Do ride-hailing congestion fees in NYC work?

IF 6.3 1区 工程技术 Q1 ECONOMICS
Yanchao Li, Daniel Vignon
{"title":"Do ride-hailing congestion fees in NYC work?","authors":"Yanchao Li,&nbsp;Daniel Vignon","doi":"10.1016/j.tra.2024.104274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>What is the impact of congestion policies targeting ride-hailing systems? This work empirically evaluates NYC’s congestion surcharge policy, particularly in light of the city’s forthcoming implementation of congestion pricing. Using a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) framework, our analysis reveals a statistically significant reduction of approximately 11% in overall ride-hailing travel volume following the implementation of the policy. In particular, Lyft experienced a 17% reduction in travel demand while Uber and yellow-cabs experienced reductions of about 9% and 8% respectively. We further elucidate two key mechanisms — travel distance and subway station availability — to explain this reduction. The surcharge policy has a more pronounced impact on shorter trips (with the most significant decline observed in trips less than one mile), and on ride-hailing trips originating from areas with at least one substitute (such as subway or Citi Bike). Furthermore,the policy’s effect seems more pronounced in lower-income areas of the city and seems to reduce street-hailing industry revenues by 8%. However, despite these reductions, the policy does not result in a corresponding decrease in traffic congestion. Thus, it seems that the policy results in a net welfare loss for the city, at least in the shorter term. Our findings provide insights for understanding the dynamics of congestion policies focused on the ride-hailing industry, especially as New York City prepares to introduce congestion pricing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49421,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104274"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424003227","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is the impact of congestion policies targeting ride-hailing systems? This work empirically evaluates NYC’s congestion surcharge policy, particularly in light of the city’s forthcoming implementation of congestion pricing. Using a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) framework, our analysis reveals a statistically significant reduction of approximately 11% in overall ride-hailing travel volume following the implementation of the policy. In particular, Lyft experienced a 17% reduction in travel demand while Uber and yellow-cabs experienced reductions of about 9% and 8% respectively. We further elucidate two key mechanisms — travel distance and subway station availability — to explain this reduction. The surcharge policy has a more pronounced impact on shorter trips (with the most significant decline observed in trips less than one mile), and on ride-hailing trips originating from areas with at least one substitute (such as subway or Citi Bike). Furthermore,the policy’s effect seems more pronounced in lower-income areas of the city and seems to reduce street-hailing industry revenues by 8%. However, despite these reductions, the policy does not result in a corresponding decrease in traffic congestion. Thus, it seems that the policy results in a net welfare loss for the city, at least in the shorter term. Our findings provide insights for understanding the dynamics of congestion policies focused on the ride-hailing industry, especially as New York City prepares to introduce congestion pricing.
纽约市的打车拥堵费有用吗?
针对打车系统的拥堵政策有何影响?这项研究对纽约市的拥堵附加费政策进行了实证评估,特别是考虑到该市即将实施拥堵定价。利用差分法(DiD)框架,我们的分析显示,该政策实施后,打车出行总量在统计上显著减少了约 11%。其中,Lyft 的出行需求减少了 17%,而 Uber 和黄包车分别减少了约 9% 和 8%。我们进一步阐明了两个关键机制--出行距离和地铁站的可用性--来解释这种减少。附加费政策对短途出行的影响更为明显(不足一英里的出行下降最为显著),对从至少有一个替代品(如地铁或花旗自行车)的地区出发的打车出行的影响也更为明显。此外,该政策对城市低收入地区的影响似乎更为明显,似乎使街头打车行业的收入减少了 8%。然而,尽管减少了这些收入,该政策并没有相应减少交通拥堵。因此,该政策似乎给城市带来了净福利损失,至少在短期内是这样。我们的研究结果为理解以打车行业为重点的拥堵政策的动态提供了启示,尤其是在纽约市准备引入拥堵定价的时候。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
7.80%
发文量
257
审稿时长
9.8 months
期刊介绍: Transportation Research: Part A contains papers of general interest in all passenger and freight transportation modes: policy analysis, formulation and evaluation; planning; interaction with the political, socioeconomic and physical environment; design, management and evaluation of transportation systems. Topics are approached from any discipline or perspective: economics, engineering, sociology, psychology, etc. Case studies, survey and expository papers are included, as are articles which contribute to unification of the field, or to an understanding of the comparative aspects of different systems. Papers which assess the scope for technological innovation within a social or political framework are also published. The journal is international, and places equal emphasis on the problems of industrialized and non-industrialized regions. Part A''s aims and scope are complementary to Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies and Part D: Transport and Environment. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. The complete set forms the most cohesive and comprehensive reference of current research in transportation science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信