International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

How app-based ride-hailing services influence

travel behavior: An empirical study from China

Bao-Jun Tang, Xiao-Yi Li, Biying Yu & Yi-Ming Wei

To cite this article: Bao-Jun Tang, Xiao-Yi Li, Biying Yu & Yi-Ming Wei (2019): How app-based
ride-hailing services influence travel behavior: An empirical study from China, International Journal
of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2019.1584932

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1584932

Published online: 14 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1584932

How app-based ride-hailing services influence travel behavior: An empirical

study from China
Bao-Jun Tanga,b,c,d,e, Xiao-Yi Lia,b,c,d, Biying Yua,b,c,d,e, and Yi-Ming Weia,b,c,d,e
a
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China; bSchool of Management and
Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China; cBeijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental Management, Beijing,
China; dCollaborative Innovation Center of Electric Vehicles in Beijing, Beijing, China; eSustainable Development Research Institute for
Economy and Society of Beijing, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

App-based ride-hailing is a newly emergent mode of travel that is expected to influence passen- Received 13 September 2017
gers’ travel behavior significantly. In this study, we define app-based ride-hailing services to Revised 15 February 2019
include hailing of taxis through smartphone apps and sharing of private vehicles (car sharing is Accepted 17 February 2019
not included). This paper is one of the first quantitative studies to examine how app-based ride
KEYWORDS
hailing would impact passengers’ choice of travel mode and change car-purchasing behaviors. App-based ride-hailing
China is taken as the empirical context, and the data are from a large-scale app-based survey con- service; car-purchasing
ducted via the largest app-based ride-hailing platform in the world. Drawing on these rich survey behavior; China; discrete
data, the investigation covers both the short-term travel mode choices and long-term car-purchas- choice model; travel
ing behaviors of app-based ride-hailing users. The research findings are helpful in understanding mode choice
changes in urban residents’ travel behaviors under in context of app-based ride hailing, and pro-
vide valuable in-depth insights for both governments and app-based ride-hailing service providers
(i.e., enterprises) for the management and regulation of ride hailing.

1. Introduction private vehicles through app-based ride-hailing services.

The emergence of ride-hailing services has been regarded as
the product of growing travel demand and technological
innovation. The development of technology has allowed
smartphone users to access ride-hailing apps easily, and at
the same time, has created a market for transport services
based on sharing private cars (Anderson, 2014). On-demand
ride-hailing service platforms such as Uber, Lyft and DIDI
take advantage of smartphones, mobile payments and other
technologies to provide more diverse and differentiated serv-
ices, and have become rapidly integrated into people’s lives.
According to Morgan Stanley (2016), taxis and cars operated
by ride-hailing companies already accounted for 4% of glo-
bal miles traveled by 2015, and this proportion is estimated
to reach 26% by 2030. Although app-based ride hailing has
only risen in popularity in the past few years, it has had a
significant impact on existing transport systems, overall car
usage and urban residents. App-based ride-hailing services
satisfy the travel demand that existing public transport
modes cannot. Especially in megacities like New York,
Beijing and Shanghai, public transport during rush hour, is
extremely crowded. App-based ride-hailing services offer
more choices for people. To some extent, they compensate
for insufficient public transport capacity.
In this study, we define app-based ride hailing to include
hailing of taxis through smartphone apps and sharing of
App-based ride hailing provides on-demand ride services for
travelers, and allows private car owners to share their cars;
this has changed the way people hail and share car rides.
However, the reasons that ride-hailing app users choose
app-based ride hailing instead of their original mode of
travel, and the factors that cause passengers to embrace this
new travel mode, remain unclear. It is necessary to discover
the factors that influence users to get improve our under-
standing of potential strategies to develop this novel travel
mode. Furthermore, from a long-term perspective, the emer-
gence of app-based ride hailing may change demand for pri-
vate cars, which may influence the willingness to buy new
cars or replace old ones. To fully investigate the reasons and
changes in residents’ travel behavior induced by app-based
ride-hailing services, this study takes China as its empirical
context because it is the largest app-based ride-hailing mar-
ket in the world. In December 2016, the number of online
taxi-hailing services users reached 226 million, and those
users of other online ride-hailing services numbered 168
million (CNNIC, 2017). We conducted a joint research
study with DIDI Chuxing, the largest on-demand ride-hail-
ing services platform in China and one of the largest in the
world. Unlike popular US ride-hailing apps (e.g., Uber and
Lyft), Chinese ride-hailing apps provide not only private car
ride-hailing services, but also online taxi-hailing services.

CONTACT Biying Yu yubiying_bj@bit.edu.cn Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujst.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B.-J. TANG ET AL.
Table 1. Definition of app-based ride-hailing services.
App-based taxi
Service type hailing service Hitching service
Car ownership Taxi company Private
Price Same as traditional taxi Set by the driver;
Significantly Cheaper
than taxi
Destination Single destination Similar destinations Single destination
with driver’s
Time consumption Less than traditional taxi Take more time for driver Same as app-based
to confirm
Form of employment Full-time Part-time Part-time/Full-time
Characteristic Allows taxi driver and pas- Picks up passengers while Private car owners drive Private car owners drive
senger to find each on their own trips with
other on apps passengers who have
similar destinations
or routes
Chinese 出租车 (Chuzuche) 顺风车(Shunfengche) 快车(Kuaiche)
Currently, app-based ride-hailing services including app-
based Taxi hailing, Hitching service, Express service,
ExpressPool service and Premium service, have been
launched on the Chinese market. Although in general, trad-
itional taxis and app-based taxis are the same travel mode,
they lead to different travel patterns (e.g., passengers choose
taxis depending on their information about their availability)
and show distinct passenger characteristics. Therefore, to
highlight the differences of app-based ride-hailing services
from traditional travel modes, we define app-based ride-hail-
ing services as new travel modes. Table 1 lists the main
characteristics of different app-based ride-hailing services in
China provided by DIDI Chuxing. A questionnaire was spe-
cifically designed and sent out to frequent ride-hailing users
via the DIDI app-based platform. From the survey data,
there were two questions to be answered: (1) What factors
make people turn to app-base ride-hailing services instead
of their original mode of transportation (i.e., travel mode
choice), and (2) How will app-base ride-hailing services
change car-purchasing behavior (i.e., vehicle ownership)?
This paper is organized as follows. The second section
reviews the related literature. The third section describes the
research methods, including the models and interpretation
of selected variables. The fourth section introduces the sur-
vey design and data collection. Section five discusses the
model results. The final section concludes with the main
findings related to travel behavior and the influence of app-
based ride-hailing services. Suggestions for ride-hailing plat-
forms and authorities are also discussed.
2. Literature review
Ride-hailing apps in China usually provide two kinds of
services: online taxi hailing and private car hailing. App-
based taxi hailing allows taxi drivers and passengers to find
each other on mobile apps. Private car hailing services can
be regarded as a typical form of shared mobility, because
people either share rides or their private car with others
(Clewlow & Mishra, 2017). Shared mobility is a term used
to describe transportation services that are shared among
Express service ExpressPool service Premium service
Private Private Private or Car company
Similar to taxi Total price is the same as Higher than all
express service but other services
shared by a group
of passengers
Similar destinations Single destination
among passengers
Spend more time on sys- Same as app-based
taxi hailing tem matching taxi hailing
Part-time/Full-time Part-time/Full-time
Offers standardized, high
around to make money around to make quality and profes-
money; Allows private sional services
car driver to pick up a
group of passengers
who have the similar
destinations or part
of route
快车拼车(Kuaichepinche) 专车(Zhuanche)
users (SUMC, 2017). In addition to traditional modes of
public transport – taxis and limousines – a variety of
innovative travel modes have emerged in recent decades,
including car sharing (Millard-Ball, 2005; Steininger, Vogl,
& Zettl, 1996; Teal, 1987), bicycle sharing (DeMaio, 2009;
Shaheen, 2010), ride-sourcing (Rayle, Dai, Chan, Cervero, &
Shaheen, 2016; Rayle, Shaheen, Chan, Dai, & Cervero, 2014;
Yu et al, 2017a, 2017b), ride-sharing (Chan & Shaheen,
2011). App-based on-demand ride services are now the most
rapidly evolving area of shared mobility. A large body of
research indicates that different kinds of shared mobility
reduce travel costs and fuel consumption, mitigate pollution
emissions, improve efficiency and reduce pressure on park-
ing lots among other benefits (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2014).
On the other hand, some studies find that shared mobility
stimulates demand for travel, which cause worsens traffic
congestion and causes other issues (Cervero & Yu-Hsin,
2003; Gao, An, & Quan, 2016; Schaller, 2016).
Car sharing is a mode of car rental that provides people
with access to cars for short periods of time. As one of the
earliest examples of shared mobility, car-sharing has gained
much academic attention. The impact of car-sharing on
travel behavior and car ownership are two main issues
(Martin & Shaheen, 2011; Martin, Shaheen, & Lidicker,
2010). According to research by Cervero, Golub, and Nee
(2007), more than 60% of car-sharing users would change
their car-purchasing plans, if their mobility and travel range
were enhanced. Martin et al. (2010) and Klincevicius et al.
(2014) found that households without private cars are active
users and that the vehicle ownership rate of ride-sharing
users is lower than that of nonusers. Utilizing a San
Francisco area subsample and considering transit frequency,
walk, bike trips and daily driving distance, Mishra, Clewlow,
Mokhtarian, and Widaman (2015) built on previous studies
to evaluate further the short-term impact of car sharing on
travel behavior. Moreover, they assessed the impact of car or
ride sharing on vehicle ownership. The results show that
car-sharing users tend to engage in more sustainable travel
patterns, have lower rates of car ownership and take more
foot and bicycle trips.

Ride sharing (or ridesplitting) means that private car
drivers share their cars on their own trips with passengers
who have similar destinations or routes. As an innovative
and popular means of transportation, ride sharing, in com-
mon with car sharing, widens mobility choices, offering
diverse forms of travel mode. Participants can benefit from
shared travel costs, saving waiting and travel time by using
high-occupancy vehicle lanes and reducing commuting stress
(Chan & Shaheen, 2011). With the tremendous development
of ride sharing, scholars have shed light on this area; how-
ever, research remains limited. Most studies have focused on
legal and compliance issues. Some scholars believe that ride
sharing represents an innovative approach to reducing ser-
ious urban transportation problems and environmental
issues. A limited number of studied concern ride sharing
from the perspective of travel behavior (Chen, Zahiri, &
Zhang, 2017). Yu et al. (2017a) evaluate the direct and indir-
ect environmental benefits of ride-sharing and indicate that
from a long-term perspective, shifts in travel mode triggered
by ride-sharing will contribute to substantial emission
reductions. In Beijing, for example, research findings show
that ride-sharing services could encourage people to reduce
their private car usage and could change their decisions on
new car purchases. In the present study, app-based Hitching
service is considering a ride-sharing service.
“Ride sourcing” refers to on-demand ride-matching serv-
ices in which drivers do not share a destination with their
passengers (Shaheen, Cohen, & Zohdy, 2016). It has roots in
ride sharing, but shares the characteristics of traditional taxi
services (Rayle et al., 2016). To some extent, it has replaced
demand for private cars and public transportation, especially
taxis. Rayle et al. (2016) collected 380 surveys in San
Francisco and focused on the competition between app-
based on-demand ride sourcing and traditional taxi services.
Their study found that these two services have overlapping
but different markets. Liu and Wang (2016) attempt to
show how travelers’ mode choices have changed in a short
period, following the emergence of a shared mobility plat-
form, focusing on the influence on urban traffic congestion.
However, owing to a lack of real-world data, their mathem-
atical example failed to reflect the current situation accur-
ately. Few studies of shared mobility have used real world
data. Based on two questionnaire surveys distributed in
Beijing, Gao et al. (2016) estimate the changes in Beijing
residents’ travel mode choices. They find that ride-sourcing
in Beijing was enormously popular, reaching 3.526 million
rides per day. In Beijing, 58% of the total number of ride-
sourcing trips are by people who would otherwise use public
transportation or cyclists. Ridesourcing is one type of app-
based ride-hailing service. In the present study, app-based
Express service, ExpressPool service and Premium service
are more similar to the abovementioned ride-sourcing ser-
vice, whereby private cars are used to provide a taxi service.
As can be seen, some existing studies investigate the
influence of app-based shared mobility on people’s travel
behavior, but mainly target a specific type of shared mobility
service. However, these may be less informative in regard to
how app-based ride hailing typically affects travel mode
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 3
choice and car purchases. Another limitation of current
studies is data availability; most are based on small-scale
questionnaire survey data or trip survey information instead
of large-scale data collected from a ride-hailing platform.
Moreover, they do not directly target frequent users of app-
based ride hailing which may overestimate its impact. Given
these concerns, we draw on the extensive app-based data
collected from the DIDI platform, which include 9762 valid
questionnaire responses from ride-hailing app users in
China (more details regarding the data can be found in
Section 4). This paper aims to reveal the characteristics of
app-based ride-hailing service users to determine which
users are likely to use app-base ride-hailing services instead
of using the original travel mode, and the factors influencing
their future car purchase decisions. The ultimate goal is to
improve understanding of app-based ride-hailing behavior
and services.
3. Travel behavior models for app-based
ride-hailing service users
The emergence of app-based ride-hailing services may have
a great impact on peoples’ travel behavior. In the short-
term, passengers tend to choose app-based ride hailing
instead of buses, taxis, private cars, the metro or others serv-
ices; that is to say, people’s travel mode choice behavior has
been changed by the availability of app-based ride hailing.
In the long-term viewpoint, app-based ride hailing is likely
to influence people’s demand for private vehicles owing to
the convenience of app-based service, which in turn will
change their intention to purchase cars (whether new or
replacement vehicles). Although the impact of app-based
ride-hailing services on travel behavior has been realized,
the form and triggers for changes in travel mode and car
purchasing may differ between individuals according to their
sociodemographic attributes, travel behavior and motiva-
tions, residential environmental characteristics, and sur-
rounding transportation infrastructure. Consequently, two
discrete choice models—a multinomial logit (MNL) model
and a binary logit model (Koppelman & Bhat, 2006)—are
applied here to determine and quantify the effects of these
factors on individuals’ travel mode choices behavior and
car-purchasing behaviors, respectively. The goal of discrete
choice analysis is to estimate the parameters of the
value function.
3.1. Choice model for app-based ride-hailing users’
alternative travel mode
A MNL model is used to investigate what alternative travel
mode the user would have taken if there are no app-based
ride-hailing services. Based on this, we can further analyze
what induces travelers to give up their original modes of
transportation and switch to app-based ride-hailing service.
The theoretical framework of the (MNL) model has each
ride-hailing app user i faced with j alternative travel modes.
Each resident chooses to a use ride-hailing service instead of
six other travel modes. Here we set the alternative travel
4 B.-J. TANG ET AL.

