Ride sharing services like Lyft and Uber were supposed to help our environment. Carpool everywhere, anytime! What could be better? However, the marketing has differed from the implementation. Most people ride alone. Ride hailing services have their employees driving around at all times, as bad as taxis. People are still owning cars, taking taxis, and using Uber and Lyft. We’ve added to the problem of cars on the road, instead of subtracting.
A study shows what those monitoring the use of these apps have suspected: ride hailing apps are increasing CO2 emissions. This is driving global warming, and is pushing the world into a catastrophe humanity may not survive.
Ride hailing apps have dramatically increased out contributions to catastrophic climate change. But there are steps we can demand of ride hailing services to improve, and there are steps we can take to help the planet.
In This Article:
How Could This Be?
A study done by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft can generate almost 70% greater emissions compared to the trips they’re replacing. 70%! How could a Lyft or Uber be so much worse for the environment? You have to think about how these services work, how we’re using them, and what they’re doing before and after you’re dropped off.
Our rides are driving around before picking us up in large cities. This is called “deadheading,” driving without purpose while waiting for a rider. Even in smaller areas, this is likely the case, though it’s extremely common in cities. This means they contribute to CO2 emissions not only during your ride, but before and after it as well. Every moment they’re not driving someone, they’re increasing to the CO2 output of a trip. We’re seeing a great increase in CO2 emissions from these drivers that has nothing to do with your actual trip itself.
Vehicles aren’t electric often enough, and ride-hailing users aren’t using shared rides. The result is more cars on the road giving rides rather than fewer. By using gas-powered vehicles and running more rides than we need, we’re dramatically increasing the amount of CO2 we’re putting in the air just to get around.
Public Transit Use Drops
There are two reasons I use Lyft or sometimes Uber. The first is that it’s late at night and I’m in an area that makes getting anywhere without walking a long distance tough. The second is that it’s late at night and I’ve had drinks and am feeling lazy and more vulnerable. Notice a trend here? Both are faults of the public transportation in my city failing me. They’re not safe, they don’t run frequently, they’re not patrolled for anything but turnstile jumpers, and they’re too far apart. Women are far more likely to use Lyft or Uber than men because of this. We pay far more than men for transportation around our cities.
What would I do without Lyft or Uber? Cabs are rare in the boroughs, and I’ve been cursed out by a cab driver before for living in the boroughs, as though it’s my fault I can’t afford Manhattan rent. I’d probably have less of a social life. I would most likely go out less, stay home more. I’d wonder how people make friends in adulthood. Maybe I’d talk to my neighbors more often? My place would be cleaner, probably have some nice plants, and I’d always have the laundry done. I bet I’d have a cat, despite my allergies.
The point I’m making is, women have limited choices when it comes to traveling at night due to safety concerns. However, during the day, we should focus on taking public transit. Men, too, could take transit more often in virtually any time. However, in practice, this isn’t the case. People prefer the new ride-hailing options that are often faster at night due to reduced train and bus schedules, require less standing and waiting, and get you directly to or close to your house or apartment. In many situations, ride-hailing is replacing public transit instead of doing what it should be doing: increasing its use.
How to Improve This?
Electric Fleets
The report found that a trip made in an electric vehicle, rather than the gasoline or hybrid vehicles Uber and Lyft use, could dramatically decrease CO2 emissions. Electric vehicles alone would contribute to 50% less emissions. If riders also make a shift to more shared rides, they could cut emissions for a standard trip by 70%. This would be enough to make ride-sharing services a benefit for the environment.
Mandate Green Vehicles
The fact is, Uber and Lyft aren’t going to willingly do much here. Currently, Uber is offering incentive to drivers for getting an electric vehicle, but they’re small in comparison to the upfront cost of an electric vehicle. It’s not enough of a bonus to really push them towards a more sustainable solution. We may have to step in as a collective, through government, and legislate these vehicles. City-subsidized vehicles, such as cabs, should be 100% electric. Then, Lyft and Uber would have to up their game to compete with customers who care about the environment. We could take this a step further by requiring that they offer minimum incentives to drivers, and that Uber or Lyft-owned cars that are leased or rented by drivers must be electric. We have the capacity to do this, and it would be a huge leap forward in reducing carbon emissions.
