Measuring the impact of ride‐hailing firms on urban congestion: The case of Uber in Europe

This paper examines the impact of Uber, the world's largest ride-hailing firm, on congestion. Drawing on data from European cities for the period 2008 through 2016, I find a negative impact of Uber on congestion. The estimated impact in the baseline regression is −3. 5 percentage points, but it is higher in cities that do not impose strong regulatory restrictions to ride-hailing services. In addition, the negative impact of Uber on congestion is only statistically significant in denser cities. The Uber effect is gradual given that its impact increases over time. Finally, I find suggestive evidence that the potential endogeneity bias underestimates the negative effect of Uber on congestion. Este documento explora el impacto de Uber, la mayor empresa de servicios de reserva de taxis del mundo, en la congestión de tráfico. A partir de datos de ciudades europeas para el período 2008 a 2016, se encontró un impacto negativo de Uber en la congestión de tráfico. El impacto estimado en la regresión de referencia es de –3, 5 puntos porcentuales, pero es mayor en las ciudades que no imponen fuertes restricciones normativas a los servicios de reserva de taxis. Además, el impacto negativo de Uber en la congestión de tráfico sólo es estadísticamente significativo en las ciudades más densas. El efecto de Uber es gradual, ya que su impacto aumenta con el tiempo. Por último, se encontró evidencia que sugiere que el sesgo potencial de endogeneidad subestima el efecto negativo de Uber sobre la congestión de tráfico. 本稿では、世界最大の配車サービス会社であるUberの渋滞への影響を検討する。2008~2016年の欧州の都市のデータから、Uberが渋滞に悪影響を与えていることを発見した。ベースライン回帰で推定した影響は、−3. 5%ポイントであるが、配車サービスに強い規制を課していない都市ではもっと高い値がみられる。さらに、渋滞に対するUberの負の影響は、人口密度の高い都市においてのみ統計的に有意である。Uberの影響は、時間の経過とともに大きくなるものであり、徐々に拡大するものである。また、潜在的な内生性バイアスが、Uberの渋滞に対する負の効果を過小評価することを示唆するエビデンスが認められる。 Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing firms have reshaped mobility in many cities across the globe; and, at the same time, their success has generated a considerable number of economic, social and legal controversies, including debates about working conditions, safety, quality standards and unfair competition. Hence, many cities have banned or imposed restrictions on the activity of ride-hailing firms. One of the main controversies concerns their impact on congestion, the focus of this present study. Urban congestion results in traffic jams that affect both drivers and pedestrians, who have to put up with increasing levels of gridlock, noise and pollution. INRIX and Centre for Economics and Business Research carried out a study in 2014 to estimate the economic impact of the delays caused by traffic jams in the UK, France, Germany, and the US (INRIX and Cebr, 2014). Congestion costs represented 200 billion in the four countries (around 0. 8% of their joint GDP). Furthermore, the relationship between congestion and pollution is well-documented, with prolonged car circulation at reduced speeds having a notable effect on the emission of polluting substances (Barth Beaudoin et al. , 2015; Parry et al. , 2007). Congestion would also seem to have a negative impact on road safety outcomes, especially for the most congested cities (Albalate et al. , In to traditional taxi prices the same for both and ride-hailing firms higher prices in of demand and lower prices in of prices could demand to a negative effect of on congestion it greater in the for car with drivers ride-hailing firms may have the of due to the of and prices that demand and Furthermore, may a effect from it is in the study by et Hence, a negative effect of on congestion this effect is ride-hailing firms may also to increase in the of the car with drivers Uber users may benefit from shorter waiting times, greater flexibility, and lower prices in of than users of taxi services. Hence, the of the car with drivers could increase due to demand a effect of on congestion it increase of the of the car with In addition, may a effect from could increase in congestion due to this effect is on this for is et find evidence that Uber may especially in cities. The effect of Uber on in the that it the to the and of services. and find that the effect of Uber on with the of this to the that between the firms to have the with one of have a negative effect on congestion the it and the effect of is than demand induction and the This is the main that in the Furthermore, the effect of Uber on congestion greater in cities the in the of its is that the in the of Uber is higher in cities that impose regulatory restrictions to ride-hailing firms. Furthermore, data that is in denser cities. Finally, Uber could in cities given its to lower prices than traditional taxi services. In to effect on congestion, the analysis also the that effect on congestion in cities that impose regulatory restrictions and in denser and cities. A effect from to Uber in cities with may of in of congestion in cities with a higher of This is that is in the In I examine effect on congestion and the potential to and the regulatory in which it the of cities in the The cities from countries in the European and up The is from 2008 to 2016. a with the cities in the analysis between cities with Uber and cities