Slashdot Mirror
Uber and Lyft May Cause Lower Car Ownership In Big Cities, Says Report (slashgear.com)
A new study from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute has shed light on what may turn out to be a growing trend: lower car ownership in cities where ride-sharing services are available. SlashGear reports: While Uber and Lyft have both deployed in a number of cities, they have, at times, had to abandon those cities due to local governments driving them out for one reason or another. That's what happened in Austin, Texas, opening the door for an interesting study on personal car ownership. Did the sudden absence of these two services cause increased car usage and/or ownership, or did things remain unaffected? The result, according to the study, was a big increase in personal car usage and a statistically significant increase in car ownership. The researchers surveyed a total of 1,200 people from the Austin region, and found that 41-percent of them started using their own car more often to make up for the lack of Uber and Lyft rides. As well, a total of 9-percent of those surveyed bought their own personal car to make up for the services' absences.
Austin kicked out Uber and Lyft because the companies didn't want to submit to Austin's background checks for drivers. Taxi drivers are vetted to try to ensure passenger safety, and at a far greater degree than Uber and Lyft drivers. I'm okay with higher car ownership in cities to go along with people being safer because they're not riding around in the cars of strangers who haven't been properly screened. As the shootings in Kalamazoo by an Uber driver show, these services can actually be quite dangerous. Plus they're not actually ride-sharing services but ride-hailing (AKA taxi) services.
A study also found out that in cities where parents drive their kids around to all possible locations, the bike ownership of the kids go down.
A decent public transport system and a city that is spatially planned around the needs of people who live there.
You only need to look at British market towns and cities to work this one out. In all areas, urban growth grew along main roads and train lines so that it was easy to get to shops without needing a car. Some cities ran their own bus services until privatization. Some areas were hit by Beeching cuts and tore up their local rail network and sold it for scrap. Others decided to build ring road networks, demolish old tenement blocks and replace them with high-rise offices.
Then you end up with cities like London having public transport with regular buses and underground trains so there is no need for a car in the inner suburbs. But in the outer suburbs, it's necessary to get to the out-of-town shopping centers.
Other parts of the country have hourly bus services which may or may not arrive on schedule, and cost 1/3rd the price of a taxi fare for the same distance. For three or more people it's cheaper to get a taxi than to take a bus. But only if a taxi arrives within 10 minutes. For anyone else who is not on a direct bus or train route, just like the outer suburbs of a city they drive a car to get to and from work and the out of town shopping centers.
Millennial here. Every single person I know owns a car or has a spouse or significant other who does. Uber is for nights out, trips to the airport etc but car ownership here in flyover country.
No Uber or Lyft but low car owners and traffic usually not so crowded on roads. Buses usually on time and taxis move along at moderate speeds.
Most big cities have incredible traffic jams mainly because people are moving away from the cities. Sure, maybe they use Uber to get around during the day and night. But going from home to work is still mostly a commute with their car. I look at cities like Atlanta, LA, Chicago, which have public transportation but it supports a fraction of the total commuters. In big cities public ride sharing and cab services are used to avoid the hassles of finding parking spots. But they are hardly replacing how people get to and from work.
To imply that Uber and Lyft may affect the level of car ownership in cities... and not unplanned increases in population density, poor traffic planning and insufficient focus on infrastructure, decades of neglect of public transport, and general economic strife as more bond issues (in general) have been used to bail out pension systems and line pockets than break ground on new projects... not to mention changing demographics where median income fails to cover rising expenses, the young are moving back in with their parents, and Millennials are putting a brave face on it by pretending it is a voluntary lifestyle change... half the country is at cold uncivil war with the other (non-partisan, city vs. country folk)... the 'cash for clunkers' manufacturer-driven scam that took lots of reliable and viable vehicles off the roads... and a new economy where families that once owned cars free and clear paying on houses, are now paying on cars and will forever rent houses... and the stock market is rising to the cliff while the global petrodollar is in decline...
It seems like someone has snapped on a special filter that only passes a narrow band of illumination revealing 'ride-share-y' things and 'gig economy-y' things and 'self-driving-car-y' things and is shining that dim light everywhere, so that attention is drawn to it. When the economy crashes and natural sunlight creeps in these things will be revealed as the tiny issues that they are.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Is that link correct? I only skimmed the page but saw nothing on Uber or Lyft mentioned in the source article.
