Peer-to-peer ridesharing

Peer-to-peer ridesharing can be divided along the spectrum from commercial, for-fee transportation network companies (TNC) to for-profit ridesharing services to informal carpooling arrangements. The term transportation network company comes from a 2013 California Public Utilities Commission ruling that decided to make the TNC revenue model legal.[1][2] Almost all modern peer-to-peer ridesharing schemes rely on web application and mobile app technology.

Terminology

In the early 2010s, several transportation network companies were introduced. These were advertised as ridesharing, but dispatch drivers in a fashion similar to a taxi service, where they do not share a destination with passengers. The first such service to appear on the market was the San Francisco-based company Sidecar (launched in 2011).[3] Transportation experts have called these services "ridesourcing" to clarify that drivers do not share a destination with their passengers; the app simply outsources rides to commercial drivers.[4] Despite multiple efforts to re-name the category, it still is commonly referred to as, "ridesharing".

Real-time peer-to-peer ridesharing

Real-time ridesharing (also known as instant ridesharing, dynamic ridesharing, ad-hoc ridesharing, on-demand ridesharing, and dynamic carpooling) is a service that arranges one-time shared rides on very short notice.[5] This type of carpooling generally makes use of three recent technological advances:[6]

  • GPS navigation devices to determine a driver's route and arrange the shared ride
  • Smartphones for a traveler to request a ride from wherever they happen to be
  • Social networks to establish trust and accountability between drivers and passengers

These elements are coordinated through a network service, which can instantaneously handle the driver payments and match rides using an optimization algorithm.

Like carpooling, real-time ridesharing is promoted as a way to better utilize the empty seats in most passenger cars, thus lowering fuel usage and transport costs. It can serve areas not covered by a public transit system and act as a transit feeder service. Ridesharing is also capable of serving one-time trips, not only recurrent commute trips or scheduled trips.[7]

Real-time ridesharing is especially suitable for daily commuting compared to driving alone. Because such trips tend to happen at peak travel times, when traffic jams cause cars to pollute an 80% more,[8] additional benefits for the urban environment and climate change mitigation are expected by a reduction in the number of cars riding daily by the cities with a single occupant, and their related CO2 and NOx emissions.

Potential market

A 2010 survey at the University of California, Berkeley found 20% of respondents are willing to use real-time ridesharing at least once a week; and real-time ridesharing was more popular among current drive-alone commuters (30%) than transit or non-motorized commuters.[9] The top obstacles to using real-time ridesharing were short trip lengths and the added time of ride logistics.[9]

Implementation

Early real-time ridesharing projects began in the 1990s, but they faced obstacles such as the need to develop a user network and a convenient means of communication.[10] Gradually the means of arranging the ride shifted from telephone to internet, email, and smartphone; and user networks were developed around major employers and universities.[11] As of 2006, the goal of taxi-like responsiveness still generally eluded the industry; "next day" responsiveness was considered the state of the art.[12] More recently taxi-sharing systems that accept taxi passengers’ real-time ride requests via smartphones have been proposed and studied.[13]

A number of technology companies based in San Francisco premiered apps for real-time ridesharing (as well as ride-hailing where the driver does not share a destination with passengers) around 2012. However, in the fall of 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission issued a cease and desist letter to rideshare companies Lyft, Uber, Wingz, and Sidecar, and fined each $20,000.[14] In 2013 an agreement was reached reversing those actions,[15] creating a new category of service called "Transportation Network Companies" to cover both real-time and scheduled ride-sharing companies.[16] Transportation Network Companies have faced regulatory opposition in many other cities, including Los Angeles,[17][18] Chicago,[19] New York City,[20] and Washington, D.C.[21]

Two dynamic ridesharing pilots in Norway received government funds from Transnova in 2011. One pilot in Bergen had 31 passengers in private cars during one day. Thirty-nine users acted as drivers or passengers between June 30 and September 15 with four ridesharing episodes or more. The phone apps that was used was Avego Driver[22] and HentMEG.no cell client,[23] a prototype developed for the NPRA of Norway. The other pilot is run by the company Sharepool.[24]

Some more advanced real-time ridesharing features have been proposed but not implemented. For example, longer trips might be facilitated using "multihop" matches in which passengers change cars to reach their final destination.

