Executive Summary
In Ride sharing industry GIS technologies and smartphone apps are used to link passengers with private drivers who offer transportation for a charge. With the introduction of new ride-hailing services like Uber, Lyft, Hailo, and Blancride, traditional ground transportation networks, in particular, are greatly affected by the market (Vasconcelos, & Hall, 2021). There are five competitive factors that influence every sector, and Porter’s Five Forces model recognizes and analyzes these forces in order to evaluate an industry’s strengths and weaknesses. For more than 30 years, Michael Porter’s famous 1979 Harvard Corporate Review essay has been the primary source of strategic thought in business and academic circles. Many companies utilize Porter’s model as a framework for determining their company strategy since it can be applied to any sector of the economy. This paper will highlight the five main factors affecting the Ride Sharing Industry in Canada which includes Internal Rivalry within the Ridesharing Industry, Potential Entrants into the industry, Substitutes and Complements in Ride Sharing Industry, Suppliers market power in the industry and the Buyers’ market power in the Ride Sharing industry. All these factors directly affect the operation and the different companies involved have to strategize in ways to solve the effect or to lose their controlling power.
Introduction
In a customer-to-customer (C2C) business model, ridesharing companies make use of current technology advancements to connect drivers with passengers. A platform for vehicle owners to use as a taxi whenever they want is what these kinds of businesses are all about. Ridesharing, which is still in its infancy in Canada, has acquired a lot of momentum thanks to the pioneers Uber and Lyft (Kooti et al., 2017). In the past, regional transportation boards have kept these companies from expanding into other areas, but this has lately changed. Uber discontinued its shared option on its ride-hailing service in the United States and Canada on March 17 in reaction to the COVID-19 infection. The operator’s app no longer allows users to schedule cheaper rides by riding in a carpool with other customers headed in the same route. Those who use Uber’s ride-sharing service will get a message in the app reminding them to “travel only when necessary,” as the company states. Because of this, companies in the category will want to guarantee that the safety of their customers and the general public is taken care of, which will likely add to their reputation.
Customers may now take their pets along with them on an Uber ride thanks to Uber Pet. Riders may now notify drivers that they’ll be bringing a pet along for the journey. Riders who want to bring their dogs along will have to pay a nominal fee. Service animals will not be replaced by Uber Pet, and passengers with service dogs will not be charged an additional fee as a result of this policy. The addition of the new function will help the brand appeal to a larger audience. In light of worries about safety, ride-sharing companies like Woke (for female passengers exclusively – driven by female drivers) have decided to cater to a certain clientele. Only offered in the United States, this service may eventually expand into Canada if it is a success (Lee, Park, & Lee, 2018). Brands will have to adapt their products to meet the wants of today’s consumers since certain customers have unique needs. It’s safe to say that ridesharing is on the rise, and it’s likely to overtake taxis in the near future.
New features and services must be offered to differentiate the product from the competition, such as making it easier for consumers to use (e.g., pet-friendly, for the elderly) or getting access to new markets. Loyalty to businesses like Uber is expected to grow as they strive to become the app behind important areas of their customers’ everyday life, such as transportation and food delivery through Uber Eats. Controversy erupts whenever Uber sets its shop. Over 70 nations and 500 cities across the globe are presently served by the San Francisco-based technological company, reportedly valued at $62.5 billion, with UberX being the most controversial. Ride-sharing, or “ride-hailing,” is a platform service for mobile devices that bypasses established taxi firms by connecting clients and drivers directly. Since its launch in 2009, Uber has claimed more than 2 billion rides. Ridesharing businesses like Uber and Lyft and others like InstaRyde and TappCar sparked public opinion. They claim Uber has unjustly entered their market by ignoring existing transportation-for-hire restrictions.
There is a clear association between Ridesharing’s quick expansion and that it offers clients an alternative form of more economical transportation than conventional means of transportation, such as taxis or public transit. Uber may save Canadians anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent over standard taxi services, depending on the city. According to a report by Deloitte, that ratio is around 20 percent, considering the dynamic market pricing strategies. Exactly how much of public service is this private benefit truly providing? Ridesharing services have been helpful or bad for Canadian cities. This debate concentrates on Uber as the leading firm in the Canadian market while admitting that their competitors utilize comparable technology and a virtually identical business model. The discussion finishes with the present regulatory situation of Uber in Toronto and Vancouver. Uber helps save time, enhance mobility, generate new business for restaurants and the hospitality sector, and give flexible earning possibilities for thousands of drivers and delivery persons in Canada by providing a more convenient and on-demand form of transportation and delivery.
