How emerging mobility technologies can support multi-modal public transit in a post-pandemic future.

Cities have been severely impacted by COVID-19 on a number of fronts, and it has laid bare the severe disparities that result from ever-dwindling budgets. The pandemic has also dramatically changed how we experience the urban environment and required us to re-envision how people navigate and interact with their locales.

On a regional basis, commutes to central business districts have dropped dramatically, while surrounding town centers, however small they may be, have gained more activity. For the privileged, who have the ability to shelter-in-place and are supported by flexible work-from-home policies, trips have become more concentrated near their homes and rarely reach beyond neighborhood amenities. As a result, open-street networks have blossomed to allow more space for walking and biking, and cities have pivoted to allow restaurants to expand outdoor dining and retail areas into the public right-of-way (ROW). A map released by Lime, a scooter-share company, showed that, over the summer of 2020, trips have become more concentrated within neighborhoods, rather than sprawling across the city. Meanwhile, Apple Mobility Data showed that private driving returned to pre-COVID levels, after a brief reprieve in April 2020, while transit ridership is still well below normal.

It is clear that this crisis has impacted communities in very different ways. While central business district commutes might have fallen during the pandemic, cross-town trips persisted, and these are more representative of essential workers’ routes. Cities have adjusted their transit systems, cutting some routes in order to ensure more resources for higher volume routes, or contracting out late night or expanded service areas in order to ensure that all customers can be continuously served.

These changes in transportation patterns should inform how we analyze and address old problems. A longstanding challenge has been how to meet the growing transportation demand across an entire region and during traditionally off-peak times, while also ensuring that neighborhoods, town centers, and other nodes outside of the central business district can be supported with sustainable mobility options. Historically, and more than ever today, the most convenient way to travel within a region is by private car. But, as we look forward to a post-pandemic public realm, could emerging mobility technologies help?

More than ever, urban transit services are in need of sustainable and affordable solutions to better serve all members of our diverse communities, not least among them, those that are traditionally car-dependent. New mobility technologies can be a potential resource for local transit agencies to augment multi-modal connectivity across existing transit infrastructures. As we all witnessed in the last decade, technological innovation (like transportation network companies and micro-mobility) has triggered a profound transformation of the urban mobility ecosystem, enabling new shared, on-demand, and multi-modal transportation options. By being open to new technologies in the realms of both operations and vehicles, transit agencies can establish a more resilient and sustainable urban mobility ecosystem and even remove some of the friction in payment and trip-planning.

We envision a new decentralized and distributed model that provides multi-modal access through nimble and flexible multi-modal Transit Districts, rather than through traditional, centralized, and often too expensive Multi-modal Transit Hubs.

Working in collaboration with existing agencies, new micro-mobility technologies could provide greater and seamless access to existing transit infrastructure, while maximizing the potential of the public realm, creating an experience that many could enjoy beyond just catching the next bus or finding a scooter. So how would we go about it?

• Step 1: Identify an area of the city with the highest concentration of transit services (e.g., local bus stops, light rail, etc.). For many communities, multi-modal transit services, when provided, come in the form of uncoordinated schedules, infrequent service, and physically disjointed and often unsafe stops located across multiple city blocks. While such areas are served by a certain level of multi-modal transit, the physical conditions in these public realms make the user experience unappealing for most, which results in low transit ridership, a deserted public realm, and an increase car traffic (along with attendant pollution).
• Step 2: Define the most convenient path to access each transit mode available within walking or biking distance. What are the most trafficked and convenient routes to get from one mode to another for a local transit rider? Can we determine an area within walking or biking distance that includes the most comprehensive range of local transit options available? And are there specific landmarks, destinations, and ground floor activities that could enhance these commutes?
• Step 3: Provide the glue. Provide micro-mobility services and enhanced public realm solutions that enable easier, more convenient, and more desirable access to local transit. Imagine an open-air concourse: an area of the city geared to best serve pedestrians and transit commuters alike, where wider sidewalks clearly and intuitively lead you from one transit mode to another; where shared bicycle and e-scooter services are readily accessible near each local transit stop and have safe and dedicated lanes. This would be an area of the city with existing landmark destinations, active ground floors, and tailored wayfinding strategies are all coordinated to support a convenient and attractive mode transfer; where each single strategy that best serves the commuter also has positive outcomes for local residents and businesses by way of providing a more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, and safe public realm.

The measures listed above range from low-cost, temporary solutions to permanent, long-term investments, and this range is key to a step-by-step implementation approach that should benefit communities with limited financial resources. To start, temporary parklets, paired with shared bike and e-scooter docking stations, could be located next to key local transit stops, serving commuters and providing opportunities to engage with existing ground-floor businesses. An easily identifiable network of paths comprised of easy to deploy low-tech way-finding solutions and dedicated micro-mobility lanes could allow commuters to intuitively find their way to the next stop.