with no Uber in the of the cities cities cities with Uber and cities cities with no Uber I the in the regulatory for Uber in Europe to the in the of Uber services. I a of Uber in cities the regulatory In this the number of for ride-hailing firms may on and the to imposed et al. , The study of et for the European about the of the with in up to 2016. The of ride-hailing firms Uber present across the to the on a a and the to to the of is a The main of is to ride-hailing firms up on the In the period the only is in 2016, ride-hailing firms to for in of is in to the the waiting may in countries that between taxis and Uber may de Furthermore, the car with at the and the In other the is by and the is on for the period in cities a may impose or the regulatory restrictions at the I not a regulatory between cities from the same the of the of the regulatory for ride-hailing firms on countries for which I have at one in I regulatory the activity of Uber in a regulatory that restrictions and strong of conditions, the and the of the of the In and and for and or countries impose restrictions that the for Uber may in of the of the or the number of taxi The of restrictions is with strong and of the in and in in to have a in to the with the in the in and or to have a car in countries do not impose but impose of drivers or of Finally, countries do not impose restrictions and ride-hailing firms to the same than taxi services. also the number of cities in the for and the number of cities with Uber in at of the In Uber is only in the largest cities of the This is the for of and The only would with a number of cities with Uber in in many that by do not that banned in In the most cities. This is the for in the or especially also on the for taxi services. In taxi drivers and other may and The to in the may for taxi than for ride-hailing firms. this in countries impose restrictions or to taxi services. In this a in the number of is imposed for taxi in countries ride-hailing also to the countries firms only to may find taxi not to and taxi to restrictions or Finally, a for ride-hailing firms a for taxi the restrictions imposed in and the number of cities with Uber in at one of the period to the regulatory in which it A regulatory for Uber is with a for taxi services. In the of taxi is in a of the cities the for Uber is also that the not cities in the of taxi but with a strong in of ride-hailing services. for cities with Uber This for cities with Uber in at one of the that Uber to restrictions and strong that Uber to and that Uber is not to restrictions that taxi to restrictions and that taxi not to The the number of cities with Uber to the regulatory in which it The the a percentage that a for in the to a by traffic have from the impact of Uber, I a that a of one Uber of its in the and The of and of Uber have from and from I of cities potential drivers of congestion. The of analysis is the given that Uber in the of the urban not its in the urban to the most on data I the that is by the number of at the The relationship between urban and congestion is denser cities by a lower number of but traffic is in et al. , et al. , for have from data for the of the in of have from I also the by the The is the at the The relationship between and congestion is unclear. a relationship to the number of car in cities is it is also that cities have and of that could congestion. for this have from The quality of is also data for urban not I a of the urban in of of which and This of in may find cities with a of and cities with no A by Beaudoin et that in congestion, with the of of for this have from Urban and I also a that the number of for this have from and it is at the may congestion in cities with This has the that the with data on the and not the The of at the is also a is for the with and it have from et may congestion in cities. and also the between and In this the of a the of from one period to it is on the of the from their it is the most to the effect of Uber on congestion. also that for with the of Furthermore, I to for that to cities. Finally, I that I for the that may have its potential may the of the impact of Uber on congestion. The for Uber the between cities with and without Uber but it not the of Uber that from one to with Uber services. Furthermore, Uber may with the levels of congestion in the Finally, Uber may with that also have on congestion. the of Uber I examine the of Uber on congestion on the regulatory in which Uber is could that the of of Uber is higher in cities that impose restrictions to ride-hailing firms. potential to is that the may with the and with the levels of congestion in the with this I that I for the that may have its Furthermore, I the of in with that is a the & et al. , for to the effect of the on to cities. I a and with the that have bias by in the cities Uber in at one of the with cities no Uber in of the having In a I the in the and with to the the This with the that have the I the without and the reduced Furthermore, I also the in which the Uber is that Uber in the from This that the the of Uber, is the to and is the this study I examine the of the Uber and I for between and cities I and only cities in have Uber for than the of Finally, I to with the potential endogeneity bias that could from with