Driving sustainable transportation: insights and strategies for shared-rides services

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study-area cities in Texas and their final survey-sample sizes.

Table 1. Comparison of the survey sample and the Texas population.

Demographic Variables Used for Survey Quotas		Analytical Sample (N = 2,527)	Texas Population*
Age	18–34	36.4%	33.0%
	35–54	31.0%	35.0%
	55–74	24.5%	25.3%
	75 or over	2.4%	6.7%
Gender	Male	42.1%	49.7%
	Female	57.0%	50.3%
	Nonbinary/third gender**	0.7%	N/A
	Prefer not to say***	0.2%	N/A
Race/ Ethnicity	Not Hispanic White or Caucasian	38.8%	41.4%
	Not Hispanic Black or African American	15.4%	11.8%
	Hispanic	33.9%	39.4%
	Other	9.8%	7.4%
	Prefer not to answer***	2.1%	N/A
Household income	Less than $25,000	19.1%	18.3%
	$25,000 to $49,999	23.8%	21.2%
	$50,000 to $99,999	31.7%	30.1%
	$100,000 or more	23.6%	30.4%
	Prefer not to answer***	1.7%	N/A

Note: N/A = not applicable.

* Data provided as five-year estimates by the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2020 are available online at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ (accessed October 29, 2022).

** Quotas were set to obtain equal distribution across participants who identified their gender as male or female. Participants who identified themselves as nonbinary/third gender were not restricted by quotas and instead specified as natural fallouts in the sample.

*** The survey included the option of prefer not to say/answer; quotas were set without considering this option.

Table 2. Attitudes toward shared-ride services based on select characteristics.

Variable	Category**	Shared-Ride Services
		Mean	p-value
Gender	Male	0.684	<0.001
	Female	0.349
	Nonbinary/third gender*	N/A
Age	18–24	0.421	<0.001
	25–34	0.707
	35–44	0.542
	45–54	0.384
	55–64	0.410
	65 or over	0.287
Race	Native American Indian or Alaska Native	0.615	<0.001
	Asian	0.914
	Black or African American	0.603
	Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders	0.700
	White or Caucasian	0.396
	Other	0.366
	Prefer not to answer	0.167
Hispanic, Latin, or Spanish Origin	Yes	0.581	0.001
	No	0.437
Household Income	Less than $25,000	0.400	<0.001
	$25,000 to $49,999	0.316
	$50,000 to $74,999	0.444
	$75,000 to $99,999	0.548
	$100,000 to $149,999	0.718
	$150,000 or more	0.824
	Prefer not to answer	0.114
Disability	No disabilities	0.513	0.032
	Have one or more disability	0.395
Technology Adoption	Early adopter	0.825	<0.001
	Late adopter	0.280
	Laggard	0.099
Residential Area Type	Urban	0.590	<0.001
	Suburban	0.379
	Rural	0.411
	Not sure	0.313

* Excluded from analysis because the sample size was too small.

^** Please note that these categories differ slightly from those in Table 1, which were aligned with the U.S. Census Bureau’s criteria for establishing and comparing sampling quotas. The categories in this table are more detailed to facilitate more granular analysis.

Table 3. Binary logit model results for shared-ride service users.

Variable	Frequency (Percentage)	Coefficient	t-statistic	p-value
Demographics
Age: 18–34	483 (36.6%)	0.294	2.25	0.025
Gender: Male	662 (50.1%)	0.340	2.63	0.009
Ethnicity: Hispanic	491 (37.2%)	0.266	2.11	0.035
Disability: Deaf or serious difficulty hearing hearing	105 (7.9%)	0.412	1.73	0.084
Education: Less than high school, high school graduate, or general educational development (GED) diploma	223 (16.9%)	−0.283	−1.65	0.098
Income: Less than $25,000	225 (17.0%)	−0.356	−2.04	0.041
Household type: Household with no kids	752 (56.9%)	−0.361	−2.91	0.004
Work location: Work both from home and outside the home	204 (15.4%)	0.382	2.19	0.029
Attitudes, Perceptions, and Habits
Technology adoption (base: laggard) Early adopter	728 (55.1%)	0.885	3.52	<0.001
Technology adoption (base: laggard) Late adopter	487 (36.9%)	0.729	2.89	0.004
Attitude toward sharing a ride: Positive	842 (63.7%)	0.714	5.49	<0.001
Transit use: Frequent	340 (25.7%)	0.507	3.26	0.001
On-demand transportation service use: Frequent	442 (33.5%)	0.458	3.14	0.002
Intercept	N/A	1.438	5.23	<0.001
Log-likelihood at convergence	−595.905
Log-likelihood at intercept	−490.230
Sample size	1,321

