Modeling the choice to switch from traditional modes to ridesourcing services for social/recreational trips in Lebanon

  • Rana Tarabay
  • Maya Abou-ZeidEmail author


This study investigates the current and potential uptake of ridesourcing services, such as Uber and Careem, by the students of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. A hybrid choice model is developed to predict the switching choice from traditional modes of transport to ridesourcing services for social/recreational trips made by these students in Lebanon. Data are provided by a web-based survey that includes revealed and stated preferences, besides demographics. It is found that the switching choice is determined by several observed factors, such as door-to-door travel time, waiting time for pick-up, and one-way fares, in addition to a latent variable that captures individual differences in perceptions and attitudes towards ridesourcing services. A base switching probability from traditional modes to ridesourcing services (calculated under a base scenario representing realistic values of the attributes of ridesourcing services if the latter were used to make the most recent social/recreational trip) is estimated to be 0.22. This probability is expected to reach 0.31 under a forecasted policy scenario consisting of 40% reduction in ridesourcing fares. Car users will be more sensitive to switch to ridesourcing services for their social/recreational trips if the ridesourcing fare reduction (40%) is associated with restricted parking conditions consisting of (a) 100% increase of parking fees from actual prices, and (b) 20-minute increase of parking search time and parking time from the actual car travel time. In this case, the resulting switching probability is expected to reach 0.38. By using the estimated choice model to forecast policy scenarios as such, this study can guide planners, policymakers, and service operators to prioritize effective policies in response to the behavioral change caused by the diffusion of innovative transport services and technologies. The study also contributes to a better understanding of the uptake of ridesourcing services in developing country contexts where public transport services are often inadequate.


Ridesourcing Disruptive mobility Social/recreational trips Hybrid choice model Forecasting Urban transport 



The authors thank all the students that answered the survey and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

Authors’ contribution

RT: Literature review, survey design, descriptive analysis, modeling, manuscript writing. MA-Z: Overall coordination, guidance on survey design and modeling, manuscript editing