mode: private car as j ¼ 1; traditional taxi 1as j ¼ 2; bus Table 2. Distribution of selected samples by city.
as j ¼ 3; metro as j ¼ 4; walking or cycling as j ¼ 5 and City Valid surveys City scalea Geographical distribution
other modes as j ¼ 6: Then, the users’ overall utility of choos- Shenyang 561 Supercity Northeast
Beijing 2743 Megacity Northern
ing particular alternative travel mode can be specified as: Tianjin 1895 Megacity
Uij ¼ bj Xij þ eij (1) Shijiazhuang 1741 Big city
Langfang 518 Medium-sized city
Shanghai 411 Megacity Eastern
Xij is a vector of explanatory variables expected to influence Jinan 583 Big city
users to change their travel mode to app-based ride-hailing Wuhan 541 Supercity Central
services. The explanatory variables are classified into four Shenzhen 435 Megacity Southern
Chengdu 334 Supercity Southwest
categories: sociodemographic attributes, travel behavior and a
The standard of division for city scale is used in accordance with ‘Notice on
motivations, residential environmental characteristics varia- regulating urban scale classification’ issued by state council in 2014.
bles and city-specific variables which are related to urban
transportation infrastructure. First, travel mode choice may users’ overall utility of allowing the app-based ride-hailing
vary according to annual household income, educational services to influence their car willingness to purchase a car
background and household type. In addition, we assume can be specified as:
that choosing app-based ride hailing is closely related to res-
idents’ travel behaviors and motivations, such as travel fre- Vik ¼ kk Yik þ eik (3)
quency, time and travel purpose, and their reasons for using where Yik is a vector of explanatory variables such as
app-based ride hailing. In addition, owning to differences in income, travel time, private car ownership, travel frequency
the time required to walk to the nearest public transport sta- and other variables that are expected to affect users’ car
tion and the characteristics of their residential areas, people purchase choices. The vector kk represents the coefficients
may have different choices of travel mode. Different spatial for the vector of explanatory variables Yik. The probability
contexts (e.g., cities) have different travel conditions, so of a user changing car-purchasing behavior based on the
transportation infrastructure, length of bus and metro oper- availability of app-based ride-hailing service can be calcu-
ating routes, number of operation taxis and urban conges- lated as:
tion indexes are also taken into consideration. The vector bj
expðkk Yik Þ
represents the coefficients for the vector of explanatory vari- P¼ (4)
ables Xij for alternative j. In an MNL model, it is assumed 1 þ expðkk Yik Þ
that the error terms eij, are independent and follow Gumbel The parameters (kk) are estimated by maximizing the log
distribution. Under this assumption, the probability that a of the likelihood function. The explanatory variables are pre-
user would choose alternative travel mode j if there were no sented in Table 3.
app-based ride-hailing service, which can also be explained
as the probability that a user will switch to app-based ride
hailing from alternative travel mode j, is calculated by equa- 4. App-based survey and data
tion (2): In China, there are five main app-based ride-hailing services:

 App-based Taxi hailing service, Hitching service, Express
exp bj Xij
Pij ¼ P
 (2) service, ExpressPool service and Premium service. The def-
j exp bj Xij inition of each service is given in Table 1.
The parameters (bj) are estimated by maximizing the log
likelihood function. The goal of model estimation is to find
4.1. App-based survey
a set of parameters b such that the probability of the
observed choices being realized is highest. To understand better the phenomenon of app-based ride
hailing and the potential changes of in travel behaviors and
motivations caused by such services, we designed a ques-
3.2. Choice model of app-based ride-hailing users’ tionnaire for frequent users (who use app-based ride-hailing
car-purchasing behavior services at least twice per week) and conducted a large-scale
The binary logit model is utilized in this study to represent app-based survey through the DIDI Chuxing platform from
the car-purchasing choices of ride-hailing app users. May to November 2016. Users received and responded to
Similarly, the theoretical framework of the binary logit survey from their DIDI Chuxing app on their mobile
model has each ride-hailing user i faced with two choices: phones. DIDI Chuxing completed a total of 1.43 billion
(1) is likely to or will change their willingness to buy a new rides through its platform in 2015 (Tam, 2016), making it
car/replace the old car (k ¼ 1) or (2) otherwise (k ¼ 0). the most popular app-based ride-hailing company in the
People receive a certain level of utility from a car purchase world. Therefore, the data collected from the DIDI Chuxing
and choose the alternative that maximizes that utility. The platform may to some extent represent the overall situation
of China’s app-based ride-hailing market. According to
1 CBNDATA (2016) statistics, online app-based ride-hailing
Traditional taxi: trip generated from cab stands, by street-hailing or by
telephone instead of through ride-hailing apps. Traditional taxi and app-based services cover more than 400 cities in China. The penetra-
taxi hailing are the same travel mode, but have different dispatch modes. tion rate of this service in first- and second-tier cities is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 5

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of variables.

Variables Proportion/Mean (S.D.c)
Sociodemographic attributes
Annual household income (RMB) Less than 50 thousand 15.3
50–100 thousand 33.9
100–150 thousand 22.0
150–250 thousand 17.2
More than 250 thousand 11.6
Education background Received higher education 47.4
Have not received higher education 52.6
Household type Live alone 19.4
Live with spouse 28.8
Two-generation family 31.5
Three-or more-generation family 12.3
Other 8.0
Travel behavior and motivations
Selected app-based ride-hailing service for travel Premium service 3.2
Hitching service 5.8
Taxi hailing service 2.9
Express service 69.9
ExpressPool service 18.1
Preferred app-based ride-hailing service Premium service 3.4
Hitching service 5.2
　 Taxi hailing service 1.1
　 Express service 70.2
　 ExpressPool service 20.0
Reason for using app-based ride-hailing Lack of public transportation 19.1
Time saving 47.3
Economical 21.8
Limitations on private car 4.9
Parking issue 3.7
Other 3.1
Travel frequency of app-based ride-hailing　 More than once a day 25.6
3–4 times a week 37.4
　 1–2 times a week 27.5
　 1–2 times a month or lesser 9.5
Travel purpose Commute to work/school 27.3
Commute to home 13.3
Entertainment 33.0
Business 9.6
Other 16.8
Alternative travel mode Private car 17.3
Traditional taxi 35.1
　 Bus 22.2
　 Metro 15.2
　 Walking/Cycling 6.4
　 Other 3.8
Travel time of alternative travel mode Less than 10 min 15.3
11–20 min 29.2
21–30 min 23.9
31–40 min 14.5
41–50 min 6.6
51–60 min 5.4
More than 60 min 5.1
Private car ownership – 1.86 (0.75)
Car purchasing behavior Would not change 16.8
　 May not change 31.6
　 May change 45.0
　 Would change 6.6
Residential environment characteristics
Walking time to nearest public transport station Less than 5 min 35.8
6–10 min 37.8
11–20 min 16.7
21–30 min 5.4
31–60 min 2.4
More than 60 min 1.8
Living area Central area/CBD 48.8
　 Other 51.2
City-specific factors
Length of operating routes of buses/ per capita(1000km)a 12.79 (7.37)
Length of operating routes of metro/ per capita(100km)a 2.18 (2.23)
Number of operating taxi/per capitaa 3.31 (2.43)
Urban congestion indexb 1.55 (0.1)
Cities’ internet penetration rate in transportationd 54.25 (27.35)
a
Provided by National Report on Urban Passenger Transport Development, 2016.
b
Provided by the Transportation Report of Main Cities in China 2015, 2016.
c
S.D.: standard deviation.
d
Provided by Amap. Detailed index algorithm can be found at http://www.useit.com.cn/thread-13477-1-1.html.
6 B.-J. TANG ET AL.
Figure 1. Selected app-based ride-hailing service and service preferences of
respondents.
significantly higher than that in small cities, and the app-
based ride-hailing trips in first- and second-tier cities
account for almost 97% of the total. Therefore, based on the
geographical distribution and scale of each city, 10 cities
were selected to represent the major urban areas of China.
This survey included a total sample of 150,000 medium- and
high-frequency users. The sample size in each city was
decided according to the popularity of app-based ride-hail-
ing services. After removing responses with missing and
invalid answers, a total of 9762 valid survey responses from
passenger in the 10 main cities of China were used for this
analysis. Table 2 shows the distribution of valid survey
responses disaggregated by city. City-specific information
contains the following four aspects, therein, the city specific
information related to urban transportation infrastructure
was collected outside the questionnaire survey. The survey
information contains the following four aspects:
(1) Users’ sociodemographic attributes: annual household
income, education background and household type;
(2) Travel behavior and motivations: app-based ride-hail-
ing service selected for the latest trip, preferred app-
based ride-hailing services, reason for using app-based
ride hailing, frequency of travel via app-based ride
hailing, travel purpose, alternative travel mode, the
travel time of alternative travel mode, private car own-
ership and car-purchasing behavior;
(3) Residential environmental characteristics: living area
and walking distance to nearest public trans-
port station;
(4) City-specific information related to urban transporta-
tion infrastructure: bus system, metro routes, number
of taxis, congestion condition and Internet penetration
rate in transportation2 (CBNDATA, 2016).
2
The Internet penetration rate in transportation measures and describes the
development level of the urban Internet in the transportation industry, based
on the penetration of GPS navigation , the number of roads with real-time
road condition systems, the penetration of app-based ride-hailing services, the
number of bus stations with online bus timetables and so on. A detailed
index algorithm can be found at http://www.useit.com.cn/thread-13477–1-
1.html.
4.2. Descriptive statistics
In this section, key findings from the survey, including user
demographics, travel behavior and residential environmental
characteristics, are discussed. Using descriptive statistical
analysis, the preferences, motives and attitudes toward app-
based ride-hailing services can be explored and studied.
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables used
in this study.
4.2.1. Respondents’ sociodemographic attributes
As can be seen in Table 3, the educational backgrounds of
app-based ride-hailing services users did not show signifi-
cant differences. Unlike Rayle et al.’s (2016) finding that
84% of ride-sourcing services users in San Francisco were
well educated, most Chinese users had no higher education,
implying that app-based ride-hailing services are widely used
in China. The annual household income of more than 55%
of the survey respondents was between 50 and 150 thousand
RMB (approximately equivalent to 7–21 thousand USD).
People who live in two-generation households or with a
spouse are the main users, accounting for 31.5% and 28.8%,
respectively. People who live alone (19.4%) are also a target
group for app-based ride-hailing services.
4.2.2. Respondents’ travel behavior and motivations
The travel behavior and motivations for using app-based
ride-hailing services are observed in the sample. Figure 1
shows the demand for selected existing app-based ride-hail-
ing services and preferred services. It seems that respondents
choose their preferred app-based ride-hailing services now,
given similar distributions of the existing choices and pre-
ferred services. More than two-thirds of the respondents
chose Express service, which is the mainstay of the app-
based ride-hailing services. Express service, ExpressPool and
Premium service are more likely to be chosen by app-based
ride-hailing users, while the hitching service and online taxi-
hailing services are less competitive. Long waiting time for
order matching may explain why the Hitching service is
less favored.
When into respondents’ demographics are examined in
relation to their preferred services, users with higher house-
hold income prefer using the Premium and App-based Taxi
hailing services. The well-educated make up a higher pro-
portion of Expresspool service and Hitching service users;
these are regarded as environmentally friendly because they
promote sharing of the same car for the same trip (Yu et al.,
2017a). This implies that people with higher education are
more likely to make conscious choices of more environmen-
tally friendly app-based ride-hailing services.
The questionnaire asks directly about the reasons for
using app-based ride-hailing services, the purposes of trips
and the alternative travel modes that are replaced by app-
based ride-hailing services. As expected, user place greatest
value on time saving, similar to Rayle et al’s (2016) finding.
Economics and lack of public transportation are also the
main reasons for using app-based ride-hailing services. In

Figure 2. Selected app-based ride-hailing services and travel purposes.
Figure 3. Selected app-based ride-hailing services and travel time.
terms of trip purpose, 40% were for commuting between
work and home. A large percentage (33%) of trips were for
entertainment, and only 9.6% of the trips were for business.
Varied by purpose of using app-based ride-hailing, the
selected services of respondents are different (Figure 2). Of
those who used the typical travel-sharing mode (Hitching
service and ExpressPool service), more than 50% were com-
muters. Premium service is more attractive to people travel-
ing for business purposes.
Because travel time differ, the app-based ride-hailing
services selected by passengers vary slightly. More than half
of the respondents use the services for 11 to 30-minute trips.
With different travel time, the preferred services of users are
somewhat different. As can be seen in Figure 3, for longer
trips with increased travel time, Hitching service is used,
while fewer people choose Express service. This reflects that
the more affordable and comfortable travel that the
Hitching service provides for long-distance travelers. At the
same time, it also offers private car users on long drives
with a way to reduce their travel costs without changing
their travel mode.
When respondents were asked which travel mode you
would have taken if app-based ride-hailing service were
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 7
unavailable, 35.1% indicated taxi, implying fierce competi-
tion between traditional taxis and app-based ride-hailing
services, while 22.2% said bus and 17.3% said private car. It
is worth mentioning that among the respondents who chose
other modes, 0.4% answered that if the app-based ride-hail-
ing services had not been available, they would not have
made the trip. Although only a few people would have
abondoned the trip, this still suggests that app-based ride
hailing increases travel demand.
Comparing the original travel mode and selected app-
based ride hailing, Premium service users are mainly pri-
vate car users and taxi passengers and account for the
highest percentage of those who would use other app-based
ride-hailing services (Figure 4). ExpressPool service attracts
more bus passengers than other app-based ride-hail-
ing services.
It is surprising that more than two-thirds of the ride-hail-
ing app users owned private cars; 16.9% of respondents
owned more than one car. Reasons for using app-based
ride-hailing services varied according to private car owner-
ship (Figure 5): 7.1% and 5.4% of the private car owners did
not drive their cars because of legal limits on private cars
and difficulties in finding parking. Respondents were asked
8 B.-J. TANG ET AL.
if the traffic, car purchase limitation and parking issues
become increasingly more severe but the app-based ride-
hailing services would be permanently provided, would they
change their minds on car purchasing plan including buying
new cars or replacing the old cars. App-based ride hailing
appears to have made 51.6% of respondents reconsider
car purchases.
4.2.3. Respondents’ residential environmental
characteristics
The residential environmental characteristics of respondents
were also investigated in the survey, including living area
Figure 4. Alternative travel modes of app-based ride-hailing users by service type.
Figure 5. Reasons for using app-based ride-hailing services differed by car ownership.
and the time required to walk to nearest public transport
station. A large number of respondents (73.2%) lived no
more than 10 minutes’ walk from their nearest public trans-
port stations; however, they still chose to take a car.
5. Model results and discussion
5.1. How app-based ride-hailing services impact
passengers to abandon their original travel mode
The MNL estimates of alternative travel mode choices are
presented in Table 4, and the marginal effects on probability
changes as a result of a one-unit change in an independent
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 9

Table 4. MNL estimates of the changes of passenger’s travel mode choices.