Uber is expected to generate $6.5 billion in Canadian economic value by 2020. Additionally, Uber’s supply chain has an indirect and induced multiplier effect on the wages of drivers, delivery persons, restaurants, and other service providers (Hughes, 2017). After smartphone mapping, ridesharing is the second most important invention in the past decade, according to Canadian passengers – and more significant to them than any new transportation infrastructure initiative. As a result of the on-demand economy, the daily lives of Canadians have become more convenient (Crespo, 2016). Uber is mostly used by customers for the sake of convenience. It’s now simpler than ever to get about town with ridesharing services like Uber, and the same can be said for food delivery services like Uber Eats.
According to Mintel’s study on ridesharing and mobility services, some consumers have reported feeling insecure when riding in a share vehicle. Rideshare consumers, on the other hand, think that the drivers are unreliable. In response to these concerns, brands in this market have taken note and are implementing new procedures. According to the company, its “RideCheck” safety function became accessible to Canadian consumers in February 2020. In the event that anything goes awry during a journey, Uber may check in with both passengers and drivers. Riders and drivers will get a notification when ‘RideCheck’ is engaged, asking whether everything is well. There is a pop-up message with choices to report an accident, change or add the destination or report that everything is good and the trip was halted on purpose after this action Uber users are free to use the emergency button to call 911 or the Uber Safety Line to report a problem or to let the company know that everything is OK. Ridesharing businesses will improve their image and reputation by adopting new features that assuage user concerns about safety while using the service, although customers have expressed their reservations (Lim, & Jung, 2020).
Internal Rivalry within the Ridesharing Industry in Canada
Ridesharing has seen a radical shift in meaning thanks to the power of technology. Many individuals used to use online forums to find a carpool partner or a long-distance rideshare partner and divide the cost of the gas. Using an app, Uber, the worldwide leader in ridesharing, has taken this idea and made it into a full-time or part-time job for anybody with a vehicle. The competition for space in Canada’s main cities has intensified as more and more businesses join the market. Let’s meet them and find out what they’re like (Danemo, 2018). The world’s biggest ride-hailing service, Uber, is based in Canada and has operations all over the globe. Regulators were forced to adapt to the new technology and business model because of their impact on the sector (Ng, 2016). Lyft and Uber both have surge pricing that allows drivers to make large money when demand is high. Both take a 25 percent commission from drivers’ fares. They were the first to enter the market, and they remain the busiest and most renowned ridesharing service. In addition to Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec, they are now present in a large number of other provinces as well. Only Uber’s UberEATS app enables drivers to make meal deliveries, making it the only ridesharing provider to do so. In addition to transporting people, some drivers choose to deliver food solely.
Lyft, a major Uber rival in the Canada, began operations in Toronto in the autumn of 2017 and has already expanded to other countries. The pink mustaches on the vehicles of Lyft first made them recognizable, but they now use coloured beacons to identify their drivers. With Lyft’s PrimeTime pricing, which is akin to Uber’s Surge pricing, rates and commissions are same. Their plans to enter the Ottawa market in 2018 have already been revealed, and the City has already received the necessary documentation from the company. Drivers in the United States have said that their support crew is simpler to work with than Uber’s (Hales, & Mclarney, 2017). In Alberta, TappCar is the sole ride-sharing service that competes with Uber and operates only in Edmonton and Alberta. Despite the competition from Uber, they were successful in securing the sole right to do airport pickups at Edmonton International Airport. Rides may be planned ahead of time, making them stand out from the crowd of competing ridesharing services. Customer payments may be made in cash or by credit card.
During the autumn of 2017, Facedrive made its debut in Toronto. When Toronto allowed ridesharing in 2016, they became the city’s first challenger to Uber. One of Facedrive’s distinguishing features is that it only allows riders to choose from a variety of vehicle types. With the help of the Toronto Parks and Tree Foundation, Facedrive calculates how much carbon dioxide is emitted during each journey and gives a percentage of that amount to tree planting. They are also the only firm that gives drivers a stake of the company when a specific amount of time has passed. Compared to Uber and Lyft, which typically take a 25 percent cut of the price, Lyft pays its drivers at or near the industry standard. The price difference between ridesharing services is not due to improvements in technological efficiency but instead to the arbitrage of legal flaws, the discovery of loopholes, or the exploitation of enforcement deficiencies in provincial laws, which are mainly intended to protect drivers’ customers and society at large. Many Canadian towns and provinces have either banned Uber outright or created limits that have led Uber to pull out due to a de facto ban of highly onerous regulation. This is not unexpected. I argue that Ridesharing’s negative externalities surpass its benefits in this portion of the article. Health and safety standards for drivers and customers are compromised; the steady job is substituted with precarious employment, and traffic congestion in metropolitan canters is worsened. We should not compromise our standards for Uber by bending our regulatory systems. Instead, governments should continue applying ridesharing services prohibitions until these firms conform to pre-existing standards. Uber has withdrawn from every city that mandates government-run background checks, arguing that the rule is too demanding to its business model. When it comes to internet background checks, Uber deploys its own, infamous for being wrong. In many cases, uber services have been condemned to be meaningless dues to lack of fingerprints hence incidents of customers using a fictitious name.
There are also trial programs with Milton GO Transit and a shared van service in Liberty Village in Toronto that RideCo has been a part of, however they presently only run in the Kitchener-Waterloo area of Ontario. RideCo now only offers shared trips for clients, which means that drivers would only pick up individuals in the same local region who were travelling in the same direction. Although not yet accessible in Toronto, Uber’s service known as UberPOOL and Lyft’s Line are comparable. Riders may get a smartphone from RideCo via a variety of agreements, but the service is now only accessible on the Android platform. Drivers may be paid per kilometer for lengthy pickups, and they can be paid per minute to wait online for rides in select locations, which sets them apart from Uber’s shared-ride service (Margulis, & Goulding, 2017). In 2017, Thunder Bay, Ontario, debuted URide. For partygoers who wanted to travel home safely after a night out, founder and CEO Cody Ruberto noticed a need. Due to lengthy taxi lines, many customers chose to drive home after a night out on the town. The firm now has a presence in a number of smaller Canadian cities. Because of the dearth of transit choices in smaller cities, they decided to set up shop there. There is a lack of competition for new ridesharing platforms since the big players like Uber and Lyft don’t consider these areas as lucrative.
Uber, Lyft, and other ridesharing services have had a significant impact on the passenger transportation industry in the last few years. According to current estimates, the market will be worth $12 billion by 2025 as more and more people around the world opt for these services because they make booking a ride easier, provide better vehicles, have courteous drivers, and are reasonably priced. In this Uber vs Lyft comparison, we aim to show how the two leading players in the ridesharing market stack up against one another. Additionally, we’ll compare and contrast prices, app quality, food delivery services, insurance policies, and driver and customer satisfaction scores for both companies (Hales, & Mclarney, 2017). Uber is presently accessible in over 785 urban areas and 63 countries across the world. Many cities in the United States and Canada are now able to use the Lyft service. In 2018, Uber reported $11.27 billion in revenue and $24 billion in assets. In 2018, Lyft reported $2.1 billion in revenue and $3.76 billion in assets. Ridesharing services are preferred by those between the ages of 18 and 44, whilst taxis are preferred by people over the age of 44.
Even while Uber’s headquarters are in San Francisco, the service is already accessible in 785 cities in 63 countries, making it a truly global enterprise. When comparing Uber and Lyft, we’ll look at their global reach. With its smooth integration into their lives, the company’s prosperity was boosted. To get started, consumers only need to establish an account and provide their credit card information to get started. Passengers should to input their pick-up location and the destination of their journey when requesting a vehicle. Due to the abundance of vehicles in urban locations, a driver is likely to accept the trip and arrive within 10 minutes. Many reports claim that Uber is less expensive than taxis, although this isn’t always the true in every situation. The premise that drivers are independent contractors underlies the case for lower costs. As a result, their automobiles, insurance, and driving permits are completely their responsibility. As a result, friction is greatly decreased, while overall efficiency is increased.
However, taxi services are an exception, since they are responsible for their own fleet and must take excellent care of their drivers as well. So, now that we’ve established what Uber is, let’s move on to some actual figures. According to a survey published in 2019, there are over 110 million people using Uber throughout the globe. For its peer-to-peer ridesharing service, Uber has a market share of around 69 percent in the United States. Food delivery services are another area where Uber has a significant market share. Estimates put Uber’s revenue for 2018 at $11.27 billion, while its assets are estimated to be worth $24 billion. When looking at the Lyft vs. Uber comparison, this is a fascinating detail. This is why Toronto was chosen to begin the ridesharing service’s growth in Canada, although it has since spread to other cities around the nation. These cities include Calgary, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Gatineau, Hamilton, Kingston, Ottawa, Kitchener-Waterloo, Windsor, Edmonton, Niagara Region, Ottawa, Quebec City, Red Deer, Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, according to Uber.
According to a recent poll by Statista, 49% of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 prefer to use Uber instead of a cab. Up to and including the age of 44, the percentages choose Lyft or Uber. As a result, it seems that most individuals still prefer to call a regular cab. When it comes to driver earnings, the exact figures rely on a variety of factors, including the location in which the driver is active, her experience, the kind of vehicle she drives, her rating, and the amount of hours she has actually spent behind the wheel (Margulis, & Goulding, 2017). Estimates suggest that drivers earn around $11.40 every trip, which works out to about $22.80 per hour. According to driver tales, a typical day on the road brings around $160 in earnings. Toronto has around 90,000 drivers working for Uber and Lyft at the moment.
Potential Entrants into Ride sharing industry in Canada
New entries to a market may also impact a company’s competitive position. Current players may be forced to maintain or lower their pricing and invest more to keep their existing clients by the prospect of new competitors. Access to distribution channels, economies of scale, establishing brand recognition, and legislative prohibitions are all factors that play a role in this issue (Dälken, 2014). This means that a company’s position in the market may be dramatically undermined by a rival entering the market and becoming an effective competitor with little effort and expense. Companies that are able to demand higher rates and obtain better conditions are drawn to industries with high barriers to entry. The capacity of other organizations to join a market may have a significant impact on the position of a corporation.
Simplicity in the business model. Uber’s business strategy and app are not kept under wraps. There are no enormous cash requirements to duplicate Uber’s business model and software. This means that anybody can do it. It’s easier for newcomers to enter the market because of the internet-based aspect of the company strategy. Furthermore, the number of local and worldwide rivals for Uber has been steadily expanding over the last several years due to the low entry hurdles to the ride-hailing sector. Issues with scaling. Ride-hailing app and website development may not be difficult, but obtaining the requisite scale in operations is a challenge for new entrants to the industry. To put it another way, a mobility platform’s success depends on attracting a large number of drivers, which takes time and significant financial resources. Retaliation by current market participants is expected. New entrants to the industry like as Uber, Lyft, and Curb are anticipated to be retaliated against by the current market giants.
By providing transparency for both the driver and the passenger, Fasten aims to differentiate itself from its competitors by charging a flat $0.99 fee per ride instead of charging drivers a 20-30 percent commission as its rivals do. Although Uber and Lyft’s valuations rose to $50 billion and $5 billion, Fasten’s leadership was confident in their 17 years of experience in Russia’s car service industry, despite heavy investment in top notch Silicon Valley software developers and technological innovations like autonomous vehicles, aggressive marketing strategies, and cutthroat poaching practices that forced number three competitor Sidecar out by January 2016. Due to its limited budget, Fasten could not afford to hire highly-skilled platform developers, so it had to rely on word-of-mouth to grow its network of drivers and passengers, which was essential for its success.
Uber’s goal is to serve as a conduit between consumers and drivers by using cutting-edge technology. Despite Uber’s founders forking out a sizable sum of money to get the company off the ground, prospective competitors are using a less amount of money to get their operations up and running, allowing them to swiftly penetrate the market (Ng, 2016). There are, however, no fees for swapping out Uber’s services for those of a different service provider. Uber is not impervious to increasing prices as the need to balance expenses becomes immediate, making it simpler for other firms to enter the market. Customers’ ability to easily switch service providers is a powerful influence since it determines the industry survival rate of a corporation.
Problems have arisen in Uber operations, including legal issues, negative press and even fines by government authorities such as the German Federal Ministry for Transport and Digital Infrastructure, the Indian Ministry of Railways, the Thai Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Dutch Ministry of Finance. For the time being, new entrants to the market don’t have to deal with as many hurdles, which is a good thing. As a technology-based corporation, Uber is unable to prevent any other transportation company from copying its services (Danemo, 2018). As a result, new ride-sharing firms and other rivals may easily copy the model and operate in a similar manner to Uber while charging less for the same distance traveled. Lucky To Go, a ride-sharing service based in Canada, is unquestionably the most popular in the country. In early 2020, the firm began providing services in Kelowna, British Columbia. As a matter of fact, it is the sole ridesharing provider in the area. Other cities in British Columbia, including Victoria, Vancouver, Kamloops, and maybe more, will be added to the Lucky To Go network in the near future. You may use the Lucky To Go app to arrange a ride to any location in the service area. The new entrant is growing fast offering high competition to the already established companies.
Existing businesses’ capacity to turn a profit is significantly impacted by the threat of new entrants. Companies’ competitive positions are at danger when new rivals join an industry with similar goods and services. As a result, new entrants pose a danger because of the ease with which new firms might join a market. Because of the low barriers to entry, a sector becomes less appealing when there is a large danger of new competitors. As a result, new entrants might join the market, compete with the established players, and grab market share. As more rivals enter the market, profit margins decrease. Uber’s business model is a model that can be replicated. The regulatory standards make it easier for anybody with the financial resources to launch their own ride-hailing business.
Economies of scale can only be gained in the back-end operations of individual taxis. Yet achieving profitability is a challenging task, particularly in the early years when more money is spent on investment. If you’re going on a vacation, you’ll be looking to get the greatest bargain possible. Nevertheless, Uber’s hegemony over the market is due in large part to two causes. Customers are more likely to choose Uber than any other service provider because of the extensive network of taxi drivers, and this in turn encourages more cab drivers to join the firm. Uber’s growth has been exponential, and it is tough for a new entry to even begin this cause-and-effect cycle. Second, Uber’s brand equity is quite strong in the locations where it is present, making it a trustworthy and go-to choice for anybody contemplating a commuting. Since newcomers might have an impact on the competitive environment of Uber, this danger is modest.
Suppliers market power in Ride sharing industry
Supplier bargaining power is one of Porter’s five forces in his study. By examining how suppliers may exert pressure on organizations by increasing their pricing, decreasing their quality, or diminishing the availability of their goods, we can understand the significance of supplier bargaining power. Suppliers may raise the cost of a company’s inputs by increasing their own pricing. In the Ride Sharing market, supply are seen as an issue that has to be addressed as indicated The availability of drivers is one of the key suppliers in the transportation business. Uber’s fleet does not include any company-owned vehicles. This means that the company’s business model relies heavily on customers having automobiles (Dälken, 2014). Due to Uber’s tight hiring standards, this particular set of providers is not especially well-representative. Uber has a subcontracting program to hire people who fulfill the conditions of their web app’s terms of service. In addition, individual drivers are difficult to replace since they are allowed to choose between working for the company or other companies. As a consequence, drivers begin to bargain for better treatment at the cost of the business. Therefore, it is clear that Ride Sharing industry providers have a greater influence on its success.
A portion of the total money generated by the journey is shared between taxi drivers and the service seekers through the platform. The negotiating power of these drivers is on the increase throughout the globe, as they unionize to achieve agreement and pressure the firm to change the policies. This includes a reduction in the platform’s price, as well as a guarantee of steady income, medical insurance, and other perks for the drivers. Despite Uber’s insistence that its drivers are independent contractors, courts have erred by increasing the regulatory burden on the corporation. Consequently, the drivers’ negotiating power has strengthened, which will have a significant influence on the company’s business model and operations in the future years.
Many Ride sharing companies do not have a single car in its fleet. That’s why drivers and partners are so crucial to the company’s business strategy. Even though they employ an outsourcing technique, Uber only hires people who can use their maiden online app in accordance with the rules and criteria put out by the company. It’s also difficult to switch out certain drivers (Kumar, Dass, & Kumar, 2015). When car owners have the option to pick between the organization and competitors, they have the power to bargain for better treatment at the cost of the firm. As a result, suppliers have a significant influence on Uber’s success. In Uber’s example, Supplier bargaining power is at a moderate rate compared to other porter’s forces.
