Elsevier

Transport Policy

Volume 45, January 2016, Pages 168-178
Transport Policy

Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We report findings from a survey of ridesourcing (Uber/Lyft/Sidecar) users.

  • Compared with taxis, ridesourcing wait times are shorter and more reliable.

  • At least half of ridesourcing trips replaced modes other than taxi.

Abstract

In this study, we present exploratory evidence of how “ridesourcing” services (app-based, on-demand ride services like Uber and Lyft) are used in San Francisco. We explore who uses ridesourcing and for what reasons, how the ridesourcing market compares to that of traditional taxis, and how ridesourcing impacts the use of public transit and overall vehicle travel. In spring 2014, 380 completed intercept surveys were collected from three ridesourcing “hot spots” in San Francisco. We compare survey results with matched-pair taxi trip data and results of a previous taxi user survey. We also compare travel times for ridesourcing and taxis with those for public transit. The findings indicate that, despite many similarities, taxis and ridesourcing differ in user characteristics, wait times, and trips served. While ridesourcing replaces taxi trips, at least half of ridesourcing trips replaced modes other than taxi, including public transit and driving. Impacts on overall vehicle travel are unclear. We conclude with suggestions for future research.

Introduction

The recent emergence of app-based, on-demand ride services has sparked great debate over their role in urban transport. We refer to these services—provided by companies like Uber and Lyft—as “ridesourcing.” Ridesourcing dynamically matches supply and demand by allowing travelers to request car rides in real-time from potential suppliers using a smartphone application. Distinct from ridesharing, ridesourcing drivers operate for-profit and typically provide rides not incidental to their own trips. Ridesourcing is distinguished from traditional taxicabs by its use of smartphone technology and a dynamic matching algorithm—which some taxis have also adopted. It is also distinct because ridesourcing in the U.S. has not been subject to taxi regulations, which in many cities limit supply, determine fares, and set safety standards. Bolstered by support from customers, ridesourcing companies have grown quickly and received regulatory support across the U.S. However, they have also provoked the ire of the taxi industry and generated concern among many regulators.

Ridesourcing raises a number of public interest questions. Supporters view ridesourcing as part of a suite of transport options that provides fast, flexible, and convenient mobility in urban areas. By providing an attractive alternative to driving and filling gaps in the public transit network, these services can potentially reduce auto use, ownership, and associated environmental impacts (e.g., see Laurent and Katz, 2013; Metcalfe and Warburg, 2012; Silver and Fischer-Baum, 2015). However, critics charge that ridesourcing services increase congestion, compete with public transit, mislead consumers through opaque pricing practices, cater only to the young and well-to-do, and endanger public safety (Flegenheimer and Fitzsimmons, 2015, Laurent and Katz, 2013, Sabatini, 2014). Regulations may be needed to counteract negative externalities and other market failures inherent in the sector.

Ridesourcing has attracted significant criticism from its most direct competitor, the taxi industry, which views ridesourcing as an illegal service that flouts existing laws and competes unfairly. Ostensibly, taxis would fill the role played by ridesourcing services (Austin and Zegras, 2012, Gilbert and Samuels, 1982, King et al., 2012, Wohl, 1975), but in many cities they have not, due to regulations and monopolistic behavior that restrict supply and give rise to reliability and service quality problems (Cervero, 1997, Gilbert and Samuels, 1982, Hara Associates, 2013, Wohl, 1975). Some also argue that ridesourcing differs from traditional taxis due to the efficiency and reliability of the matching platform and pricing mechanisms, along with the accountability of the rating system. On the one hand, proponents maintain that ridesourcing, unlike taxis, enables more efficient use of vehicles that drivers already own. On the other hand, ridesourcing's apparent efficiency advantages may also be explained by its exemption from the supply restrictions that often govern taxis.

As city leaders deliberate policies on ridesourcing, there is an urgent need for independent data on their use and analysis of their environmental impacts. To date, little data on travelers' use of ridesourcing has been publicly available. The only studies of ridesourcing's impacts, to our knowledge, have been in the popular media (Bialik et al., 2015, Silver and Fischer-Baum, 2015), conducted by the companies themselves (Hall and Krueger, 2015), based on qualitative interviews with drivers (Anderson, 2014). In this exploratory study, we aim to fill this research gap and provide initial evidence on the use of ridesourcing in San Francisco. We focus on three questions: (1) Who uses ridesourcing and for what reasons? (2) How does the ridesourcing market compare with that of traditional taxis? (3) How does ridesourcing impact the use of public transit and overall vehicle travel?

