Transportation

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10070-2

Ride‑hailing, travel behaviour and sustainable mobility:

an international review

Alejandro Tirachini1,2,3 

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
A discussion of the sustainability and travel behaviour impacts of ride-hailing is provided,
based on an extensive literature review of studies from both developed and developing
countries. The effects of ride-hailing on vehicle-kilometres travelled (VKT) and traffic
externalities such as congestion, pollution and crashes are analysed. Modal substitution,
user characterisation and induced travel outputs are also examined. A summary of find-
ings follows. On the one hand, ride-hailing improves the comfort and security of riders
for several types of trips and increases mobility for car-free households and for people
with physical and cognitive limitations. Ride-hailing has the potential to be more efficient
for rider-driver matching than street-hailing. Ride-hailing is expected to reduce parking
requirements, shifting attention towards curb management. On the other hand, results on
the degree of complementarity and substitution between ride-hailing and public transport
and on the impact of ride-hailing on VKT are mixed; however, there is a tendency from
studies with updated data to show that the ride-hailing substitution effect of public trans-
port is stronger than the complementarity effect in several cities and that ride-hailing has
incremented motorised traffic and congestion. Early evidence on the impact of ride-hailing
on the environment and energy consumption is also concerning. A longer-term assess-
ment must estimate the ride-hailing effect on car ownership. A social welfare analysis that
accounts for both the benefits and costs of ride-hailing remains unexplored. The relevance
of shared rides in a scenario with mobility-as-a-service subscription packages and auto-
mated vehicles is also highlighted.

Keywords  Ride-hailing · Ridesourcing · Transportation network companies (TNC) ·

Shared mobility · Sharing economy

* Alejandro Tirachini
alejandro.tirachini@ing.uchile.cl
1
Transport Engineering Division, Civil Engineering Department, Universidad de Chile, Santiago,
Chile
2
Instituto Sistemas Complejos de Ingeniería (ISCI), Santiago, Chile
3
Chair of Transportation Systems Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Transportation

Introduction

Sharing economy or collaborative economy refers to the exchange of capital, assets and
services between individuals using internet-based platforms for the sharing of underuti-
lised resources, usually with a low transaction cost and the promise of increased efficiency,
environmental benefits and economic growth (Avital et al. 2014). With the proliferation of
‘mobility-on-demand’1 platforms, the transport sector has been among the forerunners of
the sharing economy revolution, with a myriad of technology-enabled new forms of mobil-
ity for carsharing, ridesharing, bikesharing, scooter sharing and ride-hailing. With ride-
hailing, a traveller who wants to take a specific trip is matched through a mobile applica-
tion with a driver willing to satisfy that demand in a private car. Ride-hailing platforms can
remove the exchange of cash and apply basic economics to match supply and demand by
dynamically adjusting prices (Shaheen 2018).2 There is no agreement on one single name
for ride-hailing services, other names include ridesourcing (also common in the academic
literature), app-based ride services, ride-booking and on-demand ride services, whilst pro-
viders are also referred to as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs).
The information and communication technologies used by ride-hailing applications pro-
vide a level of service previously unknown to competing modes such as street-hailing taxi
services in terms of reliability, spatial coverage and operating costs (Rodier 2018). Sev-
eral commercial ride-hailing companies, such as Uber, Lyft, Cabify, Ola and Didi Chuxing
have been developed and operate in multiple cities around the world. Nonprofit ride-hailing
platforms such as RideAustin have also emerged. The magnitude of their rise in the trans-
port market has been extraordinary. For instance, Didi Chuxing, launched in 2012, cur-
rently has approximately 450 million users, 21 million drivers and performs more than 30
million trips per day in more than 400 cities in China, making it the largest ride-hailing
company around the world in terms of daily rides.3 Ola, founded in 2010, covers more
than 110 cities in India,4 a country where at least eight local platforms provide ride-hailing
services (Ilavarasan et al. 2018), and Uber, launched in 2009, by April 2016 was present
in approximately 400 cities (Li et al. 2016), a number that increased to almost 800 cities
worldwide by August 2018.5 In San Francisco, the cradle of Uber and Lyft, an estimated
170,000 daily trips are performed with ride-hailing, which is approximately 12 times the
number of taxi trips and accounts for at least 9% of the city modal share (SFCTA 2017).
Schaller (2018) estimates that by the end of 2018, there might be more ride-hailing trips
than urban bus trips in the United States.
The existence of well-known market failures in transport, most notably negative traf-
fic externalities, challenges the usual promises of the sharing economy paradigm, such as
gains in economic efficiency and reductions in environmental costs. Furthermore, the cur-
rent situation of ride-hailing drivers is a topic of growing concern for regulators regarding

1
  Mobility-on-demand is defined as a transport concept where ‘consumers can access mobility, goods, and
services on demand by dispatching or using shared mobility, courier services, unmanned aerial vehicles and
public transportation solutions’ (Shaheen et al. 2017b).
2
 Although the very consideration of ride-hailing as part of the sharing economy is a topic of current
debate, due mainly to the asymmetries in the relationship between commercial ride-hailing companies and
drivers.
3
  https​://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/didi-chuxi​ng-2018-disru​ptor-50.html, accessed August 14th, 2018.
4
  https​://techc​runch​.com/2018/08/06/ola-is-bring​ing-its-ride-haili​ng-servi​ce-to-the-uk/, accessed Septem-
ber 14th, 2018.
5
  https​://www.uber.com/en-BR/citie​s/, accessed August 20th, 2018.

13
Transportation

drivers’ earnings, work rights and working hours. The push towards a ‘smart future’ is
being vigorously led by the private technology sector, which of course has profit inter-
ests and objectives that are not necessarily aligned with the maximisation of social welfare
(Davis 2018; Docherty et al. 2018). For example, ride-hailing has the potential to reduce
car ownership but, at the same time, can increase congestion and pollution in a city, given
the more intensive use of cars. Moreover, there are drivers who have bought and leased
cars with the purpose of becoming ride-hailing drivers (Parrott and Reich 2018; Wells
et al. 2018; Agarwal et al. 2019). Therefore, societal and private interests may collide in the
technology-enabled mobility revolution we are currently experiencing; this trade-off is the
focus of this paper.
In this paper, the main topics pertaining to the effects of ride-hailing for transport sus-
tainability and travel behaviour are exhaustively reviewed, with the objective of gaining a
deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the ride-hailing phenomenon. The topics
reviewed include the characterisation of ride-hailing users and their motivations to use the
service, trip purposes for which ride-hailing is used, the impact of ride-hailing on other
modes of transport, the impacts on traffic externalities and car ownership, the efficiency
gains provided by the ride-hailing technology and the potential future of this technology,
with the development of automated vehicles and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) platforms.
Other topics, such as ride-hailing business models, financial sustainability and the nature
of the relationship driver-platform, are not covered in this review.
The paper is organised as follows. “Organisation of the literature” section provides an
introduction to the literature included in this paper. “Ride-hailing and travel behaviour”
section reviews the main issues about the travel behaviour impacts of ride-hailing, includ-
ing the characterisation of ride-hailing users, the intensity of ride-hailing use, the purpose
of trips for ride-hailing, and the effects on access and activity engagement. “Ride-hailing
as a substitution for and/or complement to other modes” section analyses the effect of ride-
hailing as a substitute for and/or complement to other modes. In “Ride-hailing and traf-
fic externalities” section, we refer to the impact of ride-hailing on traffic externalities, and
“Technology-driven efficiency gains of ride-hailing” section addresses the efficiency gains
that are achievable by ride-hailing compared with traditional taxis. “Encouraging pooling:
ride-splitting or shared ride-hailing” section discusses the main issues pertaining to shared
ride-hailing and the challenges faced when encouraging pooling. In “Automated vehicles”
section, we examine the future of ride-hailing in a world of automated vehicles and mobil-
ity-as-a-service (MaaS) transport solutions. In “Policy implications and final remarks” sec-
tion, we conclude with a brief discussion on ride-hailing regulation and provide a summary
of current results on the sustainability and travel behaviour effects of ride-hailing. Venues
for further research are highlighted through the article.

Organisation of the literature

The rise of ride-hailing platforms in the past few years has been followed by the emergence
of an increasing number of research efforts in the form of academic papers, public agency
reports, consultancy reports and white papers that have aimed at understanding the myriad
set of effects of this new form of mobility in terms of travel behaviour, user changes in
activity engagement and quality of life, traffic externalities such as congestion, pollution
and crashes, car ownership, social effects and equity, drivers and the labour market, and
regulatory frameworks. Robust and reliable answers to basic questions such as the overall

13
 Transportation

impact of ride-hailing on vehicle-kilometres travelled (VKT) are still limited due to the
scarcity of trip-based ride-hailing data made available for research (Henao 2017; Rodier
2018), although in some cities such as New York and Austin, portions of ride-hailing data
have lately been publicly released (Schaller 2017a; Wenzel et al. 2019).
Numerous research methods have been employed to study the effects of ride-hailing on
travel behaviour changes, modal substitution and the level of traffic externalities. We iden-
tify ten data types and collection techniques that have been used in the literature, as sum-
marised in Table 1.
For the literature search, scientific databases and search engines Web of Science, Sco-
pus, Emerald Insight, JSTOR and Google Scholar were used. Other research works, such
as working papers, policy papers and postgraduate theses, were accessed mainly through
Google. Keywords for the literature search included ‘ride-hailing’, ‘ridesourcing’, ‘Trans-
portation Network Companies’, ‘VKT’, ‘congestion’, ‘travel behaviour’ and related con-
cepts. In cases of studies or reports not subject to peer review, the author assessed whether
the research methods reported are deemed appropriate before deciding to include such
works in the present review. A larger summary of the empirical studies included in this
paper is presented in Table 5 in “Appendix”. The results are analysed in-depth in the fol-
lowing sections.

Table 1  Data collection techniques for the study of ride-hailing

Data type References and country of data

Online survey United States: Clewlow and Mishra (2017), Alemi

Survey distributed through a ride-hailing app
Intercept survey
Surveys during actual ride-hailing trips
Household travel survey
Google search intensity for keywords such as
‘Uber’, as a proxy of Uber use
Taxi GPS data
Actual ride-hailing detailed trip and/or trajectory
data
GPS travel time data, traffic level estimates and
ride-hailing data
GPS travel time data in days with and without
strikes from ride-hailing drivers
et al. (2018)
Lebanon: Tarabay and Abou-Zeid (2019)
Brazil: de Souza Silva et al. (2018)
Chile: Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo (2019)
China: Tang et al. (2019)
United States: Rayle et al. (2016), Lewis and Mac-
Kenzie (2017)
Chile: Tirachini and del Río (2019)
United States: Gehrke et al. (2019), Henao and
Marshall (2018)
United States: Conway et al. (2018), Schaller (2018),
Grahn et al. (2019), Sikder (2019)
Canada: Young and Farber (2019)
United States: Li et al. (2016), Hall et al. (2018)
China: Nie (2017)
United States: Schaller (2017b), Brown (2018, 2019),
Atkinson-Palombo et al. (2019), Wenzel et al.
(2019)
China: Chen et al. (2017), Li et al. (2019)
United States: Erhardt et al. (2019)
India: Agarwal et al. (2019)

13
Transportation

Ride‑hailing and travel behaviour

Who uses ride‑hailing

Ride-hailing is redefining the idea of car access by disentangling it from car ownership
(Alemi et  al. 2018; Brown 2018). By means of a ride-hailing application, a person that
does not personally own a car has access to a car and driver in the palm of his/her hand.
An inability to pay the full costs of owning a car (capital, maintenance, insurance and park-
ing costs) is no longer a barrier for easy car access; therefore, profound social and equity
effects might be sustained by access to ride-hailing. For example, engagements in new
activities or staying at a friend´s place as long as one wants, with no concern for public
transport schedules or the need to wait for a vehicle along a street (which may be perceived
as dangerous) are some of the effects ride-hailing has on the general well-being of its users.
The number of trips made by a person and, therefore, the number and type of activities a
person performs in one day may directly increase due to the availability of ride-hailing as a
means of transport.
A basic research question necessary to understanding the social implications of ride-
hailing is characterising the users of this service. Research on ride-hailing adopters is still
limited, but some general conclusions have been reached. Studies based in the United
States and Canada usually find that ride-hailing is more widely adopted among relatively
young, well-educated and wealthier people (Clewlow and Mishra 2017; Dias et al. 2017;
Alemi et al. 2018; Conway et al. 2018; Grahn et al. 2019; Sikder 2019; Young and Farber
2019). A different situation may be the case in China, where 53% of Didi users in the sam-
ple analysed by Tang et al. (2019) do not have higher education. An attitudinal study on
ride-hailing adoption in California by Alemi et al. (2018) found that living in areas with
mixed land uses, auto accessibility, and whether a person uses social media and a smart-
phone to check mobility-related information are some of the factors related to a higher
probability of ride-hailing adoption. Personality attributes such as technology embracing
and pro-environmental thinking are also positively associated with ride-hailing use. Sikder
(2019) estimates that workers with a flexible schedule are more likely to adopt ride-hailing
than non-workers and workers with a fixed schedule.
Regarding the intensity or frequency of ride-hailing use, living in a high-density area
also correlates with a higher frequency of ride-hailing use (Dias et al. 2017; Circella et al.
2018; Conway et al. 2018; Alemi et al. 2019). Research shows that ride-hailing is mostly
used for occasional trips, as a majority of riders use this service a few times per month, as
shown by Alemi et al. (2018) and Brown (2018) in California, by Grahn et al. (2019) in the
United States (nationwide study), by Ilavarasan et al. (2018) in New Delhi and by Tirachini
and del Río (2019) in Santiago. Studies tend to find that the probability of being a frequent
ride-hailing user increases with income and decreases with age (Dias et al. 2017; Sikder
2019; Tirachini and del Río 2019). However, trends are not uniform and mixed results do
exist. There are local contexts such as Los Angeles, in which it has been shown that ride-
hailing is more frequently used in lower-income neighbourhoods (Brown 2019), whilst
data in New York show that some of the largest increases in ride-hailing use have occurred
in low-income areas (Atkinson-Palombo et al. 2019). An open question remains regarding
what mechanisms exist behind the positive or negative correlation between income and fre-
quency of ride-hailing use, exploring the role of the quality of alternative modes, motorisa-
tion rates and residential and workplace density, among others.