Another big supply is the oil and gas industry. Since 2015, the price of oil has plummeted, and the lowest level was less than $30 in 2017. A high degree of price volatility for a crucial component of the transportation business poses a significant risk to the market since oil used to power cars is so unpredictable. Because of this, suppliers of Uber’s components have a lot of clout in the company’s operation. Ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, as well as traditional taxis, have been affected by the rise in oil prices. To highlight how drivers’ behavior to oil costs may vary under the two regimes, we construct a theoretical model of the automobile service industry. TNC drivers have greater leeway in lowering their fuel supply when operational expenses are higher, despite the fact that all drivers pay for their own petrol. A “rigidity dividend” is received by taxi drivers, who are more limited in their supply yet benefit from lower competition when TNC drivers exit the market due to more regulation. Gasoline costs in New York City are connected with a 0.367 percent to 0.486% fall in the number of trips taken by TNCs, whereas the number of taxi journeys increases by 0.033 percent to 0.088% on a one-day rise in the price of fuel. TNC trips’ fuel price elasticity has a declining marginal impact, according to empirical studies.
Buyers’ Market Power in Ride sharing industry
In the taxi sector, customers have a lot of negotiating power. The following factors affect a buyer’s ability to negotiate there are a lot of options. Competition in the sector has a major impact on the capacity of buyers to negotiate. Ride-sharing service Uber users are price-conscious. As a result of Uber’s efforts at profitability, a significant number of consumers may choose to abandon the company’s services. When considering Uber’s recent history of problems, purchasers may opt to utilize their negotiating power in a way that has bad consequences for the firm (Johnson, et al., 2020). Customers have the option of using Lyft or Curb as an alternative to regular taxis, or they may go back to using traditional means of public transportation.
Low to no expenses of switching. Using a mobility platform other than Uber does not cost passengers anything at all. The lack of switching costs significantly boosts the negotiating power of the buyer. But Uber may strive to minimize the switching cost by the long-term expansion of its network of goods and services Differentiation of services. Distinctiveness also has an impact on buyer negotiating power by making a service more attractive to consumers’ requirements and desires, which lowers their bargaining power. First, Uber’s service differentiated itself from conventional taxi firms by allowing customers to book a cab online and get an estimate of the fee before they arrived. Lyft and Curb have also arisen, providing the same amount of difference in services as Uber, enhancing the capacity of buyers to negotiate.
Lowering the costs of goods and services may have a positive impact on a company’s success. Due to the presence of competitors and alternatives, Uber’s customers are more sensitive to pricing changes. Switching costs for clients are comparably inexpensive as the market develops in size because more competitors bring more options to the table. As a result, Uber’s app is not only free, but it just needs a customer’s registration to utilize it. As a result, customers no longer have to pay to use Uber, Curb, Lyft, or any other new ride-sharing service. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people owning private automobiles over the last several years, despite the fact that parking has become more difficult than ever before (Dumon, McDonald, & Schmitz, 2018). As an alternative, this suggests that Uber services are not in high demand. As a result of these considerations, the firm’s income has been restricted, consolidating its position as a powerful force.
Customers in the ride-sharing sector may be split into two groups: those who are price-conscious and those who prioritize quality. Those who are more concerned about the quality of the service are more likely to look for the greatest discounts available on various aggregator sites. By having a low switching cost, this may be accomplished To begin with, the service may be matched by any firm that has invested in sufficient driver training. However, the network effect doesn’t provide the user many alternatives, so they have to rely on Uber or other popular platforms. They have little negotiating power and might be charged a premium based on factors such as journey duration, location, and payment history. The organization uses data analytics to come up with the best possible pricing for the consumer. Customers’ negotiating power diminishes when the competitive ecosystem takes travel as an inelastic requirement.