Ride-sharing caps

Some jurisdictions have considered and/or implemented caps on the number of drivers who can work for ride-sharing companies.[25][26] A 2018 survey of leading economists showed that most of the economists believed that such caps would have adverse effects, with a near-consensus noting that congestion pricing would be a better way to reduce congestion than ride-sharing caps.[27]

Impact

Several studies and analyses of ridesharing apps (such as Uber and Lyft) have found that they reduce DUI accidents and fatalities.[28][29][30][31][32][33] One study concluded that Uber had no impact on DUI accidents and fatalities.[34]

Some studies suggest that ridesharing apps increase overall traffic accidents and fatalities, possibly because rideshare drivers are distracted by their mobile devices or have to drive erratically at times to pick up customers.[33][35]

One study concluded that ridesharing apps increase overall traffic and gas consumption and cause greater traffic delays.[35]

One study concluded that ridesharing apps reduce use of public transport,[35] while another concluded that ridesharing complemented public transport and thus increased public transport use.[36]

A 2019 study found that "Uber drivers earn more than twice the surplus they would in less-flexible arrangements."[37]

gollark: Also, the backend is almost a straight port of the original EW engine to Node with websocket interfaces for players.
gollark: The movement is realtime and kind of buggy.
gollark: This is actually impressively functional.
gollark: Hi!
gollark: 1000. Did you reach any of the edges?

