A Framework for Understanding the Impacts of Ridesourcing on Transportation

  • Alejandro HenaoEmail author
  • Wesley Marshall
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


The transportation sector is currently experiencing a monumental disruption with the introduction and evolution of technology and transportation services such as bikesharing, carsharing, on-demand ridesourcing, and microtransit. As these new layers of technology-based transportation options begin to flourish, it is important to understand how they compete and interact with more traditional modes. For example, ridesourcing theoretically takes an underutilized existing resource—empty seats in single-occupancy vehicles—and fills them with passengers. In reality, it is difficult to disentangle the interrelated short- and long-term outcomes and self-selection issues that arise from simply asking whether ridesourcing takes cars off the road or if we are siphoning from walking, bicycling, and transit modes. Beyond travel behavior, these evolving transportation services can also significantly impact our transportation systems, society, and the environment. Due to such complications, these outcomes have yet to be adequately studied. Accordingly, this book chapter provides a framework to investigate ridesourcing impacts. This, in turn, will help cities better account for the impact of technology and evolving transportation services in their planning processes.


Evolving transportation services Ridesourcing Uber Lyft Travel times VMT Parking demand Transportation equity Travel behavior Mode choice 


  1. 1.
    Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., Zhang, H.: Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2143, 159–167 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaheen, S.A., Cohen, A.P.: Carsharing and personal vehicle services: worldwide market developments and emerging trends. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 7(1), 5–34 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goddin, P.: Redefining Uber: why the term rideshare doesn’t fit (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Warzel, C.: Let’s all join the AP stylebook in killing the term “ride-sharing” (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rayle, L., Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Dai, D., Cervero, R.: App-based, on-demand ride services: comparing taxi and ridesourcing trips and user characteristics in San Francisco, 17, 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kopp, J., Gerike, R., Axhausen, K.: Do sharing people behave differently? An empirical evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car-sharing members. Transportation 42(3), 449–469 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sioui, L., Morency, C., Trépanier, M.: How Carsharing Affects the Travel Behavior of Households: A Case Study of Montréal, Canada. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 7(1), 52–69 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cervero, R., Tsai, Y.: City carshare in San Francisco, California: second-year travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1887, 117–127 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, E., Shaheen, S., Lidicker, J.: Impact of carsharing on household vehicle holdings. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2143, 150–158 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kopp, J., Gerike, R., Axhausen, K.: Status quo and perspectives for car-sharing systems: the example of drivenow. Strat. Sustain. Mobilities Opportunities Challenges 207–226 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giddens, A.: Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salomon, I., Ben-Akiva, M.: The use of the life-style concept in travel demand models. Environ. Plann. A 15(5), 623–638 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pas, E.: Weekly travel-activity behavior. Transportation 15(1–2), 89–109 (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitamura, R.: Life-style and travel demand. Transportation 36(6), 679–710 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P., Laidet, L.: A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2), 125–158 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.: Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 10(6), 427–444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krizek, K., Waddell, P.: Analysis of lifestyle choices: neighborhood type, travel patterns, and activity participation. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1807, 119–128 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L.: What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 38(3), 201–222 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vredin Johansson, M., Heldt, T., Johansson, P.: The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 40(6), 507–525 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vij, A., Carrel, A., Walker, J.L.: Incorporating the influence of latent modal preferences on travel mode choice behavior. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 54, 164–178 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kamakura, W.A., Russell, G.J.: A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Mark. Res. 26(4), 379–390 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walker, J.L., Ben-Akiva, M.: Advances in discrete choice: mixture models. Handb Transport Econom. 160 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salonen, M., Toivonen, T.: Modelling travel time in urban networks: comparable measures for private car and public transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 31, 143–153 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shoup, D.C.: Cruising for parking. Transp. Policy 13(6), 479–486 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Le Vine, S., Lee-Gosselin, M., Sivakumar, A., Polak, J.: A new approach to predict the market and impacts of round-trip and point-to-point carsharing systems: case study of London. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 32, 218–229 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones, R.G.: Uber can’t really prove that it’s caused a reduction in drunk driving accidents, in Huffington Post (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vij, A., Walker, J.L.: Preference endogeneity in discrete choice models. Transp. Res. Part B Methodological 64, 90–105 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Atasoy, B., Glerum, A., Bierlaire, M.: Mode choice with attitudinal latent class: a Swiss case-study. In: 2nd international choice modelling conference, Leeds, UK (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations