arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 4 Feb 2019

Transcription

1 Regulating TNCs: Should Uber and Lyft Set Their Own Rules? Sen Li a, Hamidreza Tavafoghi a, Kamewhar Poolla a,b, Pravin Varaiya b a Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley b Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley arxiv:9.76v [math.oc] 4 Feb 9 Abstract We evaluate impact of two proposed regulations of transportation network companies TNCs like Uber, Lyft and Didi: a minimum wage for drivers, and a cap on number of drivers or vehicles. The impact is assessed using a queuing oretic equilibrium model, which incorporates stochastic dynamics of app-based ride-hailing matching platform, ride prices and driver wages established by platform, and incentives of passengers and drivers. We show that a floor placed under driver earnings pushes ride-hailing platform to hire more drivers, at same time that passengers enjoy faster and cheaper rides, while platform rents are reduced. Contrary to standard economic ory, enforcing a minimum wage for drivers benefits both drivers and passengers, and promotes efficiency of entire system. This surprising outcome holds for a large range of model parameters, and it occurs because quality of service measured by passenger pickup time improves as number of drivers increases. n contrast to a wage floor, imposing a cap on number of vehicles hurts drivers, because platform reaps all benefits of limiting supply. We also construct variants of model to discuss platform subsidy, platform competition, and autonomous vehicles. Keywords:. ntroduction TNC, wage floor, ride-sharing, regulatory policy. n December 8, New York became first U.S. city to adopt a minimum wage for drivers working for app-based transportation network companies TNCs like Uber and Lyft. The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission NYTLC established a minimum per-trip payment formula that gave an estimated gross hourly driver earnings before expenses of at least $7.86 per hour and a net income of $7. per hour after expenses, equivalent to minimum wage of $5 per hour because, as independent contractors, drivers pay additional payroll taxes and get no paid time off []. The NYTLC formula for non-wheelchair accessible vehicles is Driver pay per trip = $.63 Trip Miles Company Utilization Rate amounting to $3 for a 3-min, 7.5-mile ride. + $.87 Trip Minutes Company Utilization Rate +Shared Ride Bonus addresses: lisen99@berkeley.edu Sen Li, tavaf@berkeley.edu Hamidreza Tavafoghi, poolla@berkeley.edu Kamewhar Poolla, varaiya@berkeley.edu Pravin Varaiya The utilization rate is calculated as total amount of time drivers spend transporting passengers on trips dispatched by base divided by total amount of time drivers are available to accept dispatches from base []. Wheelchair accessible vehicles receive a higher rate. Preprint submitted to Elsevier February 5, 9

2 The Commission imposed wage floor based on testimony on driver expenses, meetings with stakeholders, and on report of labor economists J.A. Parrott and M. Reich [] which showed that median driver earnings had declined almost $3. per hour from $5.78 in September 6 to $.9 in October 7, a decrease of.7%. The TNCs imposed $3. per hour wage cut during a period when number of drivers in largest four TNCs Uber, Lyft, Gett/Juno, and Via had grown by 8, []. Uber would be largest for-profit private employer in New York City if its drivers were classified as employees rar than independent contractors []. The subminimum wage of drivers working for TNCs also prompted Seattle City Council in April 8 to pass a unanimous resolution to explore setting a minimum base rate of $.4 per mile for TNCs compared with prevailing rate of $.35 per mile and rate of $.7 per mile charged by taxis [3]. The resolution also asked TNCs to voluntarily hand over anonymous data on hours, trips, fares and compensation. Unlike NYTLC, however, no or US city has access to TNC data to estimate what ir drivers are paid. n December 8, Uber lost its case at U.K. Court of Appeal against October, 6, ruling that its drivers should be classified as workers entitled to rights such as minimum wage and paid holidays. The Court ruled against Uber s claim that its drivers were just self-employed contractors who use its app in exchange for a share of ir fares at level dictated by Uber [4]. The case can be used to challenge self-employed status of millions of gig-economy workers who work for companies like Airbnb and Deliveroo on a freelance basis without fixed contracts. New York and London are largest Uber markets in U.S. and E.U. Uber s reaction to se three adverse decisions was predictable. Responding to NYTLC ruling Uber s director of public affairs stated, legislation to increase driver earnings will lead to higher than necessary fare increases for riders while missing an opportunity to deal with congestion in Manhattan s central business district [5]. Uber challenged Seattle resolution: its general manager for Seattle said, we are generally unclear how nearly doubling per-mile rider rates would not result in an increased cost for riders [3]. Uber also declared it would fight U.K. Appeal Court s decision in Supreme Court [4]. Contradicting Uber s claims, this study shows that, for a large range of parameter values, raising driver wages will increase number of drivers at same time that passengers enjoy faster and cheaper rides, while platform rents are reduced. The aforementioned regulations are in part responding to public anxiety over disruption of urban transportation system caused by rapid growth of TNCs. Worldwide, monthly number of Uber users is forecast to reach million in 8, up from 75 million in 7. n New York, four largest TNCs Uber, Lyft, Juno and Via combined dispatched nearly 6, rides per day in first quarter of 8, increasing ir annual trip totals by over percent in 6 and by 7 percent in 7. About 8, vehicles are affiliated with se four companies []. n San Francisco, 5,7 TNC vehicles operate in peak times. They daily make over 7, vehicle trips, approximately times number of taxi trips, and 5 percent of all intra-san Francisco trips, comprising at least 9 percent of all San Francisco person trips [6]. This explosive growth of TNCs has raised two public concerns. As noted earlier, one concern is with working conditions of TNC drivers. The TNC business model places much of economic risk associated with app sector on drivers, who are classified as independent contractors. Furrmore, model relies on having many idle cars and drivers, resulting in low driver pay per hour and high TNC platform rents. 3 Uber s annual revenue from passenger fares in New York City amounts to about $ billion, of which it keeps about $375 million in commissions and fees, for a markup Lyft echoed Uber response stating, These rules would be a step backward for New Yorkers, and we urge TLC to reconsider m [5]. 3 TNC expenditures comprise a fixed initial cost for setting up platform and a small variable cost as company grows. Thus average cost per trip falls and its profit margin increases as TNC grows.

