Demonizing Ride Hailing

by | Aug 12, 2018

Demonizing Ride Hailing

by | Aug 12, 2018

https://pixabay.com/en/architecture-buildings-cars-city-1837176/

Last week, a transportation consultant named Bruce Schaller published a report claiming that ride hailing was increasing traffic congestion. Since then, we’ve been innundated with wild claims Uber and Lyft were increasing traffic by 180 percent, and these claims are used to support arguments that that cities should tax companies like Uber and Lyft and use the revenues to compensate transit agencies for the riders lost to ride sharing.

Yet the congestion claims are completely inaccurate. Schaller concluded that, because well under half of ride-hailing trips would otherwise have used private automobiles, ride hailing put “2.8 new vehicle miles on the road for each mile of personal driving removed.” He went on to say that this is “an overall 180 percent increase in driving on city streets,” but that would be true only if ride hailing removed 100 percent of private driving from the streets.

The report also said that ride hailing added “5.7 billion miles of driving annually in the Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC metro areas.” That sounds like a lot, but Federal Highway Administration data show that it is only about 1 percent of driving in those metro areas. Since, by Schaller’s estimation, about a third of ride-sharing travel displaced private auto travel, ride hailing added a net of just two-thirds of a percent of driving in those metro areas.

Nor does even that two-thirds of a percent necessarily add to congestion. A disproportionate share of ride hailing takes place during off-peak hours, so only a small portion of that two-thirds of a percent actually contributed to rush-hour congestion.

Read the rest at cato.org.

Our Books

Recent Articles

Recent

Supreme Court Ends Federal War on Gun-Owning Potheads

Supreme Court Ends Federal War on Gun-Owning Potheads

Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a pretext that the feds have used to nullify the constitutional rights of more than fifty million Americans. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited gun ownership by anyone who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to...

read more
Strategic Ambiguity (If We Must)

Strategic Ambiguity (If We Must)

In recent years, critics on both sides of the aisle have taken aim at the longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan. They argue that Washington should abandon ambiguity and embrace “strategic clarity,” explicitly pledging to fight China over Taiwan....

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This