13
 Transportation

Interestingly, the relationship between car ownership and the intensity of ride-hailing
use is also disputed. On the one hand, Conway et al. (2018) found that at the national US
level, car ownership is negatively related to ride-hailing use, and Circella et al. (2018) esti-
mated that individuals with no car at home are likely to use ride-hailing more frequently
in California. On the other hand, Tirachini and del Río (2019) did not find a statistically
significant relationship between the frequency of ride-hailing use and household car avail-
ability in Santiago, and, using data from Puget Sound (State of Washington), Dias et  al.
(2017) found that the relationship between car ownership and the frequency of ride-hailing
use depends on neighbourhood density, as having vehicles at home reduces the frequency
of ride-hailing use in low-density suburbs but increases the frequency of ride-hailing use
in high-density suburbs, relative to zero-car households. It has also been shown that mul-
timodal travellers6 are more likely to adopt ride-hailing than those who base their daily
mobility on driving a car (Conway et  al. 2018). Similar evidence is presented by Sikder
(2019), who found that the use of shared cars, shared bicycles and public transport are all
positively correlated with ride-hailing adoption in the United States.
Beyond ride-hailing users, it is pertinent to study why people who have the chance to
use ride-hailing decide not to use this service. A simple preference to use one’s own car
and concerns about ride-hailing comfort and safety are among the most relevant factors
that prevent a person from using ride-hailing (Circella et  al. 2018; Alemi et  al. 2019).
Some people also have an ethical or ideological opposition to ride-hailing grounded in the
fact that drivers are not proper employees or that ride-hailing has light regulation, which
is unfair to the taxi industry (Dawes 2016). Ambivalent attitudes towards ride-hailing are
clear in the answers to the question posited by Dawes (2016), ‘What should your city do
about Uber/Lyft?’ Each of the following possible answers received approximately the
same number of respondents: ‘My city should regulate Uber/Lyft so that it has the same
operational restrictions as taxis’, ‘My city shouldn’t do anything about Uber/Lyft’ and ‘My
city should form partnerships with Uber/Lyft’. Similar sentiments have been reported for
Canada, i.e., market surveys during 2014 and 2015 showed that between 32 and 46% of
respondents were in favour of Uber, while between 37 and 43% respondents preferred that
Uber be banned in their cities (Ngo 2015).

Why people use ride‑hailing

Ride-hailing has several distinctive mobility attributes. A number of research studies have
asked users about the paramount reasons for using this mode of transport. The effect of
ride-hailing on increasing mobility differs between developing countries and developed
countries because the former usually have poor-quality public transport and/or paratransit
services, a context in which ride-hailing provides an alternative that is clearly better in
terms of safety, security and comfort, as discussed by, e.g., Vanderschuren and Baufeldt
(2018) for South Africa and Ilavarasan et al. (2018) for India.
Table  2 presents a summary of results from seven studies about the main reasons for
using ride-hailing, as stated by survey respondents. Different types of questions were asked
in the ad hoc surveys. For example, Rayle et al. (2016) and Circella et al. (2018) asked for

6
  US-based surveys show that Millennials (young adults born between 1981 and 1997) tend to be more
multimodal and to rely more on mobile and digital services for transport-related decisions (TRB 2013),
which helps to explain the greater adoption of ride-hailing among younger people.

13
 Table 2  Ranking of reasons for using ride-hailing, per study
Reason to use ride-hailing San Francisco Denver California New Delhi Santiago (Tira- Santiago (Tirachini Chinese cities
(Rayle et al. (Henao (Circella et al. (Ilavarasan et al. chini and del Río and Gomez-Lobo (Tang et al.
2016) 2017) 2018) 2018) 2019) 2019) 2019)
Transportation

Trip cost (fare) 9 5 5 6 2 2 2

Not having to search or pay for parking 6 4 8 5 12 10 5
Travel time 3 3 6 11 3 1
No need to drive after drinking alcohol 5 1 10 7 7
Ease of payment 1 7 1 5
Wait time 2 4 5 4
General comfort and security/safety 8 2 7 1
Ease of requesting service 4 2 8 8
Public transport not convenient or not 8 8 11 6 3
available
Fare transparency 2 3 6
Could not get a taxi 9 13 14
Reliability 7 1
Weather 7 4
Vehicle attributes (quality, comfort, clean- 1 10
liness, etc.)
No self-owned car available 2 14
Drivers’ attributes (driving style, attitude, 9 9
etc.)
Does not or cannot drive 6 12
Transport of children or other relatives 9 11
Variety of vehicle types (XL, to carry 13 13
bikes, etc.)
Attractive fare discounts 3
Possibility of identifying the driver and 4
evaluate the driver’s service

13
 Table 2  (continued)
Reason to use ride-hailing San Francisco Denver California New Delhi Santiago (Tira- Santiago (Tirachini Chinese cities
(Rayle et al. (Henao (Circella et al. (Ilavarasan et al. chini and del Río and Gomez-Lobo (Tang et al.

13
2016) 2017) 2018) 2018) 2019) 2019) 2019)

Perception of security against crime 8

Live tracking of car movement 9
Service response is fast 9
Feeling tired or sick 10
Use of time while riding 11
Ability to split the fare 12 4
Limitations on private car

Bold font indicates the top three reasons in each study. In Ilavarasan et al. (2018), separate questions were provided for ‘reasons’ (e.g., trip fare) and ‘important factors’ (e.g.,
fare transparency) to prefer ride-hailing; the ranking in Table 2 combines both questions ordered by the percentage of ‘very important’ and ‘important’ preferences for each
attribute
Transportation
Transportation

the reasons the respondent chose ride-hailing in his/her last (surveyed) trip, Henao (2017)
asked about the specific trip surveyed while the author was working as a ride-hailing driver,
and Ilavarasan et al. (2018), Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo (2019) and Tirachini and del Río
(2019) asked respondents for reasons why they used ride-hailing in general. Integrating
several studies to rank ride-hailing attributes is complex and can be conducted in several
(more or less) arbitrary ways. In Table 2, attributes are presented in six panels grouped by
the number of studies that include the respective attribute as an alternative.
As shown in Table 2, there is great diversity among the most important reasons to use
ride-hailing. First, trip cost, travel time, ease of payment, no need to drive after drink-
ing alcohol, and waiting time are highly valued in most of the studies reviewed. General
comfort and security/safety and ease of requesting the service are also relevant to users,
together with attributes linked to the inconveniences of car driving (the need to search or
pay for parking) and of public transport (which may not be available or convenient). It
is interesting to note that distinctive attributes of ride-hailing (not available in traditional
modes such as street-hailed taxis or public transport), along with common cost- and time-
related attributes, are together the top reasons influencing ride-hailing choice. Ease of pay-
ment (with a debit or credit card) might be the most relevant variable that is specific to
ride-hailing and was ranked first in two studies.
Other variables that are characteristic of ride-hailing, such as driver identification, fare
transparency (compared with taxis), and ease of requesting the service, among others, are
also relevant for ride-hailing choice in some contexts, but they are difficult to rank because
they were provided as alternatives in only one, two or three studies. Other reasons to use
ride-hailing, as mentioned by users in surveys, include the need to carry items, the friendli-
ness of drivers, car repairs, that the company pays for fare (Rayle et al. 2016), a feeling of
being modern or simply because ‘my friends do it’ (Dawes 2016).
Next, we review the trip purposes when using ride-hailing. Table 3 presents a ranking
of the most reported purposes per study. Leisure stands out as the number-one trip purpose
for using ride-hailing in all studies reviewed, from cities in the United States, India, Brazil
and Chile. In China, commuting to work and study are presented together in Tang et  al.
(2019), accounting for 41% of trip purposes, a greater proportion than ‘entertainment’ with
33% and ‘business’ with 10%. Within leisure as a general category, two studies found that
specifically going to bars, parties and restaurants is the most common reason to use ride-
hailing, surpassing other types of social purposes such as visiting a relative or a friend
(Clewlow and Mishra 2017; Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo 2019). The second most men-
tioned trip purpose is work/commuting. Below the top two most common purposes is some
variation in the relative position of trip purposes, including shopping/errands and study.

Quality of life, access and activity engagement

Just as the mass introduction of the automobile changed traditional ways of conducting
everyday activities and the types of activities that people could undertake, new technolo-
gies within the concept of ‘smart mobility’ are changing lives today (Docherty et al. 2018).
The fact that ride-hailing provides car access to people who do not own a car may have a
significant impact on the number and types of trips made, the destinations reached, the tim-
ing of the trips, the number of activities in which people engage and the duration of each
activity; therefore, lifestyles and quality of life may experience changes. People without a
car who do not take part in activities, e.g., at night because of security issues if travelling
by taxi or public transport, have a way to travel that is perceived more secure because of

13
 Transportation

ride-hailing. For example, in Santiago, Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo (2019) showed that 90%
of new Uber trips (that would have not been made if Uber was not available) were at night
(23% between 8 p.m. and 12 a.m. and 67% between 12 and 6 a.m.); moreover, the major-
ity of these trips were made by lower-income users. In the same survey, many respondents
also stated that due to ride-hailing, they could engage in nighttime activities for as long as
they wanted, as with this new transport alternative, they were neither bound by the closing
times of subway systems7 nor needed a relative to pick them up (Tirachini 2017).
Beyond the transport benefits of ride-hailing compared with taxis and public transport
for specific types of trips, ride-hailing may increase mobility for people with physical dis-
abilities by means of specially equipped cars and drivers trained to assist travellers with
wheelchairs, walkers, collapsible scooters and other devices.8 People with a temporary
health issue that affects their mobility (i.e., not being able to stand for long, having to use
a walking stick) have also stated the comfort of ride-hailing as a reason to prefer it over
public transport (Tirachini 2017). Additionally, people with cognitive limitations in driving
can enjoy more freedom to move because of ride-hailing (Rodier 2018).
Current pilot projects show how cities can partner with ride-hailing companies to pro-
vide subsidised mobility to specific groups such as seniors9 and low-income citizens. Trans-
port equity could be enhanced by the provision of late-night ride-hailing services and last-
mile solutions for public transport users. However, the facts that long ride-hailing trips are
unaffordable for low-income riders, that drivers can discretionally choose in which areas
of a city to work and that ride-hailing companies can discretionally increase fares through
surge pricing counteract transport equity benefits from ride-hailing (for a discussion, see
Shaheen et  al. 2017a; Atkinson-Palombo et  al. 2019). Concerning gender differences,
women may feel more secure travelling by ride-hailing than by other modes, as expressed
in countries such as Egypt (Rizk et al. 2018) and Chile (Tirachini 2017). However, the risk
of harassment and assault from male drivers is also a problem in ride-hailing,10 in response
to which women-only ride-hailing platforms have been created (e.g., She Drives Me in the
United States, Riding Pink in Malaysia), while other apps such as RideAustin allow for
the possibility of requesting a female driver. Regarding income and racial equity, Brown
(2018, 2019) used detailed trip-level Lyft data in Los Angeles, California, to show that
ride-hailing provides car-based mobility to people in lower-income neighbourhoods that
have previously been excluded by the taxi industry. Such seems to also be the case in New
York, with large increases of ride-hailing use in outer suburbs (Atkinson-Palombo et  al.
2019). Brown (2018, 2019) also found that people in lower-income suburbs benefit more
from the use of shared ride-hailing (also known as ride-splitting, see “Encouraging pool-
ing: ride-splitting or shared ride-hailing” section).

