There are some habits I feel especially guilty about. Uber and Lyft are at the top of the list.
That’s because the average Uber or Lyft trip produces an estimated 69% more emissions than the trips it replaces (walking, biking, transit). And as someone who hates cars, the irony is not lost when I call a vehicle to transport me door to door.
We'd be fine if I were the only one with such a vice. But ride-hailing services are insanely popular: Uber, which just turned its first yearly profit, has 130 million users.
Part of this popularity is convenience: Uber and Lyft apps make ride hailing incredibly easy. And their abundance of drivers makes trips affordable.
The other problem is lack of options: Should people really feel guilty calling an Uber when no alternatives exist?
But this convenience and cost does not reflect the societal costs of their services. Ride hailing increases emissions, traffic, damage to vehicles and infrastructure, and even deaths.
A 2021 study by Carnegie Mellon University quantifies these costs:
Opting for an Uber or Lyft over a private vehicle increases external costs to society by 30–35%.
Opting for an Uber or Lyft trip over public transit increases these costs by 300%.
The problem is made clearer by certain emissions that are unique to ride-hailing services, like “deadheading.” Deadheading is when Uber/Lyft drivers drive between passenger pickups or wait for new ride requests, tacking on miles and emissions that wouldn’t occur in a personal vehicle.
Of course, Uber or Lyft are not totally bad. They connect carless people, reduce drunk driving, and don’t need parking. And that’s all great. But what these companies don’t do is allow people to forgo car ownership.
Separate research by Carnegie Mellon found that when Uber/Lyft entered U.S. cities, car ownership actually increased in car-dependent, slow-growth cities and displaced transit ridership most in wealthier cities.
In other words, all these costs combined still outweigh the benefits.
Consumers know these costs. Sensing the pressure of consumers’ preference for greener alternatives, Uber launched Uber Green, a “low-emission ride option.” Uber and Lyft have also committed to electrifying their fleet by 2030.
But as usual, the speed and scale of these changes by private interests is not as fast as if public regulations (sticks) or incentives (carrots) pressured them to change.
One example of a stick: New York City recently approved congestion pricing for peak hours in Lower Manhattan. Passenger vehicles will be charged $15 to enter the district, and Ubers and Lyfts will be charged a $2.50 surcharge. The raised revenue will go toward public transit.
And a carrot: Cities that establish emissions-based incentives toward electrification encourage ride-hailing companies to cut emissions further, according to yet another Carnegie Mellon study:
In New York, emissions could be slashed by 10%; in Los Angeles, 22%.
In L.A. alone, the city could save about $29 million/year in health and environmental costs.
Of course, just electrifying everything hardly solves the problem: Even an electric Uber is, on average, double the carbon emissions of a similar route done by public transit. So cities need to invest in safer, more reliable, and more frequent public transit, as well as high-density, transit-oriented development.
Cities also need to solve the sticky last-mile problem: the last mile — or any short distance, really — that people travel from public transit to their final destination. That means more bike-share programs or electric scooters, alongside pedestrian- and bike-friendly infrastructure that complement these modes.
Like so many climate impacts, the costs of ride-hailing are not borne by individual users but rather spread across the community. In other words, only the few wealthy benefit from services, while those who cannot afford ride hailing still bear the costs.
In today’s car-centric landscape, Uber and Lyft serve a purpose. But they also bring with them a ton of baggage. Before calling our next car, we must understand the true costs of these rides.
I’ve been thinking about this recently because I noticed that the younger people I know getting Uber almost everywhere. I in my teenage years and I feel like other people of my generation would’ve been much more likely to have to walk somewhere long. If you can’t get a ride or a bus so I feel like it’s changing travel for younger people because it’s so easy to access at an affordable price. Not so good I think,