Adoption of Exclusive and Pooled TNC Services in Singapore and the US

Abstract

On-demand mobility services provided by transport network companies (TNCs) have experienced significant growth in their adoption and diversification of services in major metropolitan cities around the world. This study presents analysis of primary data from Singapore, exploring the sociodemographics of TNC users, who (among these TNC users) is more likely to pool their trips, and what modes these services are replacing. We compare these results to a comprehensive literature review of similar studies of TNC users in the metropolitan U.S. We find that the sociodemographics of TNC users in general are similar in Singapore and the U.S.: younger, highly educated, and higher income individuals are more likely to have used TNC services. On the other hand when differentiating by type of TNC service, we find that younger individuals from households that do not own a car are more likely to have pooled in Singapore, while employment is an important predictor in the U.S. We also find differences in mode substitution; while TNC trips in the U.S. primarily induce additional trips or replace trips by public and non-motorized transport, in Singapore they primarily replace personal/private vehicle trips. In Singapore, we explore mode substitution by exclusive and pooled TNC services separately, finding that pooled trips draw more from public and non-motorized transport, while exclusive trips replace more personal/private vehicle trips. These results suggest that people in Singapore view exclusive and pooled TNC services as distinct travel options that may be more closely related to other private or public transport, respectively. Differences between Singapore and the U.S. highlight the importance of accounting for local context and suggests that the quality of all travel alternatives in the urban area will affect the mode substitution of TNC trips.

Effect of Price and Time on Private and Shared Transportation Network Company Trips

“…Screening responses according to these filters resulted in the removal of 1,008 invalid responses and produced a dataset of 4,365 responses. While this process resulted in the removal of a high number of screened responses (;23%), this level is similar to other online surveys of TNC users (3,10).…”

“…In relation to driving, Rayle et al (8) and Schaller (5) found that non-car owners are overrepresented among TNC users. Broadly speaking, many studies find TNC users are younger, better educated, higher-income individuals (1,3,9). In this camp, Kooti et al (10) found that higher-income riders not only take more rides but are also more likely to take private ridehailing trips.…”

“…There is a growing body of literature on TNC use and users in American transportation markets. First, scholars have consulted the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)-which was the first to ask respondents about TNC use-to characterize ridehailing users (1)(2)(3)(4). Using this data, Schaller found that most TNC users are located in large, densely populated metropolitan areas and are predominantly affluent, well educated, and young (5).…”

Use of Exclusive and Pooled Ridehailing Services in Three Mexican Cities

“…Comparte trips, on the other hand, are most likely to be replaced by public transport (25%) than by private car (11%) or taxi (9%). The finding that exclusive ridehailing trips are more likely to replace private, motorized modes while pooled ridehailing trips are more likely to replace public transport is similar to results seen in Singapore despite its different urban and transportation context (3).…”

“…Ridehailing trips in the U.S.A. appear to be replacing public transport, walking and bicycling more than personal vehicle use on a trip-by-trip basis, but access to ridehailing can also help support more multimodal lifestyles that do not rely on owning and using a car, potentially encouraging use of public transport and other non-motorized travel ( 2 ). Fewer studies consider the differential adoption of exclusive and pooled ridehailing services, with mixed results across most sociodemographic groups ( 3 ).…”