Tactical urbanism strategies, many of which we have seen deployed in cities as a response to the current health crisis, have demonstrated how big changes can happen with small budgets when there is the will and the support of local communities. In the long term, access to efficient multi-modal services and the resulting vibrant public realm could represent a catalyst for new urban development infill to support long term capital investments.

As the network expands beyond the central district, there are opportunities to meet demand more easily, particularly through the use of on-demand, shared transportation that is integrated with fixed route transit. Beyond the initial identification of one area that has a concentration of transit and micro-mobility, there may be several nodes throughout a region that have been reinvigorated post-COVID, and thus could benefit from the distributed transit network model as well. This coincides with shifts away from traditional “hub-and-spoke” transit models and towards an approach that allows greater lateral movement outside the city center. Imagine regions that are no longer concentrated around a single anchor of the central business district, but that have multiple anchor districts that connect to one another. And within those nodes, many points of connection could allow people to move around freely along an enhanced public realm.

Crises expose and deepen underlying societal inequity. Urban residents are now more than ever relying on the public realm to access jobs and services, conduct a healthy lifestyle, and nurture social relations. The current crisis is causing us to reconsider both the nature of transit and the role of the public realm. As a fundamental public service, public transit should be conceived as a scalable, resilient, and adaptive system, that helps communities where they are, from large cities to small towns; a system that relies on affordable and easy to deploy solutions that is at the foundation of more equitable and thriving urban communities.

Multimodal Transit and the Public Realm was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

At the start of the pandemic, we supported transit agencies as they launched COVID response programs with Uber’s technology to keep communities connected and essential workers moving. Transit officials leveraged our platform to fill mobility gaps caused by temporary suspensions or reductions of fixed-route services, social distancing measures, and public health mandates.

Today, we’re showcasing the breadth of how Covid response and on-demand trips were deployed, part and parcel of the collaborations described in our recent Transit Horizons paper. By providing a snapshot of transit’s resilience during this period, we hope to spotlight the benefits of working together in building a more resilient, connected, and equitable transportation model.

Through it all, we remain inspired by public transportation agencies’ determination and support of their communities’ mobility needs in the face of challenges.

Responding with Communities

Uber Transit’s products allowed agencies to facilitate on-demand trips for members of their communities in times of need, which some might describe as 2020 in its entirety.

These trips were typically subsidized in part or in full at each agency’s discretion. Riders eligible for Covid response programs and on-demand rides could either book trips directly through the Uber app, or transit agency staff could order rides for individuals calling in via Uber Central.

We analyzed trends in Uber Transit trip data from a sample of eight agencies¹ that partnered with Uber during the pandemic:

• Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (Des Moines, IA)
• Miami-Dade Transit (Miami, FL)
• Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (Pinellas County, Florida)
• IndyGo (Indianapolis, IN)
• Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority (Columbia, SC)
• Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Bay Area, CA)
• Town of Innisfil (Ontario, Canada)
• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston, MA)

Complementing existing fixed route services, Uber’s COVID response and on-demand transit partnerships facilitated thousands of trips to and from grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, and places of essential work.

Extending Transit Outside the Urban Core

We’ve known for a while that Uber facilitates trips outside the densest urban areas. The on-demand transit trips we analyzed were no exception: over 75% of U.S. on-demand transit trips started or ended in lower-density neighborhoods². These areas tend to lie outside of urban cores, where providing traditional public transit service can be challenging and car ownership is a prerequisite for full mobility access.

It’s worth noting that this trend holds across a range of city populations and sizes.

As Figure 1 below shows, in relatively smaller cities like Des Moines, Iowa and Innisfil, Ontario, most of the service area is generally low density but most trips still began outside of areas typically associated with the city core:

In much larger and denser urban areas, like Miami and Boston, the majority of trips also served low-density areas. Notably, in Boston, Uber continued to partner with the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority to provide on-demand paratransit service. As the map below shows, riders are using this service well outside of Boston’s downtown core, in places like Salem, Brockton, and Woburn:

Beyond geography, another important factor for mobility is time of day: public transit services are generally limited during off-peak hours and sometimes unavailable late at night.

Interestingly, in our data we discovered that the most common time for the start of an on-demand transit trip was between midnight and 1 a.m., largely due to Miami-Dade Transit’s Go Nightly program (providing rides between midnight and 5 a.m., when some bus lines weren’t running). That said, we also saw strong trip activity throughout the day, as those working behind the scenes to support their communities were unsurprisingly doing so around the clock.

These trends mirror what we’ve seen generally across the US in the years leading up to the pandemic: Uber trips increasingly happen outside urban cores, and are most frequent during evenings and weekends when public transit was often less available. Insights like these inspired us to expand in-app transit features like Uber and Transit multimodal to more cities, including London and Mexico City this year.