7
 Depending on the station, the closing time of the Santiago subway system is between 11:20 and
11:50 p.m.
8
  https​://www.uber.com/en-SG/drive​/resou​rces/ubera​ssist​/, accessed August 24th, 2018.
9
  Ways to overcome barriers for ride-hailing use among senior citizens are analysed in Vivoda et al. (2018)
and Shirgaokar (2018).
10
  Between 2015 and 2018, 103 Uber drivers were accused of sexual assault or abuse in the United States,
see https​://money​.cnn.com/2018/04/30/techn​ology​/uber-drive​r-sexua​l-assau​lt/index​.html?iid=EL, accessed
July 9th, 2019.

13
Transportation

Table 3  Ranking of trip purposes when using ride-hailing, per study

Trip purpose San Francisco Denver New Delhi Santiago (Tira- Brazilian cities (de
(Rayle et al. (Henao (Ilavarasan et al. chini and del Río Souza Silva et al.
2016) 2017) 2018) 2019) 2018)

Going out/social 1 1 1 1 1
Work/commut- 2 2 2 2 2
ing
Shopping/ 4 4 4 2 3
errands
Study 5 6 5 4
Health 6 3 4
To/from airport 3 5 6
When out of 3
town

Respondents are asked to report their reasons to use ride-hailing in general (Henao 2017; Tirachini and del
Río 2019; Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo 2019) or for a specific trip (Rayle et al. 2016) when being surveyed.
In Rayle et al. (2016), ‘health’ is located within the ‘others’ category, together with volunteering and other
purposes, and ‘to/from transit’ is also shown as a trip purpose. In Tirachini and del Río (2019), the option
to/from airport includes to/from interurban bus terminal

Ride‑hailing as a substitution for and/or complement to other modes

Modal substitution rates and induced trips

The sustainability analysis of ride-hailing crucially depends on its effect on modal substitu-
tion and complementarity. Some studies on this matter have been published with results
from the United States, China, Brazil and Chile, as reported in Table 4. In general, car own-
ers tend to drive their own cars less once they adopt ride-hailing (Rayle et al. 2016; Clew-
low and Mishra 2017). Whether this fact has any impact on VKT (see “Vehicle-kilometres
travelled (VKT)” section) depends on various factors, including the balance between cruis-
ing for parking in the case of car driving and empty (deadheading) kilometres in the case of
ride-hailing (Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo 2019).
The values in Table 4 are not directly comparable across studies for a number of rea-
sons. First, most of the studies have convenience samples that are not necessarily repre-
sentative of the population (for details, see Table 5), which were acquired with intercept
surveys (Rayle et al. 2016), online snowball samples (de Souza Silva et al. 2018; Tirachini
and Gomez-Lobo 2019), surveys conducted through a ride-hailing app (Tang et al. 2019)
or surveys with tablets during ride-hailing trips (Gehrke et al. 2018; Henao and Marshall
2018), whereas a sampling method with panel data meant to be representative of Millen-
nials11 and Generation X12 users was employed by Alemi et al. (2018) in California. Ques-
tions were for one specific trip, either the trip made during the survey (Gehrke et al. 2018;
Henao and Marshall 2018) or the last ride-hailing trip made by the user (Rayle et al. 2016;
Alemi et al. 2018; Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo 2019). In addition, Rayle et al. (2016) and
Alemi et al. (2018) allowed more than one answer per respondent (in Table 4, percentages

11
  Millennials: young adults born between 1981 and 1997.
12
  Generation X: middle-aged adults born between 1965 and 1980.

13
13
Table 4  Ride-hailing substitution (percentage) of other modes and induced trips
Substituted mode San Francisco Denver (Henao Santiago (Tirachini Boston Brazilian cities (de Chinese cities California (Alemi et al.
(Rayle et al. and Marshall and Gomez-Lobo (Gehrke et al. Souza Silva et al. (Tang et al. 2018)
2016) 2018) 2019) 2018) 2018) 2019)*
GenX (see Mill (see
footnote footnote
12) 11)

Taxi 36 9.6 40.7 22.8 49.7 39.0 37.3 24.7

Public transport 31 22.2 32.5 42.1 30.2 37.5 8.0 15.0
Car driver 6 22.2 12.1 18.0 10.4 17.2 25.7 20.7
Car other (get a ride, 1 10.6 8.1 13.3 17.7
carpool)
Bicycle 2 11.9 1.3 12.1 0.3 6.5 8.0 13.4
Walking 7 2.4 0.8
Other modes 10 11.3 5.6 n/i n/i 3.6 3.0 3.6
I would not have travelled 7 12.2 5.4 5.0 n/i 0.4 4.7 5.0
(induced trips)
Sample size 313 308 1474 926 384 9762 302 164

*For Tang et al. (2019), the values in the table are those of the Express Didi service (the normal ride-hailing alternative). Tang et al. (2019) report the rate of induced trips
for all Didi services together (including ride-hailing and ride-splitting), which is 0.4%. This figure is included in Table 4. The studies from Santiago, Boston and Chinese cit-
ies present Car as one mode (including both travelling as driver and passenger); the studies from Denver, Boston, Chinese cities and California bundled Bicycle and Walking
together as non-motorised transport
Transportation
Transportation

are adjusted so that the total sum is 100%), which could be interpreted in different ways by
respondents. For example, in Alemi et al. (2018), ‘walking’ could also be a walk to access
public transport; therefore, it is possible that the rates presented in Table 4 underestimate
public transport substitution and overestimate walking substitution. Third, ‘other modes’
include different modes across studies; for example, this category includes van/shuttle ser-
vices in the case of Alemi et al. (2018) and car rental and other ride-hailing services in the
case of Henao and Marshall (2018).
Despite all the aforementioned differences, some general conclusions can be reached.
In all studies, the three most substituted modes by ride-hailing are taxis, public transport
and private (own) cars. Surveys from Chile, Brazil and China found that taxis and public
transport are the most replaced modes by far; in the United States, private cars represent
the most substituted mode in the studies of Henao and Marshall (2018) and Alemi et al.
(2018), but in the survey of Rayle et al. (2016) in central San Francisco, taxis and public
transport were the most substituted modes (the geographical area of the latter study makes
these results not necessarily representative of San Francisco or the greater Bay Area).
Rayle et  al. (2016) conjecture that more than half of ride-hailing trips in San Francisco
replace modes other than taxis, a result that was found in all studies presented in Table 4,
except for the Brazilian (convenience) sample where taxi substitution reached 50%. Tara-
bay and Abou-Zeid (2019) estimate that taxi riders are more likely than car drivers and
bus users to switch to ride-hailing, using a sample of university students in Beirut. US-
based studies estimate a substitution of walking and cycling between 9 and 13%, whereas
in South America, the substitution of active modes seems to be lower (between 1 and 3% in
the convenience samples of Table 4). Gehrke et al. (2019) found that ride-hailing is more
likely to replace walking and cycling for short trips and under poor weather conditions in
Boston. It is worth highlighting that ride-hailing users are unlikely to replace the use of
other modes altogether, as most riders continue using other modes on a monthly basis. The
intensity of use of each mode is what changes with ride-hailing.
Finally, ride-hailing induces a non-marginal number of trips that would not have been
made if ride-hailing was not available; in five out of seven studies in Table 4, the rate of
induced trips is between 5 and 7%, with the exception of the study by Henao and Marshall
(2018) in Denver, which reports a 12% rate of induced trips, and Tang et al. (2019), who
report only a 0.4% rate of induced trips by Didi in China (this value combines the substitu-
tion of ride-hailing and ride-splitting). The translation of this induced travel demand on
new activity engagement is addressed in “Quality of life, access and activity engagement”
section.
Empirical research on the degree of ride-hailing substitution and complementarity with
other modes would benefit from more attention to the local contexts that may be driving the
relationships exposed. Survey-based studies such as that by Clewlow and Mishra (2017)
and demand econometric models such as Hall et al. (2018) and Graehler et al. (2019) group
data from several cities that have different urban landscapes, residential densities, scale
of public transport systems and so on, and therefore it is not possible to disentangle the
effect of specific elements on the overall result. In this respect, the impact of local policies
(e.g., parking pricing and provision, the existence of public transport passes, taxi regula-
tion, road pricing, traffic-calming measures, demand management measures) have not been
studied so far and should be approached in future research.

13
 Transportation

Ride‑hailing and public transport

The fact that ride-hailing can both substitute and complement public transport makes the
relationship between these two modes one of the most interesting research topics concern-
ing the rise of ride-hailing. The assessment of ride-hailing as a sustainable or unsustain-
able travel alternative critically depends on whether ride-hailing integrates with or replaces
buses, trams or trains in cities and suburban areas. Currently, some public transport agen-
cies and ride-hailing providers have formal alliances that encourage integration in North
America, such as via the provision of discounted fares for ride-hailing trips to/from train
stations and bus stops13 to incorporate ride-hailing as a last-mile mode. A ubiquitous and
simple payment technology that works for all modes involved is one of the keys for these
partnerships to succeed and appeal to travellers (Iacobucci et al. 2017). In places and time
periods where public transport underperforms in terms of travel time and travel experience,
it is expected that the substitution effect towards ride-hailing will be larger than that in cit-
ies with a strong public transport system.
Empirical results on the degree of complementarity/substitution of ride-hailing and pub-
lic transport diverge. Using data up to 2015, Hall et al. (2018) found that Uber is a comple-
ment to the average public transport agency in the United States, and specifically, there is
a reduction in public transport demand in small cities and an increase in public transport
demand in large cities, a result explained by ride-hailing being a first-mile/last-mile mode
that is used in conjunction with a bus or train for a longer trip. Contreras and Paz (2018)
also suggest that ride-hailing is a complement to rather than a substitute for public trans-
port in Las Vegas, and Ilavarasan et al. (2018) find that 66% of survey respondents in New
Delhi report that access to public transport stations is an important reason to choose ride-
hailing. Interestingly, the analysis of the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)
in the United States suggests that public transport use is positively correlated with ride-
hailing use (Conway et al. 2018; Grahn et al. 2019; Sikder 2019) and similar evidence has
been found in Canada (Young and Farber 2019) and Chile (Tirachini and del Río 2019).
However, this correlation is not sufficient to conclude that the complementarity effect is
larger than the substitution effect because this analysis does not show the absolute impact
of ride-hailing on public transport demand; rather, as mentioned, it implies that multimodal
travellers are more likely to adopt ride-hailing. This is not surprising because ride-hailing
is mostly used for occasional trips (see “Who uses ride-hailing” section) and ride-hailing
users may continue relying on public transport for more frequent trips.
Other studies have presented a different picture and a tendency towards the conclusion
that the substitution effect of urban public transport is larger than the complementarity
effect has emerged, based on analyses from several cities. Using data up to 2018 (i.e., a
larger timespan than that of Hall et  al. 2018), Graehler et  al. (2019) estimate that Uber
has decreased bus and heavy rail ridership by 1.7% and 1.3% per year, respectively, pool-
ing data from 22 major US cities. In New Delhi, Agarwal et  al. (2019) estimate that on
days during which there was a strike by ride-hailing drivers, Metro (subway) daily rider-
ship increased by 57,900 trips, which is 2.4% of total Metro demand. User surveys have
also found a large substitution of public transport trips by ride-hailing (between 8 and 42%,
Table 4). Table 2 shows that the inconvenience of public transport is explicitly mentioned
by travellers as a reason to choose ride-hailing. Clewlow and Mishra (2017) estimate that

13
  Other subsidies include discounted ride-hailing trips for people with disabilities.

13
Transportation

ride-hailing decreases demand for urban buses and urban trams and increases demand for
suburban trains. In Alemi et  al. (2018), while 39–49% of survey respondents stated that
they use less public transport due to ride-hailing, only 7–12% of respondents stated they
use more public transport due to ride-hailing, and in Tirachini and del Río (2019), for each
person who uses ride-hailing as a complement to public transport in Santiago, there are 11
travellers who reported replacing public transport with ride-hailing when travelling with
ride-hailing.
The issue of ride-hailing as a substitute of public transport is concerning because, in
all places and situations where ride-hailing reduces the public transport demand, apart
from the increase in VKT and traffic-related externalities, the drop in public transport
ridership may result in decreases in bus/rail services or less-frequent services in the long
term, which in turn increases waiting and/or access times for captive public transport users.
Lower-income passengers and those holding a public transport pass are more likely to have
replaced public transport with the use of ride-hailing in Boston (Gehrke et al. 2019). Cer-
tainly, when appropriate, public transport agencies should seek to integrate ride-hailing
as a last-mile mode and thus retain passengers. These alliances should take place in low-
demand low-density markets where ride-hailing is not expected to increase congestion. To
ensure that such a policy is not regressive, proper subsidies to include low-income travel-
lers and others not able to use ride-hailing should be considered.

