Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Commissioned by
Vincent Chin, Mariam Jaafar, Jason Moy, Maria Phong, Shenya Wang,
Matthew McDonnell, and Irfan Prawiradinata
November 2017
ABOUT THIS REPORT
The rise of ridesharing firms such as Uber, Didi, Grab and Lyft over the last eight
years has introduced a new mode of transport to commuters around the world.
Though still nascent in Asia, ridesharing has already begun to influence the
transport landscape. It has the potential to become an important part of the
response to growing transport needs in the region.
Uber has commissioned the Boston Consulting Group to assess the potential
benefits that greater adoption of ridesharing may bring to Asian cities. The
findings in this report were developed through research utilising publicly available
transport data, interviews with transport experts and primary research with
commuters in each city. The cities specifically covered in this report are: Singa-
pore, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Surabaya, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Taipei, Ho Chi Minh
City, Hanoi and Manila.
2 Unlocking Cities
IN BRIEF
Growth in population and wealth Improve vehicle utilisation
have led to an explosion in per KM
transport demand in Asia an
increase of 4x since 1980 Complement public transport
adoption
Despite significant infrastructure
investment, demand has largely Optimise timing of infrastruc-
outstripped supply leading to ture investment
rising congestion and increased
pollution Ridesharing can provide substan-
tial benefits to cities in Asia.
Solutions going forward should However, a combination of
balance between necessary support from both the rideshare
capital investments to expand ecosystem and public sector is
capacity as well as increasing the needed to realise benefits
efficiency of existing assets
Public sector: Review
Ridesharing can play a role in existing regulations to enable
ensuring more efficient use of rideshare ecosystem to deliver
existing assets. This solution higher levels of rideshare
involves three major components: services needed to encourage
(1) Flexible supply base utilising adoption
existing private vehicles, (2)
dynamic routing with smart Rideshare ecosystem:
supply-demand matching, and (3) Enhance rideshare offering,
demand pooling particularly pooling
Solutions going forward should balance between further capital investments to ex-
pand capacity and initiatives to increase the efficiency of existing assets. Rideshar-
ing is one way to significantly increase the utilisation of existing infrastructure.
Three characteristics of the ridesharing model contribute to its potential as a
cost-efficient part of the overall response to the growing demand for transport in
Asia: (1) Flexible supply base utilising existing private vehicles, (2) dynamic routing
with smart supply-demand matching, and (3) demand pooling.
These three characteristics mean ridesharing offers key benefits for Asian cities, pri-
marily by reducing congestion and optimising public transport investment:
Improving vehicle utilisation per KM: Studies show that rideshare may be
more effective in meeting demand when it is at its highest, but reducing supply
when demand is lower. For example, a study in San Francisco found that
rideshare vehicles have approximately half of the miles without passengers
compared to taxis.2
4 Unlocking Cities
Combined, these benefits have the potential to reduce the number of cars on the
road, and tackle congestion levels. Across the cities studied, we estimate ~40%-70%
of private vehicles on the road today could be removed, if rideshare becomes a via-
ble substitute for private vehicle ownership. This will significantly improve conges-
tion in all cases, and almost eliminate it altogether in a number of cities.3
Despite the clear possible benefits from greater rideshare adoption, concerns have
been expressed about the interaction between ridesharing and other transport
modes.The extent and nature of these concerns are typically market-specific it is
important for each city to understand and address them appropriately. To achieve
net positive benefits to Asian cities, several conditions must be met regarding:
Public sector reform: The ability for rideshare platforms to improve availabili-
ty, timeliness and price is tied to driver supply in each market. Larger supply
pools enable commuters to secure rides more easily, reduce wait times, and
will allow for more attractive pricing. With greater adoption, pooling also
becomes more viable, as more riders create a more efficient pooling net-
work, leading to faster ride times. Supply caps, therefore, potentially limit
the benefits of ridesharing. Restrictions on rideshare apps also prevent
commuters from matching with drivers on demand, effectively curtailing
rideshare usage. Finally, price caps may inhibit a key ridesharing mechanism
which helps match supply with demand in more dynamic fashion during
peak hours. Regulators should take into account the potential benefit of
ridesharing in terms of the overall transport challenge when developing
ridesharing regulations.
6 Unlocking Cities
Asias transport growth journey
A sias growth in population and wealth over the last several decades has led
to an explosion in transport demand. Since 1980, the population in East Asia
has increased by nearly 50%, and average wealth, as measured by GDP per capita,
has grown 1.6 times for Asian countries.4 Based on research demonstrating the
relationship between transport demand and population and wealth, we estimate
transport demand has increased, on average, four times per country, since 1980.5
Singapore
600 Korea
Malaysia
Vietnam
Thailand
400 Indonesia
Hong Kong
Philippines
Australia
200
Japan
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Source: World Bank; OECD; National Center for Sustainable Transportation; BCG analysis
Source: World Bank; OECD; National Center for Sustainable Transportation; BCG analysis
Despite improvements across the region, the current state of transport varies wide-
ly. Asian cities can broadly be classified into three tiers:
Bangkok
4
Jakarta Surabaya
Hanoi
3 Ho Chi Minh
Manila
1
Tier III:Relatively less developed infrastructure
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cities in each tier face different sets of transport challenges today. Tier I cities gen-
erally suffer from road congestion during peak travel times, but have low levels of
congestion outside of peak hours. However, public transport in Tier I cities are
showing greater signs of strain resulting in lower levels of public transport satisfac-
tion in some cases, particularly Singapore.9 Looking forward, Tier I cities have aspi-
rations to adopt next-generation modes of transport such as mobility-on-demand
and autonomous vehicles, to improve mobility and to enhance liveability in cities.
Due to the lower adoption of public transport in Tier II cities, road congestion is a
greater challenge. While both Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok have made impressive
gains in developing public transport infrastructure, overall adoption remains rela-
tively low (<25% of KM travelled). The need to further improve overall quality and
ease of access from feeder transport modes have been cited as key barriers to the
desired uptake. Both the Thai and the Malaysian governments have indicated that
maintaining control over vehicle growth and driving uptake of public transport are
transport objectives going forward.
Congestion in Tier III cities is significantly higher than Asian city averages,10 driv-
en by relatively informal and road-based public transport networks, and significant
8 Unlocking Cities
growth in vehicles. Congestion levels, as a result, are high both in peak and non-
peak hours of travel. At current vehicle growth levels, Tier III cities are at risk of
reaching standstill levels of congestion (<10KM/hour) during peak hours by 2022 .
Looking forward, a combination of a significant uptake in public transport as well
as efficient alternatives to vehicle ownership are likely to be needed to curb conges-
tion.
EXHIBIT III: PEAK HOUR CONGESTION (% ADDITIONAL TIME TO TRAVEL IN PEAK HOURS)
Exhibit III: Peak hour congestion (% additional time to travel in peak hours)
150
100
Asia avg
132 134 67%
105 112
50
79
63 65 68 70
57
0
Singapore Hong Surabaya Kuala Taipei Jakarta Bangkok Ho Chi Manila Hanoi
Kong Lumpur Minh City
Vehicle 0.2% 3.4% 6.3% 7.7% -0.8% 10.0% 6.4% 6.4% 4.0% 10.6%
growth (%) 1
1. From 2011-2016 where data available from published government statistics 2. Peak hours dened as 7-9am, 6-8pm
1. From
Note:2011-2016 where
Asia average data
taken available
from from
average published
of East government
Asian cities based onstatistics
TomTom2.trac
Peak index
hours defined as 7-9am, 6-8pm
Note: Asia average
Source: TomTomtaken
tracfrom average
index; GoogleofAPI;
East Asian
Uber; cities based
Government on TomTom
statistics; BCG traffic index
analysis
Source: TomTom traffic index; Google API; Uber; Government statistics; BCG analysis
Flexible supply base: Flexible driver supply base utilising existing private
vehicles, which can scale to meet demand
Supporting liveability: With reduced car ownership, land previously used for
parking can be allocated to enhance living conditions, such as additional
housing and social infrastructure.
Tier II cities such as Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur may most benefit from ridesharing
through:
Supplementing incomes: Car owners in Tier III cities indicate higher willing-
ness to drive through a ridesharing platform to increase their incomes. Between
25-33% of car owners indicate very high willingness, and an additional 40-60%
indicate moderate willingness.
Exhibit
EXHIBIT IV: Percentage
IV: PERCENTAGE of respondents
OF RESPONDENTS who
WHO PLAN plan
TO BUY to buy
A CAR a car
WITHIN THEwithin theYEARS
NEXT FIVE next five years
% of respondents
100
88
83 84 83
79 81 79
80
72
64
60 57
51 49
43
40 36
28
21 19 21
20 17 16 17
12
0
Hong Singapore Taipei Kuala Bangkok Hanoi Ho Chi Jakarta Manila Surabaya Average
Kong Lumpur Minh City
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Mean % yes: 48 86 81
Yes No
Source: BCG survey
Source: BCG survey
% respondents
100
87 88 89 90
85 85
81 82 82 82
80 9 18
23 28 40 37 42 42 Highly willing
30
45
60
40
73
68
58 54
51 47 51 47 47 Somewhat willing
20 40
0
Singapore Hong Taipei Bangkok Kuala Jakarta Surabaya Manila Hanoi Ho Chi
Kong Lumpur Minh City
Source: BCG survey
Source: BCG survey
3.4x
1.7x
2.7x
60,000
3.2x
1.3x
1.8x 1.8x
40,000 2.0x
1.9x
1.7x
20,000
0
Hong Kong Singapore Manila Bangkok Taipei Kuala Jakarta Ho Chi Surabaya Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
Source: Government
Source: Governmentstatistics;
statistics;press
presssearch;
search;commuter
commutersurveys;
surveys;BCG
BCGAnalysis
Analysis
ExhibitEXHIBIT
VII: Percentage of private cars, motorcycles and vehicles reduced with rideshare
VII: PERCENTAGE OF PRIVATE VEHICLES AND TOTAL VEHICLES REDUCED WITH RIDESHARE
100%
80%
73%
70% 71%
66%
63% 63%
60%
60% 57% 56% 55%
53%
46% 46%
42%
39% 39%
40% 35%
31%
24%
20%
11%
0%
Singapore Hong Taipei Kuala Bangkok Manila Jakarta Ho Chi Hanoi Surabaya
Kong Lumpur Minh City
No. of private
vehicles reduced 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.5 3.7 1 2.5 3.5 2.4 1.0
after rideshare
(million)
Car Motorcycles
1.
1.With
With rideshare
rideshare scenario
scenario under which ridesharing
ridesharing replaces
replacesprivate
privatecars
carsasasthe
the#2
#2or
or#3
#3mode
modeofoftransport
transportininrespective
respectivecities
citiesand
and pool
pool
constitutes
constitutes 50%
50% of
of rides 2. Total
Total number
number of vehicles includes
includes private
private cars,
cars, motorcycles,
motorcycles, buses,
buses, taxi
taxi and
and rideshare
ridesharecars,
cars, 3. Total
Total number
number of
cars
cars include
include private cars and ridesharing
ridesharing cars.
cars.
Government statistics;
Source: Government
Source: statistics; BCG
BCG Analysis
Analysis
8
-85%
-92%
100
-51%
-91% -81%
-90% -72%
-77%
50
0
Singapore Hong Kong Kuala Taipei Jakarta Bangkok Manila Surabaya Ho Chi Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
Note: Reductions
Note: Reductions in congestion based
in congestion based on
on high-adoption,
high-adoption,high-pooling
high-poolingscenario
scenario
Source: BCG
Source: BCG analysis
analysis
Tier II cities have recently invested in public transport development, and have
ambitions to significantly increase adoption to reduce congestion. However, we
estimate that even with the planned expansions and full capacity utilisation of
current and future rail lines, both Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok may be unable to
maintain current levels of peak congestion by 2022. Ridesharing, therefore, may
not just be an important mechanism as a feeder to public transport, but will
also be an important way to reduce congestion by substituting against private
car usage. We estimate in 2022 that rideshare adoption of ~10% KM travelled is
needed, alongside utilisation of rail capacity, to maintain congestion levels to
today.
Tier III cities have announced ambitious plans to significantly increase rail-
based public transport capacity. Jakarta, Manila and Ho Chi Minh City have
collectively announced plans to invest over $60Bn in rail infrastructure by 2022.
Despite these ambitious growth plans, we estimate that the added capacity of
rail transport alone will not be sufficient to meet growth in transport demand by
2022. We estimate that ridesharing adoption between 16-40% across these cities
is needed in conjunction with public transport to maintain congestion levels
today.
80
60
40
20
0
Singapore Hong Taipei Kuala Bangkok Ho Chi Manila Jakarta Surabaya
Kong Lumpur Minh City
2017 % KM travelled by public transport
2022 % KM travelled by public transport to maintain current peak congestion
Estimated public transport capacity by 20221
Investment
US$ Billion 20 25 14 6 24 10 51 5 0.09
(2017 2022)
1.Capacity
1.Capacityisisestimated
estimatedbased
basedon oncurrent
currentrail
railnetwork
networkandandnew
newrail
rail lines/existing
lines/existing line
line extensions in operation
operation
before2022
before 2022inineach
eachcity:
city:Thomson
ThomsonEastEastCoast
CoastLine,
Line,Downtown
Downtownlineline33extension
extensionfor
for Singapore;
Singapore; total
total new
new railway
projects
railway equivalent
projects to 25%toof25%
equivalent current capacity
of current in HonginKong;
capacity Hong Circular Line stage
Kong; Circular Line1,stage
Anking Line, Danhai
1, Anking Line, LRT,
WandaLRT,
Danhai LineWanda
stage 1,Line
Xinzhuang
stage 1,Line extension
Xinzhuang Lineforextension
Taipei; MRT Line 2 MRT
for Taipei; for Kuala
LineLumpur; 10 new
2 for Kuala rail lines
Lumpur; 10 and 3
existing
new line extensions
rail lines and 3 existingfor Bangkok; rst Metro
line extensions Line andfirst
for Bangkok; 3 LRT linesLine
Metro for Jakarta; 6 Metro
and 3 LRT lines Rails (total 109
for Jakarta; 6 KM)
for HoRails
Metro Chi Minh; 6 new
(total 109 KM) railway
for Holines
Chi (total
Minh;246
6 newKM) for Manila;
railway one monorail
lines (total 246 KM)forforSurabaya
Manila; one monorail for
Surabaya
A recent study by researchers at Harvard and MIT universities found that following
the repeal of this policy, morning and evening congestion on the newly-liberalized Following the repeal
routes leaped by a staggering 46% and 87%, respectively. Moreover, not only did of the 3-in-1 policy,
congestion jump on those central Jakarta roads where car-pooling was previously morning and evening
mandated, it increased in areas that were never subject to the pooling rule in congestion on the
the first place. In the hour following the evening peak, for example 19:00-20:00, newly-liberalized
the repeal of this policy coincided with a roughly 50% increase in delays.15 routes leaped by a
staggering 46% and
While this example is not ridesharing-specific, it illustrates the benefits carpooling 87%, respectively
facilitated by ridesharing. Furthermore, there is evidence that pooled rides can
become a substantial portion of ridesharing trips. Lyft, for example, reported in
2015 that the companys pooled offering represented 50% of total Lyft trips in San
Francisco, and 30% of total Lyft trips in New York City. In Southeast Asia, Ubers
pooled option represented approximately 25% of total trips in August 2017.16
Transit authorities are recognizing the potential for ridesharing to act as a feeder
mechanism to public transport. In Portland, Oregon, for example, a local transit au-
thority (TriMet) has integrated rideshare booking capabilities into its public transit
app, as a means to enhance intermodal efficiency to public transport hubs.
Despite the clear possible benefits of ridesharing, concerns have emerged about the
interaction between ridesharing and other transport modes such as taxi operators
and public transport players. BCG has therefore explored these concerns and poten-
tial ways forward. From our assessment, we found that a net positive outcome can
be realised for all stakeholders ridesharing is not and need not be a zero sum
game.To achieve net positive benefits to Asian cities, several conditions must be
achieved regarding:
This challenge is potentially most significant for Tier I cities in Asia that currently
rely heavily on public transport. However, among the Tier I cities studied, the price
differential between private vehicle ownership and public transport is large given
government control over vehicle prices. Therefore, assuming rideshare prices re-
main more attractive in comparison to car ownership than public transport, the risk
of public transport substitution may not be significant.
This risk can be further mitigated by rideshare platforms and governments working
together to establish programs that make ridesharing services an appealing comple-
ment to public transport. For example, governments can work with ridesharing
platforms to provide commuters with live inter-modal travel data and to establish
discounts or pooling schemes for feeder transport to arterial public transport infra-
structure.
Utilisation of taxis
The rise of rideshare has been perceived to reduce taxi ridership in some cities. For
example, data from the Land Transport Authority of Singapore suggests that the
proportion of taxis sitting idle in yards has increased from 2016 to 2017.21 However,
the Ministry of Transport in Singapore has also suggested that rideshare has served
as a positive complement to taxis, particularly in peak hours.22, 23 In addition, the
emergence of rideshare technologies may have encouraged taxis to adopt more so-
Governments can also play a role in ensuring taxi companies improve their compet-
itive position while offering commuters better outcomes.For example,taxis should
be able to access the same technologies available to ridesharing vehicles. Both taxis
and private vehicles can form part of the flexible supply base necessary to realise
the congestion benefits outlined above. In particular, governments should ensure
that taxis can use apps to connect with passengers, and ensure that taxis can avail
themselves of supply-demand matching mechanisms such as dynamic pricing.
Partnerships between rideshare platforms and taxi companies can also benefit taxi
drivers. Recent examples of partnerships between rideshare platforms and taxi
companies include UberTAXI in Taiwan, UberFLASH in Malaysia and Grabs part-
nerships with multiple Singaporean and Vietnamese taxi companies. These part-
nerships promise to benefit taxi drivers by offering them access to technology
which may allow more responsive matching of supply to demand, thereby increas-
ing vehicle utilisation and ridership. These partnerships also benefit drivers by of-
fering access to large networks of potential passengers.
We believe net positive outcomes can be realised across stakeholders in the trans-
port landscape. Demand for transport will continue to grow across Asian cities,
leading to opportunities for incumbent transport models to evolve and for new
transport models to enter ultimately leading to better transport outcomes for
commuters.
Ridesharing has the potential to support the growth in transport needs across Asian
cities in a more sustainable and more efficient manner than private car ownership.
However, both the rideshare ecosystem and public sector must play a role to realise
this outcome.
Regulatory restrictions for ridesharing vary widely across Asia with some cities
adopting a more open market position, and others imposing explicit restrictions.
While these regulations reflect differing circumstances across cities, more open
stances may be needed if ridesharing platforms are to achieve the improved levels
of service that will encourage higher adoption:
Travel time: Longer commute times due to the nature of pooling appear to be
more of an issue in cities like Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh,
where respondents indicate the travel time would be substantially higher than
their current mode of transport.
Ridesharing has the potential to positively impact the transport environment across
Asia. While the existing benefits for ridesharing and pooling vary, substantial
growth in adoption is needed in all markets to realise benefits on a sustained basis.
A combination of improved service offerings from ridesharing platforms as well as
support from regulators will be required to achieve the adoption needed for materi-
al benefits.
Mariam Jaafar, is a Partner in our Singapore office and a member of Singapores Committee on
the Future Economy. She is also on the Board of GovTech, the agency responsible for implementa-
tion of Singapores Smart Nation agenda. She has worked closely with multiple public sector cli-
ents across APAC on topics related to the digital economy, giving her a unique understanding of the
policy perspectives of the Singapore government. She can be contacted via email at jaafar.mari-
am@bcg.com.
Jason Moy, is a Principal based in Singapore and co-leads BCG Vietnam. He has ~15 years of expe-
rience in working with consumer businesses across APAC, Europe, and the US. He has also sup-
ported various SEA government agencies to successfully implement public policy initiatives (e.g.,
labour productivity) across industries. He can be contacted via email at moy.jason@bcg.com.
Maria Phong, is a Principal in the Singapore office. She has over 7 years of experience consulting
with Asian companies and governments on strategic growth and logistic topics such as smart trans-
portation, transport megaprojects and labour productivity. She can be contacted via email at
phong.maria@bcg.com.
Matthew McDonnell is a Consultant in the Jakarta office. Shenya Wang and Irfan Prawiradi-
nata are Associates in the Singapore and Jakarta offices respectively. They can be contacted via
email at mcdonnell.matthew@bcg.com, wang.shenya@bcg.com and prawiradinata.irfan@bcg.com.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Panagiota Papakosta and the broader BCG GAMMA team for their
traffic congestion analysis, Kirsten Lees for editorial support, Kim Friedman and Varvara Egorova
for design and production assistance, the BCG knowledge teams and Visual Services.
Analysis conducted
1. Qualitative research:
The qualitative research conducted as part of this report takes two primary
forms:
a. BCG survey of commuter sentiments in cities: The objective of these
surveys was to develop an understanding of commuter satisfaction with
existing transportation options, their reasons for using or not using ride-
share and pooling, their likelihood to adopt these methods, the impact of
ridesharing on car ownership and commuter desire to become rideshare
drivers.
2. Quantitative research:
The quantitative research conducted as part of this report was used to model
the potential benefits provided by ridesharing and pooling under different
adoption scenarios.
Survey methodology
The BCG survey, conducted in September-October 2017, covered approximately 300
commuters per city. Commuters surveyed ranged across all types of transportation.
The surveys covered the following cities: Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Kuala Lum-
pur, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, Manila, Hanoi and Surabaya.
40
30
20 19
13
11 11 11 12
10
10 Mean 10
7
5
3
0
Hong Kong Taipei Singapore Bangkok Kuala Hanoi Ho Chi Jakarta Surabaya Manila
Lumpur Minh City
Source: BCG survey
40
30
25
24
23 22
20 21
19 Mean 21
20 17 17 18
10
0
Hong Kong Singapore Taipei Kuala Bangkok Hanoi Surabaya Jakarta Manila Ho Chi
Lumpur Minh City
Source: BCG survey
We surveyed current non-users of rideshare for the key reasons they do not use this
mode of transport. In all but two of the cities surveyed, respondents cited price as
being higher than their current primary mode of transport, as the strongest reason.
At the other end of the spectrum, awareness of rideshare offerings was seen as the
least severe inhibitor to rideshare adoption across all the cities studied.
Appendix exhibit
APPENDIX EXHIBITIII: Reasons
III: REASONS cited
CITED FORfor
NOTnot adopting
ADOPTING rideshare
RIDESHARE in comparison
IN COMPARISON to respon-
TO RESPONDENT
PREFERRED MODE OF TRANSPORT
dent preferred mode of transport
Higher Greater Lower Less Driver
price travel time availability awareness safety
Hong Kong
Singapore
Taipei
Kuala Lumpur
Bangkok
Hanoi
Jakarta
Manila
Surabaya
All cities
average
Legend
1 2 3 4 5
Strongest Weakest
agreement agreement
Note: Reasons for non-adoption are relative to rideshare non-users' preferred modes of transport
Note: Reasons for non-adoption
Source: BCG survey are relative to rideshare non-users preferred modes of transport
Source: BCG survey
Appendix exhibit IV: % current non-pool users who would adopt pooling if:
Price is up to APPENDIX
25%PRICE
EXHIBIT IV: % CURRENT NON-POOL USERS WHO WOULD ADOPT POOLING IF:
cheaper
IS UP TOthan currentTHAN
25% CHEAPER primary mode
CURRENT of transport
PRIMARY MODE OF TRANSPORT
%
80
Tier I Tier II Tier III
60
50
40 74
66
65
66 56
53
48 50
20 41 39
0
Singapore Taipei Hong Kong Kuala Bangkok Jakarta Manila Surabaya Hanoi Ho Chi
Lumpur Minh City
Cities where >50% of respondents willing to adopt pooling under stated condition
APPENDIXV:
Appendix POOLING
exhibit EXHIBIT V: % CURRENT
% current NON-POOL
non-pool USERS
users whoWHO WOULD adopt
would ADOPT POOLING
poolingIF: if:
IS SLIGHTLY MORE EASILY AVAILABLE THAN CURRENT MAIN MODE OF TRANSPORT
Pooling is slightly more easily available than current main mode of transport
%
80 Tier I Tier II Tier III
60
50
40 71
69
60
52 54 51
47 51 52
43
20
0
Singapore Hong Kong Taipei Kuala Bangkok Surabaya Jakarta Manila Ho Chi Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
Cities where >50% of respondents willing to adopt pooling under stated condition
APPENDIX EXHIBIT VI: % CURRENT NON-POOL USERS WHO WOULD ADOPT POOLING IF:
APPENDIX EXHIBIT VI: IS%SLIGHTLY
POOLING currentFASTER
non-pool users who
THAN CURRENT MAINwould adopt
MODE OF pooling if:
TRANSPORT
Pooling is slightly faster than current main mode of transport
%
80 Tier I Tier II Tier III
60
50
40 74
65
54 58 57 58
50 50
44 47
20
0
Singapore Taipei Hong Kong Kuala Bangkok Surabaya Manila Jakarta Ho Chi Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
Cities where >50% of respondents willing to adopt pooling under stated condition
BCG surveyed the stated likelihood of commuters to purchase a car in the next 5
years. Respondents in Tier II and Tier III cities show very high propensity to pur-
chase a car.
Appendix exhibit
APPENDIXVII: Percentage
EXHIBIT of respondents
VII: PERCENTAGE who
OF RESPONDENTS plan
WHO PLANto
TObuy
BUY a car WITHIN
A CAR withinTHE
the next five
NEXT
FIVE YEARS
years
% of respondents
100 Yes No
88
84 83
83 81 79
79
80
72
64
60 57
51 49
43
40 36
28
21 21
17 19 17
20 16
12
0
Hong Singapore Taipei Kuala Bangkok Hanoi Ho Chi Jakarta Manila Surabaya Average
Kong Lumpur Minh City
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Mean % yes: 48 86 81
APPENDIX EXHIBIT VIII: WILLINGNESS FOR A PLANNED CAR BUYER TO FOREGO PURCHASE, PROVIDED
Appendix exhibit VIII: Willingness
RIDESHARE for a planned
MEETS DESIRED LEVELS OF car buyer to
AVAILABILITY, forego
PRICE, purchase, provided
TIMELINESS
rideshare meets desired levels of availability, price, timeliness
% respondents
100
87 88 89 90
85 85
81 82 82 82
80 9 18
23 37
30 28 40 42 42 Highly willing
45
60
40 73
68
58 54
51
47 51 47 47
20 40 Somewhat willing
0
Singapore Hong Taipei Bangkok Kuala Jakarta Surabaya Manila Hanoi Ho Chi
Kong Lumpur Minh City
Receptivity and enthusiasm for such a scenario varied somewhat with the citys
current level of transport infrastructure development and public transit adoption.
General receptivity to forgoing a planned car purchase (somewhat + highly agree)
varied modestly between city tiers, at 83%, 82% and 88% for Tier 1, Tier 2 and
Tier 3 cities, respectively. More pronounced among the cities was enthusiasm for
the idea, with only 16% of respondents in Tier 1 cities saying they highly agree,
compared to 29% and 41% for Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, respectively.
APPENDIX EXHIBIT
Appendix exhibit IX: SURVEY
IX: Survey RESPONDENTS
respondents STATEDwillingness
stated WILLINGNESS TO
toDRIVE
driveFOR RIDESHARE
for rideshare
% respondents
100
89 90
86
81
80 75 77 77 76
72 32 31 Highly
7 9 30
24 willing
24
60 27 31
53
8
40
69 67
57 56 58 58 Somewhat
53
45 44 45 willing
20
0
Taipei Hong Kong Singapore Bangkok Kuala Jakarta Surabaya Manila Ho Chi Hanoi
Lumpur Minh
Source: BCGBCG
Source: survey
survey
While car owners across the markets studied were generally positive about the
prospect of working as a rideshare driver, the general receptivity and enthusiasm
for doing so was more varied, relative to consumers general willingness to adopt
rideshare. Overall across the cities studied, 76% either somewhat or highly agreed
with the statement that they would be willing to use their own cars to work as a
rideshare driver. Enthusiasm for driving was lower than the consumer metrics ex-
amined previously, with only 8% of Tier 1 car owners expressing strong agreement
and 24% and 30% of Tier 2 and Tier 3 respondents strongly agreeing, respectively.