See also

References
  1. Geron, Tomio (9 Sep 2013). "California Becomes First State To Regulate Ridesharing Services Lyft, Sidecar, UberX". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-01-22.
  2. Yeung, Ken (19 Sep 2013). "California Becomes First State To Regulate Ridesharing Services Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, Wingz and InstantCab". TheNextWeb. Retrieved 2016-01-22.
  3. Said, Carolyn (2015-12-29). "Ride-sharing pioneer Sidecar to shut down ride, delivery service". SF Gate.
  4. Rayle, L., S. Shaheen, N. Chan, D. Dai, and R. Cervero. "App-Based, On-Demand Ride Services: Comparing Taxi and Ridesourcing Trips and User Characteristics in San Francisco". University of California Transportation Center, 2014.
  5. Amey, A., J. Attanucci, and R. Mishalani. "'Real-Time' Ridesharing – The Opportunities and Challenges of Utilizing Mobile Phone Technology to Improve Rideshare Services." TRB Annual Meeting, 2011.
  6. Ecosummit TV – ECO11 – Young Future Mobility Leaders – Panel – ECOSUMMIT – Smart Green Economy Network and Conference
  7. Levofsky, Amber and Allen Greenberg. "Organized Dynamic Ride Sharing: The Potential Environments and the Opportunity for Advancing the Concept." Transportation Research Board, 2001.
  8. M. Treiber. How Much does Traffic Congestion Increase Fuel Consumption and Emissions? Applying a Fuel Consumption Model to the NGSIM Trajectory Data". Dresden University.
  9. Elizabeth Deakin, Karen Trapenberg Frick, and Kevin Shively. 2012. "Dynamic Ridesharing Archived 2014-03-23 at the Wayback Machine." Access, 40: 23-28.
  10. Dynamicridesharing.org
  11. Chan, Nelson and Susan Shaheen. "Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future." Transportation Research Board, 2010. Archived 2011-06-26 at the Wayback Machine
  12. United States Department of Transportation. "Advanced Public Transportation Systems: The State of the Art Update 2006".
  13. Ma, S., Zheng, Y., Wolfson, O., "Real-Time City-Scale Taxi Ridesharing", IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 27, pp. 1782–1795. 2015
  14. Tomio Geron, Forbes Staff (28 January 2013). "Tickengo's Willie Brown Wants Revenue Cap For Ride-Sharing Drivers". Forbes. Retrieved 2013-01-28.
  15. Lawler, Ryan (31 Jan 2013). "A Day After Cutting a Deal with Lyft, California Regulator Reaches an Agreement with Uber as Well". TechCrunch. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  16. Geron, Tomio (9 Sep 2013). "California Becomes First State To Regulate Ridesharing Services [Lyft], Sidecar, UberX". Forbes. Retrieved 23 Oct 2013.
  17. Tuttle, Brad (27 Jun 2013). "Rideshare Battle Shifts to L.A.: City Tells Uber, Lyft, SideCar to Stop Picking Up Riders". Time. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  18. Rodriguez, Salvador (2 Jul 2013). "Lyft expands to San Diego amid cease-and-desist order in Los Angeles". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  19. "Uber Sued By Taxi And Livery Companies In Chicago For Consumer Fraud And More". TechCrunch. October 5, 2012. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
  20. Uber shuts down New York City taxi beta, may see light at the end of the (Lincoln) tunnel in February (update: TLC responds) – Engadget
  21. Greene, David (January 31, 2012). "Upstart Car Service Butts Heads with D.C.'s Taxis". NPR.
  22. Avego Ltd
  23. HentMEG.no website
  24. Sharepool website (Norwegian)
  25. "B.C. transportation minister won't rule out capping the number of ridesharing cars allowed on roads | Globalnews.ca". globalnews.ca. 2018-11-20. Retrieved 2019-01-11.
  26. Wodinsky, Shoshana (2018-08-08). "In major defeat for Uber and Lyft, New York City votes to limit ride-hailing cars". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-01-11.
  27. "Ride-sharing caps". www.igmchicago.org. Retrieved 2019-01-11.
  28. Zulehner, Christine; Muñoz, Ángela; Lagos, Vicente (2019-04-12). "Gender-Specific Benefits from Ride-Hailing Apps: Evidence from Uber's Entry in Chile". Rochester, NY. SSRN 3370411. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  29. Downie, J. Stephen (2018). "Ubering Under the Influence: The Impact of Ridesharing on Drunk Driving". S2CID 13718819. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  30. Wattal, Sunil; Greenwood, Brad N. (2015-01-29). "Show Me the Way to Go Home: An Empirical Investigation of Ride Sharing and Alcohol Related Motor Vehicle Homicide". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2557612. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  31. Peck, Jessica Lynn (2017-01-13). "New York City Drunk Driving After Uber". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  32. Martin-Buck, Frank Peter (2017). Responsible options : empirical analyses on the effects of alternative transportation on drunk driving (Thesis thesis).
  33. Wiebe, Douglas J.; Delgado, M. Kit; Dong, Beidi; Jacoby, Sara F.; Morrison, Christopher N. (2018-02-01). "Ridesharing and Motor Vehicle Crashes in 4 US Cities: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis". American Journal of Epidemiology. 187 (2): 224–232. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx233. ISSN 0002-9262. PMC 6248466. PMID 28633356.
  34. Kirk, David S.; Brazil, Noli (2016-08-01). "Uber and Metropolitan Traffic Fatalities in the United States". American Journal of Epidemiology. 184 (3): 192–198. doi:10.1093/aje/kww062. ISSN 0002-9262. PMID 27449416.
  35. "Study: Uber and Lyft are Increasing Traffic Deaths". Streetsblog USA. 2018-10-24. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
  36. Hall, Jonathan D.; Palsson, Craig; Price, Joseph (2018-11-01). "Is Uber a substitute or complement for public transit?" (PDF). Journal of Urban Economics. 108: 36–50. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2018.09.003. ISSN 0094-1190.
  37. Chen, M. Keith; Chevalier, Judith A.; Rossi, Peter E.; Oehlsen, Emily (2019-12-01). "The Value of Flexible Work: Evidence from Uber Drivers". Journal of Political Economy. 127 (6): 2735–2794. doi:10.1086/702171. ISSN 0022-3808.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.