Ride‑hailing and car ownership

The previous analysis of modal substitution has not considered the potential of ride-hail-
ing to reduce car ownership. This issue is relevant because, when surveyed, a person may
state that he/she is replacing public transport when using ride-hailing, but it might be that
ride-hailing is the main reason why the person has decided not to own a car; thus, sug-
gesting the replacement of public transport in this case may be misleading (Henao and
Marshall 2017). In such a case, ride-hailing could complement modes such as public trans-
port, cycling and walking as part of a car-free lifestyle. Therefore, the assessment of modal
complementarity and substitution should incorporate potential effects on car ownership,
although evidence examining this relationship remains limited. Rayle et al. (2016), Clew-
low and Mishra (2017) and Henao and Marshall (2018) reported that approximately 9 of
10 survey respondents have not made any changes to their car ownership status since using
ride-hailing. For the remaining respondents, studies have reported conflicting evidence.
In Clewlow and Mishra (2017), on average, 9% of respondents have disposed of one or
more cars; furthermore, frequent ride-hailing users are more likely to have reduced their
household vehicles—for example, 24% of daily ride-hailing users reported disposing of
a car after starting the use of ride-hailing. Similarly, in Henao and Marshall (2018), 13%
of respondents reported owning fewer cars due to ride-hailing. However, in Rayle et  al.
(2016), respondents who changed their car ownership level were as likely to have more
cars as to have fewer cars in their households after starting the use of ride-hailing, so the
authors concluded that it is unlikely that ride-hailing had any impact on car ownership in
their sample. Moreover, in these surveys, it is unclear whether other factors may contribute
to reported changes in car ownership decisions (Rodier 2018). For example, Tang et  al.
(2019) report that 52% of ride-hailing users would reconsider their car purchasing deci-
sions in China, if ride-hailing became permanently available and, at the same time, road
traffic, limits on car purchases and parking issues became more severe.

13
 Transportation

A side-effect of ride-hailing is that a number of people have bought or leased cars to

become ride-hailing drivers, as seen in, e.g., the United States (Parrott and Reich 2018;
Wells et  al. 2018) and India (Agarwal et  al. 2019). In fact, in countries such as Mexico
and India, Uber explicitly encourages people to buy cars and become ride-hailing drivers
by maintaining partnerships with car dealers and financiers.14 In India, many people have
taken loans to acquire a car in order to become ride-hailing drivers and then have struggled
financially due to low earnings, which has led to drivers’ strikes in 2017 and 2018 (Agar-
wal et al. 2019). All in all, given the relatively short term in which ride-hailing has been
available, the evidence on the effect of ride-hailing on car ownership is still limited and
longer-term assessments on this topic are pending, including the full effect on users and
drivers.

Ride‑hailing and traffic externalities

Vehicle‑kilometres travelled (VKT)

In the analysis of the impacts of ride-hailing on urban sustainability, the key elements to be
analysed are the effects of ride-hailing on (potentially reducing) car ownership and either
the reduction or increase in VKT (or VMT when known as vehicle-miles-travelled). As
summarised by Rodier (2018), the total impact of ride-hailing on VKT depends on the
combined influence of ride-hailing on several variables, namely, car ownership, trip gen-
eration, mode choice, relocation of travel due to empty kilometres and destination choice
changes. The relevance of estimating VKT changes for policy analysis is grounded in the
fact that the social costs of traffic externalities such as congestion, local and global pollu-
tion, noise and accidents are all related to VKT.
Overall, after initial studies provided mixed results, studies from 2017 onwards have
tended to conclude a likely increase in VKT due to ride-hailing, as summarised in Table 5.
Partial estimations of the effect of ride-hailing in VKT are provided by Henao and Mar-
shall (2018), who, due to the availability of detailed ride-hailing trip-level data in Denver
collected by the first author while working as a ride-hailing driver, estimated a total VKT
increase of 84% for the 311 trips surveyed. In New York, Schaller (2017b) estimated that
an average ride-hailing vehicle drives approximately 54,000 km per year and that the con-
tribution of the taxi and ride-hailing industry to total traffic in the city increased from 14%
in 2013 to 19% in 2016. Later, Schaller (2018) calculated that ride-hailing added a total
of 9.1 billion vehicle-kilometres during 2017 in nine large US cities combined.15 In San
Francisco, Erhardt et al. (2019) estimated that ride-hailing is responsible for approximately
half of the VKT increase between 2010 and 2016. In the case of Santiago, Tirachini and
Gomez-Lobo (2019) estimated that for each new ride-hailing trip, there is an average VKT
increase of 1.7  km (equivalent to an average 31.5% VKT increase for each trip) if taxi
and bus supplies are adjusted to the demand reduction due to ride-hailing (the estimated
increase in VKT is approximately 90% if the same numbers of taxi-km and bus-km remain
on the network, similar to the estimation of Henao and Marshall 2018, for Denver). These

14
  https​://www.uber.com/es-MX/drive​/vehic​le-solut​ions/new-car-disco​unts/, https​://www.uber.com/en-IN/
drive​/vehic​le-solut​ions/car-loans​/, accessed July 9th, 2019.
15
  Miami, Boston, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago and Washington.

13
Transportation

are short-term assessments, as a longer-term investigation will need to consider the influ-
ence of ride-hailing on car ownership, as discussed in “Ride-hailing as a substitution for
and/or complement to other modes” section.
For survey-based studies, an issue is the level of representativeness of the data, which
critically depends on the sampling and expansion methods being used. Authors have used
either a sampling method meant to be representative16 (Clewlow and Mishra 2017; Alemi
et  al. 2018; CNP 2018; Tirachini and del Río 2019) or a convenience sampling of ride-
hailing users, for which the representativeness of ride-hailing users in general is unknown.
The latter method includes intercept surveys of ride-hailing users in central San Francisco
(Rayle et al. 2016), user surveys during ride-hailing trips in Denver (Henao 2017; Henao
and Marshall 2018) or online surveys (snowball sample) of Uber users in Chile (Tirachini
and Gomez-Lobo 2019).
As noted in “Ride-hailing as a substitution for and/or complement to other modes” sec-
tion, a weakness of current empirical studies is that they do not focus on policy; future
studies on the relationship between ride-hailing and VKT should be able to support policy
making by analysing the effect of different policy responses to, e.g., VKT increases driven
by ride-hailing, including price instruments, demand management, parking management
and so on. The application of some of these policies is complementary rather than exclu-
sive, which makes the problem more complex to address.

Congestion

An increase in traffic congestion should occur if there is an increase in VKT due to ride-
hailing at peak periods or if ride-hailing enlarges peak periods. Most studies have shown
that the majority of ride-hailing trips take place in off-peak periods (Brown 2018; Feigon
and Murphy 2018; Gehrke et al. 2018; Young and Farber 2019) and that, at least in some
cities, the ride-hailing peak use occurs on Friday and Saturday nights (Brown 2018; Tira-
chini and del Río 2019; Wenzel et al. 2019), when the public transport supply is greatly
reduced and the comfort, safety and security benefits of having reliable door-to-door car-
based transport, without having to drive, are more apparent. However, a significant portion
of ride-hailing trips are made during peak periods, especially during the afternoon peak. In
Santiago, Tirachini (2017) reported that 25% of ride-hailing trips on weekdays are made
during rush hours (afternoon peak trips are double the number of morning peak trips) and
that 50% of peak-period trips made by ride-hailing replace trips previously made by public
transport, cycling, walking and shared taxi use; therefore, an increase in peak congestion
is likely induced by ride-hailing in the city. Similarly, Feigon and Murphy (2018) showed
that between 20 and 27% of ride-hailing trips are made during rush hours in Chicago, Los
Angeles, Nashville, Seattle, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and 40% of surveyed
ride-hailing trips are estimated to occur at peak times in Boston (Gehrke et al. 2018).
To date, there are few studies on the specific topic of ride-hailing and traffic congestion.
Li et al. (2016) used annual traffic data from several US urban areas and the temporal evo-
lution of Google searches of the term ‘Uber’ in each city as a proxy of Uber use (which is a
method that has not yet been externally validated), using data up to 2014. The authors con-
cluded that Uber use is associated with a reduction in traffic congestion at a metropolitan

16
  For the studies with surveys from the US, the sampling method of each work is discussed in Rodier
(2018).

13
 Transportation

scale. The authors suggested that ride-hailing can reduce car ownership, increase car occu-
pancy rates and delay peak-hour trips if surge pricing is applied. Nevertheless, in Li et al.
(2016), ride-hailing-induced congestion may still occur in some areas, an effect that was
not considered by the city-wide congestion measures used as the explained variables. For
example, in New York, Schaller (2017b) estimated a 7% VKT increase in Manhattan due
to ride-hailing, and, given the congestion levels already present in that area, the author con-
jectured a likely increase in congestion due to ride-hailing.
Other recent studies point to an increase in congestion due to ride-hailing. In their
San Francisco analysis, Erhardt et al. (2019) estimated that between 2010 and 2016, traf-
fic delay17 increased by 62%, compared to a 22% increase in a (simulated) 2016 coun-
terfactual that assumed a scenario without ride-hailing companies using a travel demand
model calibrated for San Francisco. Furthermore, Erhardt et al. (2019) concluded that the
largest increases in congestion due to ride-hailing occur in the city centre and the main
roads. The limitation of implementing a simulated counterfactual is overcome by Agarwal
et al. (2019), who used an external shock—high-compliance ride-hailing drivers’ strikes in
India—to estimate the effect of ride-hailing on congestion. The authors estimated that on
days without ride-hailing operations due to strikes, travel times per kilometre were reduced
by 5.8–6.6% in Mumbai, 4.6% in Delhi and 7.3% in Bangalore on a number of routes
selected to represent general congestion levels in these cities. The above studies are short-
term evaluations of the influence of ride-hailing on increasing traffic congestion. Certainly,
the effect of ride-hailing on congestion depends on local factors, such as the quality and
availability of transport alternatives, and a long-term evaluation that can accommodate the
impacts of ride-hailing not only on modal substitution but also, as previously mentioned,
on vehicle ownership is also warranted.

Energy consumption and environmental effects

An assessment of the total effect of ride-hailing on the environment must consider a com-
plex mix of short-term and long-term processes. The first related question is whether
motorised VKT are reduced or increased by ride-hailing. As shown in “Vehicle-kilometres
travelled (VKT)” section, most of the current evidence indicates a likely increase in VKT
due to ride-hailing, which, in the case of fossil fuel-based vehicles, can be directly linked to
an increase in local pollution. There is also an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (global
pollution), mainly driven by carbon dioxide (­ CO2) emitted due to the consumption of fuel.
Second, there might be a change in the composition of the vehicle fleet if, for example,
the percentage of hybrid and electric vehicles is larger for the ride-hailing fleet than for
the general private car fleet, as it is the case of RideAustin in Austin (Wenzel et al. 2019).
Specific actions could be taken to reach the goal of having more low-emissions ride-hail-
ing vehicles; for example, in June 2018, Uber announced a pilot programme to pay more
money per ride to drivers who switch to electric cars, implemented in seven US cities.18 In
the case of electric vehicles, there is negligible local pollution in places where the car oper-
ates, but when the analysis is switched to the source used to generate electricity, local (at
the source) and global pollution is still generated if coal is used for electricity production.

17
  Delay is defined as the difference between congested and free-flow travel time.
18
  http://fortu​ne.com/2018/06/20/uber-drive​rs-switc​h-elect​ric-cars/, accessed August 25th, 2018.

