Advertisement

The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled

  • Alejandro Henao
  • Wesley E. Marshall
Article

Abstract

Ride-haling such as Uber and Lyft are changing the ways people travel. Despite widespread claims that these services help reduce driving, there is little research on this topic. This research paper uses a quasi-natural experiment in the Denver, Colorado, region to analyze basic impacts of ride-hailing on transportation efficiency in terms of deadheading, vehicle occupancy, mode replacement, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Realizing the difficulty in obtaining data directly from Uber and Lyft, we designed a quasi-natural experiment—by one of the authors driving for both companies—to collect primary data. This experiment uses an ethnographic and survey-based approach that allows the authors to gain access to exclusive data and real-time passenger feedback. The dataset includes actual travel attributes from 416 ride-hailing rides—Lyft, UberX, LyftLine, and UberPool—and travel behavior and socio-demographics from 311 passenger surveys. For this study, the conservative (lower end) percentage of deadheading miles from ride-hailing is 40.8%. The average vehicle occupancy is 1.4 passengers per ride, while the distance weighted vehicle occupancy is 1.3 without accounting for deadheading and 0.8 when accounting deadheading. When accounting for mode replacement and issues such as driver deadheading, we estimate that ride-hailing leads to approximately 83.5% more VMT than would have been driven had ride-hailing not existed. Although our data collection focused on the Denver region, these results provide insight into the impacts of ride-hailing.

Keywords

Ride-hailing Ridesourcing TNC Lyft Uber Deadheading Vehicle occupancy Mode replacement VMT Vehicle miles traveled 

References

  1. Anderson, D.N.: “Not just a taxi”? For-profit ridesharing, driver strategies, and VMT. Transportation 41(5), 1099–1117 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9531-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bialick, A.: Lyft and uber won’t release data to shed light on how they affect traffic. In: StreetsBlogSF. (2015)Google Scholar
  3. Bialik, C., Flowers, A., Fischer-Baum, R., Mehta, D.: Uber is serving new york’s outer boroughs more than taxis are. In: FiveThirtyEight. (2015)Google Scholar
  4. Boland, H.: Uber seeking billion-dollar loan. In: The Telegraph. (2018)Google Scholar
  5. Castiglione, J., Chang, T., Cooper, D., Hobson, J., Logan, W., Young, E., Charlton, B., Wilson, C., Mislove, A., Chen, L., Jiang, S.: TNCs today: a profile of San Francisco transportation network company activity. In: SFCTA, (2017)Google Scholar
  6. Chen, L., Mislove, A., Wilson, C.: Peeking beneath the hood of uber. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference 2015, pp. 495–508. ACMGoogle Scholar
  7. Clewlow, R.R., Mishra, G.S.: Disruptive transportation: the adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hailing in the United States. In. University of California Davis, (2017)Google Scholar
  8. CommonWealth.: Uber versus the T. In: CommonWealth Magazine. (2018)Google Scholar
  9. Cramer, J., Krueger, A.B.: Disruptive change in the taxi business: the case of Uber. Am. Econ. Rev. 106(5), 177–182 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiegerman, S.: Google’s parent company leads $1 billion investment in Lyft. In: CNN. (2017)Google Scholar
  11. Fischer-Baum, R., Bialik, C.: Uber is taking millions of manhattan rides away from taxis. FiveThirtyEight (2015)Google Scholar
  12. Flegenheimer, M., Fitzsimmons, E.: City Hall and uber clash in struggle over New York streets. In: The New York Times. New York (2015)Google Scholar
  13. Goddin, P.: Redefining Uber: Why the Term Rideshare Doesn’t Fit. (2014)Google Scholar
  14. Grabar, H.: They can just take an uber. In: Slate. (2016)Google Scholar
  15. Hampshire, R.C., Simek, C., Fabusuyi, T., Di, X., Chen, X.: Measuring the Impact of an Unanticipated Suspension of Ride-Sourcing in Austin, Texas. (2017)Google Scholar
  16. Hawkins, A.J.: Ford and Lyft will work together to deploy autonomous cars. In: The Verge. (2017a)Google Scholar
  17. Hawkins, A.J.: Uber teams up with Mercedes-Benz’s parent company on self-driving cars. In: The Verge. (2017b)Google Scholar
  18. Henao, A.: Impacts of Ridesourcing—Lyft and Uber—on Transportation Including VMT, Mode Replacement, Parking, and Travel Behavior. University of Colorado at Denver (2017)Google Scholar
  19. Henao, A., Marshall, W.: A Framework for Understanding the Impacts of Ridesourcing on Transportation. In: Meyer, G., Shaheen, S. (eds.) Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative Transportation on Cities, pp. 197–209. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holt, R., Macdonald, A., Gore-Coty, P.: 5 Billion trips. In: Uber Newsroom. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/5billion-2/ (2017)
  21. Isaac, M.: Lyft and Waymo reach deal to collaborate on self-driving cars. In: The New York Times. (2017)Google Scholar
  22. Lawler, R.: Lyft-Off: Zimride’s long road to overnight success. In: TechCrunch. (2014)Google Scholar
  23. Levitt, S.: Why Uber Is an Economist’s Dream. In: Dubner, S.J. (ed.) Freakonomics. (2016)Google Scholar
  24. Loizos, C.: As Uber’s value slips on the secondary market, Lyft’s is rising. In: Techcrunch. (2017)Google Scholar
  25. Lyft Blog.: Five days. Six cities. A Lyft line first. In., vol. April 5, 2016. (2016)Google Scholar
  26. Marshall, W.E., Henao, A.: The shock heard round the suburbs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2531, 63–75 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2531-08 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McAlone, N.: Here’s how Uber got its start and grew to become the most valuable startup in the world. In: Business Insider. (2015)Google Scholar
  28. Murphy, C.: Shared mobility and the transformation of public transit. Shared-Use Mobility Center (2016)Google Scholar
  29. Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., Shaheen, S.: Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp. Policy 45, 168–178 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. RMI Outlet.: Does Lyft Alleviate City Traffic? In., vol. Jan 4, 2018. (2018)Google Scholar
  31. Rodriguez, J.F.: SF blasts Uber, Lyft for downtown traffic congestion. In: SFExaminer, San Francisco. (2016)Google Scholar
  32. Scrutton, A.: Volvo and Uber team up to develop self-driving cars. In: Reuters. (2016)Google Scholar
  33. Silver, N., Fischer-Baum, R.: Public transit should be uber’s new best friend. FiveThirtyEight (2015)Google Scholar
  34. Somerville, H.: Uber reaches 2 billion rides six months after hitting its first billion. In: Reuters. (2016)Google Scholar
  35. Truong, L., Marshall, W.: Are park-and-rides saving the environment or just saving parking costs? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2419, 109–117 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2419-11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Uber Newsroom.: Announcing UberPool. In., vol. August 5, 2014. (2014)Google Scholar
  37. Uber Newsroom.: uberPOOL: Share your ride and save. In. (2016)Google Scholar
  38. Vuong, A.: Colorado first to authorize Lyft and Uber’s ridesharing services. In: DenverPost. (2014)Google Scholar
  39. Warzel, C.: Let’s All Join The AP Stylebook In Killing The Term “Ride-Sharing”. (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Transportation CenterNational Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)GoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations