All the Bad Things About Uber and Lyft In One Simple List

Photo: Oran Viriyincy/Flickr
Photo: Oran Viriyincy/Flickr

Here’s the latest evidence that Uber and Lyft are destroying our world: Students at the University of California Los Angeles are taking an astonishing 11,000 app-based taxi trips every week that begin and end within the boundaries of the campus.

The report in the Daily Bruin revealed anew that Uber, Lyft, Via and the like are massively increasing car trips in many of the most walkable and transit friendly places in U.S.

It comes after a raft of recent studies have found negative effects from Uber and Lyft, such as increased congestion, higher traffic fatalities, huge declines in transit ridership and other negative impacts. It’s becoming more and more clear that Uber and Lyft having some pretty pernicious effects on public health and the environment, especially in some of the country’s largest cities.

We decided to compile it all into a comprehensive list, and well, you judge for yourself. Here we go:

They increase driving — a lot

The U.C.L.A. trips are an example of what is happening at a much wider scale: A lot more driving.

Uber and Lyft, for example, are providing 90,000 rides a day in Seattle now. That’s more than are carried daily by the city’s light rail system, the Seattle Times reports.

One study estimated that in cities with the highest Uber and Lyft adoption rates, driving has increased about 3 percent compared to the cities with the lowest. That’s an enormous amount of miles.

And transportation consultant Bruce Schaller estimates that the app-based taxis have added 5.7 billion driving miles in the nine major cities they primarily operate. (For comparison, in their first year of deployment across the U.S., e-scooters operated by private tech firms carried between 60-80 million trips.)

By the end of this year, Schaller has estimated all taxi ridership will surpass the number of trips made on buses the U.S.

uber ad

The promise of companies such as Uber and Lyft was that they would “free” city dwellers to sell their cars or not acquire them in the first place. And car ownership has declined among higher wage earners.

But a University of Chicago study found the presence of Uber and Lyft in cities actually increases new vehicle registrations. That’s because the companies encourage lower-income people to purchase cars, even advertising in some markets how people should put that new car to use — as an Uber.

They spend half their time ‘deadheading’

For every mile a Uber or Lyft car drives with a passenger, it cruises as many miles — if not more — without a passenger, a practice known in the industry as “deadheading.” Estimates of total deadheading time vary from 30 percent to as much as 60 percent.

Uber and Lyft’s policies make this worse by encouraging drivers to constantly circle to reduce wait times for users, according to John Barrios, the researcher at the University of Chicago, who has studied Uber and Lyft.

They operate in transit-friendly areas

Transit systems around the nation are losing riders to Uber and Lyft, which suggests that the companies are merely showing the need to beef up transit service across the country.

But if you drill down, something else is at work because Uber and Lyft primarily operate in areas that are best served by transit. For example in Seattle, about half the rides taken in Uber and Lyft originate in just four neighborhoods: downtown, Belltown, South Lake Union and Capitol Hill, according to David Gutman at the Seattle Times. These are some of the city’s most walkable and transit-friendly areas.

Graph: Bruce Shaller
Graph: Bruce Shaller

Moreover, according to Schaller, about 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips take place in just nine American cities: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

Meanwhile, traditional taxi service, Schaller estimates, still serves more total trips in suburban and rural areas than the Ubers and Lyfts.

Why would Uber and Lyft use be so high in dense, transit-rich areas? Studies aren’t conclusive, but on average, Uber and Lyft riders, not surprisingly, skew rich and skew young.

In the top nine cities for Uber and Lyft people with incomes above $200,000 are by far the most likely to use the service. Lower-income people without cars in some less urban markets do use Uber and Lyft, but their use is dwarfed by those with high incomes, Schaller finds.

They mostly replace biking, walking or transit trips

In an ideal world, Uber and Lyft would be making good on their promise to reduce private car ownership because city dwellers would feel more comfortable selling their cars, thanks to the presence of Uber and Lyft.

But the data shows that Uber and Lyft mostly “free” people from walking and transit.

A survey of 944 Uber and Lyft riders by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in Boston last year, found that 42 percent of riders would have taken transit if the services hadn’t been available. Another 12 percent (like those U.C.L.A students and their 11,000 on-campus taxi rides per week) said they would have biked or walked their journey. Another 5 percent would have just avoided the trip altogether.

Only about 17 percent — less than one in five — said they would have made the journey in a private car otherwise. (The remainder said they would have used a traditional taxi.)

Uber and Lyft just aren’t competitive price-wise with private car ownership, Schaller said, except in areas with expensive parking. Even with Uberpool and other shared services — which account for a small share of total business, Schaller says — Uber and Lyft increase car miles on urban streets. For each mile of driving removed, they add about 2.6 miles, he estimates.

They hurt transit 

Uber and Lyft are just crushing transit service in the U.S. A recent study estimated, for example, they had reduced bus ridership in San Francisco, for example, 12 percent since 2010 — or about 1.7 percent annually. And each year the services are offered, the effect grows, researcher Gregory Erhardt found.

Every person lured from a bus or a train into a Lyft or Uber adds congestion to the streets and emissions to the air. Even in cities that have made tremendous investments in transit — like Seattle which is investing another $50 billion in light rail — Uber and Lyft ridership recently surpassed light rail ridership.

Transit agencies simply cannot complete with private chauffeur service which is subsidized at below real costs by venture capitalists. And maybe that’s the point.

Erhardt, for example, estimated that San Francisco would have had to increase transit service 25 percent overall just to neutralize the effect of Uber and Lyft.

Worse is the tale of two cities effect: Relatively well off people in Ubers congesting the streets of Manhattan and San Francisco slow down buses full of relatively low-income people. By giving people who can afford it escape from the subway, Uber and Lyft also reduce social interaction between people of different classes and lead to a more stratified society.

They reduce political support for transit

As an added kick in the shins, Uber and Lyft degrade political support for transit. If relatively well-to-do people can hop in an Uber or a Lyft every time the bus or train is late, the political imperative to address the problem is reduced. The wealthier people substituting Uber and Lyft for transit trips have disproportionate political influence.

Cities are already capitulating. Last week, Denver partnered with Uber in a last-ditch effort to win back some riders who had jumped to the app.

In addition, right-wing ideologues have argued that Uber and Lyft make transit investment unnecessary.

They increase traffic fatalities

The University of Chicago study mentioned earlier estimated that Uber and Lyft increased traffic fatalities last year by an astonishing 1,100 — an enormous human toll. The study also found, surprisingly, that Uber and Lyft have no effect on drunk driving.

In addition, Uber and Lyft require basically no safety training for their drivers at all. In fact, the presence of these companies has motivated cities like Toronto to eliminate safety training requirements the city previous required for taxi drivers, in order to ostensibly level the playing field.

They hoard their data

One qualification with this list: Much of the information we have about Lyft and Uber is imperfect. The two companies make it difficult to study the social impacts of their activities because they jealously guard their data.

Last year, when Barrios released a study showing a lot of negative impacts from Uber and Lyft, Lyft corporate attacked the study calling it “deeply flawed.”

But Barrios had to use Google search numbers to estimate Uber and Lyft penetration in certain markets because even academic researchers don’t have access to Uber and Lyft’s raw trip data. If Uber and Lyft are honest in their denials, releasing their data could help disprove it. But so far, they have mostly refused.

Oh, and one more thing…

These are just the transportation related drawbacks. To say nothing of these companies treatment of their employees, or the behavior of their top management or their huge financial losses.

461 thoughts on All the Bad Things About Uber and Lyft In One Simple List

  1. I mean, do you even know what site you’re commenting on? Most people here know that the infrastructure that Uber profits on is much more expensive than transit. Uber leverages far more subsidy and siphons it from public benefit.