We begin the paper by describing how ridesourcing operates in San Francisco and reviewing related literature. After explaining the survey methodology, we discuss results and conclude with a discussion on policy implications and suggestions for future research.

Ridesourcing allows travelers to request a ride in real-time through a smartphone application, which communicates the passenger's location to nearby drivers. After a driver accepts a ride request, the passenger can view the vehicle's real-time location and estimated arrival time. The app provides GPS-enabled navigation, which helps non-professional drivers find destinations and reduces the chances of them taking a circuitous route. The payment—and sometimes tips—are automatically charged to the passenger's credit card. The driver keeps a portion of the fare, with the balance going to the ridesourcing company. Prices can respond dynamically to demand, which could increase the likelihood of finding a ride at peak times, but this can also make prices less predictable. Drivers and passengers rate each other at the ride's completion, creating an incentive system that rewards polite behavior. Unlike taxis, ridesourcing services like uberX, Lyft and Sidecar typically use drivers who lack a commercial vehicle license, drive their personal vehicle, and work part-time. Because of these characteristics, these services are considered “pure” ridesourcing compared to Uber' other options like UberBlack and UberSUV, which use dedicated vehicles and drivers with a for-hire license.

Much debate has gone into terminology for these services. Other names currently include: “Transportation Network Companies (TNCs),” “real-time ridesharing,” “parataxis,” “ride-hailing,” and “on-demand rides.” We chose to use “ridesourcing” because we believe it succinctly conveys the essential technology—a platform used to “source” rides from a driver pool. However, definitions are elusive, especially as these services continue to evolve. Taxi companies have also adopted app-based dispatch, some before the advent of Uber and Lyft.1 App-enabled ridesharing (i.e., carpooling) also preceded Uber and Lyft. More recently, options like UberPOOL and Lyft Line allow unrelated passengers whose routes overlap to split rides and fares. Moreover, ridesourcing is not a new idea (e.g., Wright and Curtis (2005)); it falls into broader, more familiar categories, such as paratransit (Cervero, 1997) and demand-responsive or flexible transport (Brake et al., 2007, Davison et al., 2014). What is new about recent ridesourcing by Uber, Lyft, and others is the combination of a model that leverages GPS-enabled smartphone technology and exemption from traditional taxi regulations, which allows more flexibility in supply and service characteristics.

That combination appears enormously successful among consumers. According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's (SFMTA) annual travel survey, in 2014, ridesourcing served an estimated 47,000 trips per day in San Francisco, or 1% of all trips, while taxis made about 22,000 trips per day. The same survey found 25% of San Francisco residents used ridesourcing at least monthly, compared to 19% for taxis (SFMTA, 2014a). A 2015 poll of registered voters in the U.S. found 12% used Uber or Lyft at least once a month, compared to 13% for taxis (Morning Consult, 2015). Among voters aged 18-44, that proportion jumped to 26% for Uber or Lyft, slightly edging out the 25% for taxis. Ridesourcing is indeed proving tough competition for taxis—in San Francisco, the number of taxi trips per month dropped by more than half between March 2012 and July 2014 (SFMTA, 2014b).

Because independent research on the use of ridesourcing is very limited, we turn to related research on ridesharing (carpooling/vanpooling) and taxis to provide insights into expected usage characteristics and potential impacts. Compared to driving alone, ridesharing reduces vehicle miles traveled and for this reason federal and local policies have for decades promoted ridesharing (Altshuler et al., 1979). Individually, ridesharing participants benefit from shared travel costs, travel-time savings from high occupancy vehicle lanes, and reduced commute stress (Chan and Shaheen, 2012). Despite its benefits, increased ridesharing use has faced several barriers, including reluctance to sacrifice the flexibility and convenience of the private automobile (Dueker and Levin, 1976), desire for personal space and time (Bonsall et al., 1984), and personal security concerns about riding with strangers.

Taxis have historically accounted for a very small share of urban travel and are much less extensively studied than other transport modes. Past surveys have shown taxis to serve several markets—older residents, higher-income groups, and lower-income households without a car (Webster et al., 1974). Despite their small modal share, taxis fill a critical gap by providing transportation when driving or other public transit modes are not possible (Gilbert and Samuels, 1982, Wohl, 1975). Notably, authors have found taxis to be both complements and substitutes for public transit (Austin and Zegras, 2012, King et al., 2012). Shared taxis can potentially bring benefits, including increased efficiency, lower costs for passengers, and reduced congestion and overall vehicle travel (Cervero, 1997, Enoch et al., 2004, Santi et al., 2014, Wohl, 1975). However, most cities in the U.S. prohibit unrelated passengers from sharing a taxi.