3 estimated at six times its variable operating cost or 6 percent []. One common opinion is that Uber s driver-partners are attracted to flexible schedules that driving on Uber platform affords... because nature of work, flexibility, and compensation appeals to m compared with or available options [7]. n fact, more than 6 percent of New York City drivers work full-time and provide 8 percent of all rides; ir work hours are not flexible []. The second concern is with negative impact of TNCs on a city s traffic congestion and its public transit ridership. A detailed 7 report [8] examined impact of TNC growth on traffic conditions in Manhattan s CBD. The analysis shows that, from 3 to 7, TNC trips increased 5 percent, VMT increased 36 percent, traffic speed declined 5 percent, number of vehicles increased 59 percent, and number of unoccupied vehicles increased 8 percent. The report suggested reducing unoccupied time of TNC vehicles as a means of congestion control. Responding to increased congestion, New York City Council in 8 passed a regulation freezing number of TNC vehicles on road for one year. Supporters of cap, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, said regulation will protect drivers, fairly regulate industry and reduce congestion [9]. However, our analysis shows that imposing a cap hurts drivers, because TNC retains as profit benefits of limiting supply. Anor detailed report [6] by San Francisco Transportation Authority provides information on size, location, and time-of-day characteristics of TNC activities in San Francisco. A follow-up report [] identifies impact of TNC activities on road congestion in San Francisco County. t shows that after subtracting impact of employment growth, population change, and network capacity change, TNCs contributed 5 percent of increase in vehicle hours of delay, 47 percent of increase in VMT, and 55 percent of average speed decline between and 6. Moreover, TNC trips are concentrated in densest and most congested parts of San Francisco including downtown and norastern core of city. At peak periods, TNCs are estimated to comprise 5 percent of vehicle trips in South of Market. The report cites studies showing that between 43 percent and 6 percent of TNC trips substitute for transit, walk, or bike travel or would not have been made at all. This paper evaluates two TNC regulations: a minimum driver wage, and a cap on number of drivers or vehicles. We analyze impacts of se regulations on several aspects of app-based ride-hailing market, including ride prices and driver wages established by platform, incentives of passengers and drivers, vehicle occupancy rate, and platform rent or profit. We use a model to determine arrival of passengers, number of drivers, ride prices and platform commissions, conditioned on imposed regulation. The model employs a queuing oretic model with dynamic matching of passengers and drivers, an equilibrium model that predicts long-term average arrivals of passengers and drivers, and an optimization model of platform decision-making. We summarize key results. mposing a minimum wage will motivate TNCs to hire more drivers, and passengers to enjoy faster and cheaper rides, while TNC rent or profit shrinks. n contrast with traditional economic model [], raising minimum wage will benefit both drivers and passengers, while TNC rents will decline. This counter-intuitive result holds for a large regime of model parameters, and it occurs because quality of service measured by passenger pickup time increases with number of drivers. Consequently, by hiring more drivers platform improves quality of service and attracts more passengers. For a large range of values of minimum wage, increased sales outweighs increased labor cost. Contrary to common belief, a cap on number of drivers will hurt driver earnings. This is because when fewer drivers are permitted, platform will hire cheaper labor by reducing driver pay. Thus, benefit of limiting driver supply is retained by platform. We also present variants of our model to analyze platform subsidy, platform competition and autonomous vehicles. 3

4 Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth City level Council Fifth level Regulation Policy Ride Hailing Platform Market Equilibrium Platform Decisions passengers drivers Figure : The TNC system includes city council, platform, passengers and drivers. Related Work: There are several studies of ride-hailing platforms. A recurrent consideration is to evaluate decisions that maximize platform profit, with particular attention to static vs. dynamic pricing.. A queuing model is proposed in [] to study profit maximizing prices of ride-hailing platforms. t shows that throughput and profit under dynamic pricing strategy can not exceed that under optimal static pricing strategy that is agnostic to stochastic dynamics of demands. On or hand, it also shows that dynamic pricing is more robust to fluctuations in system parameters compared to static pricing. Hence, platform can use dynamic pricing to realize benefits of optimal static pricing without perfect knowledge of system parameters. A similar problem is studied in [3], with a focus on self-scheduling capacity of for-hire drivers. t shows that additional flexibility of drivers is beneficial to platforms, consumers and drivers. t also suggests that when some periods have predictably higher demand than ors e.g., a rainy evening, with static pricing it is hard to find service at peak demand times, so surge pricing is n likely to benefit all stakeholders. n same vein, [4] suggests dynamic pricing for platform to maximize profit across different time periods when underlying operating characteristics change significantly. t is shown in [5] that platform pricing can be more complicated when re is uncertainty in passenger s valuation or driver s opportunity cost. A general economic equilibrium model is developed in [6] to evaluate impacts of ride-hailing services on deadhead miles and traffic congestion. n addition, ride-hailing platforms are also examined as a special kind of two-sided platforms. See [7] and [8] for a summary of literature on two-sided platforms, and [9] for a general ory of monopoly pricing in multi-sided platforms. The literature on regulation of app-based ride-hailing marketplace is relatively limited. Gurvich 6 [] considered a ride-hailing platform that manages a group self-scheduling drivers to serve time-varying demand. t shows that under a wage floor, platform starts to limit agent flexibility by restricting number of agents that can work in some time intervals. The work closest to ours is by Parrott and Reich []. The authors use TNC administrative data collected by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission NYTLC to examine likely impact of NYTLC s proposed regulations []. By numerical simulation, y show that proposed policy will increase driver earnings by.5 percent, while passengers will only experience moderate increase of trip fare less than 5 percent and waiting times to 5 seconds. However, our analysis shows that both trip cost and waiting time will decrease. This is because in our model we assume that passengers are sensitive to pickup time of ride-hailing services, which is not captured in [].. TNC Environment This section describes TNC enviroment. Agents of transportation system are comprised of city council, app-based ride-hailing platform TNC, a group of passengers and for-hire vehicle drivers see Figure. The city council sets legislation to regulate TNC operations. Examples of regulations include 4

5 minimum driver wage, maximum number of vehicles and regional licensing. 4 The regulations are enforced by auditing operational data of TNCs. See [] for details of enforcement in New York. The platform responds to regulations by setting profit-maximizing ride fares and driver commissions or equivalently, wages. These fares and wages are called platform decisions in Figure. The platform decisions influence choices of passengers and drivers. For instance, passengers have diverse ride choices including TNC, public transit, walking, and biking. They select an option based on cost and convenience of each choice. Drivers also have alternative job opportunities, such as delivering food, grocery, packages, and mail. They take job with highest expected wage. The choices of passengers and drivers form a market equilibrium, which determines TNC profit or rent. The equilibrium is affected by regulations. The objective of paper is to understand how regulations impact ride-hailing transportation system. We consider two regulations: a a floor under driver wage; and b a cap on total number of drivers. We analyze ir impact from various perspectives of ride-hailing system, including ride fares, commission rate, passenger pickup time, driver earnings, platform rent, number of riders, number of for-hire vehicles, and vehicle occupancy rate. We present model for ride-hailing system in two steps. n Section 3 we introduce market equilibrium model of response of passengers and drivers to a given platform decision. n Section 4 we predict TNC decisions in absence of regulation. n Section 5 we examine TNC decision operating with a floor under driver wage rate. n Section 6 we consider TNC decisions when re is a cap on number of drivers. Platform competition and or model variations are discussed in Section 7. Conclusions are offered in Section Market Equilibrium Model This section develops market equilibrium model of decisions of drivers and passengers in response to platform decision. The model is used to predict average arrival rates of passengers and number of drivers. 3.. Matching Passengers and Drivers: M/G/N Queue We develop a continuous-time queuing process to model matching of passengers and drivers. Consider N TNC drivers or vehicles, each modeled as a server. A vehicle is busy if re is a passenger on board or if it is assigned a passenger and on its way to picking her up. Orwise, it is considered idle. We assume that arrival process of passengers is Poisson with rate λ >. Newly arrived passengers immediately join queue and wait until an idle vehicle is dispatched by platform. Hence this is an M/G/N queue, and expected number of idle servers vehicles is N λ/µ, where µ is average trip duration. 3.. Passenger and Driver ncentives While queuing model captures stochastic dynamics, passenger arrival rate λ and number of drivers N are endogenously determined as a market equilibrium. Passenger ncentives: Passengers choose ir rides from available options like app-based TNCs, public transit, walking, or biking, by comparing ir prices and waiting times. We model cost of app-based ride-hailing service as c = αt w + βp f, 4 Unlike TNCs, taxicabs are much more heavily regulated. 5

6 in which t w is average waiting time from sending a request to being picked up, p f is fare per unit distance of ride-hailing service 5, and α and β specify passenger s trade-off between convenience and money. Note that p f is price per unit distance, and total distance is lumped into β. n ride-hailing service, a ride is initiated when a passenger sends a request to platform and completed when passenger is dropped off at destination. We divide a ride into three periods: from a request being sent to a vehicle being assigned; from a vehicle being assigned to passenger being picked up; 3 from passenger being picked up to drop off. Let t m, t p and t o be average duration of se periods. Then t m is average waiting time in M/G/N queue. Assuming that platform matches passenger to nearest idle vehicle, t p depends on distance of nearest idle vehicle to passenger. Typically, t m ranges from a couple of seconds to a half minute, and t p is between three to six minutes. Since t m is much smaller than t p, we neglect t m throughout rest of this paper and call t p as passenger waiting time, i.e. t w = t m + t p t p. Remark. The ride confirmation time t m is negligible for Uber and Lyft. However, in some markets such as Didi in China, government restricts entry of for-hire drivers for passenger safety, which leads to a much higher t m during peak hours. We note that this case can be captured by adding t m into t w, where t m is average waiting time of M/G/N queue. To estimate pickup time t p, we assume that idle vehicles are uniformly and independently distributed across city of arbitrary shape. We also assume that location of passengers requesting a ride is also uniformly distributed across city, independently of position of idle vehicles. The following proposition provides an estimate of average pickup time. Proposition. Let dx denote distance of a passenger requesting a ride at location x in a city to nearest idle vehicle. Then, E x {dx N idle vehicles}= N E x {dx N idle vehicles} +O max{n,n 8 N 9 8,N }. 3 The result implies that average pickup time t p is approximately inversely proportional to square root of average number of idle vehicles since t p = Ex{dx N idlevehicles} v, with v representing average traffic speed. This results can be explained intuitively as follows. Consider a square shaped city of unit size with N idle vehicles located in a grid with each idle car equally distant from its four closest neighbors to its left, right, top, or bottom. Then shortest distance between idle cars is equal to N. Th exact proof of Proposition for a city of general shape and when locations of idle vehicles and passengers are random is deferred to Appendix. n 3 we select N as a reference so that Ex{dx N idlevehicles} v can be computed from available TNC data for a city. For instance, at peak hours, Manhattan has, TNC vehicles on road. Every minute re are 4 new TNC trips. Each trip takes around minutes [8], and passengers wait 3-5 minutes for pickup. n this case we have N =,, λ = 4 trips/min, µ = / min, and average pickup time is 4 min. Pick N = N λ/µ, n Ex{dx N idlevehicles} v 4min, and pickup time function 3 becomes: E x {dx N idle vehicles} = 4 N + O max{, 3.6N 9 8, N }, 5 Most app-based ride-hailing platforms charge passengers based on following formula: total cost = base fare + price/mile trip miles + price/time trip time. Given average traffic speed, we can transform per-time price to permile price, and use p f to represent sum of se two costs. The base fare is a constant in, which can be dropped without loss of generality. 6

7 Remark. The estimation in Proposition has approximation error ON + + N N 8 N for large N and N. Medium to big sized cities usually have a few thousands of TNC vehicles 6, so 3 is a good approximation of average pickup time for practical parameter values. We also point out that queuing model used in Proposition predicts number of idle vehicles. Therefore in following we use following approximation where M = v t p = v E x{dx N idle vehicles} E x {dx N idle vehicles} and N = N λ/µ. M N, 4 Passengers have a reservation cost that summarizes ir or travel options: if TNC travel cost c is greater than reservation cost, passenger abandons TNC for an alternative choice. We assume that reservation costs of passengers are heterogeneous, and let F p c be cumulative distribution of reservation costs. The passenger arrival rate n is given by [ ] λ = λ F p + βp f, 5 N λ/µ in which λ is arrival rates of potential passengers all travel demands in city. According to 5, passengers that use app-based ride-hailing service are potential passengers excepting those who abandon platform because its cost is greater than ir reservation cost. Remark 3. The model incorporates passenger s sensitivity both to ride fares and pickup times. n 5, t m is ignored since it is an order of magnitude smaller than t p. n addition, since t o does not depend on λ or N, we absorb it into F p as a constant. Driver ncentives: Drivers are sensitive to earnings and respond to offered wage by joining or leaving platform. The average hourly wage of TNC drivers is w = λp d N, 6 wherein p d is per distance payment driver receives from platform. We assume that platform keeps difference between p f and p d as its commission or profit. The average hourly wage 6 is derived as follows. The total platform payment to all drivers sums up to λp d. Therefore, average hourly wage per driver is simply λp d divided by N. Note that we have neglected a constant factor that captures time span one hour and trip distance since p f is per distance payment. Each driver considering working for TNC has a reservation wage: if reservation wage is smaller driver joins TNC. We assume that reservation wages of drivers are heterogeneous, and F d c is cumulative distribution of reservation wages across population. Hence N = N F d λpd N, 7 in which N is number of potential drivers all drivers seeking a job. According to 7, number of TNC drivers is total number of potential drivers multiplied by proportion that actually join platform since ir reservation wage is smaller than w. Remark 4. n practice, both supply and demand of a ride-hailing system vary within a day. This can be captured in a quasi-static analysis by varying values of λ and N under peak-hours and off-peak hours. 6 San Francisco has around 6 active TNC vehicles on average [6], and Manhattan has more than, TNC vehicles during peak hours [8]. 7

8 4. TNC decisions in absence of regulation The objective of app-based ride-hailing platform changes over time. n startup phase it subsidizes passengers and drivers to grow its business. Eventually it shifts to maximizing its profit. This section focuses on profit maximization assuming platform is an unregulated monopoly. Platform subsidy and competition are discussed in Section Pricing without Regulation The platform rent or profit is Π = λp f p d. 8 Within a certain period each day, say, λ trips are completed. Since platform pockets p f p d /mile from each trip, total rent in this period is 8. For simplicity, we ignore a constant factor that accounts for average trip time and distance. n absence of regulation, platform maximizes its rent subject to market equilibrium constraints: max λp f p d 9 p f,p d [ ] λ = λ F p + βp f N λ/µ λpd N = N F d N To avoid a trivial case, we make following assumption throughout paper: Assumption. There exist strictly positive λ, N, p f, p d satisfying. a b This assumption rules out situation in which passenger reservation costs are so low and driver reservation wages are so high that supply and demand curves do not intersect. Since 9 is not a convex problem, it is not straightforward to find its solution. One approach is via numerical computation as in [4]. This is suitable for small problems. Alternatively, we can proceed analytically. We view λ = λp f, p d as a function of p f and p d determined implicitly by. The first order necessary conditions of 9 n reduce to λ p f p d + λ = a p f λ p d p f p d λ = in which a is equivalent to Π = and b is Π =. For non-convex problems, se conditions p f p f are only necessary. However, y are sufficient in following case. Proposition. Assume that reservation cost and reservation wage are uniformly distributed, F p c = min{e p c, } and F d w = min{e d w, }, wherein e p R and e d R are constants. Then b 8

9 following equations have a unique solution p f, p d, λ, N 7, which is globally optimal solution to 9. λ p f p d + λ = a p f λ p f p d λ = p d [ ] λ = λ F p + βp f N λ/µ λpd N = N F d N The proof of Proposition is deferred to Appendix. Thus 9 can be effectively computed by solving for unique solution of. Of course if conditions of Proposition do not hold, we can still solve 9 by obtaining all solutions to and picking most profitable one. Example: We consider a numerical example for which we calculate platform s profit-maximizing decision 9 based on Proposition. Assume that reservation cost of passengers and reservation wage of drivers are both uniformly distributed. n sequel, we vary λ to investigate how platform decision changes with number of potential passengers at different times of day λ is large during peak hours. The model parameters N, λ,α, β are selected so that resulting solution to 9 matches realistic data: N =,, λ [5, ] ride/min, α = 4.5, β = The results are shown in Figures -7. As λ increases, number of passengers λ and drivers N both increase. At same time, occupancy rate Figure 4, and ride price increase Figure 5. At peak hours, drivers benefit since y earn more Figure 6, but passengers travel at a higher cost due to increased trip fare. t is worth noting that as number of potential passengers doubles from 5 to, rides per minute, cost per ride increases by percent from $.4 to $.7 per mile, driver payment increases by 6.6 percent from $.4 to $.5 per mile. However, driver wages increase 9 percent from $7 to $4 per hour because occupancy or driver utilization increases by 5 percent from.4 to.5. By same token, in absence of a wage floor, a driver s hourly wage declines by 9 percent from peak to off-peak hours. Thus in absence of a wage floor, drivers bear most of risk of shifts in demand. b c d 5. TNC decisions with wage floor This section is devoted to platform pricing with a wage floor. A cap on number of drivers is considered in Section 6. A driver minimum wage w imposes constraint λp d /N w 8. After a wage floor is imposed platform may find it too expensive to hire all drivers who wish to join and limit entry of new drivers. We capture this by relaxing supply equation b to inequality 5b, and cast pricing problem as max λp f p d 4 p f,p d,n 7 Since p f = p d = λ = N = is always a solution, throughout paper by solution we refer to strictly positive solutions unless orwise stated. 8 New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission imposes minimum driver payment. We assume a constant speed, so per-minute price can be transformed to per-mile price, and we use p d to represent sum of first and second term in. f we neglect constant shared ride bonus, is proportional to λp /N. 9

10 Number of of Drivers 4K 4K K 3K K K K K K K K K Potential Passenger /minute Potential Passenger/minute Potential Passegner/minute Potential Passenger /minute Potential Passenger/minute Potential Passegner/minute Figure : : Number of of drivers under dif- dif- Figure 3: 3: Arrival rates of of Passengers Figure Figure : Number of drivers under different potential passengers. per minute. ent ent Figure 3: Arrival rates of Passengers Figure 4: 4: 4: Occupancy Occupancy rate rate rate under under dier- dier- differferent potential passengers. per per minute. ent potential potential passengers. passengers p f f d p d K K K K K K Potential Passenger/minute Potential Passengers/minute Potential Passenger/minute Potential Passenger/minute Potential Passengers/minute Potential Passenger/minute Figure 5: 5: Per Permile mileride rideprice and anddriver Figure 6: 6: Driver wage per perhour under Figure 7: 7: Passenger travel cost cost under Figure payment. 5: Per mile ride price and driver Figure dierent different 6: potential Driver wage passengers. per hour under Figure dierent different 7: potential Passenger passengers. travel cost under payment. dierent potential passengers. dierent potential passengers. [ ] [ ] λ = λ λ = λ F F p + βp p + βp f f 5a N λ/µ f 5a N λ/µ λpd N N λpd N N F F d 5b d N 5b N λp λp N N w 5c 5c Constraint 5b indicates that platform can hire upto numberof of all available drivers. Nis is now Constraint 5b indicates that platform can hire up to number of all available drivers. is now an additional decision variable. an additional decision variable. Problem 4 is is also non-convex. However, we cannd find optimal solution based onrst first order conditions Problem 4 is also non-convex. However, we can nd optimal solution based on rst order conditions for following case. for following case. Price $/mile Ride Arrival Rates Driver Wage Proposition Proposition3. 3. Assume Assume that that distributions distributions of of of reservation reservation cost cost and and reservation reservation wage wage are are are uniform: uniform: F p c min{e p c p c, } and p c, } d w min{e d d w, }, wherein d w, }, p and p d are constants. Then rst p c = min{e p c, } and F d w = min{e d w, }, wherein e p R and e d d Rare constants. Then rst first order order conditions conditions of of of 4 4 admit admit a unique unique solution solution p p p f, f d, λ, N, which is globally optimal solution to f, p d d, λ, λ, N, whichis is globally optimal solutionto to The proof of Proposition 3 is deferred to Appendix. Thus prot-maximizing pricing problem 4 can The proofof of Proposition 3is is deferredto to Appendix. Thus prot-maximizing profit-maximizing pricing problem 4 can be found by solving rst order conditions. We point out that rst order conditions of 4 branch be found by solving rst first order conditions. We point out that rst first order conditionsof of 4 branch branch into three cases depending on which inequality constraint is binding: only 5b binds; only 5c binds; into three cases depending on which inequality constraintis is binding: only 5b binds; only 5c binds; both 5b and 5c bind. We discuss se cases in proof of Proposition 3 in Appendix. both 5b and 5c bind. We discuss se casesin in proofof of Proposition 3in in Appendix. 5.. A Cheap-Lunch Theorem 5.. A Cheap-Lunch Theorem Example: Example: We consider a numerical example for which we prot-maximizing price 4 for We consider numerical example for which we calculate prot-maximizing price 4 for dierent Example: wage We oors consider w. We a numerical select model example parameters for whichn we dierent wage oors w. We select model parameters N, λcalculate, α, β so that profit-maximizing resulting solution price 4 to 4 for α, β so that resulting solution to 4 matches differentrealistic wage floors data: w. We select model parameters, λ, α, β so that resulting solution to 4 matches matchesrealistic realisticdata: N =,, λ,, = 7 ride/min, α = 4.5, β = N 7 ride/min, 4.5, =,, λ = 7 ride/min, α = 4.5, β = Occupancy Rate Travel Cost

11 5K K K K K.43 3K Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Figure 8: Number of drivers under dif- Figure 9: Arrival rates of Passengers Figure : Occupancy rate under dier- Figure 8: 8: Number of ofdrivers under dif- Figure 9: 9: Arrival rates of of Passengers Figure: Occupancy rate underdier- different wageoors. ferent wage oors. per minute. ent wage oors. ferent wage oors. floors. per minute. ent floors. Number of of Drivers Driver Wage Wage Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Figure : Driver wage per hour under Figure dierent different : wage Driver oors. floors. wage per hour under dierent wage oors. Ride Ride Arrival Rates Rates Pickup Time Time minute Occupancy Rate Rate p f 3 p f d 3 p d Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Wage Floor $/hour Figure : Passenger pickup time under Figure 3: Per mile ride price and driver Figure dierent different : wage Passenger oors. floors. pickup time under Figure payment. 3: Per mile ride price and driver dierent wage oors. payment. We also assume that reservation cost of passengers and reservation wage of drivers are both uniformly We distributed. also assume Later that we will reservation show that cost our of result passengers holds and for arbitrary reservation distribution wage of and drivers model are parameters. both uniformly distributed. Later we will show that our result holds for arbitrary distribution and model parameters. Figures 8-4 reveal market response to dierent different levels of wage oor, floor, including number of drivers, Figures arrival rates 8-4 reveal of passengers, market driver response wage, passenger to dierent pickup levels time, of platform wage oor, prices, including and platform number prot. profit. drivers, There arrival are three rates distinct of passengers, regimes to driver response: wage, passenger pickup time, platform prices, and platform prot. There are three distinct regimes to response: w < $.: wage oor floor is inactive and solution to 4 is same as that to 9 because even w < in $.: absence of wage oor minimum is inactive wage and constraint solution platform to 4 sets is same as that to 9 because even w = $. to attract enough drivers. in absence of minimum wage constraint platform sets w = $. to attract enough drivers. $. w < $9.8: both 5b and 5c constraints are active. As minimum wage increases, $. w < platform $9.8: hires all both drivers 5b whose and reservation 5c constraints wage is are below active. As minimum minimum wage, wage ride increases, cost goes platform down, hires quality all drivers of service whose pickup reservation time improves, wage is below driver wage minimum increases, wage, more passengers ride cost are goes served, down, and quality platform of prot service profit shrinks. pickup time improves, driver wage increases, more passengers are served, and platform prot shrinks. w $9.8: only wage oor floor constraint 5c is active. As minimum wage exceeds $9.8, w platform $9.8: hires only fewer wage drivers oor than constraint wish to 5c work, is both active. ride As fare minimum wage exceeds $9.8, p f and pickup time t p increase, platform hires fewer drivers than wish to work, both ride fare p f and pickup time t fewer passengers take ride-hailing option, drivers who are hired earn more, and p increase, platform fewer prot profit passengers shrinks furr. take ride-hailing option, drivers who are hired earn more, and platform prot shrinks furr. Remark 5. Under dierent different parameters, it is possible to nd find cases in which trip fare p Remark 5. f decreases in Under dierent parameters, it is possible to nd cases in which trip fare p f decreases in second regime. This is because when β is large e.g., β = 8, passengers are more sensitive to trip second regime. This is because when β is large e.g., β = 8, passengers are more sensitive to trip fare, so reducing p f is more eective effective for attracting new passengers. Therefore, platform nds finds it more fare, so reducing p f is more eective for attracting new passengers. Therefore, platform nds it more protable profitable to lower trip fare even under a higher wage oor. floor. However, we emphasize that regardless of protable to lower trip fare even under a higher wage oor. However, we emphasize that regardless of β, total travel cost always decreases in second regime. β, total travel cost always decreases in second regime. Analysis: Labor market studies [] would predict that raising minimum wage will reduce driver Analysis: employment Labor and output market number studies [] of rides, would and predict increase that price. raising But this minimum is contradicted wage will by reduce market driver employment and output number of rides, and increase price. But this is contradicted by market Prices $/mile

12 response in second regime $. < w < $9.8, in which both drivers and passengers are better off as minimum wage increases, at expense of platform rent. The ride-hailing market has a distinctive feature that is like a supply side network externality. As number of drivers increases, so do number and spatial density of idle drivers which, in turn, reduces pickup time 4 and increases service quality. This attracts more passengers who willingly pay a higher price p for ride, but whose total cost is lower. The resulting increased revenue offsets higher wage needed to attract more drivers. Since pickup time t is a decreasing convex function of number N of drivers, this positive feedback is eventually exhausted when wage reaches $9.. At that wage, number of drivers, passenger arrival rate λ, and ride fare p f all reach a maximum, while pickup time t p and occupancy or utilization rate reach a minimum. Raising minimum wage beyond $9. will lead to a reduction in number of drivers hired as predicted by standard labor market model. Thus contrary to common belief, a higher minimum wage up to appropriate level will benefit drivers, more of whom are hired at higher wages, as well as passengers who enjoy faster and cheaper rides, while platform profit decreases Figure 4. Since platform profit is simply a monetary transfer in model, social welfare of ride-hailing system is improved. Remark 6. n referring to social welfare, we are ignoring significant negative externalities of platform noted earlier. These include congestion caused by increased number of TNC vehicles, pollution caused by increased vehicle miles traveled, and rides that have replaced healthier options such as biking and walking. A truly remarkable fact is that features of cheap-lunch example obtain for all model parameters. To facilitate discussion, define solution to 4 as an explicit function of w to emphasize its dependence on wage floor, i.e., N w, λ w, p f w, p d w. We have following orem. Theorem. Consider any parameters N, λ, α, β and any distributions F p and F d, for which is feasible. Then + N w >. Here + denotes right-hand derivative, and w is driver s wage at solution to 9. The proof of Theorem can be found in Appendix. The orem implies that second regime always exists: when w w, minimum floor constraint 5c is inactive, so solution is in regime. When w = w, right-hand derivative of N is strictly positive. This corresponds to beginning of second regime, where platform hires more drivers, and both drivers and passengers are better off. 6. TNC decisions with cap on number of drivers With a cap on number of drivers, platform pricing problem is changed to following: max λp f p d 7 p f,p d [ ] λ = λ F p + βp f 8a N λ/µ λpd N = N F d 8b N N N cap 8c t is unnecessary to relax 8b, since platform can always lower p d to increase its profit. This is a non-convex program, which we can also effectively solve via first order conditions.

13 Platform Rent Wage Wage Floor Floor $/hour $/hour Figure Figure 4: 4: Platform Platform prot prot profit $/hour $/hour un- undeder dierent dierent different wage wage oors. oors. floors Occupancy Rate Number of of Drivers 4K 4K 3K 3K Passenger Arrival K K 5 5 K K k k k k 3k 3k 4k K 4k K K K 3K 3K 4K 4K Cap Cap Cap Cap Figure Figure 5: 5: Number Number of of drivers drivers under under dif- dif- Figure Figure 6: 6: Arrival Arrival rates rates of of Passengers of Passengers ferent ferent caps. caps. per per minute. minute Price $/mile p f p f d.4.4 p d K K 3K 4K K K 3K 3 K K 3K 4K K K 3K 4K 4K 3 K K K K 3K 3K 4K 4K Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Cap Figure 7: Occupancy rate under dier- differ- Figure 8: Per mile ride price and driver Figure 9: Passenger pickup time under Figure 7: Occupancy rate under dier- Figure 8: Per mile ride price and driver Figure 9: Passenger pickup time under ent caps. payment under dierent different caps. dierent different caps. ent caps. payment under dierent caps. dierent caps. Proposition Proposition Assume Assume that that reservation reservation cost cost and and reservation reservation wage wage are are uniformly uniformly distributed: distributed: F p c p c = min{e min{e p c, p c, } } and and F d w d w = min{e min{e d w, d w, }, }, where where e p p R and and e d d R are are constants. constants. Then Then rst first rst order order conditions of 7 admit a unique solution p f, p d, λ, N, which is globally optimal solution to 7. conditions conditions of of 7 7 admit admit a unique a unique solution solution p p f, f p, p d, d λ,, λ, N, N, which which is is globally globally optimal optimal solution solution to to The The proof proof is is deferred deferred to to Appendix, Appendix, and and rst rst first order order conditions conditions of of 7 7 are are dened dened defined in in proof. proof. Consider Consider a cap cap N cap cap on on number number of of TNC TNC drivers. drivers. We We evaluate evaluate platform's platform's platform s prot-maximizing prot-maximizing profit-maximizing decision decision 7 7 for for dierent dierent different levels levels of of N cap cap. We We use use same same model model parameters parameters as as in in Section Section and and we we focus focus on on uniform uniform distributions distributions of of reservation reservation costs costs and and wages. wages. Figures Figures 5-5- exhibit exhibit market market response response to to dierent dierent different caps caps on on total total number number of of vehicles. vehicles. These These responses responses include include arrival arrival rates rates of of passengers, passengers, occupancy occupancy rate, rate, platform platform prices, prices, driver driver wage, wage, pickup pickup time time and and platform platform prot. prot. profit. t t is is more more instructive instructive to to read read read gures gures figures from from right right to to left, left, as as cap cap decreases. decreases. As As cap cap decreases, decreases, supply supply of of vehicles vehicles drops drops Figure Figure 5, 5, so so it it is is harder harder for for passengers passengers to to get get a ride ride Figure Figure n n this this case, case, pickup pickup time time increases increases Figure Figure 9, 9, and and number number of of rides rides decreases. decreases. Here Here are are some some interesting interesting observations: observations: The The platform platform loses loses passengers passengers faster faster than it than it it loses loses drivers. drivers. This is This is is evidenced evidenced by by drop drop in in occupancy occupancy Figure Figure The pickup time increases at at at an increasing rate Figure 9. This is is is just a counterpart of of of aforementioned network externality. Both trip fare and driver wage drop Figures 8, 8,. These These observations observations can can be be explained. explained. As As cap cap reduces reduces number number of of drivers, drivers, passenger passenger pickup pickup time time increases. increases. Since Since t p is decreasing convex function of N, it has an increasing derivative as decreases. p is a decreasing convex function of N, it has an increasing derivative as N decreases. Therefore Therefore customers customers leave leave platform platform at at an an increasing increasing rate rate as as N cap decreases. This rate is greater than cap decreases. This rate is greater than decreasing decreasing rate rate of of N cap, so occupancy rate decreases. n this case, platform loses passengers very cap, so occupancy rate decreases. n this case, platform loses passengers very 3 3 Pickup Time

14 quickly, and has to reduce trip prices to keep passengers from leaving. This furr squeezes driver pay Figure. A surprising fact is that cap on number of drivers hurts earning of drivers Figure. This is contrary to common belief that limiting ir number will protect drivers, as expressed in regulation freezing number of TNC vehicles in New York for one year [9]. This happens because platform hires drivers with lowest reservation wage first. n or words, when a smaller cap on number of drivers is imposed, platform responds by reducing driver pay and hiring drivers with lower reservation costs. Thus benefit of limiting supply is intercepted by platform. Remark 7. Under different parameters, it is possible to find cases in which p f first increases and n decreases as N cap decreases. Mamatically this occurs because derivative of t p is initially smaller than decreasing rate of drivers. However, driver wage p d keeps decreasing throughout regime. This supports argument that platform will not share its profits with drivers under cap constraint. 7. Extensions We formulate some extensions of basic model to examine platform subsidy, platform competition and autonomous mobility on demand. 7.. Platform Subsidy The ride-hailing platform company is not always a short-term profit maximizer. n early stages, it tries to grow its business via subsidies to both passengers and drivers. To model this, we consider a ride-hailing platform that sets prices to maximize number of rides or passengers λ subject to a reservation revenue R, which may be positive or negative negative R indicates subsidy: max λ 9 p f,p d [ ] λ = λ F p + βp f N λ/µ λpd N = N F d N λp f p d R, a b For notational convenience, let λ, p f, p d be solution to 9, and denote λ, p f, p d as solution to non-subsidy case 9. We define subsidy as ɛ f = p f p f and ɛ d = p d p d, where ɛ f and ɛ d represent subsidy to passengers and drivers, respectively. Note that this definition essentially compares p f, p d to profit-maximizing prices. For ease of understanding, we define B = λ p f p d R as subsidy budget. When reservation revenue is maximal profit, i.e., R = λ p f p d, subsidy budget is, and ɛ f = ɛ d =. We estimate platform s ridership under different subsidies. To this end, we use same model parameters as in Section 5.. Simulation results, presented in Figure -5, show that platform should subsidize passengers more than it does drivers. Anor interesting observation is that it should always subsidize both sides of market, regardless of subsidy level. c 4

15 Driver Wage K K 3K 4K Cap Cap Figure : Driver wage Figure : Driver wage per per hour hour under under dierent dierent differentcaps. caps. Platform Driver Wage Rent K K 3K 4K Cap Cap Figure : : Platform Driver wage prot profit per$/hour Figure : Platform prot under un- undeder dierent dierent dierent different caps. caps. caps K K 4 4 3K6 4K 8 8 Budget Budget Cap $/minute $/minute Figure : : : Platform Subsidies prot to to topassengers $/hour and and un- drivers der dierent under caps. dierent dierent differentsubsidy budgets. 5K.6 5K K 4K K 3K Budget Budget $/minute $/minute Budget Budget $/minute $/minute Budget Budget $/minute $/minute 3: rate of un- Figure 4: Number of drivers under dif- Figure 5: Occupancy rate under different subsidy budgets. Figure Figure 3: 3: Arrival Arrival rate rate of of passengers passengers under un- Figure Figure 3: 4: 4: Arrival Number Number rate of of drivers drivers of passengers under under different dif- under dierent subsidy Figure Figure 5: 5: 4: Occupancy Occupancy Number of drivers rate rate under under under dierent dier- difder different ferent subsidy budgets. der dierent dierent subsidy subsidy budgets. budgets. ferent subsidy subsidy budgets. budgets. budgets. ent ferent subsidy subsidy subsidy budgets. budgets. budgets. Passenger Arrival Passenger Number of of Arrival Drivers 5K 7.. Platform Competition Platform Platform Competition Competition 7.. Platform Competition Consider two platforms e.g., Uber Consider and Lyft two competing platforms with e.g., each Uber or and to Lyft maximize competing ir profits. with each The Consider Consider two two platforms platforms e.g., e.g., Uber Uber and and Lyft Lyft competing competing with with each each or or to to maximize maximize ir ir prots. prots. The The or to max profits are coupled through market prots response are coupled to joint through decisions market of both response platforms: to passengers joint decisions choose prots prots are are coupled coupled through through market market response response to to joint joint decisions decisions of of both both platforms: platforms: passengers passengers choose chooseof both platf platform with cheaper overall cost, platform and drivers with work cheaper for overall platform cost, with and a drivers higher work wage for rate. This platform platform with with cheaper cheaper overall overall cost, cost, and and drivers drivers work work for for platform platform with with a higher higher wage wage rate. rate. This This platform with a subsection modifies model to capture subsection this competition. subsection subsection modies modies model model to to capture capture this this competition. competition. modies model to capture this competition. Each platform selects its passenger Each fare and platform driver selects wage. its Passengers passenger and fare drivers and driver respond wage. to Passengers platform Each Each platform platform selects selects its its passenger passenger fare fare and and driver driver wage. wage. Passengers Passengers and and drivers drivers respond respond to to platform platformand drivers prices until market settles down. prices Assume until that when market settles market down. settles Assume down, that both when platforms market survive prices prices until until market market settles settles down. down. Assume Assume that that when when market market settles settles down, down, both both platforms platforms survive survivesettles down, with positive number with positive number of of passengers passengers with and and drivers. drivers. positive number n n this this case case of passengers neir neir passengers passengers and drivers. nor nor drivers drivers n thisdeviate deviate case neir from from with positive number of passengers and drivers. n this case neir passengers nor drivers from passengers n ir ir choice choice of of platform platform at at market market irequilibrium, equilibrium, choice of platform so so passenger passenger at market costs costs equilibrium, and and driver driver wages wages so for passenger two two ir choice of platform at market equilibrium, so passenger costs and driver wages for two costs and d platforms platforms are are equal. equal. This This gives gives rise rise platforms to to following following are equal. prot profit This maximization maximization gives rise toproblem problem following for for one one prot platform, platform, maximization given given platforms are equal. This gives rise to following prot maximization for one platform, given problem pricing pricing decisions decisions p p pricing decisions p f pricing decisions p f, p d of its competitor: p f,, p p d of its competitor: d of of its its competitor: competitor: max max max λp λp λp f p max λp f p d f,p d f d p f,p d d p f,p d p f,p d + βp + βp βp f = + βp f = N λ/µ N λ /µ + βp f λ/µ /µ βp N λ/µ f N λ/µ λ /µ /µ + βp βp f a f a a λp λp λp λp d N = λ p d λ d d λ d N = λ p d N b b [ ] N b [ ] ] [ ] λ + λ λ + λ = λ = λ F F p p + βp + βp βp f = λ F p c c + βp f N λ/µ λ/µ f c N λ/µ λ/µ N + N λpd N + N λpd = N λpd = N F F d λpd = N F d d d d N d N Constraints Constraints a a and and b b guarantee guarantee Constraints that that if if Constraints a and b guarantee that if both both both a platforms platforms platforms and b have have have guarantee positive positive positive number number number that if both of of of passengers passengers passengers platformsand and and have drivers, drivers, drivers, positive number o n n n passenger passenger passenger cost cost cost and and and driver driver driver wage wage wage n in in in passenger two two two platforms platforms platforms cost and are are are driver same, same, same, wage so so so in no no no passenger two platforms or or driver driver driver are has has has same, so no incentive incentive incentive to to to switch switch switch platforms. platforms. platforms. Note Note Note incentive that that that to market market market switchoutcomes outcomes platforms. N, N, N, Note λ, λ, λ, N that,, λ are are are not not not market given. given. given. outcomes nstead, nstead, nstead, y are governed by market equilibrium conditions a-d and platform prices p N, λ, N, λ f, p d, p f, p d Subsidy Platform $/mile Rent Number Occupancy of Drivers Rate 5 Subsidy $/mile Figure : drivers unde Occupancy Rate Figure 5: O ent subsidy