  2. Very little info is made public. Much of this compilation of bad things is from New York state requiring Uber to make certain data public.

  3. Do you have a point, by listing these salaries but neglecting to consider the cost of living in the Bay Area? Seems like a ploy to churn up resentment, when in fact $85K in the Bay Area is barely living paycheck to paycheck.

  4. What’s weak is ignoring real-life issues (climate change and pollution are only two of them) to type up fact-free insinuations about “choice” and “preferences.”

  5. Passengers certainly deserve blame, too. But really, why does Uber even allow its app to hail cars where they can’t legally stop?

  6. I prefer to commute to work by private helicopter. Do you believe that the government should provide me with the means to commute to work by private helicopter?

  7. Didnt disagree but you are being rigid & ridiculous. Everyone needs to work together which appears to be the majority opinion. Have fun on the train. Or walking.

    There is nothing “rigid & ridiculous” about asking you to keep your car out of bus lanes. A single bus may be carrying 50 or more people, all of whom have places to go, and by blocking a bus lane you are selfishly delaying each and every one of them (along with everybody waiting for that same bus downstream).

  8. No thanks. What I know—- bikes will LOSE so they should follow the rules of the road. Its that simple.

    Do you believe that motorists should also follow the rules of the road, or do you expect that only of cyclists? (Given your attitude toward blocking bus lanes with cars, it would appear to be the latter.)

  9. Funny, I know plenty of people, young and old, who regularly get around by bike, in all sorts of weather, because they find that it makes more sense for them than the other options available to them. They bike to appointments and they bike to go shopping (and I have no idea why you’d even suggest that bikes can’t possibly be appropriate for those sorts of activities). That doesn’t mean that bikes always are the best option for everyone – I don’t ride a bike, myself – but why would I try to deprive people of the option that works best for them? How does it hurt me if somebody decides to get to work by bike?

    Yes, it’s unfortunate that cyclists often find themselves in dangerous areas. Those areas are usually dangerous because of drivers who ignore the law – driving and parking in bike lanes, turning without first verifying that no cyclists are approaching, opening car doors without first checking for approaching cyclists, etc.

  10. The real life issue is ignoring trade offs. Yes, there is environmental degradation. With any industry that makes life for human beings tolerable, there is going to be sone undesirable by-product. But without automobiles [and other things like air condition, refrigeration, electricity] this life is not better. You’ll way overblow the amount of degradation and affects on habitats. You’ll also ignore biology. Organisims are programed to find way to adapt and expend less energy themselves. We’re just another organisim. Some of us just seem to carry too much guilt for that sort of thing. And then have no concept of what the wire “liberal” even mean any longer.

  11. Resentment? I just figured I would cater to the Left’s emotional appeal weapon of choice. What’s wrong? Don’t particularly like seeing it used against you while you debate an issue?

  12. Rideshare services pay the same taxes that taxicabs do in Nevada. Add to that the commercial insurance rideshare companies are required to carry is 50% higher than taxicabs, even though Rideshare is safer than taxicabs in Vegas by a massive margin. The tax and insurance argument is born out of ignorance and frustration from those who can/will not adjust to change.

  13. They already do…. Air traffic control is happy to help you, just set your radio to the correct frequently.

  14. I know that you haven’t been on BART ever…. I have yet to not ride with a homeless person who has soiled themselves.

  15. Fantastic! And I assume the government will either provide or mandate that somebody else provide a place for me to park my helicopter wherever I may wish to take it?

  16. I’ve been riding public transit for more than 20 years.
    Sometimes it smells bad.
    And sometimes you get stuck in traffic jams while cooking the planet.

    So “both sides” amirite?

  17. I agree with everything you said. I have chosen not to own a car at this point in my life because, between public transit and a few ubers a week, I spend significantly less then I would if I owned a car having to pay for the vehicle, fuel, a parking spot, insurance, and registration fees.