Variables Private car Taxi Bus Metro Walking/Cycling
　 Coef. (Z-stat)
Sociodemographic attributes
Annual household income
Less than 50 thousand Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
100–150 thousand 0.101 0.0575 0.662 0.0307 0.395
(0.554) (0.214) (3.454) (0.278) (1.889)
150–250 thousand 0.283 0.132 0.895 0.0259 0.268
(1.332) (0.589) (4.225) (0.346) (1.253)
More than 250 thousand 0.444 0.176 1.062 0.204 0.617
(1.870) (0.647) (4.433) (0.969) (2.335)
Household type
Live alone 0.604 0.746 0.392 0.641 0.622
(2.680) (3.721) (1.891) (2.935) (2.531)
Live with spouse 1.212 0.697 0.497 0.631 0.645
(5.769) (3.673) (2.533) (3.032) (2.744)
Two generations family 1.189 0.843 0.649 0.567 0.625
(5.650) (4.458) (3.326) (2.723) (2.650)
Three or more generations family 1.088 0.608 0.427 0.231 0.519
(4.572) (2.785) (1.890) (0.951) (1.918)
Other Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Travel behaviors and motivations
Reason of using
Lack of public transportation 0.522 0.834 1.157 0.682 0.691
(1.833) (3.172) (4.024) (2.294) (2.059)
Time saving 0.855 0.946 1.292 0.932 0.841
(3.242) (3.885) (4.800) (3.354) (2.660)
Economical 0.564 0.428 1.071 0.619 0.483
(2.062) (1.680) (3.841) (2.147) (1.476)
Limitation of private car 0.588 0.305 0.004 0.163 0.079
(1.809) (0.991) (0.01) (0473) (0.190)
Parking issue 1.342 0.391 0.238 0.875 0.798
(3.417) (1.012) (0.557) (2.083) (1.701)
Other Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Travel time
Less than 10 min Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
11–20 min 0.328 0.362 1.414 1.178 1.145
(1.992) (2.321) (7.548) (5.626) (5.580)
21–30 min 0.197 0.029 1.995 1.876 1.290
(1.111) (0.181) (10.204) (8.770) (5.990)
31–40 min 0.168 0.403 2.222 2.126 0.745
(0.834) (2.088) (10.369) (9.212) (2.991)
41–50 min 0.075 0.359 2.441 2.705 0.994
(0.261) (1.28) (8.338) (8.926) (2.934)
51–60 min 0.892 0.769 2.909 3.163 0.043
(0.040) (2.328) (8.587) (9.085) (0.094)
More than 60 min 0.892 1.750 1.801 2.096 1.209
(3.403) (6.745) (7.106) (7.861) (2.663)
Travel purpose
Commute to work/school 0.188 0.091 0.618 0.303 0.831
(1.097) (0.561) (3.637) (1.714) (4.169)
Commute to home 0.084 0.144 0.873 0.562 0.548
(0.390) (0.715) (4.160) (2.580) (2.188)
Entertainment 0.351 0.211 0.447 0.403 0.313
(2.115) (1.333) (2.712) (2.349) (1.566))
Business 0.357 0.253 0.305 0.258 0.119
(1.582) (1.175) (1.301) (1.118) (0.410)
Other Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
City specific factors
Length of operating routes of buses/per capita (1000 km) 0.010 0.053 0.057 0.076 0.018
(0.743) (2.811) (1.977) 3.741 (1.307)
Length of operating routes of metro/per capita (100 km) 0.050 0.046 0.057 0.164 0.066
(0.939) (1.516) (3.85) (1.912) (0.105)
Urban congestion index 3.489 4.161 4.664 2.888 3.980
(2.232) (2.754) (3.021) (1.738) (2.339)
CONS 5.406 4.952 7.947 7.466 6.943
(2.230) (2.123) (3.322) (2.901) (2.61)

variable are presented in Table 5. The statistical test favors
the random-effects MNL model, which relaxes the
Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives assumption (Galizzi,
2004; Hausman & McFadden, 1984). This model was used
to analyze the determinants of changes in travel mode in
the presence of app-based ride-hailing services.
5.1.1. Respondents’ sociodemographic attributes
As can be seen from the estimation results in Tables 4 and
5, the wealthier bus passengers show a lower probability of
using app-based ride hailing. Regarding household types,
people who live with spouses and those with more than
two-generation families are more likely to choose app-based
10 B.-J. TANG ET AL.

Table 5. Marginal effect (computed from Table 4).

Variables Private car Taxi Bus Metro Walking/Cycling
Sociodemographic attributes
Annual household income
Less than 50 thousand 0.016 0.037 0.062 0.013 0.004
50–100 thousand 0.036 0.059 0.108 0.024 0.016
150–250 thousand 0.063 0.074 0.149 0.019 0.011
More than 250 thousand 0.098 0.093 0.167 0.000 0.030
Household type
Live alone 0.001 0.051 0.378 0.013 0.003
Live with spouse 0.078 0.003 0.035 0.004 0.003
Two generations family 0.061 0.021 0.017 0.021 0.008
Three generations family 0.080 0.008 0.020 0.037 0.002
Travel behavior and motivations
Reason of using
Lack of public Transportation 0.036 0.028 0.069 0.014 0.006
Time saving 0.012 0.008 0.061 0.004 0.007
Economical 0.001 0.042 0.086 0.003 0.007
Limitations on private car 0.065 0.011 0.031 0.008 0.019
Parking issue 0.153 0.093 0.057 0.028 0.008
Travel time
11–20 min 0.044 0.086 0.085 0.036 0.034
21–30 min 0.074 0.223 0.181 0.103 0.041
31–40 min 0.109 0.308 0.270 0.160 0.009
41–50 min 0.127 0.347 0.262 0.232 0.010
51–60 min 0.142 0.436 0.347 0.300 0.029
More than 60 min 0.129 0.433 0.313 0.278 0.031
Travel purpose
Commute to work/school 0.004 0.099 0.070 0.001 0.046
Commute to home 0.039 0.067 0.096 0.015 0.009
Entertainment 0.009 0.030 0.024 0.009 0.001
Business 0.034 0.032 0.646 0.019 0.012
City-specific factors
Length of operating routes of buses/per capita (1000 km) 0.001 0.014 0.005 0.009 0.000
Length of operating routes of metro/per capita (100 km) 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.005 0.001
Urban congestion index 0.096 0.249 0.181 0.121 0.010

