Measuring when Uber behaves as a substitute or complement to transit: An examination of travel-time differences in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policymakers in cities worldwide are trying to determine how ride-hailing services affect the ridership of traditional forms of public transportation. The level of convenience and comfort that these services provide is bound to take riders away from transit, but by operating in areas, or at times, when transit is less frequent, they may also be filling a gap left vacant by transit operations. These contradictory effects reveal why we should not merely categorize ride-hailing services as a substitute or complement to transit, and demonstrate the need to examine ride-hailing trips individually. Using data from the 2016 Transportation Tomorrow Survey in Toronto, we investigate the difference in travel-time between observed ride-hailing trips and their fastest transit alternative. Ordinary least square and ordered logistic regressions are used to uncover the characteristics that influence travel-time differences. We find that ride-hailing trips contained within the City of Toronto, pursued during peak hours, or for shopping purposes, are more likely to have transit alternatives of similar duration. We also find discrepancies in travel-time to be often caused by lengthy walk- and wait-times for transit or because of transfers. Our results further indicate that 30.61% of ride-hailing trips in our sample have transit alternatives of similar duration. These are particularly damaging for transit agencies as they compete directly with services that fall within reasonable transit expectations. We also find that 26.87% of ride-hailing trips would take at least 30 minutes longer by transit. In light of these findings, we discuss recommendations for ride-hailing taxation structures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".