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.
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>
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.
A decent public transport system and a city that is spatially planned around the needs of people who live there.
Agreed. When I have visited New York City (usually for work) I have been able to get by for a week by mostly walking around, taking the subway (e.g., in inclement weather or for long distances, I mean I am not going to walk from Brooklyn to Manhattan just because), and only occasionally taking an Uber or taxi (e.g., late at night, going some place where the subway does not reach or is inconvenient). It is actually kind of nice to visit there because I live in an area where the public transport is, shall we say, lacking. I like being in a city where you can live without an automobile. NYC is clearly very friendly toward the non-automobile owning crowd.
I know that visiting is different than living some place but NYC is the only place I visit where I simply know before I even go that I will not be renting a car or even be taking some sort of motorized surface transport very much. The only exception was a trip I took to Seattle this past year. I was there for an event downtown and got a hotel a few blocks away so I was able to walk everywhere I needed to go that week. But usually even in Seattle I have a need to go to the outlying areas far enough away that I usually just rent a car.
Owning a car is just a pain and costs a lot of money. I have a few years-old Honda that is relatively inexpensive to own and operate (compared to many other vehicles) and I probably spent in the neighborhood of $4000-$5000 on it in the last twelve months. That includes gas, insurance, scheduled maintenance (I did hit a major service interval), a new set of tires, and other miscellany. That averages out to near $400 per month, which is crazy. I cannot imagine what it would be like to own a real gas guzzler or a European car or sports car with higher maintenance costs.
Decreased urban car ownership is an obvious first impact for ridesharing services, especially when they start using automated cars. Expensive, frequently-updated automated cars will fall into the hands of fleets, which will be better able to manage recharging of limited-range electrics than individuals are willing to be bothered with. Fleet operation of automated cars also eliminates the need for parking at the places where people are picked up and dropped off, freeing up whole square kilometers of pricey urban real estate.
And instead of replacing mass transit, car services can operate in conjunction with it. Your ride app will display the cost of a ride in one car from A to B in comparison with the option of A to some chosen subway station, followed by a pickup from another subway station to B. If it's date night, riders will take the more expensive one-car option; if you're just headed to the office, many riders will take the transit option, especially on routes they repeat a lot. Even if all ridesharing services accomplish is weaning commuters onto mass transit, that will be a huge accomplishment.
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 just came back from a visit to my hometown, Chicago. I went up there to visit some friends and take care of my daughter's dog while she went to an out-of-town wedding. She left me her (very nice) car, but I never took it out of the garage. Chicago has the finest public transportation system I've ever seen in a big old city. Airport to my daughter's house? Blue line and then a short walk. Ride down to see some friends and watch Muse at Lollapalooka? Blue line straight downtown. Drop in at my old martial arts school? Milwaukee Avenue bus. Everywhere else was a walk or bikeride away.
Here in Houston (I'm moving to California in a few weeks), I cannot go three miles without driving on a crowded, dangerous expressway. You cannot ride a bike from the Museum District to Midtown (3 miles) because they built highway 59 without allowing for any cross streets. No zoning laws whatsoever, a libertarian paradise, but if you want to go to the grocery store, you have to get on an expressway (and the grocery store is only about a mile away). Lots of expressways means that instead of neighborhoods, you get strip malls full of gun shops, pawnbrokers and Dollar Stores.
Public transportation and a little bit of smart urban planning is the way to go.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.