Measuring the Impact of an Unanticipated Suspension of Ride-Sourcing in Austin, Texas

On May 7, 2016, residents of Austin, Texas, voted against Proposition 1, which would have allowed ridesourcing/transportation networking companies (TNCs) to continue using their own background check systems. The defeat of the proposition prompted Uber and Lyft to suspend services in Austin indefinitely. The disruption provided for a natural experiment to evaluate the impact of Uber and Lyft on users’ travel demand and the supply side implications of the entry of new players. Our paper focuses solely on the demand side user response to the disruption. In examining the impact, we conducted an online survey that combines stated and revealed preference questions (N=1,840) of former Uber and/or Lyft users in Austin to explore the effect of the disruption on travel behavior. In order to test our hypothesis of the impact of the service suspension on changes in travel mode choice and trip frequency we used regression analyses to model both the before and after travel behavioral pattern. Our analysis revealed that of the population surveyed, 45% switched to the use of personal vehicles after disruption while only 3% shifted to public transit. Individuals who switched to personal vehicles also include 8.9% of respondents who reported purchasing a vehicle in response to the service disruption. In addition, an individual who switched to a personal vehicle increased his or her probability of a higher trip frequency post disruption by 14%. The probability of a higher trip frequency for individuals who were satisfied with the quality of Uber and Lyft services pre-disruption however decreased from 21% to 6%.

[1]  Yu-Hsin Tsai,et al.  City CarShare in San Francisco, California: Second-Year Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impacts , 2004 .

[2]  Sarah E. Light Precautionary Federalism and the Sharing Economy , 2017 .

[3]  Ryan C. Hughes,et al.  Transportation network company wait times in Greater Seattle, and relationship to socioeconomic indicators , 2016 .

[4]  Scott Le Vine,et al.  The impact of free-floating carsharing on car ownership: Early-stage findings from London , 2017, Transport Policy.

[5]  Aaron Golub,et al.  City CarShare , 2007 .

[6]  Colin Murphy,et al.  Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit , 2016 .

[7]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Carsharing and Personal Vehicle Services: Worldwide Market Developments and Emerging Trends , 2013 .

[8]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding , 2012 .

[9]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future , 2012 .

[10]  Susan Shaheen,et al.  Carsharing in North America , 2005 .

[11]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes using Stata , 2005 .

[12]  Elliot W. Martin,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[13]  S. Shaheen,et al.  Personal vehicle sharing services in North America , 2012 .

[14]  Robert Cervero,et al.  City CarShare: First-Year Travel Demand Impacts , 2003 .

[15]  Martin Müller,et al.  What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm , 2011 .