Substitutes and Complements in Ride Sharing Industry
The dread of being replaced is a common occurrence in today’s high-stakes economic world. To swiftly replace Uber services, there are various member groups in the transportation business. Taxi services, for example, are Uber’s closest competitor and a prospective alternative in the transportation market, given Uber’s service quality (Ng, 2016). Because of its reduced cost and efficiency, as well as its user-friendly design, taxi service has remained popular in cities that have implemented ride-sharing services. As a result, Uber is unable to raise service costs because of their abundance. It’s worth noting that a little increase in Uber prices may result in customers switching to the services of Uber’s nearest competitors or alternatives. Other public transportation options, such as trains, private automobiles, and even self-driving cars (Google Cars) that provide comparable services might put Uber’s business in jeopardy. Uber’s persistent threat of alternatives is now a weak force.
Ride-rapid hailing’s and spectacular expansion is a sign of a transportation revolution that will be powered by on-demand services. Ride-hailing services have had an immediate and significant influence on the transportation sector. However, the private ride-hailing business has only released a limited quantity of valuable data to governmental organizations. As a result, municipal organizations tasked with traffic management and public transportation are unable to discern who is using ride-hailing services and how their usage is affecting more traditional means of transportation (Danemo, 2018). In the autumn of 2017, a survey of Greater Boston-area passengers using ride-hailing services was undertaken. The recruitment and training of ten Uber drivers.
Throughout their ride-hailing journey, customers were invited to fill out questionnaires trained by the authors About 1,000 passengers completed the survey on their tablets, providing information on their socioeconomic status, transportation alternatives, and the specifics of their travel plans. Using these replies, we were able to create a detailed portrait of the region’s ride-hailing customers. On-demand transportation services like Uber and Lyft may be displacing traditional sources of transportation. A new research confirms earlier results and adds to our understanding of who is making use of this innovative mode of transportation and what variables are contributing to its adoption. Adoption as opposed to using public transportation or using one’s own muscles. The findings will be used to help shape public policy to ensure that everyone has equal access.
New mobility technology will either exacerbate current environmental challenges or detract from existing modes of transportation. Individual mobility-related equity disparities. Ride-sharing services have grown significantly in the last decade. People’s perceptions of the city and its people travel. Despite the fact that ride-hailing services have a significant impact on people’s daily lives. Public agencies are just now starting to grasp the enormity of the transportation system since significant data have not been readily available provided by the private sector. Massachusetts is a state where Uber began service in 2011 and Lyft began service two years later. Sixty-four million ride-hailing journeys were made in the following years. Over 59.9 million of these trips originated in the United States in 2017. There are an estimated 1.3 percent of all trips in the Greater Boston area. It’s useful, but it’s also a bit of Legislators and government agencies have little use for figures. Finding evidence-based policies that can be implemented effectively.
Innovations in the mobility industry and new technology public transportation, public health, and the emission of greenhouse gases are all important considerations, emissions, as well as other immediate concerns. There is currently no description available from public agencies in charge of managing traffic and providing transportation. Who makes use of ride-hailing services and what impact is it having on society as a whole sustainable modes of transportation, nor are they able to predict the future, how ride-sharing has become more widely available and popular hailing may affect travel demand and congestion in the future (Urbinati, et al., 2022).
The attractiveness of a rapid, flexible, and convenient mobility choice with a potential to minimize vehicle ownership, which is provided by these services, has created a direct rivalry with more sustainable modes, like public transportation, cycling, and walking. In the United States, ride sharing and taxi services may likely overtake local bus attendance by the end of 2018. This is a staggering statistic when one considers that the ride-hailing industry is in direct competition for passengers with the traditional taxi industry, which is clearly vulnerable to the popularity of app-based, on-demand ride-hailing services adoption despite a clear policy-related need for more independent data sources describing ride-hailing passengers and their travel behaviours.
Transportation policy like travel demand models, depend in many surveys that precede the development of ride sharing services and, thus, are restricted in their capacity to effectively estimate the effects of these new mobility alternatives until an evidence base has been built. However, to date, only a handful of research has studied the substitution impacts connected to quick ride-hailing.