Banning Muslim travel and banning transgender people from serving in the military most definitely is forcing their beliefs on others.
On our college campus, Uber and Lyft have had a significant effect on the parking situation on campus. Ten years ago, almost every undergraduate student who was allowed to brought a car to campus, and parking spaces were hard to come by. But with Uber and Lyft just minutes away any time of the day or night, more and more students are leaving the car at home. You can always find a parking space.
I also do a straw poll in one of my classes when discussing Moore's Law, just to find out who does and does not have a driver's license during discussions on autonomous transportation. Each year, more and more students admit to not having one. Those without one don't seem at all self-conscious about admitting it; they don't consider it a big deal in any way.
and in a similar important story. The sun is HOT.
Correlation isn't causation. Austin is rapidly growing city and influx of population alone could account for increased car usage and ownership.
Unlicensed and uninsured drivers cause usurious car insurance rates in big cities which cause lower car ownership.
Owning a car is stupid: about 50% or more of car ownership cost is tax in all Western countries.
Gas - taxed heavily
Mandatory service and inspections - self explanatory
Toll roads - self explanatory
Parking - in case of public parking
Vehicle tax - self explanatory
Consumables - do you know that quite a few countries put extra tax on motor oil?
Driving license renewal - in case of taking exams at public licensory
Did the sudden absence of these two services cause increased car usage and/or ownership, or did things remain unaffected?
Swapping miles on your own car for miles on an uber is zero sum. It might reduce car purchases and parking though.
Also, sexist, ageist and speciesist.
Ezekiel 23:20
Adult here. I'm 38, and I still don't own a car. Nor does my wife, nor our two little kids. Your anecdotes tell us nothing more than mine do.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
EOM
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The study is just WRONG. Austin always had rideshares so the redux in car purchases was due to something else. Just because it wasn't uber/lyft does not mean we did not have them. We had rideshares willing to conform to the background checks. Of course uber did what uber does, got the state to override our law by buying the right people off with some hookers and blow.
rideshare is OK for a night bar hopping but isn't a replacement for car ownership in most places. This is the same mentality that tears up six lane city boulevards, puts in two lanes of "hard bike lane", and with trucks unloading, means you get 1 1/2 lanes of travel. Meanwhile, in NYC at least, the mass transit system they want you to use is overloaded and the 1930 technology is barely hanging on. Anyone who can afford it tends to own a car. There is a reason a private parking space can be $600 or more....the rest fight alternate side parking. Money is spent on bicycle silly-ness for a small percentage of the population to use in good weather only...the City govt is trying to find ways to steal money from folks living out of the City, to pay for all of this....just keep hacking up Avenues and such...great going, guys.... And, once you leave the hothouse confines of NYC, car ownership is pretty much required if you have a job, go to school, or do pretty much anything.
Give my regards to the gay app apping cows!
I moved to Ohio from Australia a few years back and was pretty sure we'd need a car. But I worked from home and my partner was happy with the 30min walk to her work (something which blew the mind of almost every American we talked to). Even in the winter it was feasible for her.
We used Uber quite regularly to get around. The local buses were pretty average - mostly because they stopped like every 150m, wtf, Americans really hate walking!). But aside from being slow they were perfectly serviceable. They even added a free route up and down the main street - which was awesome, except it came online towards the end of our stay there.
The thing that made the biggest difference though wasn't Uber or Lyft, it was Car2go. The city did a great job of making Car2go available - we had free parking near us so could just dump the car anywhere, and of course could always pick one up.
I am now in London where haha as if you would own a car here - public transport is awesome. Whether or not cities have a Car2go-esque system in place will definitely play a role in my next move.
I see no reason for not getting one other than laziness, apathy, or fear.
I waited until 25 to get my license because car insurers overcharge policyholders if a driver under 25 is on the policy. Another family may not have thousands of dollars to pay a driving instructor for the 50 to 120 hours of supervised driving that the state requires of new drivers, especially if the parent is also a non-driver. In what way do these excuses fall into the categories of "laziness, apathy, or fear"?
Could the editors please rephrase it using "Millennials are killing...?"
