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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...?"
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 ]
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 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.
I did that.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Thanks for sharing your story...
Most kids when I was growing up didn't have an extra car for them. I earned money for my car mowing grass. Any idea how long it takes to come up with enough for a decent used car when you are earning $2.50 per yard? (two summers, plus lots of nights babysitting). Most kids drive their mom's car. I became the chauffeur for my siblings when I got my license. I'm sure my mom was ecstatic to have that burden off of her shoulders.
I drove mom's car during my learner's permit year and bought a 1976 Ford Granada for $1,750 shortly after I turned 16 in a couple of years before you did. Yeah, baby! Four doors and bench seats! More boring than your mom's car. But it was all mine. Paid cash when I went down to the used car lot (proudly wearing my grass-stained tennis shoes).
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...
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...
Different adult here. I've had a driving license for (counts) almost 29 years now. (Is that longer than a "millennial" could have been alive? I don't know the definition, and I don't think it's important to know 57 varieties of "youngster".) Sometimes I've lived in city centres ; sometimes I've lived out in the suburbs. I've owned cars for under half the time that I've had a driving license. Public transport and or push bike is just plain easier than the shit associated with running a car.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"