Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles

APPENDIX A:Tables

Table 3. Impacts of Roundtrip Carsharing ³
U.S./CANADA Studies	Authors, Year	Number of Vehicles Removed From the road per carsharing vehicle	Percentage of Members Selling Personal Vehicle	Percentage of Members Avoiding Vehicle Purchase	VMT/VKT Change Percentage PER MEMBER	Average Monthly Cost Savings PER MEMBER	Percentage of Partici-pants Walking More	Percentage of Partici-pants Taking Transit More
Short-term auto rental (San Francisco, CA)	(Walb & Loudon, 1986)	15.4	43.1
Arlington, VA, carsharing pilot	(Price & Hamilton, 2005)	25.0	68.0	-40.0			54.0	54.0
Arlington carsharing	(Price et al., 2006)	29.0	71.0	-43.0			47.0	47.0
CarSharing Portland (Portland, OR)	(Katzev, 1999)	26.0	53.0			154 USD
CarSharing Portland	(Cooper et al., 2000)	23.0	25.0	-7.6			25.8.0	13.5
City CarShare (Year 1) (San Francisco)	(Cervero, 2003)	2.5	60.0	-3.0a/-58.0b
City CarShare (Year 2)	(Cervero & Tsai, 2004)	6.8.0	29.1	67.5	-47.0a/-73.0b
City CarShare (Year 4)	(Cervero et al., 2007)				-67.0a/24.0b
PhillyCarShare (Philadelphia, PA)	(Lane, 2005)	10.8c	24.5	29.1	-42.0	172 USD
TCRP Report (national)	(Millard-Ballet al., 2005)				-63.0		37.0	40.0
UC Berkeley (U.S. and Canada)	(Martin & Shaheen, 2010)	9.0-13.0	33.0	25.0
UC Berkeley (U.S. and Canada)	(Martin et al., 2010)				-27.0		12.0	22.0d
Zipcar (national)	(Zipcar, 2005)	20.0	32.0	39.0	-79.8	435 USD	37.0	40.0
Canadian Studies
AutoShare (Toronto, Canada)	(Shaheen, et al., 2010)	6.0-8.0	15.0	25.0		392 CAD
AutoShare (Toronto)	(Shaheen, et al., 2010)	8.0-10.0
CommunAuto (Quebec, Canada)	(Benoit, 2000)	9.1	21.0-29.0	55.0-61.0
CommunAuto (Quebec, Canada)	(Dallaire et al., 2006)	4.6c	24.0	53.0		492 CAD	12.0-13.0	26.0-34.0

Table 4. Demographics of the North American Roundtrip Carsharing ³ Member (N is the sample size)
Demographic Attribute	United States Carsharing	Canadian Carsharing	Total
Gender	N = 4229	N = 2024	N = 6253
Male	44%	46%	45%
Female	56%	54%	55%
Age Category	N = 4201	N = 1996	N = 6197
30 or Younger	38%	31%	35%
30 to 60	57%	64%	59%
Older than 60	6%	5%	6%
Education	N = 4235	N = 2028	N = 6263
Graduated High School	2%	4%	3%
Some College or Associates Degree	13%	21%	16%
Bachelor’s Degree	43%	39%	42%
Graduate or Professional Degree	41%	32%	38%
Other	1%	3%	2%
Income (pER HOUSEHOLD $ US)	N = 4247	N = 2034	N = 6281
Less than $50,000	34%	33%	34%
$50,000–$100,000	34%	40%	36%
$100,000–$150,000	13%	12%	13%
More than $150,000	10%	4%	8%
Decline to Respond	9%	10%	9%

Table 5. Aggregate Shift in Public Transit and Non-Motorized Modes Due to Roundtrip Carsharing³ Use
Mode	Average Hours per Week BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS				Round Trips per Week BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Mode	Decreased	No Change	Increased	Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test (P-value)2	Decreased	No Change	Increased	Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test (P-value)⁴
Rail	589 (9%)	5198	494 (8%)	0.001946 a	571 (9%)	5226	484 (8%)	0.007395^a
Bus	828 (13%)	4721	732 (12%)	0.007537 a	783 (12%)	4794	704 (11%)	0.02025 ^b
Walk	568 (9%)	4957	756 (12%)	1.19 × 10−7 c	559 (9%)	5046	676 (11%)	4.35 × 10−4 ^c
Bike	235 (4%)	5418	628 (10%)	2.20 × 10−16 c	219 (3%)	5480	582 (9%)	2.20 × 10−16 ^c
Carpool	99 (2%)	5893	289 (5%)	2.20 × 10−16 c	86 (1%)	5932	263 (4%)	2.20 × 10−16 ^c
Ferry	13 (0%)	6262	6 (0%)	0.05415	14 (0%)	6259	8 (0%)	0.1004

^a One-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Decline Statistically Significant at 99%;
^b One-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Decline Statistically Significant at 95%;
^c One-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Increase Statistically Significant at 99%.

Table 6. Public Bikesharing⁵Impacts (limited to the survey respondents during the data collection period)
Program	Authors, Year	Program Location	Year of Data	Trips per Year		CO2 Reduction (kg per Year)		survey Respondents Driving Less Often	Change in Vehicle Ownership Percentage
Bicing	(Romero, 2008)⁶	Barcelona, Spain	2008				0.75/1.76
BIXI Montreal	(Houle, 2011) (Shaheen et al., 2012)⁷	Montreal, Canada	2011	4,174,917⁸				36.30%	-3.60
BIXI Toronto	(Shaheen et al., 2012)⁹	Toronto, Canada	2012					25.40%	-2.00
Boulder BCycle	(Boulder BCycle, 2014)¹⁰	Boulder, U.S.	2014	43,143		36,560
Capital Bikeshare	(Shaheen et al., 2012)¹¹	Washington, DC	2012					41.0%	-2.10
Citi Bike	(Citi Bike, n.d.)¹²	New York City, NY	2014	8,231,907	22.1	3,513,051
Denver BCycle	(Denver BCycle, 2014)¹³	Denver, U.S.	2014	377,229	1.3	674,169
Hangzhou Public Bicycle Program	(Hangzhou Program Manager, Unpublished Data, 2009)¹⁴	Hangzhou, China	2009	62,780,000	376.7	69,715,000
Hubway	(Hinds, 2011)¹⁵	Boston, U.S.	2011	140,000
Madison BCycle	(Madison BCycle, 2014)¹⁶	Madison, U.S.	2014	104,274	352,620
Nice Ride Minnesota	(Shaheen et al., 2012)¹⁷	Minneapolis-St. Paul, U.S.	2012					52.4%	-1.90%
San Antonio BCycle	(San Antonio BCycle, 2013)¹⁸	San Antonio, U.S.	2013	65,560	610,232	93,691
Vélib’	(The Globe and Mail, 2009) (DeMaio, 2009)	Paris, France	2007-2009	28,470,00¹⁹			1%/2.5%	28%
Velo’v*	(Vogel et al., 2014) (Bührmann, 2007)	Lyon, France	2011	6,493,427²⁰

Table 7. Race of Capital Bikeshare ⁵ Annual Members and Casual Users
Race	Percentage of Annual Members	Percentage of Casual Users*	2010 Census²¹
Caucasian	80	78.0	34.0
Asian/Pacific Islander	5.0	8.0	4.0
Black/African American	2.0	5.0	50.0
Hispanic	3.0	4.0	9.0
Native American	0.3	0.3	0.3
Other/Multi-racial	4.0	3.0	3.0
Prefer Not To Answer	6.0	2.0

Table 8. Annual/Seasonal/30-Day Bikesharing ⁵ Member Demographics of Cities Surveyed in Canada and U.S.
Parameters	Montreal		Toronto		Salt Lake City		Minneapolis/Saint Paul
Parameters	2011 NHS Percentage	Survey Percentage	2011 NHS Percentage	Survey Percentage	2012 ACS Percentage	Survey Percentage	2012 ACS Percentage	SURVEY Percentage
Household Income
< $10,000	9.0	5.0	6.0	2.0	12.0	0.0	11.0	5.0
$10,000 -$14,999	6.0	4.0	4.0	1.0	7.0	3.0	5.0	3.0
$15,000 - $24,999	14.0	8.0	10.0	3.0	13.0	3.0	11.0	5.0
$25,000 - $34,999	12.0	9.0	9.0	3.0	11.0	3.0	10.0	6.0
$35,000 - $49,999	17.0	14.0	14.0	6.0	12.0	10.0	14.0	12.0
$50,000 - $74,999	17.0	21.0	18.0	20.0	17.0	31.0	16.0	19.0
$75,000 - $99,999	10.0	13.0	13.0	16.0	11.0	20.0	12.0	16.0
$100,000 -$149,999	9.0	16.0	13.0	23.0	10.0	17.0	12.0	18.0
$150,000 <	5.0	9.0	13.0	26.0	8.0	13.0	8.0	17.0
Education
Less than high school	13.0	0.0	18.0	0.0	15.0	0.0	12.0	0.0
High school/GED	18.0	3.0	24.0	3.0	14.0	0.0	18.0	2.0
Some college/apprentice	12.0	10.0	5.0	10.0	19.0	7.0	19.0	11.0
2 or 3-year College	22.0	32.0	20.0	40.0	7.0	4.0	7.0	3.0
University Bachelor's	20.0	37.0	20.0	37.0	26.0	43.0	27.0	42.0
Post-Graduate Degree	15.0	18.0	13.0	9.0	19.0	46.0	17.0	42.0
Age
16 – 24	12.0	11.0	12.0	7.0	20.0	9.0	21.0	6.0
25 – 34	21.0	43.0	19.0	42.0	28.0	39.0	26.0	31.0
35 – 44	18.0	23.0	18.0	23.0	17.0	19.0	16.0	28.0
45 – 54	17.0	14.0	19.0	18.0	13.0	17.0	15.0	23.0
55 – 64	14.0	8.0	14.0	7.0	11.0	13.0	12.0	8.0
65 years or older	19.0	1.0	18.0	2.0	12.0	2.0	10.0	4.0
Race
Caucasian	68.0	90.0	51.0	74.0	64.0	89.0	62.0	92.0
African-American	9.0	1.0	8.0	2.0	3.0	1.0	17.0	1.0
Hispanic/Latino	4.0	4.0	3.0	1.0	21.0	5.0	10.0	2.0
Asian/Pacific Islander	11.0	3.0	34.0	20.0	9.0	3.0	6.0	5.0
Other/Multi-Racial	7.0	2.0	4.0	4.0	3.0	1.0	5.0	0.0
Gender
Male	49.0	50.0	48.0.	70.0	51.0	66.0	50.0	55.0
Female	51.0	50.0	52.0	30.0	49.0	34.0	50.0	45.0

Note: NHS refers to the Canadian National Household Survey. ACS refers to the U.S. American Community Survey.
Across all cities, the survey received a total of N=6,168 completed surveys. The surveys in Montreal had a sample of N=1,102, Toronto had a N=1,015, Minneapolis/Saint Paul had a N=630, Salt Lake City had a N=72, and Mexico City had a N = 3,349. All bikesharing programs surveyed annual, seasonal and 30-day subscribers. For more information on this study methodology, please see: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1131-public-bikesharing-business-models-trends-impacts.pdf

Table 9. Public Bikesharing ⁵ Member Demographics of Mexico City
Parameter	2013 INEGI Percentage	Survey Percentage
Age
16 – 24	27.0	11.0
25 – 34	22.0	47.0
35 – 44	20.0	26.0
45 – 54	14.0	10.0
55 – 64	9.0	4.0
65 +	9.0	1.0
EDUCATION
Sin bachillerato (No High School)	45.0	1.0
Media superior (High School Second Level)	25.0	4.0
Tecnica (No U.S. equivalent)	1.0	4.0
Superior (Professional Associate)	28.0	90.0
Not Reported
Gender
Male	48.0	65.0
Female	52.0	35.0
Household Income Per Month
Less than $125	13.0	3.0
$126 to $251	21.0	4.0
$252 to $377	19.0	5.0
$378 to $628	16.0	15.0
More than $629	11.0	49.0
Not Reported	21.0	24.0

Note: INEGI is the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, or the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, a Mexican governmental agency responsible for statistical and geographic information.

Figure 7. Shift in Personal Driving as Result of Public Bikesharing ⁵ Use

Table 10. Ridesourcing ²² Demographics of Survey Respondents in San Francisco
Age	Ride-sourcing	Percentage	Taxi Percentage a	SF Percentage b
15-24	50	16	3.0	11.0
25-34	178	57	43.0	22.0
35-44	59	19	27.0	16.0
45-54	20	6	13.0	14.0
55-64	3	1	9.0	12.0
65-74	0	0	4.0	7.0
75+	0	0	2.0	7.0
Sample	310

2013 Household Income (USD)²³		Percentage
$30K or less	28	9	26.0
$30-70K	74	23	22.0
$71-100K	56	18	13.0
$100-200K	86	27	25.0
$200K+	35	11	13.0
(Decline to Respond)	37	12	n/a
SAMPLE	316

Gender	Ride-sourcing	Percentage	Taxi Percentage a	SF Percentage b
Female	124	40	n/a	49.0
Male	184	60	n/a	51.0
*Sample*	308

Education		Percentage	SF Percentage b
Less than a bachelor’s degree	51	16	46.0
Bachelor’s degree	173	54	33.0
Graduate degree (Master’s/Ph.D.)	87	27	21.0
Other degree	10	3	n/a
SAMPLE	321

Data Sources:

^a2013 SFMTA taxi user survey

^b 2012 ACS one-year estimate

Table 11. Respondent Modal Preference if Ridesourcing²² (uberX/Lyft/Sidecar) Were Not Available
	Percentage of Respondents	Do you have a car at home?
		Yes	No
Taxi	39%	41%	35%
Bus	24%	17%	33%
Rail (BART, streetcar, Caltrain)	9%	7%	10%
Walk	8%	9%	6%
Bike	2%	2%	3%
Drive my own car	6%	10%	0%
Get a ride with friend/family	1%	1%	2%
Other*	11%	12%	10%
Total	100%	100%	100%
Sample	302	175	124

* "Other" includes several responses indicating the respondent would have used another ridesourcing service.
This study conducted an intercept survey of ridesourcing customers in San Francisco during May and June 2014. Surveyors targeted two types of potential respondents: those who had just completed a ridesourcing trip ("intercept trips") and those who had used ridesourcing within the last two weeks ("previous trips"). Both types responded to identical surveys.

Table 12. Ridesourcing²² and Taxi Trips Travel Times in San Francisco
PARAMETERS	Ridesourcing Trips	Taxi Trips
Avg total time by public transit (wait + travel)	32.5 min	31.0 min
Avg total time by ridesourcing/taxi (wait + travel)	22.1 min	23.7 min
Trips that are at least 50% longer by public transit	86%	88%
Trips that are least twice as long by public transit	66%	61%
Sample	283	277

This study conducted an intercept survey of ridesourcing customers in San Francisco during May and June 2014. Surveyors targeted two types of potential respondents: those who had just completed a ridesourcing trip ("intercept trips") and those who had used ridesourcing within the last two weeks ("previous trips"). Both types responded to identical surveys.
Reference: Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., and Shaheen, S. (2016). "Just A Better Taxi? A Survey-Based Comparison of Taxis, Transit, and Ridesourcing Services in San Francisco,"Transport Policy, Volume 45, pp. 168-178.

References

Benoit, R. (2000). Potentiel de L'Auto-Partage Dans Le Cadre d'Une Politique de Gestion de La Demande en Transport. Forum de L'AQTR, Gaz à Effet de Serre: Transport et Développement, Kyoto: Une Opportunité d'Affaires?

Borecki, N., Buck, D., Chung, P., Happ, P., Kushner, N., Maher, T., Buehler, R. (2012). Virginia TechCapital Bikeshare Study. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech.

Boulder BCycle. (2014). 2014 Annual Report.
https://boulder.bcycle.com/docs/librariesprovider35/default-document-library/b-cycle-annual-report-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Bührmann, S. (2007). New Seamless Mobility Services: Public Bicycles.

Cervero, R. (2003). City CarShare: First-Year Travel Demand Impacts. Transportation Research Record, 159-166.

Cervero, R., & Tsai, Y. (2004). City CarShare in San Francisco, California: Second-Year Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impacts. Transportation Research Record, 117-127.

Cervero, R., Golub, A., & Nee, B. (2007). City Carshare: Longer-Term Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impact. Transportation Research Record, 70–80.

Cooper, G., Howe, D., & Mye , P. (2000). The Missing Link: An Evaluation of CarSharing Portland Inc. Portland, Oregon. Portland: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Dallaire, Y., Lafond , N., Lanoix , C., & Viviani , M. (2006). Le projet auto + bus: Évaluation d’initiatives de mobilité combinée dans les villes canadiennes. Montreal: Tecsult Inc.

DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-Sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future. Journal of Public Transportation 14-4: 41–56.

Denver BCycle. (2014). 2014 Annual Report. https://denver.bcycle.com/docs/librariesprovider34/default-document-library/annual-reports/2014-denver-bike-sharing-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

The Globe and Mail. (2009). Paris’s Pedal Power Sets Free Uncivilized Behaviour. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/pariss-pedal-power-sets-free-uncivilized-behaviour/article4276785/

Hangzhou Program Manager, Unpublished Data, 2009

Hinds, K. (2011). In Its First Season, Boston Bike Share Exceeds Projections; Will Expand Next Spring. http://www.wnyc.org/story/283407-in-its-first-season-boston-bike-share-exceeds-projections-will-expand-next-spring/

Houle, M-H. (2011). 4 174 917 déplacements en BIXI en 2011 - BIXI atteint le seuil des 40 000 membres.http://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/4-174-917-deplacements-en-bixi-en-2011---bixi-atteint-le-seuil-des-40-000-membres-509107401.html

Katzev, R. (1999). Carsharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year. Portland: Department of Environmental Quality.

Lane, C. (2005). PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Carsharing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Transportation Research Record, 158-166.

Madison BCycle. (2014). 2014 Season Overview. https://madison.bcycle.com/docs/librariesprovider19/default-document-library/2014-annual-report-madison-bcycle.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2010). Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute

Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2011). The Impact of Carsharing on Public Transit and Non-Motorized Travel: An Exploration of North American Carsharing Data.. Energies. doi.10.3390/en4112094

Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2010). Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute.

Martin, E., Shaheen, S., & Lidicker, J. (2010). Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Holdings: Results from a North American Shared-Use Vehicle Survey. Transportation Research Record, 150–158.

Millard-Ball, A., ter Schure, J., Fox, C., Burkhardt, J., & Murray, G. (2005). Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Price, J., & Hamilton, C. (2005). Arlington Pilot Carshare Program. Arlington: Arlington County Commuter Services, Division of Transportation.

Price, J., DeMaio, P., & Hamilton, C. (2006). Arlington Carshare Program. Arlington: Arlington County Commuter Services, Division of Transportation.

Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., and Shaheen, S. (2016). "Just A Better Taxi? A Survey-Based Comparison of Taxis, Transit, and Ridesourcing Services in San Francisco," Transport Policy, Volume 45, pp. 168-178.

Romero, C. (2008). SpiCycles – in Barcelona. Presented at the Final Conference of the Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Romania, Bucharest, Romania.

San Antonio Office of Environmental Policy. San Antonio Bikes. Presented at the Texas Trails and Active Transportation Conference, San Antonio, TX, February 1-3, 2012. http://www.biketexas.org/

Shaheen, S., Martin, E., Cohen, A., and Finson, R. (2012). Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding. Mineta Transportation Institute Report Number 11–26.

Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Chung, M. (2010). North American Carsharing: A Ten-Year Retrospective. Transportation Research Record 09-3688, 35–44.

Shaheen, S., Martin, E., Chan, N., Cohen, A., & Pogodzinski, M. (2014). Public Bikesharing in North America During A Period of Rapid Expansion: Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends and User Impacts. San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute.

Vogel, M., Hamon, R., Lozenguez, G., Merchez, L., Abry, P., Barnier, J., Borgnat, P., Flandrin, P., Mallon, I., and Robardet, C. (2014). From bicycle sharing system movements to users: a typology of Vélo"v cyclists in Lyon based on large-scale behavioural dataset. Journal of Transport Geography. http://liris.cnrs.fr/Documents/Liris-6880.pdf

Walb, C., & Loudon, W. (1986). Evaluation of the Short-Term Auto Rental (STAR) Service in San Francisco, CA. Washington D.C.: Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Office of Technical Assistance.

Zipcar. (2005, July 31). Zipcar Customer Survey Shows Car-Sharing Leads to Car Shedding. Retrieved from Zipcar: http://www.zipcar.com/press/releases/press-2

³Carsharing members have temporary access to a vehicle without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. Individuals typically access vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of cars and light trucks deployed in lots lo cated within neighborhoods, public transit stations, employment centers, and colleges/universities. Typically, the carsharing operator provides insurance, gasoline, parking, and maintenance and participants pay a fee each time they use a vehicle.

⁴ The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used when comparing two related samples, matched samples, or repeated measurements on a single sample to assess whether or not their population mean ranks differ.

⁵ Bikesharing users access bicycles on an as-needed basis for one-way (point-to-point) or roundtrip tripmaking. Station-based bikesharing kiosks are typically unattended, concentrated in urban settings, and offer a one-way station-based service (bicycles can be returned to any kiosk). Free-floating bikesharing offers users the ability to check-out a bicycle and return it to any location within a predefined geographic region. Bikesharing provides a variety of pickup and drop-off locations. The majority of bikesharing operators cover the costs of bicycle maintenance, storage, and parking. Generally, trips of less than 30 minutes are included within the membership fees. Users join the bikesharing organization on an annual, monthly, daily, or per-trip basis.

⁶ Sample Size Unavailable

⁷ Sample Size: 3,322

⁸ Based on usage from 40,000 members and 125,831 casual users

⁹ Sample Size: 853

¹⁰ Based on usage from 1,561 members and 9,998 casual users

¹¹ Sample Size: 5,248

¹² Sample Size Unavailable

¹³Sample comprised of 3,980 annual members and 70,332 casual users.

¹⁴ Sample Size Unavailable

¹⁵ Sample Size: 3,629

¹⁶ Sample comprised of 2,622 annual members and 18,651 casual users.

¹⁷ Sample Size: 1,238

¹⁸ Sample comprised of 556 annual members and 15,873 casual users.

¹⁹ Based on approximately 250,000 system subscribers.

²⁰ Sample comprised of 4,363,500 trips by annual members and 2,129,927 trips by casual users. Sample comprised of approximately 50,000 annual members. Precise sample size of annual members and casual users unavailable.

²¹ The 2010 US census did not tally bicycle users. Data represent Washington D.C. only, not the metropolitan statistical area. Membership may include some users outside of the District of Columbia.

²² Ridesourcing services (also known as transportation network companies (TNCs) or ride-hailing) provide prearranged and on-demand transportation services for compensation, which connect drivers of personal vehicles with passengers. Smartphone mobile applications are used for booking, ratings (for both drivers and passengers), and electronic payment. There are a variety of vehicle types that can be offered by these services including: sedans, sports utility vehicles, vehicles with car seats, wheelchair accessible vehicles, and vehicles where the driver can assist older or disabled passengers.

²³ Corresponding data for taxi users unavailable.

Previous | Next