I live in London, work in London and commute by bike and less cars around would be a God send!
Did the number of alcohol related traffic violations also increase in Austin?
If "A" is a cause "B", that doesn't imply that every single instance of "B" must necessarily only be cause be "A" and nothing else.
In other word :
To imply that Uber and Lyft may affect the level of car ownership in cities... and not {blablabla, long list of other stuff that cause car ownership}
It seems like someone has snapped on a special filter that only passes a narrow band
Nobody is trying to make think that ride-sharing is the single explanation of car-ownership.
There might be tons of other reasons, but this reports simply states that ridesharing is among the factors that influence it, because eachtime you add or remove it, car ownship change accordingly.
And BTW, the same phenomon has been observed in European cities, regarding car-sharing.
(after introduction of car-sharing, car ownership drops. In other words, people start thinking "why should I buy an expensive car and care for it, even when it sleeps useless in my garage, when I can just pick one of the shared cars in the streets ?")
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The numbers from this "study" are implausible. 9% of people in Austin bought new cars because Uber left town? I don't think so. First, only about 10% of people buy a car in each year, so this would be a DOUBLING of car sales. Second, only about 16% of people even have the Uber app installed, and many of those use it very infrequently. Third, after Uber and Lyft left town, several other local ride-sharing companies popped up, and have been popular. So there hasn't actually been a drop in ride-sharing options.
This was either a very flawed "study", or maybe the journalist just bungled the description of what it really says. No link to the study is provided in TFA, and it isn't clear that it has even been published yet.
Sure, it costs you money to own a car, but you get benefits from car ownership as well. If you can afford (or need) those benefits, you are not being stupid.
> But you get benefits :
Do you really ? that's the key question behind this report, and the general answer is depends on the actual needs.
This report's part of the answer is that, among other, it depends on the availability of other cars and drivers.
Introduce ridesharing services : and the benefits of car owner ship suddenly seem less evident - why pay for an expensive car when you could get around using Uber, Lyft, etc.
Remove ridesharing services : and the ownership of cars rises up again, as suddenly owning a car, despite being still that much expensive, suddenly is beneficial again as there less other alternative to get around.
The same is observed in european cities with car-sharing.
or for those that just enjoy driving and the freedom a personal automobile provides
If that's the sole reason, then that's part of the "firvolous spending". Things that aren't a necessity, but you still spend money on because you enjoy them. That's entirely out of the scope of TFA's theme.
The point is to analyse how much car ownership is beneficial, compared to availability or not of ridesharing.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
We tried to us Lyft in Portland and they pretty much shoved them out of the market. Fuck Uber and Lyft.
LOL...big ubber liberal mecca. The city probably didn't want uber/lyft because it might impact their: bus, taxi, registration fees too much. In LARGER cities, I could see some benefit to these services, but, out here in what is known as flyover country (midwest) sometimes you have to drive 20-30 miles, just to get TO a larger town.
the IQs of Republicans are still far higher than those of Democrats
Citation needed.
I'd expect the brain-drain which draws intelligent people to cities (where people tend to be more liberal) to skew things in the opposite direction. But intelligent, wealthy people might be more right-wing just in terms of self-interest. Would be interesting to see some actual numbers.
Your children don't own cars? What kind of monster are you?
the IQs of Republicans are still far higher than those of Democrats
Citation needed.
In fact, the evidence suggests that the issue is complicated, but may actually lean to the opposite of the GP's view.
https://www.google.com/search?...
In my experience, there are plenty of smart and dumb people across the political spectrum. I don't think it's fair to say any wing has an advantage.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
1: Forcing their beliefs on others is inherent to Islam. Only a complete idiot could think their very presence is not a threat to Western civilization.
Waitaminite. I think it's important to listen to how Muslims themselves feel about that.
2: The real question is, does the presence of trans people hinder the cohesion and combat efficiency of the troops in any way? If so, they don't belong there.
And the answer to that question ... is no.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
...in 1985. It wasn't that I was a dullard, or was a delinquent. We simply had no money for an extra car for me.
The pollution and expenses generated by private ownership of cars is a negative for the entire city. The better Uber and its kind do the less private cars will be needed. In addition to the benefits to the public the simple fact is that cars have been getting more and more expensive. Since housing and food are also inflated getting rid of transportation expenses will enable people to save for retirement or an emergency situation.
