Are Uber passengers changing to bike? Evidence from a natural experiment

Authors

Zombor Berezvai¹ , Barna Bakó¹ , Isztin Péter¹ , Bálint Németh¹ , Enikő Zita Vigh²

1. Corvinus University of Budapest
2. Research Institute of Agricultural Economics

Conference / event

47th Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy, May 2018 (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Poster summary

Our research aimed to investigate how the forced exit of Uber from the Budapest market impacted the usage of the local bicycle-sharing system (BSS). Using fixed-effect panel regression and historical data as counterfactuals, two main patterns arose. First, a portion of the regular BSS users (pass holders) combined BSS and Uber during their daily commuting (“temporal combination”); and their BSS usage dropped after the exit of Uber as they had to redesign their commuting habits. Second, more ad hoc users (ticket buyers) used the BSS after Uber left the market. This is a result of the reduction of available travelling options. The net effect showed a decline in BSS usage as most of the riders were generated by regular users. Results can shade new light on the benefits of Uber in cities.

Keywords

Bicycle-sharing systems, Multimodal transportation, Panel regression analysis, Consumer behavior

Research areas

Business, Economics and Finance, Architecture, Design and Urban Planning, Statistics

References

1. Gebhart, K., Noland, R.B., 2014. The impact of weather conditions on bikeshare trips in Washington, DC. Transportation 41, 1205–1225.
2. Wang, X., Lindsey, G., Schoner, J.E., Harrison, A., 2016. Modeling bike share station activity: effects of nearby businesses and jobs on trips to and from stations. J. Urban Plan. Develop. 142, 1–9.
3. Mateo-Babiano, I., Bean, R., Corcoran, J., Pojani, D., 2016. How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle-sharing?. Transp. Res. Part A 94, 295–307.
4. Ricci, M., 2015. bike-sharing: a review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 15, 28–38.
5. Fernandez-Heredia, A., Jara-Diaz, S., Monzon, A., 2016. Modelling bicycle use intention: the role of perceptions. Transportation 43, 1–23.
6. Goodman, A., Cheshire, J., 2014. Inequalities in the London bicycle-sharing system revisited: impacts of extending the scheme to poorer areas but then doubling prices. J. Transp. Geogr. 41, 272–279.
7. Lin, J.J., Wang, N.L., Feng, C.M., 2017. Public bike system pricing and usage in Taipei. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11, 633–641.
8. Campbell, K.B., Brakewood, C., 2017. Sharing riders: how bikesharing impacts bus ridership in New York City. Transp. Res. Part A 100, 264–282.
9. Hall, J.D., Palsson, C., Price, J., 2017. Is Uber a substitute or complement for public transit? Working Paper.

Funding

1. Széchenyi 2020 program framework (No. EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00013)

Supplemental files

No data provided

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and / or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Creative Commons license

Copyright © 2023 Berezvai et al. This is an open access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.