The introduction of mobile application-based ride hailing services represents a convergence between technologies, supply of vehicles, and demand in near real time. There is growing interest in quantifying the demand for such services from regulatory, operational, and system evaluation perspectives. Several studies model the decision to adopt ride hailing and the extent of the use of ride hailing, either separately or by bundling them into a single choice dimension, disregarding potential endogeneity between these decisions. Unlike developed countries, the literature is sparser for ride hailing in developing countries, where the demand may differ considerably because of differences in vehicle ownership, and availability and patronage of many transit and intermediate public transport (IPT) modes (the shared modes carrying 40% shares in some cases). This study aims to bridge these gaps in the literature by investigating three interrelated choice dimensions among workers in Chennai city: consideration of IPT modes, the adoption of ride hailing services and the subsequent usage intensity of ride hailing services. The main factors influencing these decisions are identified by estimating a trivariate probit model. The results indicate that sociodemographic and locational characteristics and the availability of IPT modes influence ride hailing adoption, whereas work-related constraints and perception of other modes affect its frequency. Work and non-work characteristics affect both the dimensions of ride hailing. Further, endogeneity is observed between ride hailing and IPT adoption after controlling for these variables, whereas evidence of endogeneity is absent among other dimensions. Mainly, the model separates the effect of the exogenous influences on the usage frequency level from their effect on the adoption of ride hailing services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SAE Technical Standards Board. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Shared Mobility and Enabling Technologies. SAE Technical Paper J3163_201809. Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, 2018.
2.
FeigonS.MurphyC.Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit. Chicago, Ill., 2016.
3.
ShaheenS.CohenA.ZohdyI.Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. FHWA-HOP-16-022. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2016, p. 120.
4.
OECD Secretariat. Taxi, Ride-Sourcing and Ride-Sharing Services – Background Note. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019.
5.
CohenA.ShaheenS.Planning for Shared Mobility. American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., 2018.
6.
EskenaziL.National and International Developments The French Taxi Case : Where Competition Meets—and Overrides—Regulation. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol. 5, No. 8, 2014, pp. 551–556.
7.
DosenI.RosolenH.Uber and Ridesharing. Aviva Publishing, Lake Placid, N.Y., 2016.
8.
RayleL.DaiD.ChanN.CerveroR.ShaheenS.Just a Better Taxi? A Survey-Based Comparison of Taxis, Transit, and Ridesourcing Services in San Francisco. Transport Policy, Vol. 45, 2016, pp. 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004.
9.
VinayakP.DiasF. F.AstrozaS.BhatC. R.PendyalaR. M.GarikapatiV. M.Accounting for Multi-Dimensional Dependencies among Decision-Makers within a Generalized Model Framework: An Application to Understanding Shared Mobility Service Usage Levels. Transport Policy, Vol. 72, 2018, pp. 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.013.
10.
LavieriP. S.BhatC. R.Investigating Objective and Subjective Factors Influencing the Adoption, Frequency, and Characteristics of Ride-Hailing Trips. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 105, 2018, 2019, pp. 100–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.037.
11.
DiasF. F.LavieriP. S.GarikapatiV. M.AstrozaS.PendyalaR. M.BhatC. R.A Behavioral Choice Model of the Use of Car-Sharing and Ride-Sourcing Services. Transportation, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2017, pp. 1307–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9797-8.
12.
HabibK. N.Mode Choice Modelling for Hailable Rides: An Investigation of the Competition of Uber with Other Modes by Using an Integrated Non-Compensatory Choice Model with Probabilistic Choice Set Formation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 129, 2019, pp. 205–216.
13.
XieY.DanafM.LimaC.ArunA.AkkinepallyP.Behavioral Modeling of On-Demand Mobility Services: General Framework and Application to Sustainable Travel Incentives. Transportation, Vol. 46, 2019, pp. 2017–2039.
14.
AlemiF.CircellaG.MokhtarianP.HandyS.What Drives the Use of Ridehailing in California ? Ordered Probit Models of the Usage Frequency of Uber and Lyft. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 102, 2019, pp. 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.016.
15.
World Economic Forum. Reshaping Urban Mobility with Autonomous Vehicles: Lessons from the City of Boston. World Economic Forum, Switzerland, Geneva, 2018.
16.
CerveroR.GolubA.Informal Public Transport: A Global Perspective. In Urban Transport in the Developing World: A Handbook of Policy and Practice (DimitriouH. T.GakenheimerR., eds.) Edward Elgar, 2011, pp. 488–518.
17.
KunhikrishnanP.SrinivasanK. K.Investigating Behavioral Differences in the Choice of Distinct Intermediate Public Transport (IPT) Modes for Work Trips in Chennai City. Transport Policy, Vol. 61, 2018, pp. 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.10.006.
GargS.GayenA. S.JenaP.JoeG. S.RamamurthyL.MJ. K.DhanurajD.Study on the Autorickshaw Sector in Chennai. Civitas Consultancies Pvt Ltd for City Connect Foundation Chennai (CCCF), India, Chennai, 2010.
MukherjeeA.ToshniwaR.MulukutlaP.Enhancing Bengaluru’s Public Transport Network: Approaches and Challenges. Journal of Sustainable Urbanization, Planning and Progress, Vol. 2013, 2016, pp. 1–14.
BadamiM. G.ReynoldsC. C. O.KandlikarM.Auto-Rickshaws in Indian Cities: Public Perceptions and the Vehicle Driver Perspective. Transport Policy, Vol. 52, 2016, pp. 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.013.
24.
PrabhuA.RamamurthyM. S, L.DhanurajD.Study on Paratransit Sector in Chennai. City Connect Foundation Chennai (CCCF) Report, 2011.
25.
BasuR.VargheseV.JanaA.Comparison of Traditional and Emerging Paratransit Services in Indian Metropolises with Dissimilar Service Delivery Structures. Asian Transport Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017, pp. 518–535.
26.
ClewlowR. R.MishraG. S.Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-17-07. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 2017.
27.
YoungM.FarberS.The Who, Why, and When of Uber and Other Ride-Hailing Trips: An Examination of a Large Sample Household Travel Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 119, 2019, pp. 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.018.
28.
Wilbur Smith Associates Private Limited. Chennai Comprehensive Transportation Study—2007. Chennai, 2010.
Meru Cabs—Taxi Fare Chart and Estimate Your Cab Travel Price, Cost and Rates. https://www.merucabs.com/fares/%0A. Accessed August 28, 2016.
36.
BansalP.KockelmanK. M.Indian Vehicle Ownership: Insights from Literature Review, Expert Interviews, and State-Level Model. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2017, pp. 45–59. https://doi.org/10.5399/osu/jtrf.56.2.4432.
37.
SrinivasanK. K.Lakshmi BhargaviP. V.RamaduraiG.MuthuramV.SrinivasanS.Determinants of Changes in Mobility and Travel Patterns in Developing Countries: Case Study of Chennai, India. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2038: 42–52. https://doi.org/10.3141/2038-06.