congestion and to I a on cities that cities the by and The potential endogeneity bias for this given that bias would with the of and not with the of or Furthermore, I main I a that the regulatory that is in in for the in This the Uber in a regulatory that restrictions and strong the Uber in a regulatory that only Finally, it the Uber in a regulatory that not impose restrictions or is on in at to that have a in the In this one of cities Uber of the most cities. from the the has in countries its activity is not by and it is to the largest cities in countries regulatory restrictions the regulatory is one of the main drivers of the Uber the of cities. In this I not between cities the same restrictions to taxi drivers is a between the imposed to taxi and the imposed to Uber services. I do that the regulatory is to that I estimate a this the that from the of restrictions in a countries that a for ride-hailing services. Hence, I levels of to examine the of the through the of Hence, I to to This is the traffic the of the from I that the of Uber the of is higher in cities with that to the by potential users of car with services. A it could that the of traffic has a effect on urban congestion. the congestion is on of of that the with the may congested at I do not that this has a effect on the of congestion. Finally, may present of and in the The that to the for in data that a of may that I for by the in by to for in the both at the and levels et al. , The analysis cities in countries of the European for which I have congestion for cities from countries up and for Uber have from and Congestion data from the traffic et congestion and The congestion to this than on or data on from its in cities it is in its analysis and on for The congestion is by a baseline of across road in across the in the of the not the number of car in the of the congestion but the of data from to in in 2016. to the congestion This is to time. This traffic is the at Hence, the congestion the of by drivers across the in the due to traffic a congestion of to for in the at to it would in data for congestion to a for the Congestion is the of the of congestion that I and the same of congestion but only in The data for congestion in is for and out of the cities in the but to between congestion and congestion in for the of congestion about of in to conditions, that the in the and about and Furthermore, the across cities is lower for congestion in to congestion in the of the in the that the of In this the between the is for the of and results of one or the other not its the by Uber services. In Uber its in in and in in A of cities to Uber in Uber a from 2014 but about the cities in the not Uber at the of the period of the number of cities with Uber The cities the by the levels of congestion in cities of the is the that the of congestion with for the period this in between increase in congestion from 2008 to a in congestion in and increase in congestion from the of Uber in Europe with a period of congestion. the of congestion in cities. This is on the of of Uber in the and the of congestion and the of I four of cities on the of of of is increase in congestion the of data that is increase in congestion in the of the period Uber is present or not in the The that I to in the is Uber has to or to the increase in congestion in cities in to cities. of congestion in to in cities This is on the of of Uber in the and the of congestion and the of I four of cities on the of of Uber In this I and the results of the the results of the by In the of the I find that congestion is higher in and cities. Furthermore, congestion is lower in cities with a denser In the of the Uber I find a negative impact of Uber on congestion. The for Uber is negative and statistically significant in The negative impact of Uber is −3. 5 percentage impact is given its and the in the of the levels of congestion across cities in that the of the Uber is higher without In the impact reduced the that for congestion I also the regression with but from the of the Uber to in the that the In I the results of the in the data for the of the results in this from a regression in which the is a that the one for cities with Uber in of the I and congestion. in that the main of Uber is given that it is the only that it is statistically The of Uber is higher in denser cities. the between and cities I the and I the in the baseline In the cities and have a of urban than cities. In the between and cities than in the and not statistically significant for for the this in I also the in the to to a with and cities in of the results of the the In I the results of the of the and congestion. In I the results of the of the The of the Uber negative and statistically significant in both The of the effect is to that in the regression that the higher percentage the results of the regression on the study analysis in which I the effect of Uber over for and the of Uber in of Uber on congestion over This the main results of the study analysis in which the is on for and the of Uber in the I also the on that at the of Uber The of the for and of the Uber not statistically is not a between and cities that could bias In the of the Uber the of Uber negative and statistically The of the negative impact of Uber on congestion is increasing over that I find evidence that the negative impact of Uber on congestion is the results of the that with the potential endogeneity bias that could from with congestion and to In I the results the Uber is and the is in In I the results I a on cities that cities. In and I the for Uber is In the for Uber is the that the regulatory for ride-hailing that is in in the In I the and the traffic for Uber the on cities that I find a impact of Uber on congestion that in that the The on the the of the regression higher than and and it also the the traffic of of this the negative impact of Uber on congestion is higher than that in This the and both the and the traffic it that the the the the may with other that impact congestion and the traffic may with Hence, the suggestive evidence that the potential endogeneity bias the of the negative impact of Uber on congestion. I find that the effect of Uber on congestion is negative that may a this I examine the of Uber on the regulatory in which it and In and I the results of In of I the results the is between the for Uber and a that the one the regulatory restrictions and strong In of I the results the is between the for Uber and a that the one the regulatory not impose restrictions strong I find that restrictions on Uber to a negative impact on congestion. I find that Uber not have impact on congestion it in a regulatory that restrictions and strong Uber in a it is not that its impact is the of of its at in with regulatory In the impact of Uber on congestion is negative and statistically significant it in a regulatory that not impose restrictions strong In a the negative impact of Uber on congestion is percentage In I examine the of Uber on the of the and In and I the results the is between the for Uber and a that the the of is and the In and I the results the is between the for Uber and a that the is and the In and I the results the is between the for Uber and a that the is and the not examine the potential of Uber to the study of et find that Uber in cities and it in cities. A effect from to Uber could other of Uber on congestion. effect in cities with may that the negative impact of Uber on congestion is higher in cities with In the analysis I that is the main that the of Uber Uber is in denser cities. Uber to a in congestion, the effect greater in cities is most In addition, the of to greater by the between the of and in denser cities. may that the negative impact of Uber on congestion is higher in denser cities. One of the that may the of Uber in to taxi is the to lower in of Hence, Uber may in cities. the in the of Uber is higher in cities and Uber congestion, the negative impact of Uber on congestion could higher on cities. I find that the negative impact of Uber on congestion is in denser and cities and in cities with a urban to the and from a of The impact is in of given that Uber not have effect in cities with a the but it has a negative and significant impact in cities the cities most by a between demand and Furthermore, the potential from to Uber may in denser cities it is in et The higher impact of Uber, from a of for cities with a urban this a in to the impact of Uber on denser cities. The of congestion is on levels of congestion. In denser congestion at may and data do not to effect on congestion. This paper has the impact of Uber, the world's largest ride-hailing firm, on urban congestion in I find a negative impact of Uber on congestion, that is across in the The estimated impact in the baseline regression is −3. 5 percentage points, but it is higher in cities that do not impose strong regulatory restrictions to ride-hailing services. In addition, the negative impact of Uber on congestion is only statistically significant in denser cities. The Uber effect is gradual given that its impact increases over time. Finally, I find suggestive evidence that the potential endogeneity bias underestimates the negative effect of Uber on congestion. of analysis that the impact of Uber on congestion by the that has on the car with traditional taxi and ride-hailing The increase in the of the car with have not with increase of its In ride-hailing firms may have increase in the of due to the of and prices that demand and ride-hailing firms may have to the with for that traditional taxi may to and to with ride-hailing effect could for the car with A potential effect from could also have on the of in of congestion. Furthermore, the potential effect from not seem to in the of for denser cities. I find evidence about the negative impact of Uber on congestion for European cities in the period this not that the impact of ride-hailing firms on congestion of results given that for most cities the of Uber is in 2014 or Furthermore, congestion is on levels of congestion that I the impact of Uber on congestion in the effect from may in other the is in to the European cities of Finally, results that the effect of Uber on congestion the regulatory in which it analysis is on cities and a period in which Uber is to in the it is the impact of Uber on congestion in a in which ride-hailing firms may up on the many not their impact on to the most regulatory to the of ride-hailing firms in a this analysis that congestion is not a to the of regulatory restrictions to ride-hailing in