  18. Those people are poor, so they don’t generate much in the way of car traffic. Also, immigration (no matter where you stand on the issue) has nothing to do with this, because this is a matter of transportation policy.

  19. That’s why we need better regulation, and maybe even turning the ridesharing companies into employee driver owned companies.

  20. I only listed the federal tax on fuel. State taxes are significantly more. But I’ll trust the study you posted. I’ll take what you say at face value and pay before actually reading it. You must know that there are a myriad of items that are not fully paid for through taxation alone. About 20-25% of everything that governments are supposed to fund (the collective total spending) are done so with borrowed money; borrowed because citizens appetite to be taxed does not matchup well with the bull$#!+ that they want their governments to do.

  21. Just a few comments on buses:

    “Ever seen a bus during non peak ridership? Do you think all the cost that go into public transportation are self sustainable?”

    In areas where service has been increased to decent levels, buses actually are not empty most of the time: This is not limited to Seattle itself, but suburban areas like the suburbs of Federal Way and Redmond.

    When you consider the costs of subsidizing roads ( ), it turns out that public transportation is self sustainable in cities and suburbs compared with our overbuilt roads, especially in denser areas.

    It’s a problem because not only does up drive demand for more road space which a lot of the time is fiscally unsustainable as discussed in the Strong Towns article, it also produces more carbon emissions compared to walking or cycling. Going electric only reduces the problem because steel and other materials that go into cars still produce a lot of emissions, and increased electric car use takes up green electricity that could have gone to displacing coal or other fossil fuel power in other areas, like heating.

    Europe has much more use of public transportation, and it’s managed by governments, so clearly people in the public sphere know how to innovate, America just needs to learn from Europe and other places on this issue. And as discussed in the Strong Towns article and also in this article ( ), cars are far heavier subsidized then transit, even including gas and other car taxes. The CityLab article shows that with decent service, transit is NOT less desired, even at suburban densities.

  22. “Govt managed programs in the USA are almost always the result of a design
    based on all manner of compromised requirements that can’t easily adapt
    or improve due to suffocating bureaucracy”:

    That’s not true in areas where better service through tax increases and better design have been done, there is much more ridership of transit: and . And there are quite a few of those areas, like Seattle and its suburbs in King County and Houston. If you look to Canada, with a similar North American culture, you see even more of those areas:

  23. There’s no way that anyone who doesn’t know Sunil personally or have access to a good source of information about him can tell if Sunil is a “non-achiever” or not on this comment section- he might be making $100,000 per year, for all that we know. “Typical “I don’t wanna do it so you can’t do it” whine of a non-achiever.” is a comment that adds nothing to the discussion.

  24. No, public transportation doesn’t deserve to die in the U.S because in areas with actual decent funding to provide decent service, we see much more use of public transit ( and ) because not only does service drive demand, better service, especially with various ways to speed up buses, makes many trips competitive in time with driving and fixes the space issue. People who support public transit do care, because they support decent funding to provide the service discussed above.

  25. I’ve been on Link in Seattle, and various buses around there, and most homeless people here try to behave themselves.

  26. That’s why we need better regulation of Lyft and Uber, so that these effects don’t happen any more and we can still use carsharing at a decent level.

  27. That’s why we need regulation so that drivers can point out it’s illegal for them to block lanes and other areas to passengers.

  28. Let’s not call people whiners. A lot of people pick cheap houses because that’s all they can afford, and those people include a lot of students. Cheap houses also don’t have anything to do with people blocking areas while driving.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Can Ride-Hailing Apps Become More Like Buses and Less Like Taxis?

A big part of reducing car traffic involves using cars more efficiently. Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are supposedly assisting in this transition by making car ownership less necessary. But even though both companies operate carpool-type services, most of their business still comes from single passenger trips. Other ride-hailing companies are all about shared trips. Network blog Cap’n Transit has […]