecar’s passenger app invites the sort of “abandoned amusement park” metaphor once reserved for MySpace.

Over three days, 9 was the largest number of Sidecars I could find onscreen at one time.

Most of the time, Sidecar showed between one and three cars available throughout the city.

Like MySpace, Sidecar is still around. They still describe "ridesharing" as their business model; there just aren't very many Sidecars available for giving rides. And of course, the app screen only reveals so much. How many drivers are off the screen, giving deliveries or rides? How many of the drivers that we do see are Uber and Lyft drivers who, already running both of those apps at once, are still occasionally turning on Sidecar as a third option? And are they finding any business when they do?

Sidecar was not the first of San Francisco’s ridesharing services to bow out of the market. Tickengo changed its name to Wingz, and has scaled down to prearranged airport rides. 


The Hitch app has been defunct since the company's acquisition by Lyft.

Hitch was acquired by Lyft in 2014.

Summon's app hasn't shown any available cars for months.

The app for Summon (originally InstantCab), which dispatched both licensed cabs and “community drivers,” consistently shows no available drivers.

It is interesting that, despite predictions about the collapse of the licensed cab industry, it is the field of "ridesharing" services which has, so far, been dramatically shrinking.


Flywheel is the dominant taxi-hailing app in San Francisco.