Eliminate Deadheading
If ride-sharing vehicles spent more time giving rides and less time deadheading, they’d be more efficient than owning a private vehicle. To do this, ride-hailing companies like Lyft and Uber would have to mandate how long drivers could be on the road without a ride. Perhaps give larger shares of the cost of the ride to drivers who are willing to park their cars but remain open to taking on new riders. These corporations could also buy land to use a hubs, large parking garages where drivers could park their cars or even rent out or borrow cars to provide rides to people. These parking garages could also be used by private vehicles, giving Lyft and Uber a new source of revenue, while also freeing up parking spaces on our streets for new bike lanes.
We have to be creative with our problem solving here. Deadheading has been around as long as cabs have existed. However, if we’re able to eliminate or reduce it, we could greatly decrease the emissions our trips release.
It’s Called Ride-Sharing
Riding alone in a Lyft or Uber releases about 50% more CO2 into our atmosphere than using a shared option. Unfortunately, only 15% of rides are using ride-sharing features. 85% of riders are riding alone. That’s a monumental waste of gasoline. If everyone switched to ride sharing, Lyft and Uber rides would release the same amount of CO2 as a person taking the trip alone in a private vehicle. This is because deadheading adds so much to the overall output of CO2 and pollutants. If these cars weren’t driving around as much before picking you up, ride-sharing would be as economical as carpooling.
Still, while using only ride-sharing isn’t enough on its own to improve emissions over a private vehicle, it does make the experience about equivalent. That means that every car that Lyft or Uber is able to switch to electric is a positive gain for the environment. If they’re also able to reduce or eliminate deadheading, they could make taking a shared ride closer to public transit in terms of economic feasibility.
If riders are willing to share their car with other riders, they’ll reduce the need for cars on the road. This would reduce deadheading and ease congestion on its own. With less congestion, cities will have fewer cars on the road in general. Trips will be faster, and there will be less idling at lights. The facts are clear: the biggest thing you can do as a rider is to always share your ride. Never ride in an Uber or Lyft alone. Take a friend for the ride or use the ride-sharing option.
… But It’s Not Your Fault
The fact that Lyft and Uber users aren’t using ride-sharing more often than 15% of the time isn’t just their fault. Lyft and Uber only offer a small discount for shared rides. When you think about it, it should be around a third of the price of a lone rider. The ride takes three people to their destinations, while driving less and therefore saving gas and time. It’s far more profitable for Uber and Lyft, even if they take the cost of a standard ride and slice it into thirds. However, because they can’t guarantee there will always be 3 riders, they don’t want their profit margins to be so close. Still, if they only charged riders half they’d still have a stable profit margin without inconveniencing riders. This isn’t the case. Usually these rides cost about 65%-75% of the full ride. It’s not enough of a bargain to justify the inconvenience of a longer ride with more stops.
Now, make no mistake, for the sake of the planet, we can take that inconvenience. But Lyft and Uber haven’t done enough to encourage riders who don’t care quite as much about the environment to do this. Not everyone is willing to do everything they can to help the environment, and that’s okay. Corporations are the cause of climate change, not the actions of individuals. Still, if we all pitch in a little, we can make a substantial difference. Lyft and Uber aren’t doing enough to encourage people to take the economical routes. In fact, they’re basically pushing riders away from it.
If a ride to your destination alone is $25, getting there in a pool or shared option should be between $8.50 and $13.50. Instead, it’s likely to be around $15-$18. We need to demand more of these companies to increase shared ridership. Give them a few 1-star reviews on the App Store and Google Play demanding lower shared fares, and their prices will drop. This is still a competitive market, and they’ll act accordingly.
Rides To Public Transit
Often, in cities that don’t have a robust public transit network, a person may have to walk miles to a train. In Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, or the Bronx, that’s also true. Lyft and Uber could point out to riders that, if their destination is near a transit location, they could simply drive them to a point along the train’s route. This would enable riders to reduce their use of a car, increase public transit usage, save money, and, of course, reduce emissions. Currently, riders can do this on their own, but it requires advanced planning. That’s the kind of planning users aren’t often making when they’re requesting a ride.
These could also offer closing the trip with personal mobility solutions, such as Citi Bike rentals or electrified scooters. Either option is fast, often faster than driving in large, congested cities, and would drastically reduce emissions. Furthermore, the companies could still profit from this. Lyft and Uber both have electrified scooter companies now, and Lyft runs Citi Bike. Finally, these options would also reduce fatalities. Being a pedestrian—the base state of living—is becoming more dangerous. Drivers are more distracted and police do little to stop the scourge of distracted driving. We can make our roads safer by encouraging people to use safer means of transport. Cities are for people, not cars.
More Green Transit
Photo via Bustin Boards, NYC.
