A 15-minute Uber ride or a 30-minute
transit ride? For affluent city dwellers
who increasingly prefer comfort and
convenience, this choice is a no-brainer.
However, this choice is a privilege that
remains out of reach for those who live in
transit-dependent low-income communities,
who face many barriers to accessing
ride-hailing services.
Uber competing with taxis is old news,
but many now worry that ride-hailing
services like Uber and Lyft compete with
public transit for riders. Not only can
ride-hailing service be incredibly
convenient, nowadays it can be dirt cheap,
increasing the appeal of simply opening
the mobile app. This trend may come as no
surprise to cities with limited and
inefficient transit that are losing their
poor, transit-dependent riders in droves
to gentrification.
However, a 2017 study shows
that even in New York City, Lyft and Uber
ridership is increasing, as subway and bus
ridership declines. When ride-hailing
services threaten even the best public
transit network in the country, you know
we have a major problem. The graphs below
show the changes in ridership by mode from
the baseline of the previous year.
This drop in ridership and revenue
indicates has made it harder for some
cities to invest in public transit. Given
this reality, cities may rely more heavily
on shared mobility services such as
bikesharing, carsharing, luxury commuter
shuttles and ride-hailing services to
replace public transit trips. Some public
transit agencies are already testing this idea,
and are providing subsidies to
ride-hailing companies as a substitute to
transit.
So who will be most harmed by less public
transit service? Well, everyone who
breathes dirtier air or sits in clogged
traffic as transit use declines will be
hurt, but transit-dependent low-income
communities of color will suffer most. And
city leaders can’t just ask these riders
to replace their usual bus routes by
downloading a ride-hailing app. Lyft and
Uber don’t work for
all demographics, especially those in
rural areas, and those without access to
banks or smartphones.
And while ridesharing fares have become
cheaper over time, generally they are
still much more expensive than public
transit. While Lyft and Uber have
vague “anti-discrimination” policies on
their websites, there are no specific
procedures to prevent discriminatory
practices such as drivers going offline to
avoid requests in lower-income areas.
A study showed
that African-Americans faced 30 percent
longer wait times and were twice as likely
to have their ride cancelled as their
white counterparts. Before cities open the
floodgates to shared mobility
services—Uber and Lyft in particular–they
must take smart steps to reduce the harm
to transit-dependent communities of
color.
San Francisco recently began taking
proactive steps to address potential harms
of shared mobility services by approving a
set of Guiding
Principles for Management of Emergence
Transportation Services to be used
in all decisions and policies relating to
these shared mobility options, including
ride-hailing, microtransit, bike and
carsharing, etc. The principles cover ten
categories, including equitable access,
sustainability, congestion, fair labor
practices, and the need to complement as
opposed to competing with transit. This
marks a step in the right direction in
reigning in the shared mobility industry
and ensuring equity and sustainability are
meaningful parts of their business models.
While the shared mobility industry can
play an important role in our
transportation system, it must not be
allowed to completely replace biking,
walking, and clean public transit. Lyfts
and Ubers contribute to congestion and
pollution, and failure to regulate them
enables the automobile addiction of cities
worldwide. A
report from New York City shows
ridesharing companies have caused a net
increase of 600 million vehicle miles
traveled, resulting in a 3 to 4 percent
upsurge in traffic. Duke University
released a report concluding
that a single-occupancy vehicle emits 89
pounds of CO2 per 100 passenger miles,
while a full bus emits only 14 pounds.
Meanwhile, the rapid growth of electric
buses and other clean technologies will
only further increase the efficiency of
public transit—strengthening the argument
that public transit is cleaner and more
efficient than Lyfts and Ubers, and
therefore should be a top priority in
transportation planning. That’s one of the
reasons the No Uber Oakland campaign
has made working with—and not
undermining—public transit one of its
demands of the ride-hailing giant.
Greenlining’s Mobility
Equity Framework seeks to ensure
that the business objectives of shared
mobility companies do not eclipse
investments in clean forms of
transportation such as walking, biking,
and public transit. Low-income communities
of color need greater access to clean,
affordable transportation options that
serve as connectors to economic
opportunity. This framework will
prioritize clean transportation
options that align with equity and
sustainability goals, before hastily
rolling out the red carpet for the shared
mobility industry.