skip to main content
10.1145/3491102.3517464acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

RMS: Removing Barriers to Analyze the Availability and Surge Pricing of Ridesharing Services

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ridesharing services do not make data of their availability (supply, utilization, idle time, and idle distance) and surge pricing publicly available. It limits the opportunities to study the spatiotemporal trends of the availability and surge pricing of these services. Only a few research studies conducted in North America analyzed these features for only Uber and Lyft. Despite the interesting observations, the results of prior works are not generalizable or reproducible because: i) the datasets collected in previous publications are spatiotemporally sensitive, i.e., previous works do not represent the current availability and surge pricing of ridesharing services in different parts of the world; and ii) the analyses presented in previous works are limited in scope (in terms of countries and ridesharing services they studied). Hence, prior works are not generally applicable to ridesharing services operating in different countries.

This paper addresses the issue of ridesharing-data unavailability by presenting Ridesharing Measurement Suite (RMS). RMS removes the barrier of entry for analyzing the availability and surge pricing of ridesharing services for ridesharing users, researchers from various scientific domains, and regulators. RMS continuously collects the data of the availability and surge pricing of ridesharing services. It exposes real-time data of these services through i) graphical user interfaces and ii) public APIs to assist various stakeholders of these services and simplify the data collection and analysis process for future ridesharing research studies. To signify the utility of RMS, we deployed RMS to collect and analyze the availability and surge pricing data of 10 ridesharing services operating in nine countries for eight weeks in pre and during pandemic periods. Using the data collected and analyzed by RMS, we identify that previous articles miscalculated the utilization of ridesharing services as they did not count in the vehicles driving in multiple categories of the same service. We observe that during COVID-19, the supply of ridesharing services decreased by 54%, utilization of available vehicles increased by 6%, and a 5 × increase in the surge frequency of services. We also find that surge occurs in a small geographical region, and its intensity reduces by 50% in about 0.5 miles away from the location of a surge. We present several other interesting observations on ridesharing services’ availability and surge pricing.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3491102.3517464-video-preview.mp4

