Skip to main content

A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services

Abstract

There are a number of disruptive mobility services that are increasingly finding their way into the marketplace. Two key examples of such services are car-sharing services and ride-sourcing services. In an effort to better understand the influence of various exogenous socio-economic and demographic variables on the frequency of use of ride-sourcing and car-sharing services, this paper presents a bivariate ordered probit model estimated on a survey data set derived from the 2014–2015 Puget Sound Regional Travel Study. Model estimation results show that users of these services tend to be young, well-educated, higher-income, working individuals residing in higher-density areas. There are significant interaction effects reflecting the influence of children and the built environment on disruptive mobility service usage. The model developed in this paper provides key insights into factors affecting market penetration of these services, and can be integrated in larger travel forecasting model systems to better predict the adoption and use of mobility-on-demand services.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Baptista, P., Melo, S., Rolim, C.: Energy, environmental and mobility impacts of car-sharing systems. Empirical results from Lisbon, Portugal. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 111, 28–37 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bialik, C., Flowers, A., Fischer-Baum, R., Mehta, D.: Uber is serving New York’s outer boroughs more than Taxis are. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uber-is-serving-new-yorks-outer-boroughs-more-than-taxis-are/ (2015). Accessed 10 July 2016

  3. Buhr, S.: Lyft, now worth $5.5 billion, hops into the autonomous car race with general motors. https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/04/lyft-now-worth-5-5-billion-plans-to-get-into-the-autonomous-car-race-with-general-motors/ (2016). Accessed 10 July 2016

  4. Clewlow, R.R.: Carsharing and sustainable travel behavior: results from the San Francisco bay area. Transp. Policy 51, 158–164 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Coll, M.H., Vandersmissen, M.H., Thériault, M.: Modeling spatio-temporal diffusion of carsharing membership in Québec City. J. Transp. Geogr. 38, 22–37 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costain, C., Ardron, C., Habib, K.N.: Synopsis of users’ behaviour of a carsharing program: a case study in Toronto. Transp. Res. Part A 46(3), 421–434 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dias, F.F., Lavieri, P., Garikapati, V.M., Astroza, S., Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R.: A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services: online supplement. http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/ABSTRACTS/Carsharing/online_supplement.pdf (2016)

  8. Efthymiou, D., Antoniou, C., Waddell, P.: Factors Affecting the adoption of vehicle sharing systems by young drivers. Transp. Policy 29, 64–73 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Emmerink, R.H., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., Van Ommeren, J.N.: Variable message signs and radio traffic information: an integrated empirical analysis of drivers’ route choice behaviour. Transp. Res. Part A 30(2), 135–153 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ferdous, N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C.R., Meloni, I.: A multivariate ordered-response model system for adults’ weekday activity episode generation by activity purpose and social context. Transp. Res. Part B 44(8), 922–943 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Firnkorn, J.: Triangulation of two methods measuring the impacts of a free-floating carsharing system in Germany. Transp. Res. Part A 46(10), 1654–1672 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Firnkorn, J., Müller, M.: What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecol. Econ. 70(8), 1519–1528 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lyft.: Cities We’re In. https://www.lyft.com/cities (2016). Accessed 10 July 2016

  14. Martin, E.W., Shaheen, S.A.: Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 12(4), 1074–1086 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Morning Consult.: National Tracking Poll #150505—June 29–31. https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150505_crosstabs_mc_v2_AD.pdf (2015). Accessed 12 July 2016

  16. PSRC.: Puget Sound Regional Travel Study—report: 2015 Household Travel Survey. http://www.psrc.org/assets/14106/2015-Household-Survey-Tech-Report.pdf (2015). Accessed 12 July 2016

  17. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. SFMTA.: Travel Decisions Survey 2014—summary report. https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports/2015/Travel%20Decision%20Survey%202014%20Summary%20Report.pdf (2014). Accessed 12 July 2016

  19. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chung, M.: North American carsharing: 10-year retrospective. Transp. Res. Record J. Transp. Res. Board 2110, 35–44 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shaheen, S.A.: Mobility and the sharing economy. Transp. Policy 51, 141–142 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, A.: Shared, collaborative and on demand: the new digital economy. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/the-new-digital-economy/ (2016). Accessed 15 July 2016

  22. Somerville, H.: Uber reaches 2 billion rides six months after hitting its first billion. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-rides-idUSKCN0ZY1T8 (2016). Accessed 15 July 2016

  23. Viechnicki, P., Khuperkar, A., Fishman, T.D., Eggers, W.D.: Smart mobility collection. http://dupress.com/articles/smart-mobility-trends-study-findings/?coll=12925 (2015). Accessed 18 July 2015

  24. Waheed, S., Herrera, L., Ritoper, S., Mehta, J., Romero, H., Narro, V.: Ridesharing or ridestealing? Changes in taxi ridership and revenue in Los Angeles 2009–2014. http://www.irle.ucla.edu/publications/documents/Taxi-Policy-Brief.pdf (2015). Accessed 15 July 2016

  25. Zoepf, S.M., Keith, D.R.: User decision-making and technology choices in the us carsharing market. Transp. Policy 51, 150–157 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Data-Supported Transportation Operations and Planning (D-STOP) Tier 1 University Transportation Center (Grant No. DTRT13-G-UTC58). The last author would like to acknowledge support from a Humboldt Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. The authors are grateful to Mr. Neil Kilgren of the Puget Sound Regional Council for providing the data used in this research study, to Lisa Macias for her help in formatting this document, and to four anonymous referees who provided useful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandra R. Bhat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dias, F.F., Lavieri, P.S., Garikapati, V.M. et al. A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation 44, 1307–1323 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9797-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ride-sourcing services
  • Car-sharing services
  • Bivariate ordered probit model
  • Market adoption and use of disruptive mobility services
  • Travel demand forecasting