4/17/2013
1
DisruptiveInnovationsinRidesharing:OverviewofitsHistoryandRecentTrendsinReal‐TimeRidematching
April17,2013
SusanShaheen,Ph.D.AssociateAdjunctProfessorandCo‐DirectorofTSRC
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
PresentationOverview
• Problem/motivation
• Backgroundanddefinitions
• Historyofridesharing
• Recentdevelopments
• KeyquestionsfromCPUCworkshop
• Factorstoconsider
4/17/2013
2
Problem/Motivation• EstimatedeffectsoftrafficcongestionintheU.S.in2011(TTI,2012):– Emissions:Additional56billionlbsCO2 emitted– Fossilfueluse:2.9billiongallonsoffuelwasted– Efficiency:5.5billionhoursofextratime– Cost ofdelayandfuel:$121billion(in2011U.S.dollars)
1
Background
• Ridesharingapowerfulstrategytoaddressproblemsofcongestion,emissions,andfossilfueldependency– Simpleconcept:fillemptyseats,usevehicleoccupancypotential,reducevehiclesonroadway
• SecondlargesttravelmodeinU.S.at10.7%(ACS,2008)• Distinctionfromtaxis/limos
– Driver’smotivationnot‐for‐profit(i.e.,partiallycoverdriver’scost)
– Passengerhascommonorigin/destinationtodriver
1
4/17/2013
3
Definitions• Someexistingdefinitionsforridesharing:
– “Arrangementbetweenpersonswithacommondestination,ordestinations,withinthesameproximity,tosharetheuseofamotorvehicleonarecurringbasisforroundtriptransportationtoorfromtheirplaceofemploymentorothercommondestination….”(FloridaRegulations14‐73.002)
– “Transportationofpersonsbetweenhomeandworklocationsorofpersonshavingacommonwork‐relatedtrippurposeinavehicle….Thisexemptiondoesnotapplyiftheprimarypurposeforthetransportationofthosepersonsistomakeaprofit….”(CaliforniaPUCSection5353(h))
• Commonformsofridesharing:– Carpooling:Groupingoftravelersintoaprivateautomobile– Vanpooling:Typicallycommuterstravelingto/fromacommonemploymentcenter
sharingarideinavan
• Commercial/for‐hiretransportation:Typicallyownandmanagetheirownfleet,employtheirowndrivers
– Taxicabs:Operatewithoutprearrangement,hailatthecurb– Charter‐partycarriers (e.g.,limousinecompanies):Tripsareprearranged
1
HistoryofNorthAmericanRidesharing
Phase 1: WWII Car‐Sharing Clubs(1942 ‐ 1945)
Phase 2: Major Responses to Energy Crises(late 1960s ‐ 1980)
Phase 3: Early Organized Ridesharing Schemes (1980 ‐ 1997)
Phase 4: Reliable Ridesharing Systems (1999 ‐ 2004)
Phase 5: Technology‐Enabled Ridematching (2004 ‐ present)
4/17/2013
4
Phase1:WWIICar‐SharingClubs
• 1942U.S.OfficeofCivilianDefenseregulation
• Requiredridesharingtoworkplaceswhennootheralt.transportationmeansavailable
• Saveongasolineandrubberforthewareffort
4/17/2013
5
Phase2:MajorResponsestoEnergyCrises
• Late1960s:Employershand‐matchedemployeeswithneighbors,distributedpersonalizedmatchlists
• 1973‐ 1974ArabOilEmbargo:Shiftfromparkingsupplytoenergyconservation
• Variousfederalpolicies:– 1974EmergencyHighwayEnergyConservationAct– 1975FHWAridesharingguidebooks– 1979USDOTNationalRide‐SharingDemonstrationProgram
• HOVlanes,casualcarpooling(“slugging”),park‐and‐ridefacilities,vanpooling
4/17/2013
6
Phase3:EarlyOrganizedRidesharingSchemes• Employer‐BasedTripReduction(EBTR)programs
– Mandatoryprogramstocombatcongestioninsuburbanofficeparks
• Example:Pleasanton,CATRO,1984– Airqualitydistrictsfollowed
• Example:SCAQMDRegulationXV,1987– Uncleardefinitionofproblemandunrealistictargets
• Telephone‐BasedRidematching– Pilottelephone‐basedstudies
• “SmartTravelers” of1990s• Highcost,lowuse• Commuterresistance/misunderstandingoftelephone‐based,one‐timematching
– Internet&E‐mailenhancements• Moreparticipation,formbasisofridesharingprogramstoday
Phase4:“Reliable” RidesharingSystems
• Commuterswith“reliable” tripschedules• Reliable=Commuterswithregular,reliabletripschedules
• Privatesoftwarecompaniesbegandevelopingridematching“platforms”
• InitialOnlineRidematching– Prearrangementneeded
4/17/2013
7
Phase5:Technology‐EnabledRidematching
• Automatedridematchingononlinewebsites• 4keydevelopments:
– Partnershipsbetweenridematchingsoftwarecompaniesandregions/largeemployers
– Financialincentivesfor“greentrips”– Socialnetworking– Real‐timeridesharing
638NorthAmericanRidematchingServices(July2011)
261
401
612 carpooling
153 vanpooling
4/17/2013
8
Real‐TimeRidematchingServices• Matchdriversandpassengers,basedondestination,throughasmartphoneappbeforethetripistotakeplace
• Typicallyshort,in‐citytrips• Cashlesspaymentthroughapp,creditcardonfile
• Participantsuseratingsystem• Differfromdispatchore‐hailmodelsthatdonotrequireadestination
1
RecentControversy• Startupsasserttheyarenot transportationcompanies,buttechcompaniesthatprovideridematchingplatform
• Driversdonotneedtohavecommerciallicense,iftheyfallunderridesharingexemptionofcommercialtransportationregulations
• Ridesharingexemption=nogovernmentalregulationofsafetyandinsurancethattaxi/limocompaniesmustfollow
• Dostartupsfallunderridesharingdefinition?– Aretheirdriversnot‐for‐profit?– Arethesharedtripsalreadyalongthedriver’sroute?– Isitmorelikep2ptaxis?