Empowering Equitable Mobility

Across most cities, there are drastic variations not just in their built environments and population densities, but also in socioeconomic privilege across their population. As we look into the data, it’s important to understand who might be receiving access to on-demand public transit.

Across the wide range of cities studied here, we found that over half of these trips started or ended in low-income areas as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)³. HUD defines these areas as having “50 percent of households with incomes below 60% of the Area Median Gross Income” or “a poverty rate of 25% or more”.

In regions like Miami-Dade County and Des Moines, over two-thirds of trips were served in these areas. The map below illustrates how a large proportion of on-demand transit trips in Miami served both non-core areas and low-income neighborhoods:

In Boston, more than 50% of these trips started or ended in low-income areas. As with trips outside downtown cores, these results reflect patterns we’ve seen with overall Uber use, where low-income areas continue to rely on Uber more than higher-income neighborhoods during the pandemic.

While we’re encouraged by these patterns, we know there’s more to be done. Our teams continue to partner with transit agencies to support the needs of all members of their community.

Moving Forward

Our goal in providing this snapshot is to illustrate how Uber can effectively and flexibly extend its platform across a highly diverse array of urban environments to meet the needs of each partner. Of course, as transit agencies’ needs evolve, so will we. We’ll have much more soon, as we expand existing tools and introduce new technologies that can help cities around the world.

Supporting Quotes

• “Our transit team deeply believes that there should never be a mobility-desert, and certainly not for those that need our services the most. Which is why we teamed up with Uber Transit to provide late night rides for essential workers. We’re glad that so many riders have been able to take on-demand rides to safely reach their destination when late night transit was not operating.”
   — Carlos Cruz-Casas, Assistant Director at Miami-Dade Transit
• “Uber has played a major role in improving mobility and connecting our residents to public transit here in Pinellas County. Each day we can see the positive impact on-demand services have on our community. We have all been affected in some shape or form due to this pandemic, but there are essential workers who still need to get to work and they rely on us to get them there. Uber’s participation in this program has helped those people still get to their places of employment so they can continue making the critical items needed to fight this virus.”
  — Bonnie Epstein, Director of Mobility Service as PSTA
• “Uber’s been a tremendous partner in helping keep our community connected, and developing equitable transportation for our most essential workers and riders. By using on-demand technology to help move what matters, we’ve been able to successfully complement all the actions we took during the pandemic to ensure transportation could remain accessible and flexible.”
  — Michael Tree, Executive Director at LAVTA
• “Since partnering with Uber in December 2018, The COMET has been able to address unique transportation challenges, such as transporting people to grocery stores, providing lifeline nighttime trips and serving our seniors and persons with disabilities to important essential opportunities. Uber overall has improved the efficiency of The COMET by providing more trips at a lower subsidy cost.”
  — John Andoh, Executive Director and CEO
• “Through our partnership with Uber in this program, IndyGo was able to provide a valuable and safe alternative transportation mode during the pandemic for our community’s essential workers. While the program was temporary, the data and experience garnered have paved the way for numerous other mobility innovations within the organization. IndyGo is committed to making transit more accessible, more comprehensive, and easier to use for the region with the help of our private sector partners like Uber.”
   — Daniel Krupski, Business Analyst at IndyGo

Notes
¹ We examined completed on-demand trips subsidized by transit agencies that occurred between April 1 and December 31, 2020, basing our findings on a composite of six agencies that deployed our Covid response program, the Town of Innisfil, and MBTA paratransit trips.

² For this calculation, we’ve defined lower-density U.S. neighborhoods as 2010 Census Block Groups that have population and employment densities below 15,000 jobs+people per square mile. The vast majority of trips in the Town of Innisfil also likely occurred in similar areas due to its overall low population density.

³ This statistic excludes Innisfil, since HUD Qualified Census Tracts are only defined for the U.S.

How On-Demand Public Transit Keeps Communities Moving in the Pandemic was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Key Consensus Themes

• The transportation industry is universally hit hard by COVID-19 but congestion is already rebounding
• COVID-19 induced split between remote and essential workers has significantly altered travel demand
• COVID-19 has exacerbated the vulnerabilities in our public transit system
• Public agencies have been given license to experiment and pilot more centering on equity
• Unprecedented collaboration among public agencies and their local communities
• We must approach the issue of congestion together, no single agency/company can solve it on their own
• How Uber can partner with cities to help address congestion

The transportation industry is universally hit hard by COVID-19

The impacts of COVID-19 have been felt by all mobility operators, whether public or private, local, regional, national or global. Ridership and revenues have dropped precipitously as riders reduce or curtail nonessential travel, shift to remote work where possible, and avoid shared modes due to perceived or actual risks of infection. In a troubling sign for the future, we are already seeing a rebound in traffic congestion, suggesting a shift away from less congesting and more sustainable modes of travel. This is a dire situation for mobility operators that may linger even after the pandemic is over.