ride hailing instead of private cars, while people who live
alone are more likely to have taken taxis in the past. This
may be because when there are more family members, pri-
vate cars may not satisfy everyone’s travel needs. Users who
live with larger families are the target groups for raising
awareness of ride-hailing services.
5.1.2. Travel behavior and motivations
Of the reasons cite for using app-based ride hailing, parking
issues are the major factor that leads private car drivers
abandon their original travel mode. This reflects the com-
mon shortage of parking lots that has been identified in
most of Chinese cites (NDRC, 2015). Limitations on private
cars are also a main reason for drivers to stop driving their
own cars and opt to app-based ride hailing. Among the cit-
ies where the survey was conducted, five had already
imposed limits on private vehicle use. Thus, app-based ride
hailing provides an alternative means of transportation for
people who own cars but are not allowed to drive. The low
cost of some ride-hailing services has become the most
attractive factor for former bus passengers, followed by lack
of public transportation and time-saving. It is worth men-
tioning that during the survey period, the ride-hailing plat-
form implemented different levels of subsidies for potential
users, which allowed bus passengers to spend just a little
more money to take a faster and more convenient means of
transportation. The problems of public transportation, such
as the short supply of public transport and disorganized bus
stations, make the current transport systems of most cities
unable to guarantee the supply of public transport (MTO,
2016), which eventually forces bus passengers to choose
app-based ride hailing. The results also show that users who
walk or cycle may tend to use app-based ride-hailing serv-
ices because of lack of public transportation or parking
issue. The reasonable interpretation is that more than 40%
of people who chose walking or cycling for their last alterna-
tive transportation own private cars. Therefore, when they
choose the mode they travel, they may shift to use ride-hail-
ing due to the lack of public transportation or parking
difficulties.
Travel time has significant effects on all travelers using
various travel modes. App-based ride hailing has to some
extent replaced private cars and taxis for short trips, suggest-
ing that private car users with short travel distances and taxi
passengers are a potential market for the service. One plaus-
ible explanation for taxi passengers is that with the increased
travel time, the price advantage of app-based ride hailing is
no longer significant. Taxis are more dependable in terms of
service quality, sanitation and safety than app-based ride
hailing, so users prefer to use taxis on long-distance trips.
By contrast, original bus and metro passengers show a
higher probability of changing to app-based ride hailing
when their travel time increases. The implication here is
that the public transport serves a limited area and usually
requires transfers, which increases discomfort. For travel
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 11

Table 6. Estimates and marginal effect of app-based ride-hailing users’ car purchasing behavior.
Coef. coefficients
Variables (z-stat) Marginal effect
Sociodemographic attributes
Household type
Live alone Fixed
Live with spouse 0.109 (1.651) 0.027
Two generations family 0.067 (1.125) 0.019
Three or more generations family 0.148 (1.875) 0.037
Other 0.143 (1.629) 0.036
Travel behavior and motivations
Alternative travel mode
Private car Fixed
Taxi 0.136 (2.337) 0.034
Bus 0.182 (2.562) 0.045
Metro 0.195 (2.398) 0.049
Walking/Cycling 0.338 (3.574) 0.084
Other 0.235 (1.938) 0.059
Travel time
Less than 10min Fixed
11–20 min 0.115 (1.780) 0.029
21–30 min 0.104 (1.555) 0.026
31–40 min 0.212 (2.793) 0.053
41–50 min 0.092 (1.026) 0.023
51–60 min 0.221 (2.213) 0.055
More than 60 min 0.237 (2.386) 0.059
Residential environmental characteristics
Walking time to nearest public transport station
Less than 5 min Fixed
6–10 min 0.098 (2.041) 0.025
11–20 min 0.063 (1.017) 0.016
21–30 min 0.190 (2.056) 0.047
31–60 min 0.293 (2.181) 0.073
More than 60 min 0.178 (1.178) 0.044
City-specific factors
Length of operating routes of metro (100 km) 0.022 (4.022) 0.027
Number of operating taxi (thousand) 0.011 (3.245) 0.027
Internet penetration rate in transportation 0.005 (2.863) 0.012

purposes, bus passengers have a high likelihood of changing
to app-based ride hailing for urban commutes. This may be
the result of shortages, overcapacity and long waiting time
for public transport during rush hour. However, Rayle et al.
(2016) observed that because some individuals may have a
drink after work, they must forgo driving and choose alter-
native travel modes.
original taxi passengers turning to app-based ride hailing.
By using a ride-hailing platform, passengers can hail a cab
more easily and make full use of their waiting time.
Therefore, original metro passengers are more likely to stick
to taking underground transportation to avoid the incon-
venience of road congestion.

