skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186134acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

On Ridesharing Competition and Accessibility: Evidence from Uber, Lyft, and Taxi

Published:23 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft have become an important part of the Vehicle For Hire (VFH) market, which used to be dominated by taxis. Unfortunately, ridesharing services are not required to share data like taxi services, which has made it challenging to compare the competitive dynamics of these services, or assess their impact on cities. In this paper, we comprehensively compare Uber, Lyft, and taxis with respect to key market features (supply, demand, price, and wait time) in San Francisco and New York City. Based on point pattern statistics, we develop novel statistical techniques to validate our measurement methods. Using spatial lag models, we investigate the accessibility of VFH services, and find that transportation infrastructure and socio-economic features have substantial effects on VFH market features.

References

  1. ACS. 2015. American Community Survey. (2015). http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 2016. Taxi Medallion by Company Statistics. (6 2016). http://www.sfmta.com/services/taxi-industry/medallions/medallion-holders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Luc Anselin. 2001. Spatial econometrics. A companion to theoretical econometrics 310330 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. David A Belsley. 1991. Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. Number 519.536 B452. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. California, Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2012. Communities of Concern, San Francisco Bay Area, California 2005--2009. (2012). http://purl.stanford.edu/dp294hh9321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ryan Calo and Alex Rosenblat. 2017. The Taking Economy: Uber, Information, and Power. Columbia Law Review 117 (March 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Joe Castiglione, Tilly Chang, Drew Cooper, Jeff Hobson, Warren Logan, Eric Young, Billy Charlton, Christo Wilson, Alan Mislove, Le Chen, and Shan Jiang. 2016. TNCs Today: A Profile of San Francisco Transportation Network Company Activity. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (June 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Juan Camilo Castillo, Daniel T. Knoepfle, and E. Glen Weyl. 2017. Surge Pricing Solves the Wild Goose Chase. SSRN. (July 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Census. 2010. Census Block Groups. (2010). https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2015. Peeking Beneath the Hood of Uber. In Proc. of IMC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M Keith Chen and Michael Sheldon. 2015. Dynamic pricing in a labor market: Surge pricing and flexible work on the Uber platform. Technical Report. UCLA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Regina R. Clewlow and Gouri Shankar Mishra. 2017. Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States. Technical Report. UC Davis, Report UCD-ITS-RR-17-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Peter Cohen, Robert Hahn, Jonathan Hall, Steven Levitt, and Robert Metcalfe. 2016. Using big data to estimate consumer surplus: The case of uber. Technical Report. NBER.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission. 2017. TLD Trip Record Data. (2017). http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/trip_record_data.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Judd Cramer and Alan B. Krueger. 2016. Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber. American Economic Review 106, 5 (2016), 177--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. San Francisco Open Data. 2012. SF Public Transportation Data. (3 2012). http://data.sfgov.org/Transportation/SFMTA-routes-and-stops-for-March-2012/f5c3--8kkj.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Philip M Dixon. 2002. Ripley's K function. Encyclopedia of environmetrics (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Benjamin G Edelman and Damien Geradin. 2015. Efficiencies and regulatory shortcuts: How should we regulate companies like Airbnb and Uber. Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 19 (2015), 293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Benjamin G Edelman and Michael Luca. 2014. Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lisette Espin Noboa, Florian Lemmerich, Philipp Singer, and Markus Strohmaier. 2016. Discovering and Characterizing Mobility Patterns in Urban Spaces: A Study of Manhattan Taxi Data. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW '16 Companion). 537--542. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Erica Fink. 2014. Uber threatens drivers: Do not work for Lyft. CNN. (8 2014). http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. FiveThirtyEight. 2015. Uber Pickups in New York City. Kaggle. (9 2015). https://www.kaggle.com/fivethirtyeight/uber-pickups-in-new-york-city.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yanbo Ge, Christopher R Knittel, Don MacKenzie, and Stephen Zoepf. 2016. Racial and gender discrimination in transportation network companies. Technical Report. NBER.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mareike Glöss, Moira McGregor, and Barry Brown. 2016. Designing for labour: uber and the on-demand mobile workforce. In Proc. of CHI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. André Braz Golgher and Paul R Voss. 2016. How to interpret the coefficients of spatial models: Spillovers, direct and indirect effects. Spatial Demography 4, 3 (2016), 175--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Suiming Guo, Yaxiao Liu, Ke Xu, and Dah Ming Chiu. 2017. Understanding passenger reaction to dynamic prices in ride-on-demand service. In Proc. of PerCom Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Suiming Guo, Yaxiao Liu, Ke Xu, and Dah Ming Chiu. 2017. Understanding ride-on-demand service: Demand and dynamic pricing. In Proc. of PerCom Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonathan V Hall and Alan B Krueger. 