Research suggests unregulated taxi services can create public costs, and almost all large- and medium-sized cities have regulated taxis since the 1930s (Dempsey, 1996, Gilbert and Samuels, 1982). The taxi industry has at various times suffered from numerous market failures, providing the rationale for regulation (Dempsey, 1996, Gilbert and Samuels, 1982, Schaller, 2007). Lack of information is a problem in street-hail and cab-stand markets—riders cannot compare information on price or service quality before choosing a vehicle, often resulting in poor service quality. Low barriers to entry in these markets tend to enable over competition, leading to aggressive and unsafe driver behavior, poor vehicle maintenance, and congestion (Schaller, 2007). Regulatory responses include restrictions on market entry and supply (i.e., medallion systems); fare regulation; and vehicle and driver safety standards. The taxi industry in San Francisco is particularly heavily regulated, especially in terms of supply—a 2013 report concluded that the existing supply of 1585 taxis needed to be increased by at least 50% to meet demand (Hara Associates, 2013a). Technological advances, moreover, bring into question how the need for regulation may have changed. Hailing a for-hire vehicle no longer requires standing on a street corner or placing a telephone call, and rating systems might resolve the lack-of-information problem. With characteristics similar to taxis, but also the potential to realize some of the benefits of both taxis and ridesharing, ridesourcing poses a challenge for regulators. Addressing these challenges clearly requires better data on how ridesourcing is actually used in cities.

Section snippets

Methodology

To collect data on ridesourcing users and trips, we conducted an intercept survey in San Francisco during May and June 2014. The survey was conducted by intercepting ridesourcing customers on the street in key locations expected to have a high concentration of such users. We identified potential locations based on conversations with drivers and our own observations. After conducting pretests at these locations, we chose the three with the highest response rates (see Fig. 1):

  • 1.

    The Mission District

Ridesourcing market share

Of all surveyed trips, uberX provided the majority (53%), while other Uber services (black car, SUV) represented another 8%. Lyft provided 30% of trips, Sidecar 7%, and the remainder was other services. This is consistent with anecdotal information on the market share of each service.

Respondent demographics

Ridesourcing survey respondents were generally younger and better educated than the average population in San Francisco (see Table 1). The age distributions for both ridesourcing and those who use taxis at least

Discussion

Ridesourcing is often seen as catering specifically to a young and smartphone-equipped population. Indeed, ridesourcing survey respondents were younger and better educated than the general population, and were younger than frequent taxi users. In all, the survey data do not refute the claim that ridesourcing disproportionately serves younger residents of higher socio-economic status; however, it is not clear whether or not the findings are biased by the sampling method and whether the

Conclusions

In this paper, we presented exploratory evidence of ridesourcing's role in urban transportation using an intercept survey of ridesourcing users in San Francisco and comparing the survey results with data from a previous taxi survey and taxi trip logs. The findings suggest ridesourcing meets a latent demand for urban travel, appealing to generally younger, well-educated users looking for short wait times and fast point-to-point service, while avoiding the inconveniences of driving like parking

Acknowledgments

We thank the University of California Transportation Center and Transportation Sustainability Research Center at UC Berkeley for supporting this research. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency helpfully provided us with the taxi data. Thanks also go to the student researchers who assisted with data collection and processing: Dylan Baker, Apaar Bansal, Shuchen Gong, Lindsay Lewis, Brandon Harrell, An-Yu Liu, Rebecca Lopez, Kevin Otis, Samuel Penny, Diwen Shen, Christine Vandevoorde,

References (34)

  • N.D. Chan et al.

    Ridesharing in North America: past, present, and future

    Transp. Rev.

    (2012)
  • Dempsey, P.S., 1996. Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation, and Reregulation: The Paradox of Market Failure (SSRN...
  • K.J. Dueker et al.

    Carpooling: Attitudes and Participation. Technical Report No. 81. Center for Urban Transportation Studies

    (1976)
  • Enoch, M., Potter, S., Parkhust, G., Smith, M., 2004. Intermode: Innovations in Demand Responsive Transport. Department...
  • J.E. Evans

    Chapter 9: transit scheduling and frequency

    Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook

    (2004)
  • M. Flegenheimer et al.

    City Hall and Uber Clash in Struggle Over New York Streets

    (2015)
  • G. Gilbert et al.

    The Taxicab: An Urban Transportation Survivor

    (1982)
  • Cited by (858)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text