mp4

4.3 MB

3491102.3517464-talk-video.mp4

mp4

60.2 MB

References

  1. Jacob Benesty. 2019. Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Wikipedia. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficientGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Shannon Bond. 2020. Lyft Lays Off Nearly 1,000 Employees As Virus Saps Demand For Rides. NPR. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/29/847904818/lyft-lays-off-nearly-1-000-employees-as-virus-saps-demand-for-ridesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Anne Elizabeth Brown. 2018. Ridehail revolution: Ridehail travel and equity in Los Angeles. Ph.D. Dissertation. UCLA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Michael Bustle. 2022. GEARS in North Carolina - Global Training Initiative. https://gti.ncsu.edu/gears/. (Accessed on 02/19/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Juan Camilo Castillo, Dan Knoepfle, and Glen Weyl. 2017. Surge Pricing Solves the Wild Goose Chase. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) (EC ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 241–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/3033274.3085098Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brian Caulfield. 2009. Estimating the environmental benefits of ride-sharing: A case study of Dublin. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14, 7(2009), 527–531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2015. Peeking Beneath the Hood of Uber. In Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference (Tokyo, Japan) (IMC ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815681Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Blerim Cici, Athina Markopoulou, Enrique Frias-Martinez, and Nikolaos Laoutaris. 2014. Assessing the Potential of Ride-Sharing Using Mobile and Social Data: A Tale of Four Cities. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Seattle, Washington) (UbiComp ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632055Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bryna Corcoran. 2019. Lyft National Statistics 2019. Lyft. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.lyftimpact.com/stats/nationalGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Judd Cramer and Alan B Krueger. 2016. Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber. American Economic Review 106, 5 (2016), 177–82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Tawanna R. Dillahunt, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Linfeng Li, and Tanya Rosenblat. 2017. Uncovering the Values and Constraints of Real-Time Ridesharing for Low-Resource Populations. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2757–2769. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025470Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Erica Fink. 2014. Uber threatens drivers: Do not work for Lyft. CNN. Retrieved August 26, 2021 from https://ride.guru/lounge/p/what-is-the-average-trip-distance-for-an-uber-or-lyft-rideGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Tasneem France. 2019. Capetown Bus Service Schedules. MyCiti. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from www.myciti.org.zaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yanbo Ge, Christopher R Knittel, Don MacKenzie, and Stephen Zoepf. 2016. Racial and gender discrimination in transportation network companies. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Suiming Guo, Chao Chen, Jingyuan Wang, Yaxiao Liu, Ke Xu, and Dah Ming Chiu. 2018. Dynamic Price Prediction in Ride-on-Demand Service with Multi-Source Urban Data. In Proceedings of the 15th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (New York, NY, USA) (MobiQuitous ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1145/3286978.3286992Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Suiming Guo, Chao Chen, Jingyuan Wang, Yaxiao Liu, Ke Xu, and Dah Ming Chiu. 2020. Fine-grained dynamic price prediction in ride-on-demand services: Models and evaluations. Mobile Networks and Applications 25, 2 (2020), 505–520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Snigdha Gutha. 2017. Analyzing the Effect of Weather on Uber Ridership. SAS. https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings17/1260-2017.pdf(Accessed on 07/15/2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Steve Hawk. 2018. What an Economist Is Learning by Driving for Uber. Stanford. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-economist-learning-driving-uberGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Andrew Hawkins. 2018. Lyft hits a major milestone of 1 billion trips. The Verge. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/18/17871514/lyft-milestone-one-billion-trips-ridesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Andrew J. Hawkins. 2020. Uber lays off 3,000 more employees in latest round of COVID-19-inspired cuts. The Verge. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/18/21262337/uber-layoff-3000-employees-covid-19-coronavirusGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Alejandro Henao. 2017. Impacts of Ridesourcing-Lyft and Uber-on Transportation Including VMT. Mode Replacement, Parking, and Travel Behavior 7, 3 (2017), 201–211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Alex Hern. 2017. Uber denies misleading passengers with ’phantom cars’ in its app. Business Insider. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-denies-misleading-passengers-with-phantom-cars-in-its-app-2015-7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Charles G. Hill, Maren Haag, Alannah Oleson, Chris Mendez, Nicola Marsden, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2017. Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping: Can We Have It Both Ways?. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6658–6671. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025609Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hyeonjun Hwang. 2016. Measuring the Benefits of Ridesharing Services to Urban Travelers. growth 29, 2 (2016), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Shan Jiang, Le Chen, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2018. On Ridesharing Competition and Accessibility: Evidence from Uber, Lyft, and Taxi. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (Lyon, France) (WWW ’18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186134Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Anto Joseph. 2018. frida-android-hooks. Frida Hooks. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://github.com/antojoseph/frida-android-hooksGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Joseph Kasera, Jacki O’Neill, and Nicola J Bidwell. 2016. Sociality, Tempo & Flow: Learning from Namibian Ridesharing. In Proceedings of the First African Conference on Human Computer Interaction. ACM New York, USA, New York, USA, 36–47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hassan Ali Khan. 2021. Graph plotting scripts used in this paper.NC State University. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://github.com/rmsstudydata/graphScriptsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassan Ali Khan. 2021. Program to consume the APIs of RMS. NC State University. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://github.com/rmsstudydata/graphScripts/tree/main/RMS-Tool%20Data%20Collection%20Scripts/ML%20ScriptsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Hassan Ali Khan. 2021. Ridesharing Measurement Tool -APIs. NC State University. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://rmstool.com/apiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Hassan Ali Khan. 2021. Ridesharing Measurement Tool -GUI.NC State University. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://rmstool.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Brenton J Malin and Curry Chandler. 2016. Free to work anxiously: Splintering precarity among drivers for Uber and Lyft. Communication, Culture & Critique 10, 2 (2016), 382–400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Lena Mamykina, Elizabeth D Mynatt, and David R Kaufman. 2006. Investigating health management practices of individuals with diabetes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, =New York, NY, USA, 927–936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. A MARGHALL. 2018. Dying to know Uber’s secrets, data-hungry cities get creative. Wired 3, 09 (2018), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence Mishel. 2019. Uber and the labor market. Uber. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.epi.org/publication/uber-and-the-labor-market-uber-drivers-compensation-wages-and-the-scale-of-uber-and-the-gig-economyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Big Nox. 2021. NoxPlayer - Free Android Emulator on PC and Mac. Nox. (Accessed on 09/09/2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Anna Offenwanger, Alan John Milligan, Minsuk Chang, Julia Bullard, and Dongwook Yoon. 2021. Diagnosing bias in the gender representation of HCI research participants: how it happens and where we are. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, New York, NY, USA, 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Ben Popper. 2014. Introduction to Bayesian Statistics. The Verge. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5445210/in-san-diego-uber-kept-drivers-off-the-road-to-encourage-surgeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lisa Rayle, Susan A Shaheen, Nelson Chan, Danielle Dai, and Robert Cervero. 2014. App-based, on-demand ride services: comparing taxi and ridesourcing trips and user characteristics in San Francisco. Technical Report. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Charles S.2021. Bulk Mobile number use for Phone verification by receive SMS online, help verify bulk accounts. Get SMS Code. (Accessed on 12/16/2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sara Silverstein. 2014. A recent study shows that ride sharing is cheaper than taxicab in 21 largest cities in the United States.Business Insider. (Accessed on 12/16/2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Benjamin Snyder. 2017. Uber denies there are ‘phantom’ cars in its app. Fortune. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://fortune.com/2015/07/30/uber-phantom-cars/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Sudeep Srivastav. 2020. Uber Statistics (2019-2020 Updated). Appinventiv. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://appinventiv.com/blog/uber-statistics/#A27Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ippei Takahashi. 2018. What is the average trip distance for an Uber or Lyft Ride?Ride Guru. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://ride.guru/lounge/p/what-is-the-average-trip-distance-for-an-uber-or-lyft-rideGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Ye Tian Tian, Jian Sun Sun, He Dong Dong, and Guoyang Qin Qin. 2020. Quantifying the Impact of Rainfall on Taxi Hailing and Operation. Journal of Advanced Transportation 14, 7 (2020), 201–211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Karl von Randow. 2019. Charles Proxy. Charles. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.charlesproxy.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Lingyi Zhang, Yun-Han Huang, Claudia Hilderbrand, Zoe Steine-Hanson, and Margaret Burnett. 2019. From Gender Biases to Gender-Inclusive Design: An Empirical Investigation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300283Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Itay Wein. 2020. How much does Gett Taxi cost?Gett. https://gett.com/uk/faq/user-faqs/getting-started/how-much-does-gett-taxi-costGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Tim Wheatcroft. 2019. Certify Ride Hailing Report: Uber and Lyft Achieve Record Popularity. Boston News. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/06/28/uber-data-boston-wantsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Hamid Zaeri. 2016. SSLUnpinning Xposed. Xposed Framework. Retrieved (August 28, 2021) from https://github.com/ac-pm/SSLUnpinning_XposedGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. RMS: Removing Barriers to Analyze the Availability and Surge Pricing of Ridesharing Services

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            April 2022
            10459 pages
            ISBN:9781450391573
            DOI:10.1145/3491102

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 29 April 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

            Upcoming Conference

            CHI '24
            CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            May 11 - 16, 2024
            Honolulu , HI , USA

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format