Part of this does come down to you as well. You could opt to use safer and greener transport. Hopping on a bike, scooter, skateboard, e-board, One Wheel, or unicycle would reduce your reliance on cars. You’d be able to traverse your city or commute without hurting the environment (less if you’re not using an electric-powred vehicle). Personal mobility solutions are growing. Electric skateboards and scooters are becoming more common in cities, and more people are choosing bikes for their commute than ever before. We’re moving towards a greener, safer, less congested view of our metropolitan areas. But that takes the effort of every one of us.
Personally, I recommend a longboard or scooter. Not just because I skate, but because you can combine their use with public transit in a way that you can’t with electric skateboards, heavy electric scooters, or, god forbid, bikes. A skateboard takes up about the same amount of space you do on a train or bus, and can get you where you need to go without using any electricity or production of greenhouse gases. Plus, since they’re made mostly of wood, aluminum, and steel, they’re highly sustainable.
Save the environment: get a longboard.
Reduce Private Car Ownership and Use
This goes hand-in-hand with using greener options. If you have a bike, you might not need a car. Perhaps you only need it for weekend getaways and grocery trips. Would renting a car in those situations be better and more cost-friendly? Perhaps! You can rent a car for a day for under $100, sometimes even less. If you only make a biweekly trip to the grocery store, that surely costs less than car payments and insurance.
Unless you need to drive frequently, or perhaps unless you drive for sport or work on your car as a hobby, you may not need a vehicle at all. Reducing private car ownership and use can dramatically reduce our emissions. When the option to drive isn’t just a few feet away, it can make us re-think transportation. We really should. Our current version of getting around is destroying the environment.
Improve City-Based Ride-Hailing
The old Checker Cab, a popular taxi up until the 80’s in New York.
Cabs are a scourge on NYC. I’ll just say it, they’re the worst. The drivers are extremely reckless, care little for others, their cabs are cramped and dirty, they’re not electric-only, and perhaps worst of all, they don’t even allow ride sharing. Unlike ride-hailing apps, there’s little you can do to improve their behavior without getting the police involved, who may do little to nothing anyway. It’s NYC, after all, the city that, despite vehicles killing 28 cyclists and 122 pedestrians last year, still wrote more traffic citations to cyclists than trucks.
If cities improve their cab infrastructure, allowing ride sharing, using apps to plan routes, providing GPS, and better controlling who can drive cabs, they can make this a more affordable and greener option than relying on for-profit companies like Lyft and Uber. Simply making our cabs better would ease congestion, improve safety, and reduce emissions. However, we can also assert that they must all be electric vehicles. With so many of the vehicles on the roads in cities being cabs, this could cut pollution in cities by a large sum. That’s enough to make a huge impact in our fight against climate change.
Uber and Lyft Respond
“The responsibility for change lies first and foremost with the ride-hailing companies themselves.”
– Jeremy Martin, Senior Scientist and Director of Fuel Policy at UCS
Lyft, especially, had the best response to this. They suggested that more people use their service as a safety net. They can bike to work, for example, using a Citi Bike, and then bike home. If it rains, they can take a Lyft. By opening this possibility, more people take bikes to work who would have otherwise driven their own car. These metrics aren’t measured in the study. They’re not showing how many miles of driving are removed from the equation by using Lyft.
Uber’s response wasn’t as impactful, but they did state that they want to help improve the environment, that they want to be “part of the solution.” However, both companies could do a lot more to actually be part of the solution, like switching to an electric fleet or encouraging more riders to share their rides through improved pricing. They could also ban deadheading, but neither even acknowledged it.
We Need to Change
Photo: Alfredo Borba
The fact is, humanity needs to change if it wants to combat climate change. We have to abandon old ways of thinking. Our cities used to have far more public transit options. Yes, more. But car manufacturers saw fit to eliminate these options, and politicians didn’t help through subsidies for the then-unprofitable public transportation industry. We need to return to a world with more usable buses, sharable cars, more human-powered transit, trams, streetcars, and trains. We need to rethink how we get around. There are far faster and more efficient methods of travel than driving, especially in cities. Eliminate these problems, and our cities will be greener, safer, and easier to get around. Now we know our ride-hailing solutions aren’t helping. That means we have to change.
Either we change, or the climate continues to do so, and we won’t survive that.
Sources:
- Tina Bellon, Reuters
- Emma G. Fitzsimmons, The New York Times
- Jon Fingas, Engadget
- Joseph Guzman, The Hill
- Jake Offenhartz, Gothamist
- Union of Concerned Scientists: Article, Study