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Al-Ayyash, Z., Abou-Zeid, M., Kaysi, I.: Modeling the demand for a shared-ride taxi service: an application to an organization-based context. Transp. Policy 48, 169–182 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allo Taxi: Allo Taxi. (2017). Accessed 9 Dec 2017
  3. Aoun, A., Abou-Zeid, M., Kaysi, I., Myntti, C.: Reducing parking demand and traffic congestion at the American University of Beirut. Transp. Policy 25, 52–60 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belgiawan, P.F., Schmöcker, J.D., Abou-Zeid, M., et al.: Car ownership motivations among undergraduate students in China, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, Netherlands, Taiwan, and USA. Transportation (Amst) 41, 1227–1244 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.: Discrete Choice Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Akiva, M., Walker, J., Bernardino, A.T., et al.: Integration of choice and latent variable models. In: Mahmassani, H.S. (ed.) In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behaviour Research Opportunities and Application Challenges, pp. 431–470. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  7. Bierlaire, M.: PythonBiogeme: A Short Introduction. Report TRANSP-OR 160706. Series on Biogeme. Transport and Mobility Laboratory, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne (2016)Google Scholar
  8. Bierlaire, M., Fetiarison, M.: Estimation of discrete choice models: extending Biogeme. In: Proceedings of the 9th Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC), Monte Verità (2009)Google Scholar
  9. Careem: Careem fare calculator. (2017). Accessed 1 Dec 2017
  10. Carranza, V., Chow, K., Pham, H., et al.: Life cycle analysis: Uber vs. car ownership. (2016). Accessed 5 Dec 2017
  11. Chalfoun, R.: Uber expands to Lebanon. (2014). Accessed 1 Dec 2017
  12. Chen, Z.: Impact of ride-sourcing services on travel habits and transportation planning. Master’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh (2015)Google Scholar
  13. Choquet, J.: Uber and Careem are fighting over the promising taxi market in Lebanon. (2017). Accessed 9 Dec 2017
  14. Danaf, M., Abou-Zeid, M., Kaysi, I.: Modeling travel choices of students at a private, urban university: insights and policy implications. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2, 142–152 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawes, M. Perspectives on the ridesourcing revolution: surveying individual attitudes toward Uber and Lyft to inform urban transportation policymaking. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2016)Google Scholar
  16. Dias, F.F., Lavieri, P.S., Garikapati, V.M., et al.: A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation (Amst) 44, 1307–1323 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenblatt, J.B., Shaheen, S.: Automated vehicles, on-demand mobility, and environmental impacts. Curr. Sustain. Energy Rep. 2, 74–81 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grush, B., Niles, J.: Transit leap: a deployment path for shared-use autonomous vehicles that supports sustainability. In: Meyer, G., Shaheen, S. (eds.) Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative Transportation on Cities. Lecture Notes in Mobility, pp. 291–305. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  19. Hassanin, D.: UBER to launch transportation buses in Egypt: Nasr. In: Egypt Today. (2017). Accessed 4 Dec 2017
  20. Henao, A., Marshall, W.: A framework for understanding the impacts of ridesourcing on transportation. In: Meyer, G., Shaheen, S. (eds.) Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative Transportation on Cities. Lecture Notes in Mobility, pp. 197–209. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 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. Lecture Notes in Mobility, pp. 65–76. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  22. Kaysi, I.A., Harb, M., Al-Dour, A.: Fleet reduction reform of Lebanese jitneys. In: 12th WCTR, 11–15 July 2010, Lisbon (2010)Google Scholar
  23. Lemon, J.: Careem, Uber and Easy Taxi compete for customers in Middle East. (2015). Accessed 1 Dec 2017
  24. Lewis, E.O., MacKenzie, D.: UberHOP in Seattle: who, why, and how? Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board (2017). Google Scholar
  25. Mahmoudifard, S.M., Kermanshah, A., Shabanpour, R., Mohammadian, A.: Assessing public opinions on Uber as a ridesharing transportation system: explanatory analysis and results of a survey in Chicago area. Presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington (2017)Google Scholar
  26. Marten, L.: Assessing the demand for Uber. Master’s thesis, Northwestern University (2015)Google Scholar
  27. McKenzie, G., Baez, C.: Uber vs. taxis : event detection and differentiation in New York City. Int. Conf. GISci. Short Pap. Proc. 1(1), 2–5 (2016). Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, G., Shaheen, S.: Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative Transportation on Cities. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  29. OIRA-AUB (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment - American University of Beirut): AUB Fact Book. (2017). Accessed 20 Nov 2017
  30. Rayle, L., Shaheen, S., Chan, N., et al.: App-based, on-demand ride services: comparing taxi and ridesourcing trips and user characteristics in San Francisco. Working Paper (2014)Google Scholar
  31. Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., et al.: Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp. Policy 45, 168–178 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schechtner, K., Hanson, M.: Shared mobility in Asian megacities: the rise of the apps. In: Meyer, G., Shaheen, S. (eds.) Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative Transportation on Cities. Lecture Notes in Mobility, pp. 77–88. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  33. Train, K.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uber Chicago: An Uber case study. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
  35. Uber Technologies Inc.: Get there, your day belongs to you. (2017a). Accessed 1 Dec 2017
  36. Uber Technologies Inc.: Ya Beirut, Ya Sett Al Dunia…Your Uber has just arrived! In: Uber Blog. (2017b). Accessed 1 Dec 2017
  37. Uber Technologies Inc.: Uber fare estimator. (2017c). Accessed 9 Dec 2017
  38. Walker, J., Ben-Akiva, M.: Generalized random utility model. Math. Soc. Sci. 43, 303–343 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walker, J., Wang, Y., Thorhauge, M., Ben-Akiva, M.: D-efficient or deficient? A robustness analysis of SP experimental designs in a VOT estimation context. Theory Dec. 1250, 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  3. 3.General Technologies and SolutionsLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations