The problem isn't solely other cars, Ubers or any other scapegoats; it's the layout of American cities making MOST of them purposefully unwalkable and the destruction/atrophy of public transportation, leading to long commutes and gridlock. Recall that the auto makers bought/legislated their way to destroy an once vibrant local tram infrastructure in America. One "quick-fix panacea solution" isn't going to do much; it's going to take a concerted effort of many, integrated, holistic solutions to make things better.

There is no land-use issue that can be fixed by transportation but neither NYC nor SF has this problem. Their problems are entirely solvable by transportation policy alone.

NYC did solve this problem and then let its amazing system atrophy over the years (though I still give it credit for being 24/7). Its original sin is that the subway was built to get people in and out of Manhattan so parts of Brooklyn and Queens are in dead zones only serviceable by bus or car (to say nothing of Staten Island) and it's nearly impossible to create new track these days. NYC as a whole would benefit from more point to point connection in the outer boroughs instead of hub-and-spoke through Manhattan.

SF and the broader Bay Area transit policy make zero sense to me.

It will be faster but still annoyingly slow even if you kept all the cars off the bus lanes where they don't belong, or even removed them from the streets altogether. Can't really go fast with a bus without running over pedestrians at every intersection. Good public transit has dedicated rights of way.

I'm also curious how you think people from Manteca should be commuting to the city.

I don’t think they should be. _That_ is a land use problem.