1
4/17/2013
9
RecentDevelopments
1
20132012
Aug: CPUC cease‐and‐desist orders for Lyft, Sidecar, and Tickengo
Nov: PUC imposes $20,000 fine for Lyft, Sidecar, and UBER
Dec: CPUC begins Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to better regulate new companies
Mar: Sidecar and UBERx give free rides, and Lyft does publicity at SXSW in Austin
Apr: SFO cease‐and‐desist for Lyft, Sidecar, Tickengo, InstantCab, UBER
Apr: Study suggests SF add 600 to 800 more taxis
Jan: Lyft and UBER enter interim agreements with CPUC to continue operations during OIR process
Feb: Austin cease‐and‐desist for Sidecar; Philly impounds 3 Sidecar vehicles
Feb: Sidecar expands to Austin (acquires Heyride), Philly, LA; UBERx launches
Jan: Lyft expands to LA
Nov: Sidecar expands to Seattle
Mar: Lyft acquires Cherry
Mar: Sidecar expands to Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, and DC
Apr: Lyft expands to Seattle
Feb: UBERx launches in SF
CPUCOrderInstitutingRulemaking• OIRintendedtocreateregulationstoprotectpublicsafetyandpromote
innovationinpassengertransportation• Feb2013:Prehearingconferencetodetermineallpartiesimpactedand
involved,discussscopeofrulemaking,andplanworkshops• Apr2013:ParticipatoryworkshopstodraftreportforAdministrative
LawJudge’sreviewanddecision– Clarifiedeachparty’sposition– Discussedissuesofjurisdiction,safety,insurance,competition,andinnovation– Posedpossibleregulatoryresponsestonewonline‐enabledtransportationservices
1
4/17/2013
10
KeyQuestionsfromWorkshop
• DoInstantCab,Lyft,SideCar,andUBERxfallunderridesharing?• Shouldamonetarycapbeimposedonamountdriverscanearn?• Whatnewregulationsshouldbeenacted?Shouldthereevenbenew
regulations?– Mar2013:FTCshowedconcerntoColoradoPUC;mayimpaircompetitionin
passengervehicletransportationservices.Recommendedaregulatoryframeworkflexibletoaccommodatenewapp‐basedtransportationservices
• Safety:Arecompanies’ checksadequate?Regulationsneededforstandardizationandoversight?
• Licensing:Shouldtherebeanewlicensingmodelforprivatelyownedvehicles(or“communitydrivers”)?
• Insurance:Somehaveexcessliabilityinsurance,butwhatarethedetails?• Shouldproprietaryinformationbedisclosedtothepublic?• Dothesecompaniesaddorremovevehicles,addorreduceemissions?
1
FactorstoConsider• Popularity:Servicesarefillingsomeneedpreviouslyunmet• SocialDimension:Appealofsocialmediaandpeer‐to‐peerservices• Scalability:Reliabilityrequirescriticalmass
– E.g.,publicbikesharing’spotentialrealizedwithscaleandreliability
• Evolution:Real‐timeridematchingmayfunctiondifferentlyasitgrows– Could“communitydrivers” enablemorereal‐timeridesharinginthefuture?
• Needframeworktocategorizespectrumofservices(e.g.,rangingfromridematchingtodispatching,accountingforprofitpotentialandreal‐timenature)
• Whatisbestwaytoencourageinnovation(e.g.,shutitdown,constrainit,orpromoteminimallevelofsafety)?
• Researchneededintosafety,economicimpacts,congestionrelief,andemissionreductionpotential
1
4/17/2013
11
Reference
1
www.tsrc.berkeley.edu