13
Transportation

A longer-term analysis of the efforts of ride-hailing companies to develop and maintain a

green fleet is needed to assess the environmental merits of these programmes.
Third, the total energy consumed and ­CO2 emitted during the complete life cycle of a
car encompasses four stages: raw material processing, car manufacturing, car use and car
recovery (Fysikopoulos et al. 2012). If ride-hailing eventually reduces the number of cars
owned by households, this service will have a direct effect on reducing energy consump-
tion and gas emissions due to car manufacturing and disposal. For example, Sullivan et al.
(2010) estimated that during part manufacturing and vehicle assembly for a conventional
car, the energy consumed amounts to 34 gigajoules, and the ­CO2 emitted amounts to 2
tonnes. The energy cost is approximately 9–12% of the total vehicle manufacturing cost
(Fysikopoulos et al. 2012).
Therefore, taking only these three effects into consideration, it is not clear whether
the total effect of ride-hailing is positive or negative in terms of environmental impacts.
Empirical evidence on the environmental effect of ride-hailing is limited. Only considering
the first two effects, Wenzel et al. (2019) calculated an increase in energy consumption in
the range of 41–90% in Austin due to the operations of the nonprofit ride-hailing platform
RideAustin. Lewis and MacKenzie (2017) estimated that a large number of UberHOP trips
in Seattle increased air pollution because they were solo trips in SUVs that replaced pub-
lic transport trips. Interestingly, Alemi et al. (2018) found that individuals with a stronger
declared pro-environmental attitude are more likely to use ride-hailing in California, pro-
viding evidence that ride-hailing is perceived as more environmentally friendly (at least by
part of the population), even though this assumption is not necessarily true, as shown by
Lewis and MacKenzie (2017) and Wenzel et al. (2019). Future research efforts must inves-
tigate the total effect of ride-hailing on the environment, including short- and long-term
impacts.

Crashes

In general, traffic crashes increase with traffic flow, so if ride-hailing increases VKT, if
everything else remains constant, there will be an increase in the exposure to and risk of
collisions and the number of vehicles striking pedestrians and cyclists. However, this anal-
ysis does not consider that there are specific types of traffic accidents that ride-hailing may
indeed reduce. As shown in “Why people use ride-hailing” section, one of the chief rea-
sons to choose ride-hailing for a trip is to avoid driving after drinking; therefore, it is possi-
ble that ride-hailing reduces crashes, injuries and fatalities related to alcohol consumption.
Empirical research on the relationship between ride-hailing and traffic crashes is in its
infancy, and the results are mixed. Using difference-in-differences approaches, Greenwood
and Wattal (2015) found a significant reduction in fatalities caused by drunk driving in
California due to the effect of Uber. Interestingly, Uber had no effect on fatalities when
surge pricing was in place, which suggests that trip cost is also significant in explaining
the choice of ride-hailing instead of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Dills
and Mulholland (2018) also found a reduction in fatal crashes due to Uber in the United
States, estimating that after 4 years of Uber operation in a US county, fatal crashes decline
between 17 and 40%. Outside the US, Lagos et al. (2018) estimated a reduction in alcohol-
related fatal accidents and fatalities due to Uber in Santiago yet found no effect on the
overall number of alcohol-related crashes. Contrasting evidence has emerged, as Brazil and
Kirk (2016) found no significant effect of Uber on traffic fatalities in the US for all types
of accidents combined or for fatalities specifically caused by driving while intoxicated. As

13
 Transportation

the research method employed is similar among these studies, there is no clear explanation
for the discordant conclusions that were reached; therefore, the relationship between ride-
hailing and traffic safety remains an open empirical question.

Technology‑driven efficiency gains of ride‑hailing

Compared to other car-based means of transport, there are several ways in which ride-hail-
ing may be more efficient in the use of scarce resources such as vehicles and road capacity.
For taxis or ride-hailing types of services, one measure of efficiency is the capacity utili-
sation rate (CUR), defined as either the fraction of time that drivers run with passengers
(time-based CUR) or as the fraction of total distance that drivers have passengers in their
car (distance-based CUR). Tools such as temporal maps are used by ride-hailing providers
to show drivers high-demand areas, thus reducing empty kilometres and increasing profit-
ability. The study by Cramer and Krueger (2016) found that Uber’s time-based CUR is
approximately 44% in Seattle, 47% in Boston, 51% in New York and Los Angeles and
55% in San Francisco, while the time-based CUR of taxis is 32% in Boston, 39% in San
Francisco and 49% in New York. Therefore, Uber drivers spend between 30 and 44% more
time running with passengers than taxi drivers in the cities analysed, relative to the total
time driven. Evidence that the rise of ride-hailing may negatively affect taxi CUR has also
emerged, as Schaller (2017a) estimates that taxi time-based CUR slightly dropped from 67
to 65% between 2013 and 2017 in Manhattan, New York.
GPS-based technology to match riders with drivers is a chief element to explain the effi-
ciency gains from ride-hailing. If taxi drivers, when operating an empty taxi, drive slower
than usual to find passengers to pick up on the street, there is a second source of inefficiency
due to increased fuel consumption. Taking into account the expected increase in CUR and
average speed of ride-hailing vehicles versus taxis in Santiago, Bennett and Zahler (2018)
estimated that ride-hailing saves, on average, 15% of the taxi fare per ride. Certainly, these
technology-driven efficiency gains are also available to taxi drivers through taxi e-hailing
applications. The increase in productivity attainable with e-hailing has allowed some appli-
cations to reduce taxi fares to users, such as the taxi e-hailing app Easy in Chile.19
One issue that jeopardises the reduction of empty kilometres due to ride-hailing is that
if a temporal mismatch between demand and supply is observed such that high demand
reduces or eliminates idle drivers around customers, drivers from distant locations must
be sent to pick up riders (something does not happen with traditional street hailing), thus
reducing drivers’ income and increasing empty kilometres. Empirical evidence of this phe-
nomenon was provided by Castillo et  al. (2018), who show, using Uber data from New
York, that when the rate of idle ride-hailing drivers to drivers on-route to pick up a pas-
senger is below 50%, there is a dramatic increase in trip cancellation rates from riders due
to longer-than-acceptable wait times, producing an increase in wasted time by drivers and
worsening the empty kilometre problem. The authors found that this problem is avoided
with dynamic surge pricing.
Another variable to consider when comparing traditional taxis and ride-hailing vehicles
is the occupancy rate, which is measured as the number of passengers per vehicle (pax/

19
  In January 2017, the taxi app Easy launched the Easy Economy option, which charges taxi users 85% of
the price of a normal taxi ride.

13
Transportation

veh), without counting the driver in the case of ride-hailing and taxis. The integration of
vehicle occupancy rates and CUR in one efficiency measure can be achieved by defining a
weighted occupancy rate (WOR), which includes both kilometres with and without passen-
gers. WOR for taxis and ride-hailing vehicles can also be directly compared to the occu-
pancy rate of normal private cars. For example, for taxis in Santiago, the WOR is between
0.6 and 0.7  pax/veh20 due to the large share of empty kilometres of taxis searching for
passengers, while the car occupancy rate is between 1.4 and 1.5 pax/veh (there is no esti-
mation of the ride-hailing WOR yet). Henao and Marshall (2018) estimated a WOR of 0.8
for ride-hailing in Denver. Any WOR lower than 1, is, by definition, lower than the occu-
pancy rate of private use cars, which points to the significance of empty kilometres for the
analysis of taxis and ride-hailing. The estimation and comparison of the WOR values for
taxis and ride-hailing vehicles in different cities is a promising target for further research
and would provide, in one indicator, the rate of the total efficiency gains by ride-hailing
compared with street-hailing.21

Encouraging pooling: ride‑splitting or shared ride‑hailing

The spread of information and communication technologies (ICT) and automatic location
systems such as GPS-enabled mobile devices allows for an ever-growing set of mobility
innovations and service alternatives aimed at appealing to different types of riders with
a wide range of options (Shaheen et  al. 2016). Specialised ride-hailing services include
services for older adults and people with disabilities (e.g., Lift Hero) and for children on
trips to school (e.g., HopSkipDrive).22 The line between ride-hailing and public transport
became more diffuse with the creation of shared ride-hailing service alternatives (also
known as ride-splitting), such as UberPool, Lyft Line and Didi ExpressPool, in which users
receive a fare discount relative to the normal (unshared) ride-hailing trip fare. Ride-split-
ting is a closer substitute of urban public transport than standard ride-hailing (Tang et al.
2019; Tirachini and Gomez-Lobo 2019). Using data from Didi ExpressPool from Hang-
zhou, China, Chen et  al. (2017) estimate that the main factors that explain the choice of
ride-splitting over standard ride-hailing are travel time, travel cost, the level of surge pric-
ing (if any) applied to standard ride-hailing, travel distance and pick-up time. The analy-
sis of Schwieterman and Smith (2018), based on a selected sample of paired UberPool
and public transport trips in Chicago, shows that public transport can be competitive with
UberPool in terms of travel time if public transport passengers do not need to transfer and/
or walk long distances to reach bus stops or train stations.
The growth of ride-splitting services has been much more limited than that of the stand-
ard (unshared) ride-hailing: as of December 2017, UberPool is present in 36 cities (count-
ing the Americas and Europe), and Lyft Line operates in 16 US cities (Shaheen and Cohen
2019). Currently, in Los Angeles, Lyft Line trips constitute 29% of Lyft trips in total

20
  http://www.uchil​e.cl/notic​ias/13675​2/se-justi​fica-que-los-taxis​-usen-las-pista​s-de-buses​, in Spanish,
accessed August 26th, 2018.
21
  Another source of efficiency of ride-hailing is the reduced need for parking compared with that associ-
ated with private car ownership by the travellers, as discussed in “Ride-hailing and public policy: the issue
of regulation” section.
22
  A fuller list of services and providers in the short history of ride-hailing has been assembled by Shaheen
(2018).

13
 Transportation

and 32% of Lyft trips during peak times (Brown 2018), whilst in Chengdu, China, Didi
ExpressPool accounts for 6% of total Didi ride-hailing trips (Li et al. 2019). In the United
States, no data on the occupancy rate of ride-splitting versus standard ride-hailing services
have been available (Brown 2018; Shaheen and Cohen 2019) whereas in Chengdu, Li et al.
(2019) estimated that 90.5% of ride-splitting trips are shared by two riders, 9.3% of trips by
three riders and 0.2% by three or more riders.
The potential of increasing car occupancy rates with shared vehicles to reduce the pri-
vate and social costs of motorised mobility has been analysed empirically and with simula-
tion studies that optimise the operation of shared vehicle fleets. Li et al. (2019) presented
an assessment of current ride-splitting trips in Chengdu and estimated that, on average,
ride-splitting trips save 22% of vehicle-hours of traffic, relative to the situation in which
the same trips would have been made by using unshared ride-hailing, at a cost of increas-
ing ride-splitting user trip times by 30% (10 min) and travel distance by 15% (1.5 km) on
average, while reducing travel time reliability, especially for long-distance travellers, who
suffer more delays due to the pick-up of other passengers. In their sample of UberPool
trips in Chicago, Schwieterman and Smith (2018) report that trips had an average of 0.87
intermediate stops and 60% of trips involved at least one intermediate stop. Sun and Zhang
(2018) presented an optimisation model for shared taxis applied to Washington, D.C., and
estimated that VKT can be reduced by 18% if passengers are willing to increase the travel
time of their direct route by an average of 25%, with up to 4 passengers per car. In the
same vein, Alonso-Mora et  al. (2017) optimised a shared ride-hailing fleet in New York
and found that the mean occupancy rate of shared (standard 5-seat) vehicles is between 1.1
and 3.2 pax/veh, depending on the fleet size available and the maximum acceptable wait
time for users. For example, a fleet of 3000 vehicles (approximately 22% of the New York
City taxi fleet) serves 98% of the taxi demand, with a mean occupancy rate of 2.5 pax/veh
and 2.3 min in excess travel time relative to the shortest-path travel time. These results are
in line with the simulation of shared autonomous taxis in Lisbon, which was presented in
OECD/ITF (2015) and reported average occupancy rates between 2.1 and 2.8 pax/veh.
Optimisation models do not take social factors into account. In practice, the increase
in car occupancy rates caused by encouraging strangers to travel together that is reachable
with shared or pooled rides is limited by a number of socioeconomic influences. Given the
relevance of increasing occupancy rates of vehicles for sustainable mobility, understanding
the social barriers to shared rides is of paramount relevance for the future of ride-hailing
and urban mobility. The study by Brown (2018) in Los Angeles showed that the use of Lyft
Line trips is greater in lower-income areas, with a larger percentage of households with
no cars and in neighbourhoods with a racial or ethnic majority, a finding that points to a
greater willingness to share a ride when surrounded by people of the same ethnic group.
The latter insight is in line with Sarriera et al. (2017), who found that, although they were
in the minority, some shared ride-hailing passengers would prefer to travel with people
of their same social class and ethnic group. In Brazil, de Souza Silva et al. (2018) found
that the probability of people potentially choosing ride-splitting increases if the mode is
perceived as safer than public buses; 70% of survey respondents declared an interest in
sharing trips, but 21% stated that they would never use a ride-splitting service; moreover,
women were more reluctant than men to share a ride with strangers. In the US sample ana-
lysed by Sarriera et al. (2017), the main reasons not to use ride-splitting are fear of being
paired with an unpleasant passenger, travel time uncertainty and preference for privacy.
In this study, even though perceptually more women than men report security concerns
about ride-splitting, 50% of females state that they use ride-splitting because they felt more
secure with another person in the car in addition to the driver. Moody et  al. (2019) also

13
Transportation

studied discriminatory attitudes among ride-splitting users, finding that even though dis-
criminatory attitudes do not predict first-time use of ride-splitting, they are significant in
predicting a lower frequency of use in the present and a lower willingness to adopt ride-
splitting in the future.
Ride-hailing companies have spread further into the traditional public transport realm
by piloting services with larger vehicles, such as the seven-seat minibus services launched
by Didi Chuxing in 2016 in China23 and UberHop, a commuter service in which riders,
matched in real time, must walk to a designated pick-up location and share the vehicle with
up to five passengers. A study on the brief existence of UberHop in Seattle (Lewis and
MacKenzie 2017) showed that UberHop users were mostly replacing public transport trips
(45% of trips replaced standard buses) and that 79% of UberHop surveyed trips were made
by solo riders. Eventually, UberHop was discontinued in North America. These systems
may evolve in the future towards financially sustainable services, either alone or subsi-
dised, if included as part of a city’s public transport system if they provide a higher quality
of service and lower operator cost than, for example, standard buses in areas or periods of
time with a low bus demand. Vehicle automation is key to this outcome, as discussed in the
next section.
Future research on this topic must pay more attention to the social barriers that pre-
vent travellers from using shared ride-hailing. As shown, so far, there have been very few
studies on the matter, and those that exist have been conducted with small convenience
samples. A proper characterisation of the social factors that push or discourage people to
use shared vehicles together with the business models for these services to thrive arise
as relevant avenues for future studies, given the relevance of pooling for future transport
sustainability.

Automated vehicles

Fully automated vehicles eliminate one of the main elements that cause economics of scale
in public transport: drivers’ wages. Therefore, the cost advantage of placing many travellers
in large vehicles such as buses will be reduced; thus, ride-hailing with smaller vehicles is
expected to play a large role in a future of automated vehicles. Some empirical estimations
of the dramatic effects of automation on reducing the costs of motorised shared mobility
have been made. For example, Bösch et al. (2018) estimated that automation can reduce the
cost of taxi trips by 85% in Zurich, Switzerland, mainly because of the savings in drivers’
salary. Certainly, savings that are less significant but also important are expected in less-
developed countries where drivers’ earnings are lower. The anticipated large cost savings
due to automation explains why ride-hailing giants such as Uber, Lyft and Didi Chuxing
have all already partnered with car manufacturers for the future development of automated
ride-hailing services. Currently, pilot programmes by ride-hailing operators testing auto-
mated vehicles are underway in the United States and China.
Wadud et  al. (2016) showed that the ultimate effect of automated vehicles on VKT
and energy consumption depends on the balance between factors that reduce energy con-
sumption (e.g., platooning, eco-driving, and car-sharing options) and other factors that

23
  https​://www.scmp.com/busin​ess/compa​nies/artic​le/20557​13/didi-offer​s-rides​-minib​uses-expan​ding-
anoth​er-area-china​s-publi​c, accessed August 25th, 2018.

13
 Transportation

encourage an increase energy consumption (e.g., new trips due to induced demand and a
reduced cost of travel time). In the long run, far-reaching effects on land use and choices
of employment, education and housing locations are likely to take place (Docherty et al.
2018), in addition to the reduction or elimination of current minimum parking requirement
policies to focus on curb management (Henao and Marshall 2019).
Whether automated mobility will be mostly individual or shared is at the centre of all
optimistic or pessimistic views of future mobility and land-use scenarios regarding energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, whether there will be a signifi-
cant move from car ownership to subscription to a suite of mobility services, a concept
referred to as Mobility-as-a-Service (Matyas and Kamargianni 2018). Moreover, within
mobility subscription alternatives, it is relevant whether cars will be shared but trips will
remain individual (as with the use of shared vehicles today) or if a substantial number of
shared vehicles will be used for pooled rides. It is expected that automated vehicles will
first be deployed for shared use (pooled and not pooled), given the high initial cost of the
technology (for a discussion see Stocker and Shaheen 2017); however, as prices decrease
over time, automated vehicles will become attractive to be owned for personal use.
The relevance of shared mobility for transport sustainability has been explored. For
example, full-scale shared mobility deployment is estimated to reduce parking needs by
95% in Lisbon, while VKT and C ­ O2 emissions have estimated reductions in the range of
40–50% (OECD/ITF 2017). However, the reality might be far different, and the final output
critically depends on people’s willingness to join shared mobility options and the incen-
tives provided to encourage this choice. Truong et al. (2017) estimated that the car occu-
pancy rate must increase by 5–7% in the state of Victoria, Australia, for shared automated
vehicles not to increase VKT, and Bösch et al. (2018) found that owning a mobility robot
may be a very appealing choice for people who can afford it, due to the reduction in out-of-
pocket costs that this ownership can achieve. Private car use is also influenced by affective
and symbolic motives such as feelings of autonomy, freedom, flexibility, fun when driving,
status and prestige attached to car use by some people (Steg 2005); these motives might
not be satisfied by shared automated vehicles (Krueger et al. 2016). In a stated-preference
study in Australia, Krueger et al. (2016) found that travellers who are currently multimodal
are more willing to adopt shared automated vehicles than users who centre their mobil-
ity almost exclusively around driving their own car. The sustainability of the adoption of
automated vehicles depends on whether there will be a proactive and early involvement of
the public sector and the setting of proper economic and legal incentives for the encourage-
ment of shared mobility.

Policy implications and final remarks

Ride‑hailing and public policy: the issue of regulation

Ride-hailing success depends on achieving a large scale of drivers and vehicles to deliver
low waiting times to users; this need to grow quickly may explain the willingness of
ride-hailing companies to operate outside the law in unregulated markets in some coun-
tries or in grey regulatory areas in others and later, once established as significant play-
ers, push to change regulatory rules (Flores and Rayle 2016; OECD/ITF 2016; Goletz and

13
Transportation

Bahamonde-Birke 2019), a strategy that has been applied in the United States and abroad.24
This very issue underscores the relevance of ride-hailing regulation which, in short, com-
prises driver- and company-related requirements (Beer et al. 2017), driver rights and other
issues that will acquire more relevance in the future as these services continue conquering
new markets and exploring new technologies. There is a limited but growing literature on
ride-hailing regulation,25 but more research efforts in both developed and developing coun-
tries are needed to identify context-specific best regulatory practices (including how to deal
with the interaction between ride-hailing and the taxi industry).
Understanding whether ride-hailing increases or decreases VKT and road congestion
is of paramount relevance to determine if there is a case to establish supply-side regula-
tions on transport sustainability grounds. A perceived increase in traffic and/or the need to
raise revenues are usually the reasons put forward by decision makers to place price and/
or quantity regulations on ride-hailing, such as specific taxes on ride-hailing gross receipts
(e.g., Washington, D.C.), a fee per kilometre driven with passengers and a number of kilo-
metre credits per ride-hailing company (e.g., Sao Paulo), fees per trip (e.g., Toronto) and
caps on the number of ride-hailing licences (e.g., New York). Therefore, city authorities
should be the most interested in knowing the effect of ride-hailing on their transport sys-
tems. In this respect, anonymised detailed trip data provided by ride-hailing companies
represent a cornerstone for proper regulation and a better understanding of urban mobility
trends. Data-sharing agreements should form part of the regulation of ride-hailing, which
is especially relevant in developing countries with limited resources for mobility and traffic
data acquisition on their own (CIPPEC 2018).
The effects of ride-hailing on parking needs and requirements are significant to study,
not only for their expected implications for traffic but also, in the long term, for urban form,
if ride-hailing eventually reduces vehicle ownership. Today, it is already clear that the need
for parking plays a role in the use of ride-hailing, as shown in Table 2, and therefore, ride-
hailing exerts an effect on parking needs and, eventually, on parking policy and pricing,
even before influencing car ownership. Henao and Marshall (2019) argued that the replace-
ment of personal cars with ride-hailing vehicles for driving trips pushes for a reduction
in the parking supply, with the freed land to be allocated to more desirable uses. In many
street areas, long-term parking management may be replaced by curb space management,
with specific areas for ride-hailing pick-up and drop-off. A ride-hailing pick-up/drop-off fee
should be applied to replace parking revenues and to encourage sustainable mobility with,
for example, discounts for shared modes (Henao and Marshall 2019). It is worth emphasis-
ing that for proper curb management, it is critical to know the location and timing of pick-
up and drop-off ride-hailing trips (Conway et al. 2018); therefore, as mentioned, relevant
trip-level data should be shared between ride-hailing companies and city authorities.

24
  It has also been argued that to grow, ride-hailing companies are willing to subsidise prices and therefore
depend on investment funding. A detailed discussion of ride-hailing business models is outside the scope of
this paper.
25
  See, e.g., TRB (2016), Shaheen et al. (2016) and Beer et al. (2017) for the United States, de Souza Silva
et  al. (2018) for Brazil, Ilavarasan et  al. (2018) for India, and Goletz and Bahamonde-Birke (2019) for a
comparison between Mexico City, San Francisco and Paris.

13
 Transportation

Summary and concluding remarks

Using a ride-hailing application, a person has access to both a car and driver in the
palm of his/her hand. This simple contribution of ride-hailing has exerted a profound
impact on urban mobility, and the relevance of this contribution is expected to con-
tinue growing in the long term. A summary of the findings to date, as discussed in this
paper, follows. Ride-hailing tends to be more widely adopted among relatively young,
well-educated and wealthier people, although in some local contexts the aforementioned
relationship between ride-hailing use and high income may not hold. Urban features
such as mixed land uses have also been found to increase ride-hailing use. Ride-hailing
is mostly used for occasional trips, as a majority of riders use this service a few times
per month. The relationship between car ownership and the intensity of ride-hailing use
is still disputed.
Reasons to choose ride-hailing include trip cost, travel time, ease of payment, the
elimination of the need to drive after drinking alcohol and the need to search or pay for
parking, public transport inconvenience, comfort, security and safety. Leisure is a para-
mount purpose for ride-hailing trips. Taxis, public transport and driving personal cars
are the modes most substituted by ride-hailing. The induced demand by ride-hailing
(trips that would not have been taken without ride-hailing) has been reported as sig-
nificant in most studies, a clear indication of the effect of ride-hailing on new activity
engagement. Ride-hailing may increase mobility for people with physical disabilities
and cognitive limitations and may also reduce spatial and racial forms of discrimina-
tion, which have previously been identified for some taxi drivers (as in the case of Los
Angeles).
Ride-hailing can both substitute for and complement public transport, and empirical
results on the degree of the complementarity/substitution features of ride-hailing and
public transport are mixed, depending on the study, research method, spatial scale, time
interval of data and the mode analysed (e.g., urban buses, trams or commuter rails).
However, there is a tendency from studies with updated data to show that the substi-
tution effect is stronger than the complementarity effect in several cities. Nonetheless,
because ride-hailing is mostly used for occasional trips, research shows that a large
number of ride-hailing users continue relying on other modes, such as public transport,
for more frequent trips. Overall, it has been found that ride-hailing most likely increases
motorised traffic in the cities where data are available, a result that casts doubts on the
benefits of ride-hailing for sustainable mobility in the short term. Between 20 and 40%
of ride-hailing trips occur at peak times. The total effect of ride-hailing on the environ-
ment is disputed at this stage. Most studies have found that ride-hailing reduces the
number of fatalities due to alcohol-related crashes, but the effect on the total number of
accidents is unknown due to the likely increase in traffic induced by ride-hailing.
Ride-hailing has the potential to reduce car ownership and encourage a car-free life-
style, but current evidence of the matter is inconclusive, and therefore, a longer-term
assessment on the relationship between ride-hailing and car ownership is necessary
(including the impact of people that have bought or leased cars to become ride-hailing
drivers, as documented in some countries). The reduction in parking requirements due
to ride-hailing is less disputed and indicates that attention should be switched towards
curb management. In addition, ride-hailing vehicles reduce the rate of empty kilome-
tres driven (compared to street-hailing) and are thus more productive than traditional
taxis, a result that requires a proper supply-to-demand ratio (with supply given by the

13
Transportation

number of idle drivers available) to be fulfilled. The vehicle occupancy rate of ride-
hailing is key to the effect of this service on sustainability, and pooling is encouraged
via discounted shared services. As ride-hailing continues to grow and evolve into more
complex mobility services in the future, the need for more research to understand all its
implications for sustainable mobility and sustainable cities will be more pressing in the
coming years. Several venues for further research were highlighted through the article.

Acknowledgements  Part of this paper was written while the author was August-Wilhelm Scheer Visiting
Professor at the Technical University of Munich. Support from CONICYT PIA/BASAL AFB180003 is also
acknowledged. The comments from three anonymous reviewers have improved the content and presentation
of this paper.

Author’s contribution  AT Content planning, Literature Search and Review, Manuscript Writing and Editing.

Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflict of interest  The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix

See Table 5.

13
 Table 5  Empirical ride-hailing studies
Study Location Country Study type Data type Sample size Ride-hailing Effect of Effect of Other contribu-
(only survey user characteri- ride-hailing on ride-hailing on tions and findings

13
based) sation other modes VKT/conges-
tion

Agarwal et al. New Delhi, India Working paper GPS traffic data Yes Congestion First study with
(2019) Mumbai, increase external shock
Bangalore (drivers’ strike)
for analysis of
ride-hailing
congestion
effects
Alemi et al. California US Peer-reviewed Online and 1975 Yes Yes Factors of adop-
(2018) journal paper paper survey, tion of ride-
representative hailing use
Brown (2018) Los Angeles US Ph.D. thesis Ride-hailing Yes Equity effects of
trip-level data ride-hailing
Clewlow and 7 major cities US Working paper Online survey, 4094 Yes Yes Uncertain, pos- Ride-hailing
Mishra representative sibly VKT adoption and
(2017) increase relationship
with vehicle
ownership
Conway et al. Country-wide US Peer-reviewed Household 224,720 (users Yes Yes Relationship with
(2018) journal paper travel survey, and non- vehicle owner-
other sources users) ship and urban
density
de Souza Silva Several cities Brazil Peer-reviewed Online, choice- 384 Yes Yes Potential adop-
et al. (2018) journal paper based (con- tion of shared
venience) ride-hailing
Dias et al. Puget sound US Peer-reviewed Household 2789 (users and Yes Factors of fre-
(2017) journal paper travel survey non-users) quency of ride-
hailing use
Transportation
 Table 5  (continued)
Study Location Country Study type Data type Sample size Ride-hailing Effect of Effect of Other contribu-
(only survey user characteri- ride-hailing on ride-hailing on tions and findings
based) sation other modes VKT/conges-
Transportation

tion

Erhardt et al. San Francisco US Peer-reviewed GPS traffic Yes Congestion Detailed spatial
(2019) journal paper data, ride- increase analysis of
hailing trip congestion,
data use of travel
demand model
for comparison
scenarios with
and without
ride-hailing
Gehrke et al. Boston US Research report Survey during 944 Yes Yes Likely conges- Ride-hailing
(2018) ride-hailing tion increase adoption and
trips, choice- trip character-
based (con- istics
venience)
Graehler et al. 22 major cities US Peer-reviewed Public transport Yes Substitution of Mode-specific
(2019) conference rider- urban buses effect of Uber
paper ship + year and heavy and shared
of Uber start rail bikes on public
date transport
Hall et al. Several cities US Peer-reviewed Public transport Yes Complement/ Effect on public
(2018) journal paper rider- substitution transport
ship + Uber of public demand for
google transport different city
searches sizes

13
 Table 5  (continued)
Study Location Country Study type Data type Sample size Ride-hailing Effect of Effect of Other contribu-
(only survey user characteri- ride-hailing on ride-hailing on tions and findings

13
based) sation other modes VKT/conges-
tion

Henao (2017) Denver US Ph.D. thesis Survey during 311 Yes Yes VKT increase Effect on park-
ride-hailing ing, estimation
trips, choice- of capacity
based (con- utilisation ratio
venience)
Ilavarasan et al. New Delhi India Book chapter Paper survey 200 Yes Yes Characterisa-
(2018) tion of users,
non-users and
drivers
Lewis and Seattle US Peer-reviewed Intercept sur- 83 Yes Yes Carbon foot- Analysis of a
MacKenzie journal paper vey, UberHop print increase service with
(2017) users (con- fixed pickup
venience) and drop-off
locations
Li et al. (2016) Several cities US Working paper Uber Google Yes Congestion Metropolitan-
searches decrease scale effect on
several conges-
tion measures
Li et al. (2019) Chengdu China Peer-reviewed Ride-hailing Shared ride- Quantification
journal paper trip trajecto- hailing of shared ride-
ries reduces hailing detours,
vehicle-hours delays and
of traffic reliability
compared to
standard ride-
hailing
Transportation
 Table 5  (continued)
Study Location Country Study type Data type Sample size Ride-hailing Effect of Effect of Other contribu-
(only survey user characteri- ride-hailing on ride-hailing on tions and findings
based) sation other modes VKT/conges-
Transportation

tion

Nie (2017) Shenzhen China Peer-reviewed Taxi GPS Yes Taxi conges- Analysis of the
journal paper database tion increase co-existence
of ride-hailing
and taxis
Rayle et al. San Francisco US Peer-reviewed Intercept 330 Yes Yes Uncertain, pos- Comparison of
(2016) journal paper survey, sibly VKT attributes with
choice-based increase other modes
(convenience)
Sarriera et al. Several cities US Peer-reviewed Online survey 997 Yes Characterisation
(2018) journal paper (convenience) of shared ride-
hailing users
Schaller (2018) Several cities US Research report Household 3463 (ride- Yes Yes VKT increase Estimation of
travel survey, hailing +taxi total ride-
other sources trips) hailing trips
and VKT
Sikder (2019) Country-wide US Peer-reviewed Household 17,476 Yes Factors of
journal paper travel survey adoption and
frequency of
ride-hailing use
Tang et al. Ten cities China Peer-reviewed Survey distrib- 9762 Yes Yes Determination
(2019) journal paper uted through of factors that
Didi app determine
modal switch
and car pur-
chasing choices

13
 Table 5  (continued)
Study Location Country Study type Data type Sample size Ride-hailing Effect of Effect of Other contribu-
(only survey user characteri- ride-hailing on ride-hailing on tions and findings

13
based) sation other modes VKT/conges-
tion

Tarabay and Beirut Lebanon Peer-reviewed Online survey, 230 Yes Yes Modal share
Abou-Zeid journal paper university effect of chang-
(2019) students ing ride-hailing
cost and car
cost and travel
time
Tirachini and Santiago Chile Peer-reviewed Intercept 1311 Yes Yes Likely VKT Factors of fre-
del Río journal paper survey, repre- increase quency of ride-
(2019) sentative hailing use
Tirachini and Santiago Chile Peer-reviewed Online, choice- 1600 Yes Yes VKT increase Effect of
Gomez-Lobo journal paper based (con- ride-hailing
(2019) venience) and shared
ride-hailing on
VKT
Wenzel et al. Austin United States Peer-reviewed Detailed ride- 1.5 million Increase of Detailed meas-
(2019) journal paper hailing trip ride-hailing energy con- urement of
data rides sumption all stages of
ride-hailing
kilometres by
drivers
Young and Far- Toronto Canada Peer-reviewed Household 935 ride-hail- Yes Yes Number of
ber (2019) journal paper travel survey ing trips ride-hailing
trips still not
substantial
compared to
other modes
Transportation
Transportation

References
Agarwal, S., Mani, D., Telang, R.: The Impact of Ridesharing Services on Congestion: Evidence from
Indian Cities. Working paper (2019). Available at SSRN https​://ssrn.com/abstr​act=34106​23. Accessed
2 Sept 2019
Alemi, F., Circella, G., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P.: What influences travelers to use Uber? Exploring the
factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services in California. Travel Behav. Soc. 13, 88–104
(2018). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.06.002
Alemi, F., Circella, G., Mokhtarian, P., Handy, S.: What drives the use of ridehailing in California? Ordered
probit models of the usage frequency of Uber and Lyft. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 102,
233–248 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.016
Alonso-Mora, J., Samaranayake, S., Wallar, A., Frazzoli, E., Rus, D.: On-demand high-capacity ride-shar-
ing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114(3), 462–467 (2017). https​://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.16116​75114​
Atkinson-Palombo, C., Varone, L., Garrick, N.W.: Understanding the surprising and oversized use of ride-
sourcing services in poor neighborhoods in New York City. Transp. Res. Rec. 1, 2 (2019). https​://doi.
org/10.1177/03611​98119​83580​9
Avital, M., Andersson, M., Nickerson, J., Sundararajan, A., Van Alstyne, M., Verhoeven, D.: The collabora-
tive economy: a disruptive innovation or much ado about nothing? In: Proceedings of the 35th Inter-
national Conference on Information Systems; ICIS 2014, Association for Information Systems. AIS
Electronic Library (AISeL), Atlanta, GA, pp. 1–7 (2014)
Beer, R., Brakewood, C., Rahman, S., Viscardi, J.: Qualitative analysis of ride-hailing regulations in major
American cities. Transp. Res. Rec. 2650, 84–91 (2017)
Bennett, H., Zahler, A.: Comparación de los Factores Tecnología y Regulación en los Costos de los Choferes
De Taxi y Plataformas Digitales Tipo Uber (2018)
Bösch, P.M., Becker, F., Becker, H., Axhausen, K.W.: Cost-based analysis of autonomous mobility services.
Transp. Policy 64, 76–91 (2018)
Brazil, N., Kirk, D.S.: Uber and metropolitan traffic fatalities in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 184(3),
192–198 (2016). https​://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww06​2
Brown, A.: Ridehail Revolution: Ridehail Travel and Equity in Los Angeles. Ph.D. thesis, University of
California Los Angeles (2018)
Brown, A.: Redefining car access. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 85(2), 83–95 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1080/01944​
363.2019.16037​61
Castillo, J.C., Knoepfle, D., Weyl, E.G.: Surge pricing solves the wild goose chase. Working Paper (2018)
Chen, X., Zahiri, M., Zhang, S.: Understanding ridesplitting behavior of on-demand ride services: an
ensemble learning approach. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 76, 51–70 (2017). https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.12.018
CIPPEC: Urban transport in the sharing economy era: collaborative cities. Report, Centro de Implement-
ación de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento (CIPPEC), Argentina (2018)
Circella, G., Alemi, F., Tiedeman, K., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P.: The adoption of shared mobility in Cali-
fornia and its relationship with other components of travel behavior report. National Center for Sus-
tainable Transportation, Davis (2018)
Clewlow, R.R., Mishra, G.S.: Disruptive transportation: the adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hail-
ing in the United States. Research Report—UCD-ITS-RR-17-07, UC Davis Institute of Transportation
(2017)
CNP: Tecnologías disruptivas: regulación de plataformas digitales (in Spanish). Chapter 3: transport plat-
forms. National Productivity Commission, Chile, April 2018 (2018)
Contreras, S.D., Paz, A.: The effects of ride-hailing companies on the taxicab industry in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 115, 63–70 (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.11.008
Conway, W.M., Salon, D., King, A.D.: Trends in taxi use and the advent of ridehailing, 1995–2017: evi-
dence from the US National Household Travel Survey. Urban Sci. (2018). https​://doi.org/10.3390/
urban​sci20​30079​
Cramer, J., Krueger, A.B.: Disruptive change in the taxi business: the case of Uber. NBER Working Paper
22083 (2016)
Davis, D.E.: Governmental capacity and the smart mobility transition. In: Marsden, G., Reardon, L. (eds.)
Governance of the Smart Mobility Transition, pp. 105–122. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley
(2018)
Dawes, M.: Perspectives on the ridesourcing revolution: surveying individual attitudes toward Uber and Lyft
to inform urban transportation policymaking. Master in City Planning Thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (2016)

