Recently, the explosive growth of ridesourcing, or on-demand ridesharing, has attracted a great deal of attention from researchers and planners. Despite its transformative impacts on mobility, limited studies have examined how built environment affects its use. In this study, we investigate the impacts of built environment on ridesourcing demand. We employ structural equation modelling to account for the complex relationships among study variables, and investigate the impacts at census block group level by using RideAustin data in Austin, Texas. Findings reveal strong impacts of built environment on ridesourcing demand and significant temporal heterogeneity. The models show that greater population/employment/service job densities, road density, pavement completeness, land use mix and job accessibility by transit produce more ridesourcing demand. Access to the commuter rail (MetroRail) also leads to greater demand. Furthermore, time-of-day (TOD) models demonstrate that these effects vary significantly according to the time of day. Our research has implications for policy making and for travel demand modelling of ridesourcing.
AlemiFCircellaGHandySet al. (2018) What influences travelers to use Uber? Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services in California. Travel Behaviour and Society13: 88–104.
2.
BagleyMNMokhtarianPL (2002) The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science36(2): 279–297.
3.
BoarnetMCraneR (2001) The influence of land use on travel behavior: Specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice35(9): 823–845.
4.
BoisjolyGEl-GeneidyAM (2017) How to get there? A critical assessment of accessibility objectives and indicators in metropolitan transportation plans. Transport Policy55: 38–50.
5.
CaoX (2015) Examining the impacts of neighborhood design and residential self-selection on active travel: A methodological assessment. Urban Geography36(2): 236–255.
6.
CaoXFanY (2012) Exploring the influences of density on travel behavior using propensity score matching. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design39(3): 459–470.
7.
CaoXMokhtarianPLHandySL (2009) Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews29(3): 359–395.
8.
CerveroRDuncanM (2006) Which reduces vehicle travel more: Jobs–housing balance or retail–housing mixing?Journal of the American Planning Association72(4): 475–490.
9.
CerveroRKockelmanK (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment2(3): 199–219.
10.
CerveroRSarmientoOLJacobyEet al. (2009) Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: Lessons from Bogotá. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation3(4): 203–226.
CohenAShaheenS (2016) Planning for shared mobility. PAS report 583. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
13.
DiasFFLavieriPSGarikapatiVMet al. (2017) A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation44(6): 1307–1323.
14.
EwingRCerveroR (2010) Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association76(3): 265–294.
15.
EwingRGreenwaldMZhangMet al. (2010) Traffic generated by mixed-use developments – Six-region study using consistent built environmental measures. Journal of Urban Planning and Development137(3): 248–261.
16.
EwingRHamidiSTianGet al. (2018) Testing Newman and Kenworthy’s theory of density and automobile dependence. Journal of Planning Education and Research38(2): 167–182.
17.
EwingRTianGGoatesJPet al. (2015) Varying influences of the built environment on household travel in 15 diverse regions of the United States. Urban Studies52(13): 2330–2348.
18.
GolobT (2003) Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological37(1): 1–25.
19.
HampshireRSimekCFabusuyiTet al. (2017) Measuring the Impact of an Unanticipated Suspension of Ride-Sourcing in Austin, Texas. ID 2977969, SSRN Scholarly Paper, 31 May. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2977969 (accessed 26 February 2018).
20.
HandySCaoXMokhtarianP (2005) Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment10(6): 427–444.
21.
HandySCaoXMokhtarianPL (2006) Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: Empirical evidence from Northern California. Journal of the American Planning Association72(1): 55–74.
22.
HandySLBoarnetMGEwingRet al. (2002) How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine23(2): 64–73.
23.
HughesRMacKenzieD (2016) Transportation network company wait times in Greater Seattle, and relationship to socioeconomic indicators. Journal of Transport Geography56: 36–44.
24.
JöreskogKGSörbomD (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
25.
KangJHwangKParkS (2016) Finding factors that influence carsharing usage: Case study in Seoul. Sustainability8(8): 709–721.
26.
LavieriPDiasFFJuriNRet al. (2017a) A model of ridesourcing demand generation and distribution. Technical paper. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin.
27.
LavieriPGarikapatiVMBhatCRet al. (2017b) Modeling individual preferences for ownership and sharing of autonomous vehicle technologies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2665: 1–10.
PengZ-R (1997) The jobs–housing balance and urban commuting. Urban Studies34(8): 1215–1235.
30.
QianXUkkusuriSV (2015) Spatial variation of the urban taxi ridership using GPS data. Applied Geography59: 31–42.
31.
RayleLDaiDChanNet al. (2016) Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transport Policy45: 168–178.
Schaller Consulting (2018) The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities. New York: Schaller Consulting.
34.
SchumackerRLomaxR (2010) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Routledge.
35.
SohnKShimH (2010) Factors generating boardings at metro stations in the Seoul metropolitan area. Cities27(5): 358–368.
36.
StillwaterTMokhtarianPShaheenS (2009) Carsharing and the built environment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2110: 27–34.
37.
ThillJ-CKimM (2005) Trip making, induced travel demand, and accessibility. Journal of Geographical Systems7(2): 229–248.
WangC-HChenN (2015) A GIS-based spatial statistical approach to modeling job accessibility by transportation mode: Case study of Columbus, Ohio. Journal of Transport Geography45: 1–11.
40.
YangCGonzalesE (2014) Modeling taxi trip demand by time of day in New York City. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2429: 110–120.
41.
YangZFranzMLZhuSet al. (2018) Analysis of Washington, DC taxi demand using GPS and land-use data. Journal of Transport Geography66: 35–44.
42.
YuHPengZR (2019) Exploring the spatial variation of ridesourcing demand and its relationship to built environment and socioeconomic factors with the geographically weighted Poisson regression. Journal of Transport Geography75: 147–163.
43.
ZhangW (2016) Does compact land use trigger a rise in crime and a fall in ridership? A role for crime in the land use–travel connection. Urban Studies53(14): 3007–3026.