5.1.3. City-specific factors
Surprisingly, an increase in the length of operating routes of
buses has a positive effect by encouraging original bus pas-
sengers to adopt app-based ride hailing. A reasonable
explanation is that the length of bus operating routes is
commonly determined by demand and city scale. Even
though cities have longer bus operating routes, they still
cannot meet the demand by residents in cities such as in
Beijing. Notably, residents who live in cities with longer
metro operating routes are less likely to use app-based ride
hailing instead than the metro. To be more precise, a 1%
increase in the length of metro operating routes decreases
the probability of choosing app-based ride hailing instead of
the metro by 0.5%. Metro has the advantage of a time guar-
antee and lower cost, especially compared with long-distance
car travel. If metro coverage were higher, it would reduce
the need for app-based ride hailing. The urban congestion
index represents the traffic congestion in a city. The higher
the congestion index, the worse the urban traffic. The
increase in the urban congestion increases the probability of
5.2. How app-based ride-hailing services influence users’
car purchasing behavior
The survey data were used to build a binary logit model.
The results were used to analyze determinants of willingness
to purchase cars given the availability of app-based ride-hail-
ing services. Coefficients and marginal effects are shown in
Table 6. From the coefficient estimates, we gain an under-
standing of the factors that influence car purchase willing-
ness positively or negatively. Moreover, the marginal effect
suggests how independent variables influence car pur-
chase decisions.
5.2.1. Respondents’ sociodemographic attributes
The results shown in Tables 6 suggest that if the app-based
ride hailing services were permanently available, car pur-
chases would not be influenced by users’ sociodemographic
attributes, but would be significantly influenced by their
travel behavior.
12 B.-J. TANG ET AL.
5.2.2. Travel behavior and motivations
As the app-based ride-hailing travel time increases, the like-
lihood of users changing their minds about buying a new
car also increases. In other words, if longer journeys must
be taken using app-based ride hailing, the demand for pri-
vate cars decreases. As expected, users’ original travel modes
that would be replaced by app-based ride hailing are an
important determinant of car purchases. In comparison with
those who were originally private car users, app-based ride-
hailing users who would have used other modes are more
likely to change their minds over buying a new car.
Residents who originally traveled mode is on foot or by
bicycle have the highest probability (8%) of changing their
minds. Original bus and metro passengers also tend to
change their minds. That indicates that if the travel needs of
people who take public transport and cycle or walk can be
met by app-based ride hailing, then their demand for private
cars may weaken. Promoting app-based ride hailing to these
residents will effectively reduce their willingness to buy cars.
5.2.3. Residential environmental characteristics
Walking time to nearest public transport station has notice-
able impact on willingness to purchase cars. If residents
need to take a 21 to 60-minute walk to reach the nearest
public transport and app-based ride hailing is available, they
are more likely to reconsider their car-purchasing decisions.
5.2.4. City-specific factors
App-based ride-hailing users’ car-purchasing willingness also
differs according to quality of urban transportation infrastruc-
ture. Length of operating routes of metro per capita has a
negative and significant effect; a 1% increase in metro operat-
ing routes per capita decreases the probability of changing
willingness to purchase a car by 2.7%. This suggests that if
app-based ride-hailing services were popularized in cities with
shorter metro lines, people in these cities may reconsider car
purchases. As for taxis, residents who live in cities with more
taxis are more likely to forgo future car purchases App-based
ride hailing allows conventional taxi drivers to use an online
hailing service to reach customers instead of aimlessly cruis-
ing, which improves operational efficiency would be
improved. The Internet penetration rate in cities’ transporta-
tion sectors is positively correlated with changes in car-pur-
chasing decisions. Enhancing traditional ride hailing through
mobile apps could make urban mobility systems more con-
venient and efficient. They emphasize car availability instead
of car possession, reducing people’s willingness to buy cars.
6. Conclusions and policy implications
6.1. Conclusions
App-based ride hailing as a newly emergent travel mode is
expected to continue its rapid evolution. However, the impact of
this new travel mode on passengers’ short- and long-term travel
behavior remains unknown. This study seeks to extend existing
studies by understanding the travel behavior of app-based ride-
hailing users, whose travel behavior has been explored in this
paper based on large-scale app-based survey data. Research has
brought clarity to the current landscape of app-based ride hail-
ing. Several conclusions can be drawn as follows.
App-based ride-hailing services attract people who pursue
fast, affordable and around 10 to 30-minute point-to-point trans-
port. Express service and ExpressPool service are the most popu-
lar app-based ride-hailing services in China, and demand for
these services is expected to increase. Hitching service is most
favored by long-distance travelers. App-based ride hailing also
helps mitigate the inconvenience of limits on private car usage.
In the short-term, the emergence of app-based ride hail-
ing has changed travel behaviors. More than 35% of app-
based ride-hailing users would have taken traditional taxi
services; this reflects the competitive relationship between
app-based ride hailing and traditional taxi services. In add-
ition, 37% of app-based ride hailing users would have taken
public transportation (bus and metro); this shows that it is
necessary to improve current public transport systems and
reach a balance between app-based ride hailing and public
transportation. In this study, various factors that influence
passengers’ travel mode choice in relation to app-based ride
hailing are explicitly stated. Factors that influence passengers
to choose app-based ride hailing instead of their original
travel modes are related to their household income and
household type. Analyzing the ‘reason for using app-based
ride-hailing’, we find that private car users are more likely
to cite issues of parking and car usage limitations, whereas
bus passengers use it mainly because it is economical and
time saving. In terms of travel time, original private car
drivers and traditional taxi passengers are more likely to
choose app-based ride-hailing services for short trips,
whereas users who used to take buses and metro transport
are more likely to choose app-based ride hailing for long
trips. The findings in this study show that people who were
originally private car drivers with higher incomes, who live
with more family members, or who travel for short trips,
travel less frequently or live in cities with longer bus and
metro operating routes are target groups more likely to give
up driving and turn to use app-based ride hailing.
Taking a long-term perspective, app-based ride hailing is
likely to change people’s future willingness to purchases
cars. More than half of app-based ride-hailing users showed
a change in attitude toward car purchases, and 6.6% of the
respondents affirmed that they would not purchase new pri-
vate cars if app-based ride-hailing services were permanently
available. This shift in willingness is mainly correlated with
the time required to reach the nearest public transport,
travel time and their original travel modes. Compared with
those who were originally private car travelers, former users
of other travel modes are more likely to change their will-
ingness to purchase cars. Therefore, our study finds that
respondents who used to take buses, the metro, taxis,
bicycles or foot as their travel modes, or who live in the cit-
ies with shorter metro routes, more operating taxis and
greater Internet penetration rates in transportation, are
more likely to forgo purchasing cars. The development of
app-based ride hailing makes it easier for people to travel

and reduces their need for private car ownership. With the
growing availability of app-based ride hailing, the use of
existing transport resources can be maximized and demand
for private cars may be further reduced.
6.2. Policy implications
This study takes China as its empirical context; however, the
development of app-based ride hailing as a future mode of
travel in China still requires strong and coordinated efforts
between app-based ride-hailing enterprises, government
authorities and passengers. The conclusions and implications
presented here may be applied in other developing countries
as well.
Implications for app-based ride-hailing service providers
(enterprises): the findings of travel behavior of app-based
ride-hailing users provide these enterprises with a deeper
understanding of user demand. Express services are the most
popular among users. Service providers should maintain its
advantages of time saving and economy. Hitching services as
a shared travel mode need to be further promoted to passen-
gers. If the matching process and waiting times can be short-
ened, more users will try this mode of travel. In addition,
short-distance private car and taxi travelers, as well as those
who live in areas without sophisticated metro systems are
more likely to choose app-based ride-hailing services.
Therefore, app-based ride-hailing platforms could incentivize
drivers to operate in these areas, and marketing campaigns
could be designed for short-distance travelers. Future
research on app-based ride-hailing service demand, users’
travel behavior, impact analysis and relevant policy-making
should fully consider price and incentive factors. App-based
ride-hailing service providers are encouraged to share more
of their data with regulators. This in turn would help author-
ities understand the problems of urban transport systems by
analyzing app-based ride-hailing user behavior.
Implications for government authorities: authorities can
perceive the problems of urban transport systems exposed
by analyzing app-based ride-hailing user behavior. The find-
ings indicate that people who live in cities with longer metro
operating routes are more likely to reconsider purchasing
new cars. This suggests that cities with relatively advanced
public transport systems and app-based ride-hailing services
may reduce their need for private cars. Therefore, authorities
should take steps to improve public transport systems, espe-
cially metro construction, to encourage residents to give up
their cars. In those cities where the transportation infra-
structure cannot be upgraded in the short-term, local
authorities could seek temporary partnerships with app-
based ride-hailing enterprises to promote this new travel
mode. App-based ride-hailing services should be required to
share more of their data with regulators. This in turn allows
authorities to have a better understanding of the problems
of urban transport system through analyzing app-based ride-
hailing users’ behavior. However, in the long-term, govern-
ment authorities should not rely on app-based ride-hailing
services to ease urban traffic problems. Optimizing the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 13
urban public transport system is still an essential issue that
government authorities should resolve.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support received through National
Key R&D Program of China (2016YFA0602603), the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71822401, 71603020,
71573013, 71521002, and 71642004), the Beijing Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 9152014), Special Items Fund for
Cultivation and Development of Beijing Creative Base (Grant No.
Z171100002217023), Project of Beijing Social Science Foundation
Research Base (Grant Nos.15DJA084 and 18JDGLB039), and the Joint
Development Program of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Anderson, D. N. (2014). “Not just a taxi”? For-profit ridesharing,
driver strategies, and VMT. Transportation, 41(5), 1099–1117. doi:
10.1007/s11116-014-9531-8
Chan, N., & Shaheen, S. (2012). Ridesharing in North America: Past,
present, and future. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 93–112.
Chen, X. M., Zahiri, M., & Zhang, S. (2017). Understanding ridesplit-
ting behavior of on-demand ride services: An ensemble learning
approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,
76, 51–70. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.12.018
Cervero, R., & Yu-Hsin, T. (2003). San Francisco City CarShare:
Travel-demand trends and second-year impacts (No. 2003, 05).
Working paper. University of California, Institute of Urban and
Regional Development.
Cervero, R., Golub, A., & Nee, B. (2007). City CarShare: Longer-term
travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1992(1),
70–80. doi:10.3141/1992-09
CBNDATA. (2016). 2016 intelligent travel data report. Retrieved from
http://www.199it.com/archives/556606.html
Clewlow, R. R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017). Disruptive transportation: The
adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hailing in the United
States (Vol. 7). Research Report–UCD-ITS-RR-17.
China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). (2017). The
39th China Internet network development statistic report (in
Chinese). Retrieved from https://cnnic.com.cn/IDR/
ReportDownloads/201706/P020170608523740585924.pdf
DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision,
and future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 3.
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2014). The travel and environ-
mental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-
based model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C Emerging
Technologies, 40(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001
Gao, Y., An, J., & Quan, Y. (2016). The impact of online ride sourcing
on the choice of transportation and transport operation. Urban
Transportation, 5, 1–8 (in Chinese)
Hausman, J. A., & McFadden, D. (1984). A specification test for the
multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52(5), 1219–1240. doi:
10.2307/1910997
Klincevicius, M., Morency, C., & Trepanier, M. (2014). Assessing the
impact of carsharing on household car ownership in Montreal.
Emerging and Innovative Public Transport and Technologies.
CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, DC, USA.
14 B.-J. TANG ET AL.