13
 Transportation

de Souza Silva, L.A., de Andrade, M.O., Alves Maia, M.L.: How does the ride-hailing systems demand
affect individual transport regulation? Res. Transp. Econ. 69, 600–606 (2018). https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.retre​c.2018.06.010
Dias, F.F., Lavieri, P.S., Garikapati, V.M., Astroza, S., Pendyala, R.M., Bhat, C.R.: A behavioral choice
model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation 44(6), 1307–1323 (2017).
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1111​6-017-9797-8
Dills, A.K., Mulholland, S.E.: Ride-sharing, fatal crashes, and crime. South. Econ. J. 84(4), 965–991
(2018). https​://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12255​
Docherty, I., Marsden, G., Anable, J.: The governance of smart mobility. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
115, 114–125 (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.012
Erhardt, G.D., Roy, S., Cooper, D., Sana, B., Chen, M., Castiglione, J.: Do transportation network compa-
nies decrease or increase congestion? Sci. Adv. 5(5), eaau2670 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1126/sciad​
v.aau26​70
Feigon, S., Murphy, C.: Broadening understanding of the interplay among public transit, shared mobil-
ity, and personal automobiles. TCRP Research Report 195, Transit Cooperative Research Program,
National Academy of Sciences (2018)
Flores, O., Rayle, L.: How ridesourcing went from ‘Rogue’ to mainstream in San Francisco. Transforming
Urban Transport—The Role of Political Leadership (TUT-POL), Harvard University Graduate School
of Design (2016)
Fysikopoulos, A., Anagnostakis, D., Salonitis, K., Chryssolouris, G.: An empirical study of the energy con-
sumption in automotive assembly. Procedia CIRP 3, 477–482 (2012). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci​
r.2012.07.082
Gehrke, S.R., Felix, A., Reardon, T.: Fare choices, a survey of ride-hailing passengers in metro Boston.
Report #1, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), Boston (2018)
Gehrke, S.R., Felix, A., Reardon, T.G.: Substitution of ride-hailing services for more sustainable travel
options in the Greater Boston region. Transp. Res. Rec. 2673(1), 438–446 (2019). https​://doi.
org/10.1177/03611​98118​82190​3
Goletz, M., Bahamonde-Birke, F.: The ride-sourcing industry: status-quo and outlook. In: World Conference
on Transport Research—WCTR, Mumbai, India, 26–31 May 2019 (2019)
Graehler, M., Mucci, R.A., Erhardt, G.D.: Understanding the recent transit ridership decline in major US
cities: service cuts or emerging modes? In: 98th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board (TRB), Washington D.C. (2019)
Grahn, R., Harper, C.D., Hendrickson, C., Qian, Z., Matthews, H.S.: Socioeconomic and usage charac-
teristics of transportation network company (TNC) riders. Transportation 1, 2 (2019). https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1111​6-019-09989​-3
Greenwood, B., Wattal, S.: Show me the way to go home: an empirical investigation of ride sharing
and alcohol related motor vehicle homicides. Fox School of Business Research Paper No. 15-054
(2015)
Hall, J.D., Palsson, C., Price, J.: Is Uber a substitute or complement for public transit? J. Urban Econ.
108, 36–50 (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2018.09.003
Henao, A.: Impacts of ridesourcing—LYFT and UBER—on transportation including VMT, Mode
replacement, parking and Travel Behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado (2017)
Henao, A., Marshall, W.: A framework for understanding the impacts of ridesourcing on transportation.
In: Meyer, G., Shaheen, S. (eds.) Disrupting Mobility. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer, Cham
(2017)
Henao, A., Marshall, W.E.: The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled. Transportation 1, 2
(2018). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1111​6-018-9923-2
Henao, A., Marshall, W.E.: The impact of ride-hailing on parking (and viceversa). J. Transp. Land Use
12(1), 127–147 (2019)
Iacobucci, J., Hovenkotter, K., Anbinder, J.: Transit systems and the impacts of shared mobility. In:
Meyer, G., Shaheen, S. (eds.) Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative
Transportation on Cities, pp. 65–76. Springer, Cham (2017)
Ilavarasan, P.V., Verma, R.K., Kar, A.K.: Sharing economy platforms as enablers of urban transport
in the global south: case of digital taxi aggregators in New Delhi, India. In: CIPPEC (ed.) Urban
Transport in the Sharing Economy Era: Collaborative Cities. CIPPEC, Buenos Aires (2018)
Krueger, R., Rashidi, T.H., Rose, J.M.: Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C
Emerg. Technol. 69, 343–355 (2016)
Lagos, V., Muñoz, A., Zulehner, C.: Entry of Uber, alcohol-related traffic accidents and differences by
gender: empirical evidence from Chile. Télécom ParisTech, Mimeo (2018)
Lewis, E.O.C., MacKenzie, D.: UberHOP in seattle. Transp. Res. Rec. 2650, 101–111 (2017)

13
Transportation

Li, Z., Hong, Y., Zhang, Z.: An empirical analysis of on-demand ride sharing and traffic congestion. In:
Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin (2016)
Li, W., Pu, Z., Li, Y., Ban, X.: Characterization of ridesplitting based on observed data: a case study
of Chengdu, China. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 100, 330–353 (2019). https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.01.030
Matyas, M., Kamargianni, M.: The potential of mobility as a service bundles as a mobility management
tool. Transportation (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1111​6-018-9913-4
Moody, J., Middleton, S., Zhao, J.: Rider-to-rider discriminatory attitudes and ridesharing behavior. Transp.
Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 258–273 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.01.003
Ngo, V.: Transportation network companies and the ridesourcing industry: a review of impacts and
emerging regulatory frameworks for Uber. Report prepared for the City of Vancouver (2015)
Nie, Y.: How can the taxi industry survive the tide of ridesourcing? Evidence from Shenzhen, China.
Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 79, 242–256 (2017). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.017
OECD/ITF: Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How Shared Self-driving Cars Could Change City Traffic.
International Transport Forum, Paris (2015)
OECD/ITF: App-Based Ride and Taxi Services: Principles for Regulation. Corporate Partnership Board
Report, International Transport Forum (2016)
OECD/ITF: Transition to Shared Mobility: How Large Cities Can Deliver Inclusive Transport Services.
Corporate Partnership Board Report, International Transport Forum (2017)
Parrott, J.A., Reich, M.: An earnings standard for New York City’s app-based drivers: economic analysis
and policy assessment. Report for the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, July 2018
(2018)
Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., Shaheen, S.: Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of
taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp. Policy 45, 168–178 (2016)
Rizk, N., Salem, N., Weheba, N.: A gendered analysis of ridesharing: perspectives from Cairo, Egypt.
In: CIPPEC (ed.) Urban Transport in the Sharing Economy Era: Collaborative Cities. CIPPEC,
Buenos Aires (2018)
Rodier, C.: The effects of ride hailing services on travel and associated greenhouse gas emissions. White
Paper, National Center for Sustainable Transportation, United States (2018)
Sarriera, J.M., Álvarez, G.E., Blynn, K., Alesbury, A., Scully, T., Zhao, J.: To share or not to share:
investigating the social aspects of dynamic ridesharing. Transp. Res. Rec. 2605(1), 109–117
(2017). https​://doi.org/10.3141/2605-11
Schaller, B.: Empty Seats, Full Streets: Fixing Manhattan’s Traffic Problem. Report, Schaller Consulting
(2017a)
Schaller, B.: Unsustainable? The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future
of New York City. Report, Schaller Consulting (2017b)
Schaller, B.: The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities. Report, Schaller
Consulting (2018)
Schwieterman, J., Smith, C.S.: Sharing the ride: a paired-trip analysis of UberPool and Chicago tran-
sit authority services in Chicago, Illinois. Res. Transp. Econ. 71, 9–16 (2018). https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.retre​c.2018.10.003
SFCTA: TNCs Today: A Profile of San Francisco Transportation Network Company Activity. Final
Report, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, June 2017 (2017)
Shaheen, S.: Shared Mobility: The Potential of Ridehailing and Pooling. Three Revolutions, pp. 55–76.
Island Press, Washington, DC (2018)
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A.: Shared ride services in North America: definitions, impacts, and the future of
pooling. Transp. Rev. 39(4), 427–442 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1080/01441​647.2018.14977​28
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Zohdy, I.: Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. Report
FHWA-HOP-16-022, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2016)
Shaheen, S., Bell, C., Cohen, A., Yelchuru, B.: Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation
Equity. Report PL-18-007, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2017a)
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Yelchuru, B., Sarkhili, S.: Mobility on Demand Operational Concept Report.
Final Report—FHWA-JPO-18-611, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2017 (2017b)
Shirgaokar, M.: Expanding seniors’ mobility through phone apps: potential responses from the private
and public sectors. J. Plan. Educ. Res. (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1177/07394​56x18​76913​3
Sikder, S.: Who uses ride-hailing services in the United States? Transp. Res. Rec. (2019). https​://doi.
org/10.1177/03611​98119​85930​2
Steg, L.: Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res.
Part A Policy Pract. 39(2), 147–162 (2005). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.07.001

13
 Transportation

Stocker, A., Shaheen, S.: Shared Automated Vehicles: Review of Business Models. Discussion Paper
No. 2017-09, International Transport Forum (ITF) (2017)
Sullivan, J.L., Burnham, A., Wang, M.: Energy-Consumption and Carbon-Emission Analysis of Vehi-
cle and Component Manufacturing. ANL/ESD/10-6 Report, Energy Systems Division, Argonne
National Laboratory (2010)
Sun, Y., Zhang, L.: Potential of taxi-pooling in reducing vehicle miles traveled in Washington, D.C. In:
97th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC (2018)
Tang, B.-J., Li, X.-Y., Yu, B., Wei, Y.-M.: How app-based ride-hailing services influence travel behav-
ior: an empirical study from China. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1080/15568​
318.2019.15849​32
Tarabay, R., Abou-Zeid, M.: Modeling the choice to switch from traditional modes to ridesourcing ser-
vices for social/recreational trips in Lebanon. Transportation (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1111​
6-019-09973​-x
Tirachini, A.: Plataformas Ridesourcing (tipo Uber y Cabify) en Chile: Impactos en Movilidad y Reco-
mendaciones para su regulación. ISCI Seminar (in Spanish) (2017). https​://www.resea​rchga​te.net/
publi​catio​n/31842​9681_Plata​forma​s_rides​ourci​ng_tipo_Uber_y_Cabif​y_en_Chile​_impac​tos_en_
movil​idad_y_recom​endac​iones​_para_su_regul​acion​. Accessed 2 Sept 2019
Tirachini, A., del Río, M.: Ride-hailing in Santiago de Chile: users’ characterisation and effects on travel
behaviour. Transp. Policy 82, 46–57 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranp​ol.2019.07.008
Tirachini, A., Gomez-Lobo, A.: Does ride-hailing increase or decrease vehicle kilometers traveled
(VKT)? A simulation approach for Santiago de Chile. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. (2019). https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15568​318.2018.15391​46
TRB: Millennials and mobility: understanding the millennial mindset and new opportunities for transit
providers. Transp. Res. Board Rep. (2013). https​://doi.org/10.17226​/22500​
TRB: Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology-Enabled Transportation
Services. Transportation Research Board Special Report 319 (2016)
Truong, L.T., De Gruyter, C., Currie, G., Delbosc, A.: Estimating the trip generation impacts of autono-
mous vehicles on car travel in Victoria, Australia. Transportation (2017). https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1111​6-017-9802-2
Vanderschuren, M., Baufeldt, J.: Ride-sharing: a potential means to increase the quality and availability of
motorised trips while discouraging private motor ownership in developing cities? Res. Transp. Econ.
(2018). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.retre​c.2018.03.007
Vivoda, J.M., Harmon, A.C., Babulal, G.M., Zikmund-Fisher, B.J.: E-hail (rideshare) knowledge, use, reli-
ance, and future expectations among older adults. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 55, 426–
434 (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.020
Wadud, Z., MacKenzie, D., Leiby, P.: Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly
automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 86, 1–18 (2016). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tra.2015.12.001
Wells, K.J., Attoh, K., Cullen, D.: The Uber Workplace in Washington, D.C. Report, Kalmanovitz Initiative
for Labor and the Working Poor, Georgetown University (2018)
Wenzel, T., Rames, C., Kontou, E., Henao, A.: Travel and energy implications of ridesourcing service
in Austin, Texas. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 70, 18–34 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2019.03.005
Young, M., Farber, S.: The who, why, and when of Uber and other ride-hailing trips: an examination of a
large sample household travel survey. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 119, 383–392 (2019). https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.018

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Alejandro Tirachini  (born in Castro, Chiloé) is Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Universidad de
Chile, he holds a Master of Science in Transport Engineering from Universidad de Chile (2007) and a PhD
from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney (2012). His main research
interests are the optimal design of public transport systems and the study of emerging mobility technolo-
gies. He has served in the Experts Panel of Chile’s Ministry of Social Development, for the analysis of
improvements to the methodology of cost-benefit assessment for transport projects, in the Experts Panel of
the Ministry of Transport to improve the understanding of fare evasion in Santiago’s public transport and
in the Experts Panel of the government’s MAPS Initiative (Mitigation of Climate Change and Low Carbon

13
Transportation

Development). He has also been invited as specialist to give presentations to the Transport Commission of
the Lower House and the Senate in Chile, over bills concerning public transport issues, ride-hailing and traf-
fic safety. He has worked on transport research projects in Chile, Australia, Singapore and Germany.

13