The Growth and Growing Pains of Transportation Network Companies

Need a Lyft?  How about 8?
Need a Lyft? How about 8?

ed’s note: This week, we’re featuring a short series of articles from our board member Juan Matute on what he’s thinking about technology and transportation.  His first thoughts were on vehicle connectivity versus automation.

A lot has been going on with Transportation Network Companies since my October 2013 conversation with Damien Newton. Damien and I talked the month after the California Public Utilities Commission created a legal pathway for companies like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar to exist in California.

Above all, the services have been growing, both inside and outside California.

Transportation Network Company Growth by the Numbers – U.S. Cities and Valuation

Uber

Lyft

Sidecar

October 2013

25 cities (worth $3.5B)

15 cities (worth $275M)

6 cities

December 2013

29 cities (worth $3.5B)

18 cities (worth $275M)

6 cities

March 2014

36 cities (worth $3.5B)

20 cities (worth $700M)

8 cities

UberX announced a 20% price drop in Los Angeles and other markets. Liability issues persist and will take a while to resolve. Lyft started the Peer2Peer Rideshare Insurance Coalition to help work through some of the issues.

I still believe the primary benefit of these new companies is that they can be a scalable platform for rideshare. The greatest promise of each of these services is to bring large numbers of drivers and passengers together on a single platform, which then makes passenger matching and shared rides that are ancillary to a driver’s intended trip more likely.

The secondary benefit to the services is to those individuals looking to supplement their income. Qualified unemployed and underemployed people, with cars, can earn extra income. Between increasing student debt loads and a long-term sluggish economy, economic conditions are ripe for supplemental income opportunities. I’ve talked to many UberX and Lyft drivers who saw the opportunity as a safety net.

Having a lot of drivers and passengers on a single platform is good for transportation. Technology can facilitate shared trips. With pre-specified destinations, a passenger may take a ride that a driver wanted to take anyway. With passenger matching and fare splitting, two or more passengers could match from nearby origins to similar destinations. With more trips, more matching takes place, resulting in more efficiency and economy.   

However, having too many drivers or passengers can bring imbalance to the systems

Too many passengers results in surge (UberX) or primetime (Lyft) pricing, which is designed to temporarily quell demand and bring more drivers onto the system in order to restore balance. Too many passengers is mostly a problem that can be alleviated in the short-run.

Having too many drivers on the system also brings an imbalance, but one that can be harder to remedy in the short run. This can be good for passengers – who wait less time for their ride to show up and are less likely to experience demand-based price increases. However, having too many drivers can be bad for drivers, who wait longer between ride requests and earn less per hour. Sidecar now offers drivers the option to offer rides at a lower rate, reducing wait times but also earnings.

The problem of too many drivers can be alleviated in the short run if drivers decide to stop offering rides and go home. However, this response ignores the role of these services in supplementing incomes.  Drivers who don’t mind earning less will continue to offer rides. Drivers who don’t fully account for the costs they incur to own and operate their vehicle, including the additional costs of wear and tear on their cars, may stick it out for lower expected hourly earnings than they would if they accounted for all costs. Drivers who have been on the platforms for many months will see their incomes become less stable.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the supply of Uber and Lyft drivers has outpaced demand in Los Angeles in recent weeks. As a transportation geek, I sometimes conduct a non-scientific study of where UberX and Lyft drivers are to see how they’re covering different times (span of service) and areas. It’s promising to see expansion to other areas of Los Angeles that weren’t served last year.  I’ve also noticed greater concentrations of vehicles in popular areas during recent weeks, which may indicate a growing number of drivers relative to passengers

Lyft on a Tuesday night. I'd not previously seen this much coverage in South Los Angeles or this dense of coverage in Hollywood.
Lyft on a Tuesday night. I’d not previously seen this much coverage in South Los Angeles or this dense of coverage in Hollywood.

I hope that, if there is an issue with driver oversupply, it’s a short term issue that’s remedied as even more passengers come onto the platforms. I believe that the long-term viability of these companies is dependent on keeping both drivers and passengers happy, as the services tout community and friendly conversation with a driver among their advantages. I think it’s in the best interest of the three major players to avoid becoming a commodity product competing on price. The city of Seattle is looking to limit each of services to 150 drivers at any given time. Such an effort may help drivers in the short-run, but also eliminate the promise of a scalable ridesharing platform in the long-run.

If you’re interested, you can sign up to be an UberX driver in Los Angeles.

We’ll be talking about transportation network companies at UCLA’s Digital Cities: Smarter Transportation Forum, downtown on Thursday, March 20th.  Streetsblog readers can register for $129 using discount code “sbla”.

  • davistrain

    This whole subject reminds me of the “jitney bus” phenomenon of a hundred years ago. In those days it was not the taxi companies whose “ox was being gored” but (in the case of LA) Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway Co. Since today’s internet-based operations would not have even been “sci-fi” back in 1915, car owners who had some free time would patrol the streetcar lines, and pick up folks at the trolley stops. The railways fought back by “encouraging” legislation that required jitney bus operators to be licensed and insured. This led to some operators getting out of the casual transit business and the more ambitious ones becoming “legitimate” bus lines.