Table 4. Top five factors affecting satisfaction among shared-ride service users.

	Respondents Who Indicated Being Not Satisfied with Sharing a Trip	Respondents Who Indicated Being Satisfied with Sharing a Trip
Negative Factors	Travel time was extended due to additional passengers (44.4%)	Concerns over germs or viruses from contagious passengers (27.5%)
	Getting paired with unpleasant passengers (44.4%)	Travel time was extended due to additional passengers (25.7%)
	Don’t like talking with strangers (40.0%)	Getting paired with unpleasant passengers (23.2%)
	Concerns over germs or viruses from contagious passengers (37.8%)	Don’t like talking with strangers (21.3%)
	Travel time is unreliable (30.0%)	Travel time is unreliable (20.8%)
Positive Factors	Monetary savings are considerable (compared to not sharing the trip) (27.0%)	Monetary savings are considerable (compared to not sharing the trip) (37.0%)
	Faster than taking other transit, walking, or biking (22.5.0%)	Faster than taking other transit, walking, or biking (31.0%)
	More comfortable than taking other transit, walking, or biking (21.2%)	Helpful to the environment (28.9%)
	Helpful to the environment (20.1%)	Meeting new people and conversation (26.2%)
	Safer than taking other transit, walking, or biking (18.4%)	More comfortable than taking other transit, walking, or biking (25.9%)

Table 5. Top five factors affecting satisfaction among shared-ride service nonusers.

Would Not Consider Sharing a Trip
Negative Factors	Potentially getting paired with unpleasant passengers (34.8%)
	Don’t like talking with strangers (33.5%)
	Concerns over germs or viruses from contagious passengers (26.7%)
	Vehicle experience seems unsafe (with driver and/or other passengers) (20.9%)
	Travel time is extended due to additional passengers (18.7%)
Would Consider Sharing a Trip
Positive Factors	Monetary savings are considerable (compared to not sharing the trip) (36.2%)
	Helpful to the environment (25.8%)
	Faster than taking other transit, walking, or biking (23.2%)
	More comfortable than taking other transit, walking, or biking (19.9%)
	Safer than taking other transit, walking, or biking (17.2%)

Table 6. Top five recommendations to improve shared-ride services.

Operational Improvements	Government Policies	Employer Programs
Have a guaranteed window for my trip drop-off (29.4%)	Implement surveillance and security at designated boarding zones (27.1%)	Create a rewards program for taking shared-ride trips (33.3%)
Provide a further reduced cost, free trip, or coupon for a future trip if my trip goes too long past the estimated travel time (28.9%)	Regulate fixed fares between more destinations (22.2%)	Provide guaranteed ride home program as a backup transportation option (28.7%)
Have a guaranteed limit on the number of additional stops that will be added to my trip (27.9%)	Subsidize the cost of shared-ride trips that connect to transit hubs (21.5%)	Implement surveillance and security at designated boarding zones (28.5%)
Introduce video surveillance on board vehicles (27.0%)	Create better service connections to rail or bus transit service hubs (20.0%)	Permit flexible working hours for commuting to/from work (27.0%)
Broadcast my current location during my trip to a family member or trusted friend (for safety) (24.2%)	Regulate private transportation providers to report safety incidents within shared-ride vehicles (15.0%)	Permit flexible work-from-home schedules for some days during the week (25.1%)