Better service? Why Uber, Lyft could cut NYC taxi fleet by 85 percent

A recent study suggests that ride-sharing services are so good at what they do, they could reduce New York's massive, roaming fleet of roughly 13,500 taxis significantly.

Love them or loathe them, there's no denying that companies like Uber and Lyft are attractive to many consumers. Unlike most taxi fleets, ride-sharing services are app-based, they provide detailed estimates of when a car will arrive, they facilitate carpooling to cut down on fares, and of course, they're cashless.

In other words, they're significantly more efficient. In fact, a recent study entitled "On-demand high-capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignment" suggests that ride-sharing services are so good at what they do, they could reduce New York's massive, roaming fleet of roughly 13,500 taxis by 85 percent.

To reach that conclusion, a team of five scientists from MIT and Cornell conducted a number of simulations involving a lot of complex math. (At times, it's hard to tell whether they're running formulas or writing about fraternity row.) Ultimately, they took into account things like "fleet size, capacity, waiting time, travel delay, and operational costs for low- to medium-capacity vehicles, such as taxis and van shuttles".

As you can see from the overview video above, when all the numbers had been crunched, the researchers determined that a fleet of "2,000 vehicles (15% of the taxi fleet) of capacity 10 or 3,000 of capacity 4 can serve 98% of [New York's] demand".

Of course, the scientists' plan depends on a couple of things–namely, autonomous vehicles and travelers who are willing to carpool. Autonomous technology reduces the opportunity for traffic accidents and helps vehicles plan their routes most efficiently. And of course, carpooling means that strangers heading in the same general direction can share one ride instead of hailing three or four or ten different cabs. 

Assuming that both those things are viable–that is, that autonomous technology continues its increasingly speedy roll-out and that consumers are willing to share rides with complete strangers--the researchers' proposal is totally viable. The City of New York could pull up to 11,500 taxis off the street and still accommodate the 440,000+ cab rides commuters need each day. 

While there are some significant upsides to that, like less congestion, less pollution, and fewer fender-benders, there are some downsides, too. Most notably, 11,500 people would be out of work–and if the city's entire fleet is autonomous, that number jumps to 13,500. (Then again, today's drivers have probably already seen the writing on the wall.)

The number of job losses jumps even higher when you consider that with far fewer taxis, New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission, which is responsible for licensing passenger vehicles for hire, would likely slash its staff. If the city decides to start inspecting Uber vehicles, some of those jobs could be maintained, but that's a moderately big "if".

Our take

Two of the major trends that have taken hold in the auto industry over the past couple of years have been autonomous tech and ride-sharing. There's no sign that either is fading anytime soon.

In the future, therefore, we'd be very surprised if cities like New York didn't begin scaling back their taxi fleets, as services like Uber and Lyft grow increasingly popular and efficient. There was a time when it might've been possible for NYC's taxis to remain competitive, but that moment seems to have passed. 

If you're feeling especially math-ish today, you can find the full study here.

This article originally appeared on The Car Connection.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.