Living in Dallas, I bought myself a bike, then started using Uber to get to work. Since parking downtown is $5 a day, once you factor in insurance, gas and maintenance, it was actually cheaper for me. Parked my car in the garage, let the insurance lapse... Finally sold the car. With all the money I saved, went to Europe for two weeks.
moox. for a new generation.
According to the summary, the "study" is an opinion poll that shows "statistical significance." In social sciences, that's about as interesting as someone making up an opinion on the spot.
So some youthful well-paid academic fan folks decide to study their favorite mode of transportation and guess what, they find the facts confirm their predilection. No surprises there.
By the way, there are local alternatives, like good taxi services in Austin, they just didn't cave in to unethical multi-national corporations.
I did that.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Mom didn't drive, therefore she didn't have a car. When Dad finally got me one, it was a 1972 Cutlass Supreme. Followed by a 1977 Ford LTD.
I had one hour of driving instruction. Many quarters spent playing Monaco GT helped me get the handle of driving pretty much instantly. The core basics of driving: accelerating, turning and stopping without hitting something, I was a natural.
They are implausible because you are getting numbers wrong. I suspect you have not read the study.
Only former Uber and/or Lyft users were in the study.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
you are assuming the new services had as many drivers working the exact same hours. If you need to get to work and were using Lyft/Uber to reduce use of your own car or to avoid car ownership. just because a service exist DO NOT mean n entire metro area nor if it is established enough to mean when you use the app that its timely and convenient.
Expect any reporter to accurately report let alone comment on ANYTHING scientific is sheer folly. I question of the top of my head how a sample size of 1,200 for the AUSTIN REGION is valid sample size. WTF is the Austin region. AFAIK the services in Austin were at operating in Austin and its suburbs-the region could means San Marcos, New Braunfels and even San Antonio.
The kind of results given by the report would require running multivariate statistical analysis which isnt done with a 5 question survey administered on the street by oral questions like a street quiz done on the Tonight Show. Its just a little more involved and detailed and needs to be done so the interviewer bias is minimized.
1: Forcing their beliefs on others is inherent to Islam. Only a complete idiot could think their very presence is not a threat to Western civilization.
Replace Islam with Christianity, and you can see what a specious argument this is, just in terms of the illogical nature of the statement.
I think the subject line may give too much credit to Trump's causal relationship with anything Republican. It seems to be more of a correlative relationship to me.
But then, I disagree with most things Republican these days, so I suppose my opinions are also considered suspect by a large percentage of the readership of /. articles.
I think of them as a potential "learning moment" opportunity.
PlaynBass
I think it's a good thing that people with access to ride sharing services would stop buying their own personal transportation.
I can also see how a city might want to support car sales (and the excise taxes they can raise) by outlawing those services. Historically, preservation of the status quo is a strong driver of decisions by government functionaries.
But the economic decisions of individuals IS a primary tenant of free market capitalism, is it not?
Let's see how this cognitive dissonance will play itself out in the real world. Such a perfect example to test how well a free economy actually works in practice, isn't it?
PlaynBass
Thanks for this link, which was not in the original story (which didn't even name the authors! aargh!). However, now that I've read it I have to agree with Shanghai Bill that the "Uber reduces car ownership" slant is a bit forced. Some much more interesting results were buried in the study. One example: 58% of respondents said that the local companies (Ride Austen, Fasten, etc.) were as good or better than Uber and Lyft! That's actually a pretty significant finding, but the authors seem to downplay it...
And harboring illegals is or allowing those from known terrorist countries (Muslim or not) is acceptable?
How long until some obese car executive starts crying about how nobody is buying cars and demanding a fucking massive bailout from the government like the last time they had a teeny dip in their sales that forced them to cut costs to pay for their second yachts?
> 9-percent of those surveyed bought their own personal car to make up for the services' absences
The key phrase here is "of those surveyed". Not all surveys are taken randomly from the full population. This is not representative of 9% of the drivers (let alone people) in Austin, TX. This is representative of 9% of those surveyed, all of which are former Lyft and Uber users. Unless every driver in Austin, TX also uses Uber or Lyft, then these numbers will not be equal.