The split between remote and essential workers has significantly altered travel demand

COVID-19 has radically altered the balance between remote workers, non-workers, and essential workers in our economies, leading to visible impacts on travel demand patterns. Remote workers generally can work from the safety of their home, eliminating peak period public transit or carpooling demand. On the other hand, essential workers are traveling more and sometimes switching to private cars when transit and multimodal options are inadequate. Such jobs tend to be lower income, and located in neighborhoods where some cities have observed higher traffic volumes than in higher income areas where more remote workers likely live. The long-term impacts on our workforce recovery and travel patterns, especially public transit usage, remain to be seen.

COVID has exacerbated the vulnerabilities in our public transit system

US public transit systems generally are designed around the peak and downtown commuter, are chronically under-funded, and in many cities, are a primary mobility option for the most economically vulnerable. With many office based employees working from home, and shops and restaurants closed, far fewer people traveled to downtown, or throughout cities on transit in general. Some transit agencies have reduced service accordingly, leaving those who still rely on public transit with fewer options. Conversely, other agencies have redesigned their services by focusing on essential workers’ origins and destinations like hospitals, factories and other locations, and improving service outside of normal AM and PM commute times. However, frequency of service is still an issue, and the longevity of these designs is in question post-COVID-19 as future funding sources remain unclear.

Public agencies have greater license to experiment, with an increased focus on equity

One welcome response to this unprecedented crisis has been the relaxation of some bureaucratic processes, allowing cities and transportation agencies to be more nimble and try new ideas in real-time. Many of these ideas have involved repurposing private car infrastructure for other uses that have seen more demand during the pandemic: slow streets, protected cycle tracks and transit lanes, curbside pickup, and outdoor dining, to name a few. The current situation has brought these pilots and changes to fruition with unprecedented speed, while also underscoring the need for an equity-centered approach to avoid perpetuating or further exacerbating existing inequalities in our cities.

Unprecedented collaboration among public agencies and their local communities

While many of the obstacles are internal bureaucracy and siloed processes, states, regions and cities are working much closer together to free up resources and target initiatives that can provide cover and scale to these temporary interventions. In addition, localities are having difficult conversations centered around equity and racial justice — where real innovation is less about the lanes and parklets, and more about new ways of co-creating and collaborating with the communities they serve. Several participants mentioned that this approach would also be necessary to address the congestion issues for their cities.

We must approach the issue of congestion together, and no single agency can solve it on their own

Even though different public and private stakeholders in the mobility space have different priorities, budgets, and operating models, all are affected by congestion in some way. No single agency or company can solve the complex jigsaw puzzle that is urban traffic congestion, and every entity has their part to play in addressing congestion. A collaborative, multi-pronged approach may include:

• Tools that directly reduce traffic congestion. In cities from Stockholm to London to Singapore, cordon or congestion pricing has been proven to reduce traffic by charging for road space. Similarly, rationalizing the cost of parking at peak times in downtown areas can help disincentivize single-occupant driving, while devoting more curb space to dedicated pick-up, drop-off, and freight loading zones can help reduce double-parking that obstructs traffic flow.
• Facilitating and supporting a shift to shared and active modes. In most cities, the private automobile is the most convenient and comfortable way to get around. By making sustainable alternatives more convenient, accessible, and competitive, people will have less incentive to drive by themselves. This is particularly important for first-last mile travel, where the lack of options could be the primary driver for private car ownership. This can be accomplished directly by adding dedicated transit lanes and contiguous protected bike lane networks, designating new “slow streets,” and improving transit coverage and frequency. In the longer run, changes to land use policies and the built environment allowing denser, mixed-use development will allow more people to access their needs within a short walk, bike, or scooter trip.
• Incentivizing alternatives to peak-period travel. Mobility is vital to lives and livelihoods, but some trips can be foregone or shifted with minimal impact. As we’ve learned during the pandemic, remote work is a viable option for many companies, and encouraging employers to continue this practice at some level (by allowing work-from-home, staggered and flexible hours, and the like) will help reduce peak-hour commuting. Restricting freight deliveries during peak commute hours in city centers will also help improve traffic flow.

Next steps: How Uber can partner with cities to address congestion

Although participants in the roundtable discussion represented a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives, they generally agreed that partnering with Uber to address congestion would be mutually beneficial — particularly as travel and traffic continue to rebound through the end of the pandemic. The specific form of these partnerships, and Uber’s role in them, are in active discussions. Uber is committed to working with public agencies and other stakeholders to help solve the congestion puzzle.

Takeaways from Uber’s Roundtable on Addressing Congestion was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

One result of this flexibility is that most drivers work part-time, sometimes only a few hours a week. In California, a typical driver is online [1] on Uber’s platform less than 20 hours a week and drives only 9 out of every 13 weeks in a quarter. Only 9% of drivers in California spend at least 40 hours online per week on Uber on a consistent basis.

Critics, however, say that this hides a crucial fact: these “full-time” drivers are the ones doing all the work. For instance, an op-ed in the the New York Times recently claimed that “a smaller group of full-time drivers account for the vast majority of rides and hours logged on the app.” This point has been used to support the idea that Proposition 22 in California, which would enable drivers to continue working as independent contractors while granting them new benefits, would actually do little to help full-time drivers, who allegedly prefer full-time employment over the flexibility of app work.

It turns out, however, that, when it comes to the state of California, this claim simply isn’t true.

In the fourth quarter of 2019 — the last full calendar quarter before the COVID-19 pandemic — the 9% of “full-time” California drivers who averaged at least 40 hours online on Uber completed just 25% of trips, far from a “vast majority.” In fact, the 74% of drivers who are online an average of 25 hours or less are responsible for a far higher amount of work using the app, doing 42% of trips.

It’s worth noting that this trend varies across the state: outside of major cities, fewer drivers work full-time. For example, less than 3% of Sacramento drivers average 40+ hours per week, and they complete just 11% of trips. However, nowhere in the state of California does a small group of full-time drivers account for the vast majority of trips. In San Francisco and Los Angeles, 11% of drivers average 40+ hours per week and complete 27% of trips.

It’s worth remembering that even drivers who spend more time on the road aren’t working like full-time employees and still deeply value the flexibility of app work. Among drivers who typically work the equivalent of full-time hours [2], 1 in 3 drivers takes off at least one week per quarter, and 1 in 4 takes off two or more weeks. How many jobs allow eight weeks off per year? Even those drivers who work every week typically increase or decrease their hours by around 25% from one week to the next.

This is why a majority of full-time drivers say they want to stay independent, along with the majority of all drivers. In a recent national independent bipartisan survey, 66% of full-time drivers said they preferred to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

It is simply untrue to suggest that a small number of full-time drivers in California account for the majority of the trips taken on Uber’s platform, or that full-time drivers don’t value their independence in the same way part-time drivers do. Of course, that’s not to say independent work is perfect. All drivers, whether full-time or part-time, deserve better. That’s why Prop 22 is on the ballot, and why 72% of California drivers support it.

[1] To ensure this analysis is as conservative as possible, we measure all online time, including when the driver is online, but before they have accepted a trip request.

[2] At least 40 hours online in the weeks they’re active on the platform.

Which drivers do the most trips? was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

To better understand the impact of third-party food delivery platforms on restaurants during this time, Uber Eats partnered with Technomic, an industry-leading market research firm, to conduct a survey of more than 400 restaurants based in the US and Canada in June of this year. All operators surveyed currently partner with Uber Eats, and more than 350 respondents also partner with other third-party delivery services. The full whitepaper is available here.

Survey Findings

The findings from the survey show that third-party delivery services have been critical to restaurants weathering the crisis. Seventy-six percent of operators surveyed said they would have had to close their business if it wasn’t for Uber Eats and more than 80% of operators indicated that they would have had to lay off staff members if it wasn’t for third-party delivery services.

The findings from the survey also highlight how third-party delivery services provide an important channel for restaurant operators to increase revenue and grow and maintain their business, particularly during a time when traditional dine-in options are unavailable. Uber Eats partners report more impact from working with Uber Eats than others during the crisis, including a larger increase in sales. Some partners saw sales increase by more than 40%. Additionally, 84% of operators agree that third-party delivery services have allowed them to reach customers they otherwise wouldn’t have reached, while also improving their ability to reach existing customers.

In addition to helping restaurants reach new customers and increase sales, the survey found that third-party delivery services helped restaurants create new growth opportunities for their businesses. For instance, 89% of respondents highlighted how they were able to grow their business during off-peak times due to increased capacity thanks to third-party delivery services. Another meaningful growth opportunity that was widely cited by respondents was the addition of family-style meals and meal kits which allowed restaurants to creatively increase check sizes and pivot to the changing needs and demands of communities in quarantine.

Way Forward

While Technomic’s findings have been heartening, the findings are also a reminder of the unique challenges facing the restaurant industry at this time. Since the start of the pandemic, Uber Eats has been working hard to support restaurants, by taking actions such as reducing consumer fees to drive demand, extending 0% fees for pickup orders through the end of the year, launching efforts to support Black-owned restaurants, and introducing new safety features and policies to support restaurants and delivery people during COVID.

Based on feedback from restaurants and learnings from this report, we also recently launched a series of new products aimed at helping restaurants optimize their delivery operations while providing more flexible and affordable ways to partner with us. Uber Eats stands with the restaurant industry and is committed to continuing to listen to, learn from, and build for restaurants — so we can emerge from this crisis stronger, together.

The Impact of Third-Party Food Delivery During COVID-19 was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We’ve written before about the impact of switching from a system where independent contractors can use platforms like Uber to one where they have to be traditional employees. In California, our analysis has shown that such a switch would result in a 76% reduction in work opportunities for drivers, due to increased prices for riders and thus lower demand.

While our analysis might seem theoretical, we can draw real-world lessons from a strikingly similar situation unfolding nearly 6,000 miles away in Geneva, Switzerland. A series of court rulings there have resulted in Uber Eats changing its operating model in the canton (or state) of Geneva while a final appeal is heard in the Swiss Supreme Court.

Until recently, Uber Eats operated in Geneva essentially in the same way it does in places like California: couriers independently signed up to use the Uber Eats app, with no limit on how many could use the app to access work. Couriers could determine when, where, and how they work, with the freedom to choose their hours and to start and stop working at any time. They could also choose to accept or decline any delivery request for any reason.

Under the new model, which went into effect on September 1, couriers are prohibited from using Uber Eats as independent contractors. Instead, anyone working on Uber Eats must be an employee of a “fleet operator” — a delivery company that hires couriers as traditional, scheduled employees.

The immediate effect of this change was to put 77% of couriers, or 1,000 people, out of work. Over the three months before September, around 1,300 couriers worked on Uber Eats in Geneva. Under the new operating model, couriers needed to formally apply for a position with the delivery company. The delivery company has only extended employment offers to 300 couriers. All others have lost the ability to earn money with Uber Eats.

For the small minority of couriers who are now employees, their work has fundamentally changed. They now are assigned to shifts by the fleet, and are told by managers where to be available. Couriers that fail to present themselves for an assigned shift, do not comply with fleet rules while on-shift, or fail to meet performance targets risk being terminated by their new employer. Rather than being able to access earnings immediately through Instant Pay, couriers are now paid out monthly.

A survey was conducted to understand how newly employed couriers felt about the shift from independent work:

• 72% of the couriers hired as employees reported they preferred working independently. Their dissatisfaction stems from the loss of flexibility that has come along with this new model.
• 62% of converted couriers who felt they were worse off due to the change cited no longer being able to choose their own schedules.
• 50% of converted couriers reported that they do not intend to continue working as an employee in the long run after trying it out.

The Geneva example further highlights the simple economic reality that traditional employment will never be as flexible as independent work, even if the law itself doesn’t restrict flexibility. As we’ve written before, “the structure of employment is intentionally rigid because it was designed around how businesses deploy hourly employees within set schedules. Companies aim to match the number of employees on their payroll with the volume of their business.” The 300 couriers now working as employees understand that, and the 1,000 couriers put out of work do, too.

Independent couriers’ reaction to employee reclassification: learnings from Geneva was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On March 16, 2020, the San Francisco Bay Area’s six counties issued the country’s first shelter-in-place order in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus. Three days later, the State of California issued its own order, with other jurisdictions across the US following suit in the subsequent days and weeks. Personal travel was brought to a virtual standstill as people stayed home, and many of California’s public transit agencies were forced to curtail service, sometimes drastically.

Nonetheless, people still needed to travel for essential purposes: buying groceries and supplies, medical appointments, caring for others, and — in the case of essential workers who are unable to work from home — commuting to and from their jobs. For the nearly 1 million California households without access to a vehicle (and many others with fewer than one vehicle per adult), these essential trips must be served by other modes like public transit, getting rides from friends and family, walking, biking, taxis, and ridesharing. In an unprecedented lockdown where people only travel when absolutely necessary, how does Uber help meet these essential needs?

Temporal patterns

Across an average week, Uber activity follows a fairly well-established pattern: on Monday through Thursday, trip volumes rise during morning commute hours, dip during midday, rise again for the evening commute, and drop overnight. Friday and Saturday nights are the busiest times in most cities, with riders using Uber to get to and from entertainment and nightlife destinations. This “typical” pattern is illustrated as the grey curve in the figure below, for all California rides during April 2019.

One year later, in April 2020, the whole state was sheltering in place. However, as shown by the black line in the figure, people were still taking Uber trips (note that the grey and black curves are shown on different scales for visibility; in absolute numbers, the black curve would be more than 80% below the grey one). Not surprisingly, the Friday and Saturday night peaks are gone; however, the double commute peaks are also largely absent, replaced by a single, broader peak in the early afternoon. This may indicate people using Uber to obtain essential goods and services during business hours when they would normally be at work.

Spatial patterns

Although it’s well known that rideshare trips dropped dramatically during shelter-in-place, this did not happen uniformly. To better understand where the decline was largest (and smallest), we calculated the percent change in trips from April 2019 to April 2020, aggregating by Census tract. While trips were down almost across the board, a striking pattern emerged: they appeared to be down less in low-income areas. Indeed, trips to or from HUD Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) made up 46% of all California Uber trips in April 2020, compared to 36% a year before.

To better visualize this, let’s look at California’s two largest metro areas. First, the map below shows areas (in dark purple) where Uber usage in the San Francisco Bay Area has been relatively more prevalent during lockdown; many of these neighborhoods overlap with QCTs:

In areas like SF’s Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, Oakland, San Leandro, Richmond, and East San Jose, people are still relying on Uber as an option for their essential trips; conversely, in wealthier areas where people are more likely to own cars (or where extensive walking, biking, and transit infrastructure exists), trips are down far more. A similar pattern emerges in Southern California, where the wealthy parts of West L.A. saw the largest reductions in trip volumes, while lower-income communities of color in South L.A., Santa Ana, and the Inland Empire continued to use Uber at higher rates:

This isn’t just a visual coincidence: when we plot the change in Uber trips against median household income for every Census tract in California, an obvious correlation emerges: the wealthiest areas saw a uniformly large decrease in trips, while lower-income areas show a far broader range (and on average are taking more trips than wealthy areas, relative to pre-pandemic levels):

Conclusion

As this new analysis shows, Uber continues to play a vital role in meeting mobility needs across the state during shelter-in-place. If Uber has to shut down its Rides business in California, riders in the state won’t be able to make some of these essential trips — and this burden would fall disproportionately on communities with low incomes and limited access to other transportation options.

How are Californians using Uber during the pandemic? was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On August 10, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, proposing that the U.S. employment system be updated to require gig platform companies like Uber to pay for new benefits and grant new protections to drivers.

One of his key arguments was that today’s system forces a choice for every worker and every company: you’re either an employee with more benefits but less flexibility, or an independent contractor with more flexibility but almost no safety net. Uber’s new proposal aims to eliminate this forced choice — yet many of our critics say it doesn’t actually exist.

They believe Uber and other companies can make every driver an employee while continuing to let them work in exactly the same way they do today — for example, starting and stopping work whenever and wherever they choose; only accepting the trips they want to take; or working for competitors at the same time.

As proof, they cite the fact that labor laws, including California’s A.B. 5, do not mandate shift schedules or the other rigid requirements most employees have. That’s true. But what they don’t mention is that there is no major company in the state of California or, indeed, in the entire country, where hourly employees can work like drivers currently do with Uber.

Think about it this way: Starbucks offers one of the most flexible part-time jobs around, but baristas can’t just walk in unannounced, decide they will only make lattes while refusing all orders for cappuccinos, leave during the morning rush to go pick up their kid from school (without permission from their boss), and return to work at a Peet’s Coffee. That would absolutely be allowed under the law, so why doesn’t it happen?

The answer is simple: businesses simply won’t survive if they have zero control over what their hourly employees, whether full- or part-time, actually do. Imagine a restaurant that offered their employees the same freedoms that drivers currently have with Uber. On any given night they might have a single waiter trying to serve 100 customers or 100 waiters all serving one customer. In the middle of preparing a dish, the chef could leave to go cook for the food truck across the street. And anytime their employees decided to be on-shift, they would have to be paid, whether they had any work to do or the restaurant was closed. Why should anyone believe this same logic wouldn’t also apply to companies like Uber?

Being an employee ultimately means making a tradeoff. An employee gets paid at least the state minimum wage, the possibility of unemployment support, workers’ compensation for injuries on the job, an employer contribution for payroll taxes, health insurance (for workers meeting minimum hours thresholds) and, in some states, sick leave. But being an employee also means you have to show up when your employer asks, you must do exactly what your boss says, and if you miss too many shifts, aren’t productive, or come in late, you risk getting fired. You also can’t work for a few weeks and then stop to do something else, like school or caregiving.

The structure of employment is intentionally rigid because it was designed around how businesses deploy hourly employees within set schedules. Companies aim to match the number of employees on their payroll with the volume of their business. A tax preparer might bring on more accountants ahead of Tax Day, or might let existing employees work overtime, but then reduce hours or the number of staff after April 15th.

With app-based work today, demand fluctuates constantly — and simply having the Uber app open doesn’t mean a driver is actually working. Uber’s incentive as an employer, then, would be to limit the number of employed drivers, hiring fewer drivers to each do more trips, and requiring them to work a certain number of hours (but likely preventing them from working overtime). This would be particularly tough on very part-time drivers, who would be relatively more expensive to employ, because the cost of their employee benefits would be spread over fewer working hours. Keep in mind that 91% of drivers in the U.S. work fewer than 40 hours a week today.

Drivers understand this tradeoff all too well:

Many have worked hourly jobs, where they have to show up 8 hours a day, 5–7 days a week, no matter what. The vast majority of drivers choose app work precisely because it is so different from being an employee. In nearly every survey, drivers by a 4:1 margin say they don’t want to be employees. A more recent survey of California drivers showed that 88% began driving because they needed a job where they could choose where and when they work — and 68% of drivers said that they would stop working if the flexibility they have today was no longer provided. New research estimating driver demand for hourly and daily flexibility finds that drivers who are female, Black or Hispanic, or from a poorer area tend to value this flexibility the most — and stand to lose the most if faced with mandated employment.

If platform companies were required to only offer employment, it’s not logical to assume we wouldn’t set up the exact same structures as companies that depend on an hourly workforce. In fact, we took an honest look at what this would mean in California. What we found was hardly shocking: if we were, for example, to shift to all full-time employees, we estimate that 158,000 work opportunities on Uber would be eliminated, leaving 76% of current drivers without work. Markets outside of California’s major cities, where demand is sparsest, would be hardest hit and would see the sharpest price increases and work reductions.

None of this is to say that being an independent contractor is perfect. We’re not arguing for the status quo. We’ve put forward detailed proposals, including Proposition 22 in California, to give more benefits to drivers — like healthcare, earnings guarantees, accident insurance and anti-discrimination protections — while maintaining the independent contractor model they prefer, and on which Uber and so many other California businesses are built. Drivers know this is the better way, and that’s why they overwhelmingly support Prop 22 and similar proposals.

Some have said that listening to drivers is a “bogus” argument. We don’t think listening to the voices of the people most affected by these laws is bogus. The forced choice is real: do we want drivers to keep their flexibility and get new benefits, or make some of them employees while putting the rest out of work?

Can Employees Really Work However They Want? was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Perhaps no industry has been harder hit by the COVID-19 crisis and resulting economic downturn than the service sector, including our favorite restaurants in communities around the world. At Uber, we’re working around the clock to help our restaurant partners as best we can, with a number of new efforts launched in just the last couple of weeks. In addition to these new investments, today we’re calling on Congress to pass the bipartisan RESTAURANTS Act and provide additional much-needed relief for independent restaurants across the country.

The RESTAURANTS Act would establish a $120 billion fund for the hardest-hit independent food service and drinking establishments, a critical source of aid for the restaurant community amid these challenging times. We applaud the effort of Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) to introduce the legislation and reaffirm our commitment to support and provide opportunities to struggling restaurants all over the country.

At Uber, we have seen how important on-demand delivery is to help restaurants reach new and existing customers while many are unable to reopen in-person dining. One piece of new research found that third-party delivery has helped restaurants keep staff on payroll during the crisis, with 76 percent of operators who partner with Uber Eats saying they would have had to close their doors without this partnership.

We’re committed to doing our part to support independent restaurants as well. We waived the delivery fee for all orders from the more than 100,000 local restaurants on Uber Eats and launched a daily pay-out feature to help manage cash-flow. These initiatives are designed to make it easier and quicker for restaurants to join Uber Eats. We also introduced a first-of-its kind feature for customers to donate directly to restaurants; to-date, Uber Eats customers have contributed more than $17 million to local restaurants.

Our work to help restaurants across the country is ongoing, and legislation like the RESTAURANTS Act will offer additional support during the COVID-19 crisis. We’re committed to working with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure this much-needed relief continues to garner bipartisan support and becomes law.

Uber endorses the RESTAURANTS Act to support independent restaurants was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A key theme of this study was the close collaboration between the transit authorities, the local and regional governments, Uber, and Fehr and Peers. Each of us shared ideas, insights, and met regularly to build on each other’s knowledge and experience. Thanks to this partnership, we believe that the study will help the transit authorities and local communities they serve plot out a strong future for public transportation in Cincinnati.

This future was recently bolstered by the voters of Hamilton County when they passed Issue 7 in May earlier this year. Cincinnati’s transit authorities are now set to receive millions of dollars in new annual funding which will help add new bus routes, increase frequencies, and expand service on weekends and late nights.The transit study further explores investments such as these that agencies and cities can take to drive ridership higher and improve service for their riders.

Although this study began well before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings and recommendations are going to be even more important than ever. Despite the ridership and budget impacts that the pandemic has caused, public transportation has proven to be critical in keeping essential workers moving and cities functioning, and it will play an important role in ensuring a strong economic recovery.

We are thrilled to have had the opportunity to work with local leaders in Cincinnati on this transit study and look forward to ongoing collaboration to improve public transportation and reduce reliance on the private automobile.

Cincinnati Strategic Transit Study was originally published in Uber Under the Hood on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.