Skip to main content
Log in

Socioeconomic and usage characteristics of transportation network company (TNC) riders

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The widespread adoption of smartphones followed by an emergence of transportation network companies (TNC) have influenced the way individuals travel. The authors use the 2017 National Household Travel Survey to explore socioeconomic, frequency of use, and spatial characteristics associated with TNC users. The results indicate that TNC riders tend to be younger, earn higher incomes, have higher levels of education, and are more likely to reside in urban areas compared to the aggregate United States population. Of the TNC users, 60% hailed a ride three times or less in the previous month, indicating that TNC services are primarily used for special occasions. TNC users use public transit at higher rates and own fewer vehicles compared to the aggregate United States population. In fact, the TNC user population reported similar frequencies of use for both TNC services and public transit during the previous month. Approximately 40% of TNC users reside in regions with population densities greater than 10, 000 persons per square mile compared to only 15% for non-TNC users. Lastly, reported use of public transit for TNC users living in large cities (> 1 million) with access to heavy rail was almost three times greater when compared to similar sized cities without heavy rail. The average monthly frequency of TNC use was also elevated when heavy rail was present.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Large” refers to MSAs with populations greater than the median population while “small” refers to MSAs with populations less than the median population

  2. 18 years of age is the minimum passenger age to use TNC services such as Uber and Lyft

  3. Urban regions are defined as areas with a density centile score between 75–99. 94% of urban areas in the NHTS fall within this range.

  4. In the 2017 NHTS, 14 MSAs have populations greater than one million residents and have access to heavy rail (Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Providence, Riverside San Francisco, San Jose and Washington D.C.).

  5. Second cities are population centers and surrounding communities surrounding major metropolitan areas.

References

  • Associated Press: Uber and Lyft return to Austin after Texas law kills the city’s figerprint rule (2017). https://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-lyft-austin-20170530-story.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2018

  • Babar, Y., Burtch, G.: Examining the Impact of Ridehailing Services on Public Transit Use. SSRN (2017)

  • Brown, A.: Ridehail Revolution: Ridehail Travel and Equity in Los Angeles, PhD thesis (2018)

  • Campbell, J.: Uber, Lyft now available: What we know now (2017). https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2017/06/27/uber-lyft-launch-thursday/103237788/. Accessed 12 Nov 2018

  • Clewlow, R.R., Mishra, G.S.: Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States, Technical Report October, UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (2017)

  • Conway, M., Salon, D., King, D.: Trends in Taxi Use and the Advent of Ridehailing, 1995–2017: evidence from the US national household travel survey. Urban Sci. 2, 79 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, F.F., Lavieri, P.S., 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. Transportation 44, 1307–1323 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglass, J.: Bill would allow Uber, Lyft to operate statewide in Oregon (2017). https://katu.com/news/local/bill-would-allow-uber-lyft-to-operate-statewide-in-oregon. Accessed 12 Nov 2018

  • Feigon, S., Murphy, C.: Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit, Technical report, Shared Use Mobility Center (2016)

  • Feigon, S., Murphy, C.: Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit, Shared Mobility, and Personal Automobiles, Technical report, Shared Use Mobility Center (2018)

  • Grosse-Ophoff, A., Hauser, S., Heineke, K., Moller, T.: How shared mobility will change the automotive industry (2017). https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/how-shared-mobility-will-change-the-automotive-industry. Accessed 27 June 2018

  • Hall, J.D., Price, J., Palsson, C.: Is Uber a substitute or complement to public transit? J. Urban Econ. 108, 1–19 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, R., Simek, C., Fabusuyi, T., Di, X., Chen, X.: Measuring the Impact of an Unanticipated Disruption of Uber/Lyft in Austin, TX. SSRN (2017)

  • Hawkings, A.: Uber covers 75 percent of the US, but getting to 100 will be really hard (2015). https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/23/9603324/uber-coverage-rural-areas-dominance-plan. Accessed 12 Nov 2018

  • Kortum, K., Machemehl, R.: Free-Floating Carsharing Systems: Innovations in Membership Prediction, Mode Share, and Vehicle Allocation Optimization Methodologies, Technical report (2012)

  • Lavieri, P.S., Dias, F.F., Juri, N.R., Kuhr, J., Bhat, C.R.: A Model of Ridesourcing Demand Generation and Distribution. Transportation Research Record (April) (2018)

  • Lewis, E., MacKenzie, D.: UberHOP in Seattle: who, why, and how?, Transportation Research Record (2017)

  • Mucci, R.: Transportation Network Companies: Influencers of Transit Ridership Trends, Ph.D. thesis (2017)

  • Muller, J., Schmoeller, S., Giesel, F.: Identifying Users and Use of (Electric-) Free-Floating Carsharing in Berlin and Munich. In: IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, pp. 2568–2573. (2015)

  • Murphy, C.: Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit, Technical Report March (2016)

  • Pisarski, A.: Commuting in America III, Technical report (2006)

  • Polzin, S.E.: Implications to Public Transportation of Automated or Connected Vehicles, Technical Report November, National Center for Transit Research (2016)

  • Pucher, J., Renne, J.: Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transp. Q. 57(3), 49–77 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sadowsky, N., Nelson, E.: The Impact of Ride-Hailing Services on Public Transportation Use: A Discontinuity Regression Analysis (2017). https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/econpapers/13/. Accessed 06 Nov 2018

  • Schaller, B.: Second Chances, Regulation and Deregulation of Taxi and For-Hire Ride Services. TR News 43–48 (2018a)

  • Schaller, B.: The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities, Technical report (2018b)

  • Sperling, D.: Three Revolutions; Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future (2018)

  • Tyndall, J.: Where no cars go: Free-floating carshare and inequality of access. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11(6), 433–442 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1266425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Transportation: 2017 NHTS Data User Guide, Technical report, Federal Highway Administration (2018). http://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017UsersGuide.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the US DOT Grant No. 69A3551747111 through Mobility21, a University Transportation Center, with the goal of improving mobility of goods and services. The authors would like thank Carnegie Mellon’s Traffic21 Institute for their support throughout this project. The authors take full responsibility for all errors or opinions expressed herein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

R Grahn: Literature search and review, study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of results, manuscript preparation. CD Harper: Content planning, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation. C Hendrickson: Study design and conception, interpretation of results. HS Matthews: Interpretation of results. Z Qian: Interpretation of results

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rick Grahn.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grahn, R., Harper, C.D., Hendrickson, C. et al. Socioeconomic and usage characteristics of transportation network company (TNC) riders. Transportation 47, 3047–3067 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-09989-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-09989-3

Keywords

Navigation