One promise of ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft was that fewer cars would clog city streets, but studies suggest the opposite: Ride-hailing companies are pulling riders off buses, subways, bicycles and their own feet, and putting them in cars instead. In what could be a new wrinkle, a service by Uber called Express Pool now is seen as directly competing with mass transit.
Uber and Lyft argue that in Boston, for instance, they complement public transit by connecting riders to hubs like Logan Airport and South Station. However, they have not released their own specific data about rides, leaving studies up to outside researchers.
The impact of all those cars is now becoming clear, said Christo Wilson, a Northeastern University professor of computer science who has looked at Uber’s practice of “surge pricing” during heavy traffic.
“The emerging consensus is that ride-sharing [is] increasing congestion,” Wilson said.
One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over the span of four weeks late last year in the Boston area.
Nearly six in 10 said that they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps were not available.
The report also found that many riders are not using hailed rides to connect to a subway or bus line, but instead as a separate mode of transit, coauthor Alison Felix said.
“Ride sharing is pulling from and not complementing public transportation,” she said.
That is not quite what Uber founder Travis Kalanick suggested in 2015, when he said: “We envision a world where there’s no more traffic in Boston in five years.”
A study released in December said that large increases in the number of taxis and ride-sharing vehicles are contributing to slow traffic in Manhattan’s central business district.
It recommended policies to prevent further increases in “the number of vacant vehicles occupied only by drivers waiting for their next trip request.”
In San Francisco, a study released in June found that on a typical weekday, ride-hailing drivers make more than 170,000 vehicle trips, about 12 times the number of taxi trips, and that the trips are concentrated in the densest and most congested parts of the city.
A survey released in October of more than 4,000 adults in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and Washington also said that 49 to 61 percent of ride-hailing trips would not have been made at all — or instead would have been made walking, biking or using public transit — if the option did not exist.
The Boston study said that the main reason people opt for ride-hailing is speed and even those with a public transit pass would drop it for ride-hailing, despite the higher cost.
Boston University graduate student Sarah Wu uses Uber less than once a week, but more often if she has guests. She lives near a metro line, but will opt for Uber if it looks like public transit will be a hassle.
“I would prefer to have the Uber take me there directly, rather than having to transfer several times and wait at a bus stop,” said Wu, who does not own a car.
A spokesman for Lyft said that ride-hailing could reduce the number of personally-owned cars on the roads.
“Lyft is focused on making personal car ownership optional by getting more people to share a ride, helping to reduce car ownership and partnering with public transportation,” company spokesman Adrian Durbin said in a statement.
Uber is hoping to wean drivers from their cars in part by encouraging its carpooling services, company spokeswoman Alix Anfang said.
“Uber’s long-term goal is to end the reliance on personal vehicles and allow a mix of public transportation and services like Uber,” Anfang said.
Uber’s new Express Pool links riders who want to travel to similar destinations. Riders walk a short distance to be picked up at a common location and are dropped off near their final destinations — essentially, how a bus or subway line functions.
The service was in November tested in San Francisco and Boston and has found enough ridership to support it 24 hours a day. Round-the-clock service was last week also rolled out in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, San Diego and Denver, with more cities to follow.
“This could be good for congestion if it causes vehicle occupancy rates to go up, but on the other hand, the Uber Pool rides and I guess these Express rides are really, really cheap, just a couple of dollars, so they’re almost certainly going to be pulling people away from public transport options,” Wilson said. “Why get on a bus with 50 people when you can get into a car and maybe if you’re lucky, you’ll be the only person in it?”
In a study released in October by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), as many as two-thirds of transit users reported also using ride-hailing companies.
A report released this month by San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit system found that ridership was down disproportionately on weekends and off-peak hours, in part citing ride-hailing trips.
The MBTA is focusing on what it can control: pumping money into new trains, buses and infrastructure improvements, spokesman Joe Pesaturo said.
At least one study did not pin increased congestion on hailing services.
Seattle-based Inrix scoured data from 2012 to 2015 in London and found that the number of passenger vehicles, including Uber cars, remained the same or even dipped slightly.
Reasons for increased congestion included a surge in road construction and delivery trucks dropping off online purchases, the company said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers