Characteristics and Experiences of Ride-Hailing Drivers with Electric Vehicles
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Article
Characteristics and Experiences of Ride-Hailing Drivers with
Electric Vehicles
Angela Sanguinetti * and Kenneth Kurani
Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA;
knkurani@ucdavis.edu
* Correspondence: asanguinetti@ucdavis.edu
Abstract: Electrification of transportation network companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, can
produce social and environmental benefits from reduced vehicle emissions and enhanced imple-
mentation of renewable electricity as well as private benefits to drivers via reduced vehicle fuel and
maintenance costs compared to conventional vehicles. We conducted a survey of plug-in electric
vehicle (PEV) drivers on the Uber platform in the US. This paper describes these drivers and their
experiences to further understanding of motivations for and barriers to PEV adoption among TNC
drivers. The TNC-PEV drivers in this sample clearly recognized, and were largely motivated by,
economic benefits of fuel and maintenance savings, thus, increased net earnings, associated with
using a PEV to provide ride-hailing services rather than a conventional internal combustion engine
vehicle. Most drivers reported charging their PEV every day, most often at home and overnight. This
is true even of those with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that can run on gas if not charged.
Increased electric driving range topped the list of drivers’ wishes to better support PEVs on TNCs,
and range limitations topped the list of reasons why PHEV drivers did not opt for a battery electric
Citation: Sanguinetti, A.; Kurani, K. vehicle (BEV; that runs exclusively on electricity). The second most common wish among all PEV
Characteristics and Experiences of drivers was for more charger locations.
Ride-Hailing Drivers with Electric
Vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, Keywords: electric vehicle; consumer adoption; ride-hailing; transportation network company
79. https://doi.org/10.3390/
wevj12020079
Academic Editors: Aymeric Rousseau,
1. Introduction
Joeri Van Mierlo and
Genevieve Cullen There is some evidence that the introduction of transportation network companies
(TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, has had positive environmental impacts through reduced
Received: 9 April 2021 vehicle ownership and emissions [1]. However, other research suggests TNCs may increase
Accepted: 18 May 2021 energy consumption [2], congestion [3], and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) [4]. George
Published: 22 May 2021 and Zafar [5] observed that these outcomes are likely context-dependent. For example,
Alemi et al. [6] found that some TNC user segments increased the amount of their travel
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral done in light-duty vehicles by shifting away from public transit or active modes to ride-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in hailing, while other TNC user segments decreased personal vehicle use by shifting toward
published maps and institutional affil- public transit.
iations. Regardless of the present net environmental impact of TNCs, industry stakeholders,
policymakers, and academicians are predicting a future where shared mobility contributes
to a low carbon transportation system [7–9]. In particular, a vision is converging around
shared, automated, and electric right-sized vehicles integrated via multimodal MaaS
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. platforms. Interim steps along the path to achieving this future include “electrifying TNCs”
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. within the current model of conventional (non-automated) vehicles.
This article is an open access article Emerging regulations are starting to shape this future. For example, California’s
distributed under the terms and recently enacted Senate Bill 1014 establishes a clean-miles standard for TNCs which requires
conditions of the Creative Commons that a growing percentage of ride-hailing services be provided by zero-emissions vehicles.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Based on data from TNCs and charging infrastructure, Jenn [10] estimated that electrifying
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ TNCs has potential for large greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions.
4.0/).
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12020079 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/wevj
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 2 of 12
Among car-buyers generally, awareness and knowledge, as well as consideration for
purchase, of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are low and unchanging over time despite
increasingly positive economics for consumers, increasing makes and models available,
and continued PEV charging deployment [11]. Barriers to adoption have included higher
purchase price, limited vehicle range, and charging requirements (access and speed).
Though the gap is decreasing, the purchase and lease costs of PEVs were still typically
higher than comparable-size gasoline cars [12] at the time of this study. For some consumers
and vehicle models, PEV purchase price is higher even after factoring in federal, state,
and local incentives. Lower fuel and maintenance costs for PEVs may balance the higher
upfront costs over time and even result in long-term savings in some cases. The fuel and
maintenance cost advantages are higher with battery electric (i.e., all-electric) vehicles (BEVs)
compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that can run on either gas or electricity.
Some of these PEV adoption barriers as well as benefits may be heightened for the
TNC use case. For example, range limitations and time to charge (combined with limited
and costly fast charging infrastructure) could be more problematic for TNC drivers who
use their cars more intensively than the general population [5,13]. On the other hand,
TNC-PEV drivers may reap greater benefits from fuel and maintenance savings and thus be
more likely to achieve net cost savings [5,13]. However, factoring in costs for fast charging
needs of BEVs used intensively for ride-hailing services, Pavlenko et al. [13] estimate that
BEVs do not yet surpass hybrid vehicles in terms of economic advantage for ride-hailing
use. They estimate that BEVs will reach cost parity with hybrids in 2023 (due to decrease
in battery costs) for users who can charge at home at night, but not until after 2025 for
users relying only on public charging, and thus conclude that in the interim, TNCs and
policymakers will need to provide more affordable fast charging infrastructure to support
TNC electrification.
George and Zafar [5] noted that current assumptions about the barriers to PEV adop-
tion among ride-hailing drivers are largely anecdotal and called for more engagement with
drivers to (a) understand the most significant barriers, (b) identify charging infrastructure
needs, and (c) identify characteristics of those likely to adopt PEVs without additional
incentives. The present research begins to address these needs. This is the first report from
the 2019 North American Uber PEV Driver Survey. It describes the characteristics and
experiences of PEV drivers on the Uber platform, including their demographics, motiva-
tions for adopting a PEV, charging behavior, and perceptions of priorities for expanding
TNC electrification. A greater understanding of these should have policy implications
in terms of reasonable assumptions and goals for TNC electric passenger vehicle-miles-
traveled (eVMT), as well as implications for strategies to promote PEV adoption among
ride-hailing drivers.
2. Materials and Methods
Researchers partnered with Uber to survey their drivers who use PEVs to provide
ride-hailing services in North America (including the US and Canada). The survey was
conducted in March and April 2019. The survey was distributed by Uber via email. All
PEV drivers on the platform were recruited, but sampling ceased when a quota (n = 400)
was achieved for US PHEV drivers since this is a much larger sub-population relative to
US BEV drivers, Canadian PHEV drivers, and Canadian BEV drivers. (By the time sampling
ceased, the quota was slightly exceeded; the number of US PHEV drivers in the sample is 415).
The final sample included 780 drivers, with 732 from the US and 48 from Canada.
TNC drivers in California made up 47% of the US sample; 42 other US states/territories
including Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico were represented. Estimated response rate
(population size undisclosed by the TNC) was 10%. Responses from Canadian drivers
were excluded from these analyses due to the small sample of drivers who are subject to a
different national-level policy and regulatory framework.
Survey questions (listed in Table 1) addressed five main topics:
1. Who: Who (in terms of basic demographics) is currently driving PEVs on TNCs;
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 3 of 12
2. What: What PEVs they chose and how they acquired them;
3. Why: Motivations to drive a PEV for ride-hailing;
4. How: Ride-hail driving and PEV charging behaviors;
5. What drivers say would better support the use of PEVs for ride-hailing.
Table 1. TNC-PEV Driver Survey Questions.
Category Question Prompt Response Options
How old are you? 21 to 29; 30 to 39; 40 to 49; 50 to 59; 60 to 69; 70 or older
What is your gender? Female; Male; Non-binary; Prefer not to answer;
Self-describe: (open)
What is the highest level of formal education you Less than high school; High school or GRE; Some
personally have completed? college/no degree; Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree;
Graduate degree
Who What was your household’s pre-tax income from all Slider to select any number between $0 and $200,000 or
sources for the past tax year? more; No answer
How would you describe the building in which you live? Detached single family house; Duplex, row house or
townhouse; Apartment or condominium; Mobile home,
trailer, recreational vehicle, car, boat or other movable
dwelling; Dorm room or fraternity/sorority house; Other
Do you own, rent, or lease the building in which you live? Own; Rent or lease; Employer-provided; Other
How many people live in your household? 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8 or more
What is the PEV that you drive on Uber? Year, Make, Model, Option
Do you own, lease, or rent this [PEV]? Own, Lease, Rent, Other
What Is the [PEV] your first electric vehicle? Yes, No
Which came first for you, getting an electric vehicle or Electric vehicle before I drove rideshare; Rideshare driver
rideshare driving? before I got an electric vehicle; I am not sure which was first
Why did you choose to drive an electric vehicle for Choose up to three: To save money on fuel; To save money
rideshare instead of a conventional gas vehicle? on maintenance; Longer lifetime of the vehicle; Better for
the environment; Carpool lane access; Free or priority
parking; Ability to drive for premium service (e.g., Uber
Select); Other:
Why did you choose to drive a battery electric vehicle Battery electric vehicle driving range long enough; I’m able
for rideshare instead of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle? to charge at home; Liked the vehicle body style; Enough
(Chose up to three.) charging infrastructure where I drive; Time away from
driving to charge is not a problem; Not concerned about
limiting the rides I could take; To increase my profits from
driving on Uber; Other:
Why did you choose to drive a plug-in hybrid electric Did not want to be nervous about range; Unable to charge
Why vehicle for rideshare instead of a battery/all electric vehicle at home; Vehicle body style I wanted not available in
vehicle? (Choose up to three.) a battery electric vehicle; Lack of charging infrastructure
where I drive; Didn’t want to take time away from driving
to charge; Didn’t want to limit rides I could take; To increase
my profits from driving on Uber; None of these; Other:
When you bought/leased/rented/acquired your [PEV] Yes; No; Don’t recall
did you compare all costs (purchase, fuel, maintenance,
insurance, etc.) of it compared to other vehicles?
Do you compare all such costs for any car you buy or lease? Always; Sometimes; Never
Would you still drive for rideshare if you could only Yes; No; Not sure
have a conventional gas vehicle?
Would you still drive an electric vehicle if you did not Yes; No; Not sure
drive on rideshare networks?
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 4 of 12
Table 1. Cont.
Category Question Prompt Response Options
Do you drive for more than one rideshare network Yes; No
(Uber, Lyft, or others)?
Besides your [PEV], is there any other vehicle you are No, only my [PEV]; Yes, I sometimes drive a different
presently driving on rideshare networks? vehicle for rideshare
About how many hours per week do you drive on Ten or fewer hours; 11–20 h; 21–30 h; 31–40 h; 41 or more
rideshare networks (Uber, Lyft, and similar)? hours
On how many days do you charge your [PEV]? I don’t charge my [PEV]; Less than once a month; More than
once a month, but less than weekly; One or two days a
week; Three or four days a week; Five or six days a week;
Every day
What percent of all your charging of your [PEV] do you Percentage for each: home, public, workplace; totaling 100
do at home, at public chargers, or at a workplace?
You’ve indicated you don’t charge your [PEV] at home. Yes; No; I don’t know
Could you charge it at home if you wanted to?
What percent of all your charging of your [PEV] do you Percentage for each: fast, level 1, and level 2 chargers;
do at different power levels or rates? totaling 100
How How much of all your charging of your [PEV] do you do Percentage for each: midnight to 6 a.m. 6 a.m. to noon, noon
during different periods of the day? to 6 p.m., and 6 p.m. to midnight; totaling 100
What is the largest number of times you will charge None; Once; Twice; Three times or more
your [PEV] during any single period of driving
for ridesharing?
Please estimate the time it takes for each of these steps in Shortest time is about XXX minutes; Longest time is about
charging your [PEV]: Time to reach charger location XXX minutes
from the moment you decide to charge; Time waiting in
line to charge; Time to actually charge your vehicle;
Time to get your next ride after charging
Do you feel you miss out on earning opportunities Not at all; Once per 15 charges or less; Once per 10 charges;
because you have to charge your [PEV]? If so, how often Once per 5 charges or more frequent
do you feel the missed opportunity?
Do you do any of the following to increase your electric Limit top speeds; Moderate accelerations; Try to coast more
driving range while driving for ridesharing? to stops; Choose trips or routes where I can use less energy;
Choose trips or routes where I can use more regenerative
braking; Use heating or air conditioning less; Leave more
room from car ahead; None of the above; Other:
How would you improve your experience as a rideshare Choose up to three answers: Longer electric driving range;
driver with an electric vehicle? More charger locations; Reliable real-time information about
charger availability; More reliable information on vehicle
driving range; Additional trip destination setting tokens to
and from charging stations; More detailed trip information
in advance of trip acceptance; Financial bonuses for
completing complete trip target numbers; More passenger
seats; More cargo space; Other:
3. Results
3.1. Who Is Currently Driving PEVs on TNCs
Table 2 describes this sample of TNC-PEV drivers. A large majority were male and
median age was 40–49 years (Figure 1). A large majority (90%) had at least some college-
level education. Median reported household income was $88,000 (treating “$200,000 or
more” as $200,000; Figure 2). Mean household size was three members (treating “8 or
more” household members as 8). Most were living in a single-family home and a slight
majority were homeowners.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 5 of 12
WorldElectr.
World Electr.Veh.
Veh.J. J.2021,
2021,12,
12,x x 5 5ofof1313
Table2.2.
Table
Table TNC-PEVDriver
2.TNC-PEV DriverCharacteristics.
Characteristics.
Variable
Variable
Variable Descriptive
Descriptive
Descriptive Statistics
Statistics
Statistics
Age
Age
Age Mdn
Mdn = =4040
Mdn = toto49
40 to4949 years
years
years old;
old;9%
old; 9%21
9% 21to
21 toto29,
29,27%27%
27% 303030
tototo
39, 39,
39,28% 28%
28% 4040 4049,
to toto49,
49,21%
21% 21%
50 to
50 59,
to 10%
59, 60
10% to6069,to4% 70
69, or
4%
50 to 59, 10% 60 to 69, 4% 70 or older older
70 or older
Gender
Gender
Gender 85%
85% 85%Male,
Male,
Male, 13%
13% 13% Female,
Female,1%
Female, 1%Non-binary,
1% Non-binary,
Non-binary, 1%1%
1% Prefer
Prefer
Prefer not
notnot totoanswer
to answer answer
Education
Education
Education Mdn
Mdn = =Bachelor’s
Mdn Bachelor’s
= Bachelor’s degree;
degree;
World Electr. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, x 6
Electr. Veh.
Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79
x 6 of 12
13
3.2. What Cars They Chose and How They Acquired Them
3.2.
3.2. What
What Cars
Cars They
They Chose
Chose and
and How
How They
They Acquired
Acquired Them
Them
Figure 3 presents the most common PEVs in the sample. The three most comm
Figure 3 presents
Figure 3 presents the most
thethe
most common
common PEVs
PEVs in the
in the sample.
sample. The three most
most common
BEVs were Chevrolet Bolt, Tesla Model S, and The three
Nissan Leaf. Thecommon
three most comm
BEVs
BEVs were the Chevrolet Bolt, Tesla Model S, and Nissan Leaf. The three most common
PHEVs were the Ford Fusion Energi, Toyota Prius Plug-in, and Volt (C-MAX Energi c
PHEVs were the FordFord Fusion
Fusion Energi, Toyota Prius Plug-in, and Volt Energi
4th). (The TeslaEnergi,
Model Toyota
3 and Toyota Prius Prime were(C-MAXtoo recent to beclose
present in l
4th).
4th). (The
(The Tesla
Tesla Model
Model 33 and
and Toyota
Toyota Prius Prime were too recent to be present in large
numbers in the sample.) While 30 makes and models of PEVs were in the sample, the
numbers in the sample.) WhileWhile 30 makes and models of PEVs were in the sample, the top
five accounted for two-thirds of the sample; the top ten accounted for 93%.
five accounted for two-thirds of the sample; the top ten accounted for 93%.
Figure 3. Most common PHEV and BEV models used by TNC drivers.
Figure 3.
Figure Most common
3. Most common PHEV
PHEV and
and BEV
BEV models
models used
used by
by TNC
TNC drivers.
drivers.
The distributions Theof distributions
electric range of electric range inwere:
in our sample our sample were:
The distributions
● of electric range in our sample were:
• BEV: Range = BEV:
50 to Range
300 miles; = 50 to 300 miles; mean = 190 miles; median = 210 miles;
mean = 190 miles; median = 210 miles;
● BEV: Range ● = 50 to 300
PHEV: miles;
Range = 3mean
to 100= 190 miles; median = 210median
miles; = 25 miles.
• PHEV: Range = 3 to 100 miles; mean =miles; mean
30 miles; = 30 miles;
median = 25 miles.
● PHEV: Range The = 3 to 100 miles; mean = 30 miles; median = 25 miles.
high median range for BEVs emphasizes the extent to which Chevrolet Bolt
The high median range for BEVs emphasizes the extent to which Chevrolet Bolt EV
The high andmedianTeslarange forS BEVs
shapeemphasizes thedistribution.
extent to which Chevrolet Bolt EV
and Tesla Model S shapeModel the BEV rangethe BEV range
distribution.
and Tesla Model S For shape 82%theofBEV range distribution.
respondents, the PEV they were driving on TNCs was their first P
For 82% of respondents, the PEV they were driving on TNCs was their first PEV. There
For 82% of respondents,
There the PEV they
is an approximately evenwere
split driving on TNCs was theirride-hail
first PEV.
is an approximately even split between those whobetween those
started ride-hail who started
driving before (47% driving be
There is an
ride-hail approximately
driver(47% ride-haileven
first) versus driver
aftersplit
(50%between
first) versusthose
PEV afterwho
driver (50%started
first) ride-hail
PEV driver
acquiring driving
first)
a PEV notbefore
acquiring
(3% a PEV (3%
sure).
(47% ride-hail sure).
driver Most
first)drivers
versus (73%)
after owned
(50% theirdriver
PEV PEV (16% first)leased and 11%
acquiring a PEVrented).
(3% We did not
not
Most drivers (73%) owned their PEV (16% leased and 11% rented). We did not ask drivers
sure). Most drivers
drivers directly
(73%) owned whether
their they (16%
participate inand
the11%Maven weekly Wecardidrental program; v
directly whether they participate in the PEV
Maven leased
weekly car rental rented).
program; vehicles notrent
for ask
drivers directlycles for rentthey
whether include Chevrolet
participate in Bolt
the EVs. Weweekly
Maven presume carthat PEVprogram;
rental drivers whovehi-drove a ren
include Chevrolet Bolt EVs. We presume that PEV drivers who drove a rented Chevrolet
cles for rent Chevrolet
include Bolt EV
Chevrolet in EVs.
Bolt a cityWe where Maven
presume was
that PEV available
drivers were
who driving
drove a arented
PEV from Mav
Bolt EV in a city where Maven was available were driving a PEV from Maven.
Chevrolet Bolt EV in a city where Maven was available were driving a PEV from Maven.
3.3. Why Drive3.3. a PEVWhyforDrive a PEV for Ride-Hailing?
Ride-Hailing?
3.3. Why Drive4–6
Figures a PEV for Ride-Hailing?
Figures
present 4–6 present
reasons driversreasons drivers
selected fromselected from a list
a list regarding regarding
their decisiontheir
to decisio
driveFigures drive a
4–6 present
a PEV rather PEV rather
than anreasons than
internaldrivers an internal
selected
combustion combustion
fromvehicle
engine engine
a list regarding vehicle
(ICEV) for their (ICEV) for
decisionand
ride-hailing, to ride-hail
drive
reasonsa PEV and reasons
rather than
for choosing for choosing
anainternal
either either
BEV or combustion a
PHEV over theBEV or
enginePHEV
other.vehicleover the
(ICEV)
(The lists other. (The reasonspotential
lists
for ride-hailing,
of potential of
and
werereasons
generated sons
for wereprior
choosing
during generated
either
focus during
a BEV
groups prior
or PHEV focus groups
over the
with people other.
driving with
(The
PEVspeople
lists driving
of
on TNCs). PEVs
potential on TNCs).
rea-
sons were generated during prior focus groups with people driving PEVs on TNCs).
Reasons
Figure 4. Figure 4. for choosing
Reasons a PEV over
for choosing an ICEV.
a PEV Multiple
over an answers answers
ICEV. Multiple allowed.allowed.
Figure 4. Reasons for choosing a PEV over an ICEV. Multiple answers allowed.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021,
World12,
World 79 Veh.
Electr.
Electr. Veh. J.J. 2021,
2021, 12,
12, xx 7 of 12 77 of
of 1
Reasons
Figure 5. Figure 5.for
Figure 5. choosing
Reasons
Reasons for a BEV over
for choosing
choosing a PHEV.
aa BEV
BEV over aaMultiple
over PHEV. answers
PHEV. Multiple
Multiple allowed.
answers
answers allowed.
allowed.
Reasons
Figure 6. Figure 6.for
Figure 6. choosing
Reasons
Reasons for a PHEV aaover
for choosing
choosing PHEV
PHEVa BEV.
overMultiple
over aa BEV. answers
BEV. Multiple
Multiple allowed.
answers
answers allowed.
allowed.
Saving moneySaving
on fueling
Saving money
money costs onwas
on by far
fueling
fueling the was
costs
costs most
was by oft-cited
by far the reason
far the most for choosing
most oft-cited
oft-cited reason
reason a PEV
for
for choosing
choosing
rather than an PEV
ICEV. Saving
PEV rather
rather than money
than an an ICEV. on maintenance
ICEV. Saving
Saving money
money oncosts was third,
on maintenance following
maintenance costs costs was very
was third, closely
third, following
following ver ver
after driving aclosely
car thatafter
closely is better
after driving
driving for aathe
carenvironment.
car that
that is better Further
is better for
for the supporting the
the environment.
environment. importance
Further
Further supporting
supportingof the the im
im
financial motivations,
portance72%
portance of said they
of financial
financial compared72%
motivations,
motivations, all costs
72% said for
theytheir
said they PEV toall
compared
compared allother
costsvehicles;
costs for
for their of to
their PEV
PEV to othe
othe
these, 74.5% reported
vehicles;they
vehicles; of always
of these,
these, 74.5%
74.5%do reported
this withthey
reported any always
they vehicledo
always they
do thisacquire.
this with
with any
any vehicle
vehicle theythey acquire.
acquire.
Common reasonsCommonfor choosing a BEV over a PHEV to drive on
Common reasons for choosing a BEV over a PHEV to drive on TNCs were for
reasons for choosing a BEV over a PHEV TNCs
to drive were
on for
TNCs greater
were for greate
greate
earnings and because
earnings BEV driving range and access to charging
earnings and because BEV driving range and access to charging were adequate for
and because BEV driving range and access were
to adequate
charging were for their
adequate for the
the
needs (Figure 5). In direct
needs
needs (Figure
(Figurecontrast,
5).
5). In “range
In direct
direct anxiety”“range
contrast,
contrast, was by
“range far the most
anxiety”
anxiety” was
was by commonly
by far
far the
the mostselected
most commonly
commonly se s
reason for choosing
lected areason
lected PHEVfor
reason over
for a BEVaatoPHEV
choosing
choosing driveover
PHEV on TNCs
over BEV(Figure
aa BEV to drive6).on
to drive onInTNCs
addition,
TNCs (Figure
(Figure several
6).
6). In
In addition
additio
several
participants wrote
several participants
open-ended
participantscommentswrote
wrote open-ended
indicating
open-ended comments
they were
comments indicating
certain they
indicating that were
they BEV certain
were certain that
range that BE
BE
range
would be insufficient would
range wouldbecausebe insufficient
they regularly
be insufficient because
drove
because theylong
they regularly
distances.
regularly drove
drove long
Nineteen distances. Nineteen
Nineteen partic
participants
long distances. parti
mentioned costipants
ipants mentioned
barriers in open-ended
mentioned cost
cost barriers in
in open-ended
comments,
barriers mainly that
open-ended comments,
they chose
comments, mainly
mainly that
that they
a PHEV chose
chose aa PHE
because
they PHE
because
upfront costs were
because upfront
tooupfront
high for costs were
desirable
costs too
were too high
BEVs.
high forfor desirable
Notably,
desirabletheseBEVs.
BEVs. Notably,
costNotably,
concerns these
were
these cost
cost concerns
concerns wer
unac- wer
counted for in unaccounted
closed-endedfor
unaccounted for in
in closed-ended
response options, soresponse
closed-ended response options,
options,ofso
the prevalence so
costthe prevalence
thebarriers
prevalenceshould of cost
of becost barrier
barrie
more accurately should
should be
be more
estimated more accurately
accurately
in future estimated
estimated in
studies. in future
future studies.
studies.
Most
Most (90%)
Most (90%) reported thatreported
(90%) reported
they would that they
that still would
theydrive
would a still
still drive
PEV evenaaifPEV
drive theyeven
PEV even if
if they
didn’t they
drive didn’t
for drive
didn’t drive fofo
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, x ride-hailing
ride-hailing
ride-hailing services (6% No,services
services
4% Not (6% No,
No, 4%
(6%sure); 4%
seeNot
Not sure);
sure);7.see
Figure see Figure
Only 41%7.
Figure Only
Only 41%
7.reported 41%thereported
reported
opposite: the
the8opposit
of 13
opposit
that they would that
that they
theyon
drive would
would
TNCs drive
drive on
on TNCs
if they TNCs
had an if they
they had
if ICEV had
(35% an ICEV
anNo,
ICEV 24%(35%
(35%Not No,
No, 24%
24% Not
sure). Not sure).
sure).
Figure 7. Commitment to PEV relative
Figure 7. Commitment to PEVto commitment
relative to ride-hailing
to commitment job. job.
to ride-hailing
3.4. Ride-Hail Driving and Charging Behaviors
Most drivers reported that they drive for more than one TNC (65%) and that their
PEV is the only car they use when driving on TNCs (76%); 24% reported that they also
drive another vehicle for ride-hailing. Reported hours spent driving on TNCs per week is
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 8 of 12
Figure
Figure7.7.Commitment
CommitmenttotoPEV
PEVrelative
relativetotocommitment
commitmenttotoride-hailing
ride-hailingjob.
job.
3.4. Ride-Hail 3.4.
Driving and Charging
3.4.Ride-Hail
Ride-Hail Driving
DrivingandBehaviors
andCharging
ChargingBehaviors
Behaviors
Most driversMostreported
Mostdrivers thatreported
drivers they drive
reported that for
thattheymore
theydrive than
drive for one
formore
more TNC
than
than(65%)
one
oneTNCand(65%)
TNC that
(65%) their
and
andthat
thatthei
the
PEV is the onlyPEV
PEVcar
isisthey
the use
theonly when
onlycarcartheydriving
they use
usewhenon TNCs
when driving
driving (76%);
ononTNCs 24%(76%);
TNCs reported
(76%);24%
24%that they also
reported
reported that
thatthey
theyalso
al
drive anotherdrive
vehicle for ride-hailing.
driveanother
another vehicle
vehiclefor Reported
forride-hailing. hours
ride-hailing. Reportedspenthours
Reported driving
hoursspent ondriving
spent TNCs
driving per
on week
onTNCs
TNCsperisperweek
weeki
relatively evenly distributed
relatively
relatively evenly
evenlyacross four categories
distributed
distributed across ranging
acrossfour from “up
fourcategories
categories to 10”
ranging
ranging to “40
from
from “up ortomore”
“up to10”
10”toto“40
“40o
hours (Figuremore”
8). A majority
more”hours (52%
hours(Figure of PHEV drivers
(Figure8).8).AAmajority
majority(52% and 65%
(52%ofofPHEV of BEV
PHEVdrivers drivers)
driversand reported
and65%65%ofofBEV they
BEVdrivers)
drivers)rer
charge their PEV
portedevery
ported theyday
they (Figure
charge
charge their 9).
theirPEV However,
PEV every
everyday11%
day of PHEV
(Figure
(Figure drivers report
9).9).However,
However, 11%ofofthey
11% PHEV
PHEV never
drivers
driversrepor
repo
charge their car.
they
theynever
nevercharge
chargetheir
theircar.
car.
Figure
Figure 8.8.Average
Figure 8.Average
Averagenumber ofofride-hail
numberof
number ride-haildriving
ride-hail drivinghours
driving hoursper
hours perweek
per weekfor
week aggregate
for
for sample
aggregate
aggregate ofofdrivers.
sample
sample ofdrivers.
drivers.
Figure
Figure
Figure 9. Charging 9.9.Charging
frequencyChargingfrequency
for BEV for
frequency
and PHEVforBEV
BEVand
TNC andPHEV
PHEVTNC
drivers. TNCdrivers.
drivers.
On average, TNC-PEVOn
Onaverage, drivers
average, TNC-PEVdo most
TNC-PEV of their
drivers
driversdo charging
domost
mostofoftheiratcharging
their home
charging(58% of
atathomethe(58%
home timeofof
(58% on
the thetime
timeono
average; Figure 10). However,
average;
average; Figure nearly
Figure10). one-quarter
10).However,
However, nearly
nearly(23%) said they
one-quarter
one-quarter (23%)never
(23%) said charge
saidthey at
theynever home;
never charge of atathome
charge hom
these, more than half
ofofthese, (54%)
these, moresaid
more than
thanthey
halfwere
half (54%)
(54%)unable
said to charge
saidthey
they were at
wereunable home,
unable 39%
totocharge said
charge they
atathome,
home, could,
39%
39%said saidthey
th
and 7% did not know.
could,
could, and Drivers
and 7%
7%diddidreported
not
notknow.
know. charging
Drivers most
Driversreportedoften
reported between
charging
charging most 12often
most a.m. and
oftenbetween 6 a.m.
between 1212a.m.a.m.and
an
World Electr.
World Veh. Veh.
Electr. J. 2021,
J. 12, x12, x11). Combined
2021,
(Figure 6 6a.m. with11).
charging from 6 p.m. to midnight, 70%toto ofmidnight,
charging70% is of9ofof
done 13
9 of 13 i
a.m.(Figure
(Figure 11).Combined
Combined with
withcharging
charging from
from6 6p.m.p.m. midnight, 70% charging
charging
during the evening done and
doneduring
duringnight.
the
theevening
eveningand andnight.
night.
Figure 10. Mean distribution
Figure
Figure of charging
10. Mean
10. Mean location.
distribution of charging
distribution location.
of charging location.
Figure 11. Mean
Figure
Figure 11. Mean distribution distribution
11.ofMean of charging
distribution
charging time ofofday. timetime
charging of day.
of day.
We We
conducted
conducted k-means
k-meanscluster analysis
cluster to assess
analysis whether
to assess TNC-PEV
whether TNC-PEV drivers could
drivers be be
could
categorized intointo
categorized groups by their
groups use use
by their of different power
of different powerlevels to charge
levels theirtheir
to charge PEVs. TheThe
PEVs.
seven-cluster solution
seven-cluster is depicted
solution in Figure
is depicted 12. The
in Figure mean
12. The percentage
mean of each
percentage levellevel
of each of charg-
of charg-
ing ing
power is illustrated
power for each
is illustrated cluster.
for each OneOne
cluster. of these is a is
of these cluster for TNC-PEV
a cluster for TNC-PEV drivers whowho
drivers
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 9 of 12
Figure 11. Mean distribution of charging time of day.
WeWeconducted
conducted k-means
k-meanscluster analysis
cluster analysisto assess whether
to assess TNC-PEV
whether TNC-PEVdrivers couldcould
drivers be
categorized into groups
be categorized by their
into groups byuse of use
their different power power
of different levels to charge
levels their PEVs.
to charge theirThe
PEVs.
seven-cluster solutionsolution
The seven-cluster is depicted in Figure
is depicted in12. The mean
Figure 12. The percentage of each level
mean percentage of charg-
of each level of
ingcharging
power ispower
illustrated for each for
is illustrated cluster.
each One of these
cluster. One ofis athese
cluster
is afor TNC-PEV
cluster drivers drivers
for TNC-PEV who
dowho
not charge
do not (“None”); thus, itsthus,
charge (“None”); meanitsatmean
all three power
at all three levels
powerislevels
0%. is 0%.
100
80
Percent of Charging
Level 2
60 DC Fast
Level 1
40 DC Fast & Level 1
DC Fast & Level 2
20 None
Level 2 & Level 1
0
Level 1 Level 2 DC Fast
Charging Power
Figure 12. Distribution of mean charging levels for seven driver clusters.
Figure 12. Distribution of mean charging levels for seven driver clusters.
The majority of drivers (78%) belong to the first three “single-power” level clusters;
that is,majority
The of drivers
most TNC-PEV (78%)
drivers dobelong
most oftotheir
the first threeat“single-power”
charging a single power level
level clusters;
(Figure 13).
that is, most TNC-PEV drivers do most of their charging at a single
Forty-four percent of drivers (n = 319) owned a PEV that can DC fast charge.power level (Figure
Of these, 90%
13).reportedly
Forty-fourdopercent of drivers (n = 319) owned a PEV that can DC fast charge.
nearly all their charging (“DC fast”) or about half their charging (“DC Of these,Fast
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, x 10 of 13
90%& reportedly do“DC
Level 1” and nearly
Fastall&their
andcharging
Level 2”)(“DC
at DCfast”) or about half
fast chargers. their charging
Conversely, (“DC
few TNC-PEV
Fast & Level
drivers 1” own
who and “DC Fast capable
a vehicle & and Level
of DC2”) at charging
fast DC fast chargers.
do not useConversely, fewatTNC-
fast charging all.
PEV drivers who own a vehicle capable of DC fast charging do not use fast charging at
all. 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DC Fast Level 2 Level 1 DC Fast & DC Fast & Level 2 & None
Level 1 Level 2 Level 1
Figure 13.
Figure Distribution of
13. Distribution of TNC-PEV
TNC-PEVdrivers
driversacross
acrossseven
sevencharging
chargingpower
powerclusters.
clusters.
We also asked drivers for the maximum number of times they will charge per “shift”,
We also asked drivers for the maximum number of times they will charge per “shift”,
i.e., episode of ride-hail driving. “Once” was the most common response (41%), followed
i.e., episode of ride-hail driving. “Once” was the most common response (41%), followed
by None (24%), Twice (23%), and Three times or more (11.5%). Number of charges per
by None (24%), Twice (23%), and Three times or more (11.5%). Number of charges per
“shift” was correlated with hours spent ride-hail driving per week (r = 0.23, p < 0.001). For
“shift” was correlated with hours spent ride-hail driving per week (r = 0.23, p < 0.001). For
those who reported charging during TNC “shifts”, we asked how long various aspects of
those who reported charging during TNC “shifts”, we asked how long various aspects of
the charging process take; here are the averages:
the charging process take; here are the averages:
• Time to reach charger: 16–47 min;
● Time to reach charger: 16–47 min;
● Time waiting in line to charge: 6–28 min;
● Time to charge: 73–176 min;
● Time to next fare: 8–42 min.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 10 of 12
• Time waiting in line to charge: 6–28 min;
• Time to charge: 73–176 min;
• Time to next fare: 8–42 min.
Of these drivers, most (54%) reported that they do not miss out on earning fares due
to charging; others reported that they do miss out at least once every 5 charges (24%), once
per 10 charges (10%) or once per 15 charges or less (12%).
Most drivers reported engaging in at least one strategy to maximize their electric
range, e.g., moderate acceleration (67%), coast more (55%), limit top speeds (52%), use less
HVAC (39%), or increase following distance (25%).
3.5. Driver Ideas to Support the Use of PEVs for Ride-Hailing
Figure 14 presents drivers’ rankings of the top three strategies they thought would
improve their experience driving PEVs on TNCs, from a list of provided options. Most
drivers ranked longer electric range and more charger locations in their top three potential
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12,improvements.
x Financial bonuses for meeting trip targets and more pre-trip information 11 of 13
were also popular choices. Despite the common use of charging while driving on TNCs
among these drivers, only one-in-five mentioned reliable real-time charger information.
Figure 14. Driver choices to improve the experience of driving PEVs on TNCs; up to three answers allowed.
Figure 14. Driver choices to improve the experience of driving PEVs on TNCs; up to three answers allowed.
4. Discussion
This4.report
Discussion
describes a large sample of TNC-PEV drivers in the US in terms of their de-
This report describes
mographic characteristics, a large
motivations for sample
drivingof TNC-PEV
PEVs drivers
on TNCs, in the
charging US in
while terms of their
driving
on TNCs,demographic characteristics,
and their ideas to improve motivations forof
the experience driving PEVs
driving PEVsonon
TNCs,
TNCs. charging
TNC-PEV while driv-
ing on TNCs, and their ideas to improve the experience of driving PEVs on TNCs. TNC-
drivers are:
• PEV
Much drivers
more are:
likely to be male than female;
• ● likely
More Much moreinlikely
to live to be male
a household than
of two orfemale;
three people in a single-family home they
own● rather
More thanlikely
anytoother
live in a household
building type orofresidential
two or three people in a single-family home they
tenure;
• Very likely
owntorather
be between 30 and
than any 60building
other years old;type or residential tenure;
• More
● likely
Verythanlikelynot to between
to be have some level60ofyears
30 and collegiate
old; education culminating in a
Bachelor’s
● Moreor graduate
likely thandegree;
not to have some level of collegiate education culminating in a Bach-
• More likely
elor’sthan not to have
or graduate a household income less than $100,000.
degree;
●
Further, in terms of their PEV,tothese
More likely than not haveTNC
a household income less than $100,000.
drivers are:
• Further,
More likely in terms
to drive of their
a PHEV thanPEV,
a BEV;these TNC drivers are:
• Much
● moreMorelikely
likelytoto
own their
drive PEV than
a PHEV thantoa lease
BEV; or rent;
• Most
● likely to be driving their first PEV;
Much more likely to own their PEV than to lease or rent;
• Not●likely to drive
Most likelyany other
to be vehicle
driving tofirst
their provide
PEV;ride-hailing services.
● Not likely to drive any other vehicle to provide ride-hailing services.
The TNC-PEV drivers in this sample clearly recognized, and were largely motivated
by, economic benefits of fuel and maintenance savings, thus, increased net earnings, as-
sociated with using a PEV to provide ride-hailing services rather than an ICEV. Further
research is required to understand TNC drivers’ perceptions of total costs of ownershipWorld Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 11 of 12
The TNC-PEV drivers in this sample clearly recognized, and were largely motivated by,
economic benefits of fuel and maintenance savings, thus, increased net earnings, associated
with using a PEV to provide ride-hailing services rather than an ICEV. Further research is
required to understand TNC drivers’ perceptions of total costs of ownership for different
vehicle drivetrains and differences in these perceptions between drivers of BEVs, PHEVs,
hybrids, and ICEVs. Environmental motivations for PEV adoption were also quite common.
TNC-PEV drivers are typically more committed to continuing to drive a PEV than to
continuing to drive on TNCs.
Most drivers are charging their PEV every day, most often at home and overnight.
This is true even of those with PHEVs. While most say they are willing to charge once or
more while actively driving on TNCs, one-fourth say they are not willing to do so. As
DC fast charging is by definition “public charging”, i.e., no one can DC fast charge at
home, the presence of a large cluster of TNC-PEV drivers who do, on average, half or
nearly all of their charging at DC fast chargers suggests these PEV drivers are especially
reliant on publicly-available, DC fast charging. Subsequent analysis of these data will
further explore charging behavior based on driver and vehicle characteristics. For example,
Wenzel et al. [2] estimated that 90% of ride-hailing shifts could be accomplished on a single
charge with 200-mile range BEVs, so drivers with long-range BEVs likely have a very
different charging profile compared to shorter range BEV and PHEV drivers.
Increased range topped the list of PEV drivers’ wishes to better support PEVs on
TNCs, and range limitations topped the list of reasons why PHEV drivers did not opt for a
BEV. The next most common wish among all PEV drivers was for more charger locations.
The third and fourth ranked wishes were financial bonuses for trip targets and more pre-
trip information, factors more controllable by TNCs. These findings suggest priorities for
policies to support TNC electrification, both for regulators and for TNCs directly.
This first report from the 2019 North American Uber PEV Driver Survey summarized
the characteristics and experiences of these drivers, in aggregate. Further analyses will
explore relationships between driver characteristics, behaviors (e.g., amount of time pro-
viding ride-hailing services and charging practices), PEV type, electric range, and vehicle
acquisition models. Subsequent analyses will also draw on other datasets to compare this
group of TNC-PEV drivers to the general population of PEV drivers and to TNC drivers
who do not use PEVs. These comparative analyses will yield further implications for the
prospects of TNC electrification.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S. and K.K.; methodology, A.S. and K.K.; formal
analysis, A.S. and K.K.; writing-original draft preparation, A.S. and K.K.; review and editing, A.S.;
project administration, A.S. and K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received funding from Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber).
Acknowledgments: The researchers are grateful to Uber for facilitating this work. Uber hosted focus
groups with PEV drivers on their platform (an initial step to questionnaire design), sent the survey
recruitment invitation to their drivers with PEVs, and paid for the translation of the questionnaire into
French for their drivers in Quebec, Canada. Uber facilitated participant recruitment and provided
feedback on various aspects of the study but had no right-of-refusal in study design, survey analyses,
or interpretation of data. Uber had no role in writing of the manuscript or the decision to publish
the results.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Ward, J.W.; Michalek, J.J.; Azevedo, I.L.; Samaras, C.; Ferreira, P. Effects of on-demand ridesourcing on vehicle ownership, fuel
consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and emissions per capita in US States. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 108, 289–301.
[CrossRef]
2. Wenzel, T.; Rames, C.; Kontou, E.; Henao, A. Travel and energy implications of ridesourcing service in Austin, Texas. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 70, 18–34. [CrossRef]World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 79 12 of 12
3. Erhardt, G.D.; Roy, S.; Cooper, D.; Sana, B.; Chen, M.; Castiglione, J. Do transportation network companies decrease or increase
congestion? Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaau2670. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Henao, A.; Marshall, W.E. The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled. Transportation 2019, 46, 2173–2194. [CrossRef]
5. George, S.R.; Zafar, M. Electrifying the ride-sourcing sector in California. Calif. Public Utilities Comm. 2018.
6. Alemi, F.; Circella, G.; Mokhtarian, P.; Handy, S. Exploring the latent constructs behind the use of ride-hailing in California.
J. Choice Model. 2018, 29, 47–62. [CrossRef]
7. Roni, M.S.; Yi, Z.; Smart, J.G. Optimal charging management and infrastructure planning for free-floating shared electric vehicles.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 76, 155–175. [CrossRef]
8. Sheller, M.; Urry, J. Mobilizing the new mobilities paradigm. Appl. Mobilities 2016, 1, 10–25. [CrossRef]
9. Sperling, D. Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future; Island Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 2018.
10. Jenn, A. Benefits of Electric Vehicles in Uber and Lyft Services. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. 2019.
Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15s1h1kn (accessed on 6 April 2021).
11. Kurani, K.; Hardman, S. Automakers and Policymakers May Be on a Path to Electric Vehicles; Consumers Aren’t. UC Davis
Institute of Transportation Studies. 2017. Available online: https://its.ucdavis.edu/blog-post/automakers-policymakers-on-
path-to-electricvehicles-consumers-are-not/ (accessed on 6 April 2021).
12. Weiss, M.; Zerfass, A.; Helmers, E. Fully electric and plug-in hybrid cars: An analysis of learning rates, user costs, and costs for
mitigating CO2 and air pollutant emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1478–1489. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Pavlenko, N.; Slowik, P.; Lutsey, N. When does electrifying shared mobility make economic sense? Int. Counc. Clean Transp. 2019.You can also read