Koppelman, F. S., & Bhat, C. (2006). A self-instructing course in mode Appendix

choice modeling: Multinomial and nested logit models. Retrieved
from http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/courses/lm_draft_ A1. Questionnaire on the behavior of app-based
060131final-060630.pdf ride-hailing users
Liu, M., & Wang, X. (2016). Modeling the impacts of ride-sourcing
platforms on urban transportation market. Logistics Sci-Tech, 10, 1. Select your city
79–82. (in Chinese). 2. Select the app-based ride-hailing service you took.
Galizzi, M. M. (2004). The economics of car-pooling: A survey for
Europe. Workshop paper: Highways—Cost and Regulation in Europe. (1) Premium service
Bergamo, Italy: Universita degli Studi di Bergamo. (2) Hitching service
Martin, E., Shaheen, S., & Lidicker, J. (2010). Impact of carsharing on (3) App-based taxi hailing service
household vehicle holdings: Results of a North American shared-use (4) Express service
vehicle survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the (5) ExpressPool service
Transportation Research Board, 2143(1), 150–158. doi:10.3141/2143-
19 3. What service would you prefer to use in the future?
Martin, E. W., & Shaheen, S. A. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission
impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE Transactions on
(1) Premium service
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12(4), 1074–1086. doi:10.1109/
(2) Hitching service
TITS.2011.2158539
(3) App-based taxi hailing service
Ministry of Transport the People’s Republic of China (MTO). (2016).
(4) Express service
National report on urban passenger transport development.
(5) ExpressPool service
Morgan Stanley. (2016). Shared mobility on the road of the future.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/morganstanley/2016/07/
20/shared-mobility-on-the-road-of-the-future/#284ac64f1cae 4. Why do you use app-based ride-hailing services?
Millard-Ball, A. (2005). Car-sharing: Where and how it succeeds.
Transportation Research Board, 108. (1) Lack of public transportation
Mishra, G. S., Clewlow, R. R., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Widaman, K. F. (2) To save time
(2015). The effect of carsharing on vehicle holdings and travel (3) Economical
behavior: A propensity score and causal mediation analysis of the (4) Limitations on private car use
San Francisco Bay Area. Research in Transportation Economics, 52, (5) Parking difficulties
46–55. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.010 (6) Other
National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). (2015).
China still needs more than ten million parking lots. Retrieved from
http://www.sohu.com/a/82082757_364316 5. How frequently do you use app-base ride-hailing services?
Rayle, L., Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Dai, D., & Cervero, R. (2014). App-
based, on-demand ride services: Comparing taxi and ridesourcing (1) More than once a day
trips and user characteristics in San Francisco. University of (2) (2) 3–4 times a week
California Transportation Center (UCTC). UCTC-FR-2014-08. (3) (3) 1–2 times a week
Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., & Shaheen, S. (2016). Just a (4) (4) 1–2 times a month or less
better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ride-
sourcing services in San Francisco. Transport Policy, 45, 168–178.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004 6. What is the purpose of your trip?
Schaller, B. (2016). Unfinished business: A blueprint for Uber, Lyft and
Taxi regulation. New York: Schaller Consulting. (1) Commute to work/school
Shaheen, S. A., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in (2) Commute to home
Europe, the Americas, and Asia: past, present, and future. (3) Entertainment
Transportation Research Record, 2143, 159–167. (4) Business
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Zohdy, I. (2016). Shared mobility: Current (5) Other
practices and guiding principles (No. FHWA-HOP-16-022).
Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC). (2017). What is shared-use
mobility? Retrieved from http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/what-is- 7. If you were not using an app-based ride-hailing service, which travel
shared-mobility/ mode would you have taken?
Steininger, K., Vogl, C., & Zettl, R. (1996). Car-sharing organizations:
The size of the market segment and revealed change in mobility (1) Private car
behavior. Transport Policy, 3(4), 177–185. doi:10.1016/S0967- (2) Traditional taxi
070X(96)00024-8 (3) Bus
Tam, I. (2016, January 12). Didi Kuaidi completed 1.4bn rides in 2015, (4) Metro
surpassing Uber. Marketing Interactive. Retrieved from http://www. (5) Walking/Cycling (6) Other
marketing-interactive.com/didi-kuaidi-completed-1-4bn-rides-in-
2015-surpassing-uber/.
Teal, R. F. (1987). Carpooling: Who, how and why. Transportation 8. If you used the form of transport mentioned in last question, how
Research Part A: General, 21(3), 203–214. doi:10.1016/0191- long would it take you to reach your destination?
2607(87)90014-8
Yu, B., Ma, Y., Xue, M., Tang, B., Wang, B., Yan, J., & Wei, Y. M. (1) Less than 10 minutes
(2017a). Environmental benefits from ridesharing: A case of Beijing. (2) 11–20 minutes
Applied Energy, 191, 141–152. (3) 21–30 minutes
Yu, B., Xue, M., Du, Y., Wang, B., Tang, B., Guan, D., & Wei, Y. M. (4) 31–40 minutes
(2017b). Roadmap of low-emission ride-sourcing travel in a global (5) 41–50 minutes
megacity: The case of Beijing. Working paper. (6) 51–60 minutes or more
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 15

9. What is your walking time to the nearest public transport station? 13. What is your annual household income range (RMB, after taxes)?

(1) Less than 10 minutes (1) Less than 50,000

(2) 11–20 minutes (2) (2) 50–100,000
(3) 21–30 minutes (3) (3) 100–150,000
(4) 31–40 minutes (4) (4) 150–250,000
(5) 41–50 minutes (5) (5) More than 250,000
(6) 51–60 minutes
(7) More than 60 minutes
14. What is your highest education level?
10. How many private cars do you own? ( )
11. If traffic, limits on car purchases and parking issues became
increasingly more severe, but app-based ride-hailing services were (1) Below high school
permanently available, would you change your mind regarding (2) High school or equivalent
plans to buy a car (new car or replacement for an old car)? (3) University or equivalent
(4) Graduate school
(1) Would not change
(2) May not change
15. What is your household type?
(3) May change
(4) Would change
(1) Live alone
12. Do you live in CBD/central area? (2) Live with spouse
(3) Two-generation family
(1) Yes (4) Three- or more generation family
(2) No (5) Other