As a cab-hailing service, Ride sharing business links consumers with drivers who are nearby and prepared to pick them up as soon as they require a ride. Public transit, such as metros, trains, buses, and trams, may be utilized in lieu of a cab-hailing service. A indicator of economic recovery following the coronavirus outbreak is the record-high level of government expenditure on infrastructure projects in numerous countries around the globe. As a consequence, we can expect to see enhanced public transit choices even in undeveloped nations in the near future, which will lower the need for taxis. There’s been a major shift in automobile ownership since the pandemic, as people are hesitant to travel in cabs anymore because of the outbreak (Kumar, Dass, & Kumar, 2015). (Kumar, Dass, & Kumar, 2015). In reality, the second-hand automobile market is rising around the world, which shows that more individuals are purchasing their first or second car, and therefore no longer requiring Uber. Trends may return to normal over time, and with a recovered demand for travel and the high expenditure of possessing a personal automobile, persons may continue utilizing cabs to go around. Hence, we consider potential alternatives to have a minor degree of sway.
Conclusion
There is no any company that has yet been able to break into the public transportation sector, despite the existence of significant corporations in the United States, Europe, and China that offer traffic intelligence and mobility services of this kind. The exclusive cooperation between Transit Protocol and China’s TransitLink has led to the signing of major alliances with more than 100 cities by Transit Protocol. As more cities in China join the Transit Protocol network, the greater the barrier to entry and the more difficult it becomes for newcomers to enter the market. As a “middleware” software platform, Transit Protocol allows commuters to find, book, and pay for all of their mobility requirements on a single interface that combines numerous transit modes and devices, as well as various payment systems. No considerable negotiating power can be gained from a supplier’s contribution to the service’s competitiveness. A fresh and innovative transportation solution like Transit Protocol is not at risk from competing goods or services. In the absence of a market revolution, Transit Protocol is unlikely to be threatened by competing goods and services in the near future. The structure of an industry is never the same. Buyers or suppliers might gain or lose leverage over time. New entrance or replacement may be made more or less probable by changes in technology or management. Regulation may alter the level of competition or lower entry barriers. New pricing and distribution strategies used by competitors may also have an impact on how the sector competes. The ability to foresee and take advantage of changes in the industry’s structural makeup relies on on-going market study.
References
Vasconcelos, I. M., & Hall, P. V. (2021). Ride-hailing applications in Vancouver, Canada: Representation, local empowerment and resistance. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 30(1), 53-66.
Kooti, F., Grbovic, M., Aiello, L. M., Djuric, N., Radosavljevic, V., & Lerman, K. (2017, April). Analyzing Uber’s ride-sharing economy. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (pp. 574-582).
Lee, Y., Park, J., & Lee, B. (2018, January). Battle of Sharing Economy: The Contingent Effects of Ride-Sharing on Taxi Industry. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Hughes, T. (2017). The effect of ride-sharing on the auto industry. Moody’s Anal. Risk Perspect, 9, 16-21.
Lim, H. S., & Jung, C. W. (2020). Legal issue in ride-sharing service-Discussions on shared and synthesis economy. Journal of Digital Convergence, 18(4), 101-112.
Crespo, Y. (2016). Uber v. Regulation:” Ride-Sharing” Creates a Legal Gray Area. U. Miami Bus. L. Rev., 25, 79.
Ng, S. (2016). Uber Technologies Inc. as a disruptive innovation.
Hales, G., & Mclarney, C. (2017). Uber’s Competitive Advantage vis-à-vis Porter’s Generic Strategies. IUP Journal of Management Research, 16(4).
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Angwin, D., & Scholes, K. (2020). Exploring strategy. Pearson UK.
Kumar, P., Dass, M., & Kumar, S. (2015). From competitive advantage to nodal advantage: Ecosystem structure and the new five forces that affect prosperity. Business Horizons, 58(4), 469-481.
Margulis, C., & Goulding, C. (2017). Waymo vs. Uber May be the next Edison vs. Westinghouse. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y, 99, 500.
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., Franzò, S., & Frattini, F. (2022). An exploratory analysis on the contextual factors that influence disruptive innovation: The case of Uber. In Emerging Issues And Trends In Innovation And Technology Management (pp. 49-76).
Dumon, D., McDonald, K., & Schmitz, R. (2018). Innovative offers outside the field of traditional sport.
Dälken, F. (2014). Are Porter’s five competitive forces still applicable? A critical examination concerning the relevance for today’s business (Bachelor’s thesis, University of Twente).
Danemo, J. (2018). How is AI influencing industry competition?: An exploration of online retailing using Porter’s Five Forces Framework.
write