2016. An analysis of the labor market for Uber's driver-partners in the United States. Technical Report. NBER.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Robert Cornelius Hampshire, Chris Simek, Tayo Fabusuyi, Xuan Di, and Xi Chen. 2017. Measuring the Impact of an Unanticipated Suspension of Ride-Sourcing in Austin, Texas. SSRN. (May 2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Aniko Hannak, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr. In Proc. of CSCW. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mike Issac. 2017. How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide. New York Times. (3 2017). http://nyti.ms/2mBwTH0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Farshad Kooti, Mihajlo Grbovic, Luca Maria Aiello, Nemanja Djuric, Vladan Radosavljevic, and Kristina Lerman. 2017. Analyzing Uber's Ride-sharing Economy. In Proc. of WWW Companion. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proc. of CHI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Michal Lev-Ram. 2017. How Lyft Could Defeat Uber. Fortune. (7 2017). http://fortune.com/2017/07/19/uber-vs-lyft-race/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Xi Liu, Li Gong, Yongxi Gong, and Yu Liu. 2015. Revealing travel patterns and city structure with taxi trip data. Journal of Transport Geography 43 (2015), 78 -- 90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Moira McGregor, Barry Brown, and Mareike Glöss. 2015. Disrupting the cab: Uber, ridesharing and the taxi industry. Journal of Peer Production 6 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jared Meyer. 2016. Uber Is Not (And Will Never Be) A Monopoly. Forbes. (2 2016). https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/02/15/uber-guardian-not-monopoly-ridesharing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mariella Moon. 2017. Uber's 'Hell' program tracked and targeted Lyft drivers. Engadget. (4 2017). http://engt.co/2oBME0K.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Benjamin Mueller. 2016. $25,000 Fine Proposed in Taxi Driver's Snub of Black Family. New York Times. (8 2016). http://nyti.ms/2yy4WVm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Anastasios Noulas, Vsevolod Salnikov, Desislava Hristova, Cecilia Mascolo, and Renaud Lambiotte. 2017. Developing and Deploying a Taxi Price Comparison Mobile App in the Wild: Insights and Challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.04208 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. New York City Department of Transportation. 2014. NYC Public Transportation Data. (9 2014). http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/home/home.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Hannah A Posen. 2015. Ridesharing in the Sharing Economy: Should Regulators Impose Uber Regulations on Uber. Iowa L. Rev. 101 (2015), 405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Associated Press. 2016. Boston wants better data from Uber, and is taking a roundabout route to try and get it. Boston Globe. (6 2016). https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/06/28/uber-data-boston-wants.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez. 2016. 45,000 Uber and Lyft drivers may now operate in SF. SF Examiner. (11 2016). http://bit.ly/2gtgRsj.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Brishen Rogers. 2015. The social costs of Uber. U. Chi. L. Rev. Dialogue 82 (2015), 85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Carolyn Said. 2017. SF demands data from Uber, Lyft on city trips, driver bonuses. San Francisco Chronicle. (6 2017). http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-goes-after-Uber-Lyft-for-data-on-city-trips-11196961.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Vsevolod Salnikov, Renaud Lambiotte, Anastasios Noulas, and Cecilia Mascolo. 2015. OpenStreetCab: exploiting taxi mobility patterns in New York City to reduce commuter costs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.03021 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Rachel Sugar. 2017. Uber and Lyft Cars Now Outnumber Yellow Cabs in NYC 4 to 1. Curbed. (1 2017). http://ny.curbed.com/2017/1/17/14296892/yellow-taxi-nyc-uber-lyft-vianumbers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Loren Terveen, and Brent Hecht. 2017. Toward a Geo- graphic Understanding of the Sharing Economy: Systemic Biases in UberX and TaskRabbit. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 24, 3 (April 2017), 21:1--21:40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Uber. 2017. Uber Movement. (2017). https://movement.uber.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Adam Vaccaro. 2015. Uber to Hand Over Trip Data to Boston. Boston. (1 2015). https://www.boston.com/news/technology/2015/01/13/uber-to-hand-over-trip-data-to-boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Adam Vaccaro. 2016. Highly Touted Boston-Uber Partnership Has Not Lived Up to Hype So Far. Boston. (6 2016). https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/06/16/bostons-uber-partnership-has-not-lived-up-to-promise.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. On Ridesharing Competition and Accessibility: Evidence from Uber, Lyft, and Taxi

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
              April 2018
              2000 pages
              ISBN:9781450356398

              Copyright © 2018 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

              Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

              Publication History

              • Published: 23 April 2018

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate170of1,155submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format