  • Wanderer

    Well I certainly wouldn’t want to get into a car driven by a stranger unless I knew that person was properly insured and had a decent driving record.

  • S_grant

    I have used both Lyft and Sidecar. The drivers were courteous, well-groomed, the cars were clean and ran smoothly. The process of payment was easy and I tipped both drivers, probably more than I should have. The experience was easy and painless. I have used taxis before, but never again. I hope all the peer-to-peer ride share companies continue to thrive and prosper. If the only people driving, have passengers in their car, then there will be less cars on the road, less pollution, and more social interaction.

  • CA

    You can sign up right now with promo code “ubermeplease” and get $20 off your first UBER ride!
    http://uber.com/invite/ubermeplease

  • poopoooface

    They have this in Russia, you just go outside at night and drivers will stop and you can negotiate a ride. It is quite convinent.

  • steve

    There is a reason that LA had a system that limited the number of drivers. The ride shares quote gypsy cabs will continue to take business from the taxi companies but growing passengers is not going to happen at 80 or more of taxi rates. Ride sharing is going to work together and sharing costs. Hopefully LA will wrestle control away from the PUC before the taxi cab industry fails. Then the real cost of free market will occur for the people who are not cool with smart phones and credit cards. The mayor has no clothes! He got swept away with technology but did not spend an hour to visit yellow cab to see what technology was being used. We will reform the taxi industry was his call. Little did he realize that cabs have better technology and service the entire community.

  • ikegawataro

    I love these companies and their services. I can say that among my cohort, it is contributing to an overall reduction in miles driven and is reducing drunk driving.

    That said, two potentially negative consequences – 1) because their services require a) a smartphone, b) an app, and c) a credit card – many people simply cannot use their services. Thus, lower income people are forced to use higher priced (taxis) or slower (public transportation) options. Kind of seems unfair that the educated tech-savvy people get access to cheaper rides.

    2) It reduces public transit use. I used to ride the bus a lot but I have replaced some of those trips with Uber and Lyft. They are just so much faster and the price premium is not that great. They have drastically changed the economics of transportation.

    I predict the future will be a lyft/uber-like platform (probably controlled by Google) with automated electric cars (made by all of the big car mfgr’s) that are public resources. They will be continuously charging on a smart grid with batteries from Tesla. That will buy us another 100 years or so before we need to re-think transportation again.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    I agree with all of this, except perhaps the reduction of public transit use. I’ve done some Lyft rides that I could theoretically have done on a bus, but it would have involved 10-15 minutes of walking on each end, for a ride just from Wilshire to Sunset. I think I once considered a ride back from downtown, but I haven’t yet tried replacing a ride on the 4 or the 2 with a Lyft.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    These companies require that.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

STREETSBLOG USA

We Need a New Term to Describe Uber and Lyft

|
Companies like Uber and Lyft make any car owner a potential paid chauffeur, and their services are increasingly widespread in American cities. So what should we call these new companies? Abigail Zenner at Greater Greater Washington says the current nomenclature is a bit muddled: Companies like Uber and Lyft have been dubbing their services “ridesharing.” […]

We’re Live, Right Now, Interviewing Juan Matute About Lyft, Sidecar, Uber and Los Angeles

|
Right now at SoCal Streetstube, I’m interviewing Juan Matute, UCLA Lewis Center Associate Director about the role that the city plays regulating Transportation Network Companies and how these companies help or hurt mobility overall. We’re broadcasting live at SoCal Streetstube. If you have a question for Juan, leave it in the comments section. As always, we’ll publish […]

Reminder: I’ll Be Interviewing Juan Matute Live at 3 at Socal StreetsTube About “Ride Share” and Southern California

|
Just a reminder, at 3:00 today I’ll be interviewing Juan Matute, UCLA Lewis Center Associate Director about the role that the city plays regulating Transportation Network Companies and how these companies help or hurt mobility overall. The first question will be, why don’t you just call companies such as Uber and Lyft ride share like […]

Digital Cities, Smarter Transportation – Conference Highlights

|
Yesterday, Streetsblog L.A. attended Digital Cities, Smarter Transportation, a one-day conference on “technology and the future of mobility, cities, and regions” hosted by the UCLA Lewis Center and the UCLA Institute for Transportation Studies.  Here are a few highlights from the proceedings: SFpark San Francisco’s Innovative Parking Pilot:  San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) Alex Demisch presented on […]
Uber CEO Travis Kalanick's recent meltdown hints at problems with the company's business model. Photo: Heisenberg Media via Creative Commons
STREETSBLOG USA

The Trouble With Uber

|
It's been a bad few weeks for Uber, with CEO Travis Kalanick recently caught on tape in a shouting match with a driver over the company's diminishing pay. Joe Cortright at City Observatory says that beyond the public meltdown, there are a growing number of signs that Uber's business model just isn't sustainable.