Table Of ContentSharing Mobilities
This book examines contemporary urban sharing mobilities, such
as shared and public forms of everyday urban mobility. Tracing the
social and economic history of sharing mobilities and examining con-
temporary case studies of mobility sharing services, such as Car2go,
BlaBlaCar, and Uber, the authors raise questions about what these
changes mean for access to and engagement with the public spaces of
transport in the city. Drawing on the thought of Lefebvre, the book
considers how contemporary sharing mobilities are affecting people’s
‘right to the city’, with particular attention paid to the privatised,
frictionless practices of movement through the city. In addition, the
authors ask what has happened to earlier forms of shared mobility
and illustrate how some of these practices continue successfully today.
Considering the potential that modern incarnations of shared mobili-
ties offer to urban citizens for engaging in meaningful shared mobili-
ties that are not simply determined by the interfaces of technology and
market forces, this book will appeal to sociologists and geographers
with interests in mobility and urban studies.
Davide Arcidiacono is a researcher in Economic Sociology at the
University of Catania, Italy. His research focuses on the issues of
digital transformation and the sharing and platform economy.
Mike Duggan is a teaching fellow in the Department of Digital
Humanities at King’s College London, UK. His research focuses on
the intersections between digital technologies and everyday cultures
of practice.
Sharing Mobilities
Questioning Our Right to the City
in the Collaborative Economy
Davide Arcidiacono and
Mike Duggan
FOREWORD BY JULIET B. SCHOR
First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2020 Davide Arcidiacono and Mike Duggan
The right of Davide Arcidiacono and Mike Duggan to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Arcidiacono, Davide, author. | Duggan, Mike, author.
Title: Sharing mobilities: questioning our right to the city in the
collaborative economy / Davide Arcidiacono and Mike Duggan.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2020. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019033654 (print) | LCCN 2019033655 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367192426 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429201288 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Urban transportation. | Ridesharing. | Cooperation.
Classification: LCC HE305 .A735 2020 (print) | LCC HE305 (ebook) |
DDC 388.4—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019033654
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019033655
ISBN: 978-0-367-19242-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-20128-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by codeMantra
Contents
List of figures vi
List of tables vii
Foreword by Juliet B. Schor viii
Acknowledgements xi
1 Welcome to the age of sharing 1
2 The successes and failures of shared urban mobility 13
3 Sharing mobility, mobility justice, and the right
to the city 40
4 Regulation, platform governance, and the
labour practices of shared urban mobility 53
5 Empowering connections: relations,
collaborations, and community in sharing mobility 78
6 Conclusion 98
Bibliography 111
Index 129
Figures
2.1 Sharing mobility ecosystem 16
2.2 Types of sharing mobility 17
2.3 Historical evolution of shared mobility 24
2.4 Estimated mobility as a service (MaaS) market
capitalisation worldwide from 2025 to 2035
(in billions of US dollars) 26
2.5 Start-ups financed worldwide (%) 27
2.6 Reasons given for subscribing to the Car2go
service (multiple choice %) 35
5.1 The characteristics of a sharing mobility community 91
Tables
2.1 Top ten decacorn start-up 27
5.1 The types of social relation mapped onto
different sharing mobility services 86
Foreword
As the “sharing economy” enters its second decade, we are in a posi-
tion to take stock of how things have gone, particularly in relation to
the ambitious promises with which it was launched. In the early years
(2008–2012), when many sharing companies and organisations were
founded, they put forward a discourse of common good. They would
increase efficiency, access, and incomes. They would reduce environ-
mental footprints, especially for carbon. They would bring strangers
together in relations of mutual trust, thereby fostering social cohesion
and engagement. Ten years later, many of these claims are in tatters,
as investor imperatives led for-profit companies to prioritise growth
over socially positive outcomes. Socially minded entities who are com-
mitted to the public welfare have failed to scale like the profit-oriented
businesses. Sharing has become an increasingly awkward term to de-
scribe entities like Airbnb and Uber, given their outsized commercial
ambitions and unanticipated impacts.
To some extent, the common good claims were always suspect. Shar-
ing platforms say that they are engines of economic prosperity, dramat-
ically expanding consumer markets, and providing increased incomes
for providers. But when they are successful in expanding production,
they surely increase climate emissions, as we have not yet reached a
stage of de-carbonisation in which more economic activity can occur
without a bigger footprint. As lodging platforms expanded, and absent
hosts proliferated, desire and opportunity for social connection disap-
peared. Guests just wanted a better lodging value or a different expe-
rience than a hotel; they weren’t looking to make friends. They often
failed to meet the owners. On peer-to-peer vehicle rental platforms, one
study showed a majority of users preferred not to meet the owners.
Perhaps nowhere has the gap between aspirations and realities been so
large as in transportation. Environmental benefits were at the core of why
even some company founders got into the business. Any way they looked
Foreword ix
at it, participants in the sharing community saw “shared mobility” as a
key component of sustainable transport. Shifting from a system in which
most vehicles have single occupants to shared rides would reduce the
number of vehicle miles travelled. How could it not be better for the cli-
mate? Letting people rent their idle cars to each other increased efficiency
and would also reduce ownership, thereby avoiding the embodied emis-
sions of new vehicles. The early discourse promised fewer, fuller vehi-
cles, being used more efficiently, with less total miles driven. Ride-hailing
companies were also seen as solutions to longstanding public transport
dilemmas such as the last mile problem, or low ridership routes or times.
The mantra of access over ownership was premised on the idea that peo-
ple would readily give up buying personal vehicles, and would be content
to rely on other people driving them around. But what has happened?
There is growing evidence that the most important trends in “shared
mobility” have been the opposite of what proponents claimed. Com-
mercial ride-hailing came to dominate the field, with shared vehicle
ownership and true ridesharing being much smaller segments. Be-
cause commercial ride-hailing began with subsidised rides, which
have been far lower than traditional taxis, and in some cases, even
than public transportation, it has been very popular. Ridership has
exploded. Surveys of the US find that people are moving off of public
transportation, walking and cycling and onto ride-hailing. They are
also choosing to make more trips than they otherwise would. The re-
sult is that researchers find that when Uber (the biggest company in
the US) arrives in a city, congestion intensifies, vehicle miles travelled
rise, and air and carbon pollution increases. New car sales also in-
crease, as drivers buy them to earn on the platform, contrary to claims
of “access” over “ownership”. They’re also a problem for fair access
as they have been especially deficient in providing disability access or
options for low-income riders. And there’s another impact that hasn’t
been adequately reported: after decades of decline, traffic fatalities
are on the rise, a trend that researchers show is causally related to the
advent of ride-hailing. Commercial ride-hailing, while initially a boon
for consumers, has brought in its wake, a raft of negative ripple effects.
Perhaps most ominously, for-profit ride-hailing platforms are un-
dermining vital public transportation systems, a point Uber finally
conceded in its Initial Public Offering documents. They not only pull-
ing people off the public systems. They’re eroding political support.
Existing research shows that ride-hail passengers are richer, younger,
and Whiter than local populations. They disproportionately serve
elites. The coalition of middle- and working-class support that under-
pins public transportation is at risk of splintering.
