What We Got Wrong About Uber and Lyft

What We Got Wrong About Uber and Lyft

What We Got Wrong About Uber and Lyft

What We Got Wrong About Uber and Lyft

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

Uber and some transportation experts once predicted that getting a ride with the tap of an app would help reduce traffic and increase riders’ use of public transportation.

Instead, the opposite happened.

I mentioned this in a recent newsletter. I wanted to go a little deeper today into what went wrong with the promise of on-demand rides and what we could learn from it. How can we believe that technology will help solve big problems if Uber’s great promise didn’t pan out?

Here’s what more research is finding: In the past few years, on-demand ride services have been a major factor in increased traffic in U.S. cities, particularly in the downtowns of big cities. And most research is showing that the ride services have also been a significant reason for declining ridership of public transportation, especially buses.

Uber and Lyft have said that people driving themselves are the biggest sources of traffic. That is true, but it doesn’t explain the surge in traffic that the services have added to cities.

What went wrong? Gregory D. Erhardt, who analyzes transportation modeling systems at the University of Kentucky, told me that the companies and some transportation experts misjudged how the ride services would be used.

The theory of on-demand rides was that they would be like carpooling. As people drove to work, they’d pick up an extra person or two along the way — and some money, too. But Uber and Lyft turned out to be more like taxis.

Uber and Lyft, as they expanded, focused on dense urban areas, where there were plenty of potential drivers and riders. But even there, drivers spend a large percentage of their working hours roaming around without fares and clogging the streets, Dr. Erhardt said. The combination of all of these factors was more miles driven in many large and midsize cities. (Dr. Erhardt and his colleagues are soon publishing additional research into the effects of ride-hail services in about 250 U.S. metropolitan areas.)

Dr. Erhardt and I talked over three lessons from this misjudgment. First, Uber and Lyft need to share their data so that cities can understand the services’ impact on the roads. Second, public officials need to steer transportation policy to encourage helpful behaviors and limit destructive ones. And third, new technology needs guardrails in place — and maybe those need to be established before its impact is obvious.

The first point is that Uber and Lyft, which tend to keep certain information such as where people travel and idling times secret, need to share information with cities and researchers. “Cities are pushing hard and have a strong case that we should be able to use this data for planning and research purposes,” Dr. Erhardt said.

His second point was about incentives. Some cities including New York and Chicago have added fees onto Uber and Lyft rides to make it more expensive to drive around without passengers or pick up fares in dense urban centers. That essentially nudges passengers and the companies to reduce the trips that could worsen congestion and pollution.

Maybe you’re thinking, if Uber and Lyft are convenient, why stand in their way? That’s fair, but governments do use taxes and subsidies to encourage people to quit smoking or buy homes. Transportation that works for everyone doesn’t happen on its own. “Designing the right structures matters,” Dr. Erhardt said.

And the third point is that policymakers may have to act early to impose new rules and requirements on new technologies. They didn’t do that when Uber and Lyft came along — because the companies fought regulation and the services were popular.

But the effects of the ride services suggest that emerging transportation, including driverless cars, may need regulations early on to ensure that promises of a collective benefit don’t turn out to be a mirage.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.


Tip of the Week

Planning a trip soon? (I hope so!) Brian X. Chen, the personal technology columnist at The New York Times, talks us through the process of downloading maps on our phones for those moments when we might not have an internet connection.

With spring break — and vaccines! — upon us, many of you are probably planning road trips. Add this task to your to-do list: Download offline maps for your destination.

With offline maps, you store mapping data for your chosen destination on your smartphone. If you drive somewhere with poor cell reception, your maps app will still be able show you directions. This may come in handy if you visit a national park with very spotty reception, for example, and need to find your hotel or the entrance to a hiking spot.

Here’s how to download offline maps with Google Maps on iPhones and Android devices:

*Open the Google Maps app. Search for the place you’re planning to go. I’ll use Yosemite National Park as my example.

*At the bottom of the screen, tap on Yosemite National Park. Then tap the More button. That’s the icon of three dots in the upper right hand corner.

*Choose the option to “Download offline map.” Pinch your fingers together or apart to zoom in and out and select the map area that you want to save. Tap Download.


  • The meaning behind an Amazon election: Warehouse workers in Alabama are completing a vote on what could be the first Amazon union in the United States. My colleagues Karen Weise and Michael Corkery write about how the vote counting will work and what’s at stake in the election.

  • Never tweet? Recode reported that an Amazon computer security engineer thought that company tweets sniping at members of Congress were so unusual that they might be a cyberattack. Nope. Jeff Bezos wanted stronger pushback to criticism of the company.

  • Clamping down on freewheeling online news: A relatively new generation of scrappy, online-focused news outlets in India has resisted the government’s campaign against dissent. My colleagues Mujib Mashal and Hari Kumar say that new rules may now rein them in.

Check out this bird confidently strutting — sashaying, really. (And scroll down to see all of the people who set music to our avian friend, like this.) For the bird behavior experts: What’s going on here?


We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.




Source link

Check Also

Inside the Fight for the Future of The Wall Street Journal

Inside the Fight for the Future of The Wall Street Journal

Inside the Fight for the Future of The Wall Street Journal Inside the Fight for …