Bridging the Gap: Analyzing Ridesharing’s Impact on Equity and Access in Personal Vehicle Ownership

Written by: Yuxia Huang, Muda Yang, Yining (Iris) Liu, Jingwen (Alyssa) Zheng

Introduction

New forms of shared mobility, such as ridesharing, have emerged as a promising solution to address equity issues in public transportation, which are inherent in disparities in personal vehicle ownership (Shaheen, Cohen, & Chu, 2019). However, while ridesharing has the potential to mitigate social disparities in personal vehicle ownership, the extent to which it does so remains an open question.

As students in the MSBA program at Tepper School of Business of CMU, we conducted a semester-long capstone project that aimed to provide data-driven insights into this issue. We analyzed publicly available datasets in conjunction with 99P Lab’s micro-transit data to explore the impact of ridesharing on equity in personal vehicle ownership and identify new challenges that arise with the widespread adoption of shared mobility services. Furthermore, we discussed the potential implications of these findings for the future of ride-sharing and shared mobility.

Access to shared mobility services is a critical issue of equity that can have a significant impact on individuals’ economic and social opportunities. According to a report by the National League of Cities, “Access to affordable and reliable transportation is a critical component of economic mobility and a necessity for all individuals to participate in their communities and contribute to their local economies” (National League of Cities, 2018). The report highlights the importance of providing equitable access to transportation services, including shared mobility, to reduce disparities and promote economic development.

Affordability is another critical equity issue that needs to be considered in the context of shared mobility services. Low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on transportation than higher-income households, and transportation costs can be a barrier to accessing education, healthcare, and employment (Gross & Chang, 2019). The study emphasizes the importance of making shared mobility services affordable for low-income individuals and families to reduce transportation costs and promote economic mobility.

Inclusivity is also a crucial equity issue in shared mobility services. Public transportation must be accessible and provide equal access to all individuals, including those with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and low-income individuals (American Public Transportation Association, 2021). The association emphasizes the need for shared mobility services to be designed to meet the needs of diverse populations and provide equal access to transportation services.

In summary, our analysis reveals that shared mobility services have the potential to promote equity in personal vehicle ownership. However, to realize this potential, policymakers, service providers, and stakeholders need to address issues related to access, affordability, and inclusivity to ensure that shared mobility services benefit all members of society. Join us as we explore this crucial topic of equity in shared mobility services!

Overview of Datasets

For our analysis, we utilized two datasets: the Columbus micro-transit dataset from 99-P Lab and the Chicago ridesharing dataset from the Chicago Data Portal.

The Columbus dataset originates from a micro-transit company that provided school-bus-like services to organizations for the benefit of their employees. The dataset includes information on micro-transit trips, such as the organization, route, and vehicle used. It also captures key metrics like user type, rider type, number of riders, distances, and location. We believe that the Columbus dataset provides valuable insights into user behaviors as well as a comprehensive view of micro-transit trips.

The Chicago ridesharing data was obtained from the Chicago Data Portal, a public dataset that offers valuable information on the usage patterns and demographics of ride sharing activities. Unlike the Columbus dataset, the data from Chicago is mainly about Uber/Lift.

The pandemic caused significant changes in travel patterns and behavior, making it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about equity issues in transportation during that time. Therefore, we chose to use the data from 2019, which is the latest year before COVID-19. By using the 2019 data, we can gain a more accurate representation of the pre-pandemic landscape and better understand the equity issues surrounding access to transportation in normal circumstances.

By utilizing the Columbus micro-transit dataset and the Chicago ridesharing dataset, we will be able to gain insights into the equity issues around different modes of transportation: micro-transit and ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft.

Unveiling Equity Issues

Insight 1: Chicago’s Transportation Scene Dominated by Short-Distance Trips

According to the normalized distance data, the transportation patterns in Chicago differ significantly from those in Columbus. The majority of trips in Chicago fall within 0.5 times the normalized distance, which translates to a distance of approximately 3 miles. In contrast, most trips in Columbus fall within 17 miles. This disparity highlights the importance of tailoring transportation solutions to the specific needs of each city. Given the prevalence of short-distance trips in Chicago, it is not surprising that shared-mobility options such as ridesharing have become more popular. In contrast, longer distances in Columbus are likely better served by micro-transit options such as buses and trains. These findings suggest that a targeted approach to transportation solutions is crucial for addressing the unique challenges faced by different cities.

Insight 2: Micro-Transit Takes Longer Time Compared to Other Transportation Options

According to the analysis, the duration of trips in both the Chicago and Columbus datasets typically range from 0 to 40 minutes. However, there are notable differences between the two distributions. In Chicago, the highest frequency of trips falls within the 0 to 20 minutes’ range, indicating that shared mobility options such as ridesharing are particularly suited for short trips. In contrast, the frequency of trips in Columbus stays high even for durations longer than 30 minutes, suggesting that micro-transit options such as buses and trains are more commonly used for longer trips. Overall, this disparity in trip duration patterns suggests that micro-transit options in Columbus tend to take more time on average compared to ride-sharing options in Chicago.

Insight 3: Geographic Dispersion vs Concentration

In Chicago, ridesharing trips are highly concentrated in certain geographic areas. By examining the inflow and outflow census tracts (measured by the difference between the number of pickups and dropoffs), we can see that downtown Chicago, O’Hare International Airport, and Chicago Midway Airport are the three major inflow areas, with downtown Chicago being the most popular. The outflow areas, represented by the red areas on the visualization, are mainly located to the east of downtown Chicago. This suggests that there is a high demand for ridesharing services in these concentrated areas, while other areas may have lower demand.

In Columbus, although trips are geographically dispersed, certain locations still exhibit a relatively high concentration of pickups. According to the analysis, the locations with the highest inflow of pickups are John Glenn Columbus International Airport and local hospitals. While these locations are scattered throughout the city, they still account for a significant portion of the overall pickups. This suggests that while Columbus may not have the same level of concentration as Chicago, there are still specific areas where shared mobility options such as ridesharing can be particularly beneficial for residents and visitors alike. By understanding these high-traffic areas, shared-mobility providers can better allocate their resources to meet the demand and improve the accessibility and convenience of their services.

After analyzing the data from both Chicago and Columbus, several observations can be made. Firstly, it is clear that ridesharing services are more concentrated in the city center than micro-transit options. Secondly, the hotspots for each form of shared mobility differ, with ridesharing services concentrated around the Central Business District in Chicago, while hospitals are a key location for micro-transit in Columbus. Additionally, ridesharing services seem to be more concentrated in wealthier communities than micro-transit. This is evident from the map, which shows that the hotspots for ridesharing overlap with affluent neighborhoods in Chicago.

Further analysis in the next section will demonstrate this relationship between ridesharing and wealthier communities in more detail. Overall, these findings suggest that the use of shared mobility options varies depending on location and socioeconomic factors.

Insight 4: Chicago Ridesharing Favors High-Income Areas, Columbus Trips Concentrated in Low-Income Areas

After analyzing the income levels of shared mobility users, we found that ridesharing trips in Chicago are mostly concentrated in high-income areas, while trips in Columbus are mostly concentrated in low-income areas. The data was further categorized by quartiles of median household income, revealing that about 70% of ride-sharing trips in Chicago start and end in high-income areas. On the other hand, most micro-transit trips in Columbus originate and end in low-income areas, with some trips occurring in high-income areas. Our findings shed light on the income disparities between the two cities and their impact on the utilization of shared mobility services.

Equity Implications

When considering equity in shared mobility, it is important to evaluate access, affordability, and inclusivity. We have observed that ridesharing services are more commonly used by wealthier communities, while micro-transit services are better suited for low-income and elderly or disabled individuals. However, ridesharing services are more accessible to those who can afford higher prices due to their flexible routes and 24/7 operation. In contrast, micro-transit services like paratransit are designed to provide specialized transportation for people who face greater barriers to transportation.

Affordability is an important consideration, as shared mobility services should be accessible to everyone regardless of income. Ridesharing services may offer more convenience, but they are often more expensive than public transit or micro-transit services. Micro-transit services may have more restricted service hours and routes, but they are often more affordable and can serve a wider range of individuals.

Inclusivity is also essential to promote equity in shared mobility. Ridesharing services may not be as accessible to those without a smartphone or internet access, which is often required for booking rides. Micro-transit services may face challenges in reaching certain communities or providing services to those with unique needs.

To address these equity issues, ridesharing companies can take several actions. They can develop targeted outreach programs to reach low-income communities and elderly or disabled individuals, providing resources for accessing their services, partnering with community organizations, offering language support, or providing discounts or subsidies as necessary. Collaborating with public transit agencies to provide first/last mile connections and serve areas with limited transit options could enhance accessibility and affordability. Implementing technological solutions such as non-smartphone booking options or on-demand services for those with unique needs could also address accessibility barriers. Additionally, companies could use data to identify areas with high demand for shared mobility services but low access and adjust their service areas or routes accordingly. By taking these steps, ridesharing companies can work towards creating transportation systems that are accessible, affordable, and inclusive for all.

References

American Public Transportation Association. “Equity, Diversity & Inclusion.” American Public Transportation Association, 2021, www.apta.com/policy-center/equity-diversity-inclusion/.

Chicago Loop Alliance. (2022). About. Retrieved from https://loopchicago.com/about/

Chicago Tribune. “Chicago’s Wealth Gap: A Tale of Two Cities.” Chicago Tribune, 20 Jan. 2021, www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-cb-chicago-wealth-gap-20210120-3pnnwtnfjvccpi2cf2twamcofe-story.html.

City of Austin. “Drive a Senior to Work.” AustinTexas.gov, 2018, https://austintexas.gov/driveasenior.

City of Austin. “Drive a Senior to Work.” AustinTexas.gov, 2018, https://austintexas.gov/driveasenior.

City of Chicago. (2022). Chicago airports. Retrieved from https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/doa/provdrs/airport/svcs/chicago_airports.html.

City of Chicago. “Divvy for Everyone.” City of Chicago, 2021, https://www.divvybikes.com/pricing/divvy-for-everyone.

Glaser, L. (2018, September 10). LA’s bike-share program wants to be more equitable. Here’s how it’s doing it. Curbed. https://www.curbed.com/2018/9/10/17839994/los-angeles-metro-bike-share-discount.

Gross, Craig, and Qingyan “Frank” Chen. “Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit.” Brookings Institution, 2019, www.brookings.edu/research/shared-mobility-and-the-transformation-of-public-transit/.

Litman, Todd. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2021, http://www.vtpi.org/tca/.

Litman, Todd. (2020). Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/equity.html

Menzel, M. (2019, December 12). New Study: Public funding for shared mobility services can help overcome transportation poverty. Shared-Use Mobility Center. https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/new-study-public-funding-for-shared-mobility-services-can-help-overcome-transportation-poverty/

National Association of City Transportation Officials. “Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit.” NACTO, 2016, https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NACTO-Shared-Mobility-Primer.pdf.

National League of Cities. “Transportation and Equity: A Toolkit for City Leaders.” National League of Cities, www.nlc.org/resource/transportation-and-equity-a-toolkit-for-city-leaders/.

National League of Cities. “Transportation & Infrastructure: Equitable Access to Transportation Options.” National League of Cities, 2018, www.nlc.org/resource/transportation-infrastructure-equitable-access-to-transportation-options/.

Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. (2019). Chicago mobility report: Understanding the transportation needs and patterns of Chicago residents. Retrieved from https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/rudincenter/Chicago_Mobility_Report_2019.pdf.

Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. “Transportation and Economic Development in Chicago: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities.” New York University, 2017, wagner.nyu.edu/files/rudincenter/Chicago-Transpo-E.

Shaheen, Susan, Adam Cohen, and David Chuang. “Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit.” Journal of Public Transportation, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–3. doi: 10.5038/2375–0901.20.1.1.

Shaheen, Susan, Adam Cohen, and Nelson Chan. “Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles.” Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2019, tsrc.berkeley.edu/shared-mobility-principles.

Shared-Use Mobility Center. (2018). Equity in the New Mobility Era: A Blueprint for Action. https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Equity-in-the-New-Mobility-Era-A-Blueprint-for-Action.pdf.