Why People Choose Uber and Lyft Over Public Transit: New Study

New research led by the University of Michigan highlights the reasons why commuters prefer ride-sharing services over public transit, revealing the potential for enhancing public transportation accessibility to make it a more attractive option.

A new study led by the University of Michigan offers fresh insights into why people often choose ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft over public transportation, even in cities with extensive transit networks.

Through data collected by the city of Chicago, the researchers analyzed the usage patterns of transport network companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, compared to public transit. The study revealed that the median value people place on their time — about $34 per hour — is almost identical to the Chicago region’s median hourly wage.

“I was a bit surprised that our median estimate of the value of time was so close to the regional average wage. The median rider seems to value their time in a reasonable way,” co-author Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability, said in a news release. “At first sight, our research shows that people are behaving the way you would expect them to.”

The team of researchers, which included Anna Cobb of Carnegie Mellon University, sought to understand how cost and duration of TNC trips compared to similar journeys made using public transportation.

Their findings suggest that while electrifying vehicles and introducing congestion taxes can mitigate some issues associated with TNCs, the most significant gains could be achieved by making public transit more accessible and efficient.

“If we can make transit more accessible to the user, we can make a huge impact,” lead author Miki Tsuchiya, a research assistant at the U-M Center for Sustainable Systems, said in the news release.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, analyzed over 200,000 TNC rides in Chicago.

The researchers evaluated each ride based on factors such as cost, duration, air pollution, congestion, collision risk and greenhouse gas emissions. This comprehensive approach aimed to understand the broader impacts of riders’ choices on both individuals and society.

“We worked to capture multidisciplinary perspectives focusing on the users,” Tsuchiya added. “Our benefit-cost analysis included life cycle analysis, geospatial analysis and draws on insights from public health and environmental epidemiology.”

Interestingly, imposing fees on the social harms caused by TNCs — such as increased congestion and pollution — would minimally affect the riders’ valuation of their time, raising it only slightly from $34 to $37 per hour.

“If you were to tax riders based on how much harm they cause, it’s not clear they would behave any differently,” Vaishnav added.

While some cities like Chicago have started implementing congestion taxes, and others such as New York are following suit, the researchers believe that the most significant improvements can be made by enhancing the convenience and efficiency of public transit.

Tsuchiya pointed out that many TNC rides in Chicago could be served by existing public transportation. However, the key challenge is how users perceive the time spent getting to and waiting for transit.

“About half of the time of a transit trip is the rider walking to a stop and waiting,” Tsuchiya added. “That means that half the time, people aren’t actually riding.”

According to the research, boosting transit efficiency by reducing wait times and walking distances can make a substantial difference. However, this requires more detailed, granular data to identify the most effective improvements.

“The moral of the story is that we need more data,” Vaishnav concluded, emphasizing the need for ongoing research to create strategies that will make public transit a more attractive and sustainable alternative to ridesharing services.