In various U.S. cities, research found that average number of cars per household
was roughly a third less in car share, rideshare, and bike share households vs.
households that did not use those shared mobility options. (Feigon & Murphy, 2016)
In Austin, Texas, researchers found that a when Uber and Lyft were temporarily
suspended in that city, roughly 40% of those affected switched to a personal ve-
hicle as their primary transport mode and approximately 9% purchased a ve-
hicle in response to the suspension. 1, 2 (Hampshire, Simek, Fabusuyi, Di, & Chen,
2017).
In 1992, the Jakarta government introduced a policy where vehicles were required
to carry at least three occupants when travelling on main routes during peak hours,
a policy known locally as 3-in-1. This restriction was in excess of the more common
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) standard of +2, in part because many private car
owners also hire a driver. (Hanna, Kreindler, & Olken, 2017) In Mid-2016, the policy
was then scrapped, first temporarily, then permanently, due at least in part to con-
cerns regarding the informal passenger-for-hire (i.e. jockey) economy that grew in
response to those trying to circumvent the restrictions. (Anggun Wijaya, 2016)
(Tempo.co, 2016)
Whatever the reasons for its demise, the congestion effects of eliminating Jakartas
HOV policies were staggering. A recent study by researchers at Harvard and
MIT universities found that following 3-in-1s elimination, morning and eve-
ning congestion on the newly liberalized routes leaped by a staggering 46%
and 87%, respectively. In some cases, average speeds slowed to roughly 11km/hr.
hardly more than 2x average walking speed. (Hanna, Kreindler, & Olken, 2017)
Not only did congestion jump on those central Jakarta roads where carpooling
was previously mandated, it increased during times and in areas that were
never subject to the rule in the first place. In the hour following the evening
peak, for example (19:00-20:00), the repeal of 3-in-1 coincided with a roughly 50%
increase delays. The results for mid-day delays was were mixed, with an increase in
congestion between 0 and 30%. (Hanna, Kreindler, & Olken, 2017)
All other things equal, a higher vehicle utilization i.e. fewer dead kilometres is a
good thing. It means that a fewer number of vehicles are needed to serve a commu-
nity, this reducing congestion. In this measurement of utilization, rideshare com-
pares quite favourably relative to taxis across multiple markets. Research by the
San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and Northeastern Univer-
sity indicated that for trips within San Francisco, rideshare vehicles demonstrate
approximately half of the dead kilometres (as a percentage of total KM) com-
pared to taxis. (San Francisco County Transportaton Authority, 2017). Similar re-
search by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reached a similar
conclusion for San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles, and Seattle that utilization of
Uber vehicles was approximately 40% greater than that of taxis. (Cramer & Krueger,
2016). Of the cities covered in the latter study, only in New York showed utilization
roughly equivalent between rideshare and taxis.
One study of rideshare users across various U.S. cities found that after those sur-
veyed started using shared-use mobility,3 43% reported an increase in public transit
use, while 28% reported using public transit less. (Feigon & Murphy, 2016). The in-
crease in public transport usage may correlate with a car-light lifestyle, as the in-
crease in public transport and shared mobility usage tends to be higher for late-
night/weekend trips, when alcohol is involved, or in areas where public transit may
not be readily available. In these instances, ridesharing may serve as a means for
last-mile transport.
One way public transit systems seek to utilise ridesharing as a feeder mechanism is
by linking the booking or payment systems for both modes. (Feigon & Murphy,
2016) In Portland, Oregon, for example, a local transit authority (TriMet) has inte-
grated rideshare and car share booking capabilities into its public transit app. A
spokesperson for the department explained the decision: One of the things we're
trying to solve are the first and last mileThese are people we can't serve, finan-
cially. We wanted to provide other ride options that work really closely in synch
with transit. (Nijus, 2016)
While such a plan may seem far-fetched, some municipalities have indeed begun di-
verting funds from transportation-related projects and infrastructure to rideshare
companies. In 2016, a New Jersey suburb decided to subsidize Uber rides to its local
public transit hub, instead of using the funds to expand parking at the location.
(Fung, 2017) Numerous other transit departments have struck deals with rideshar-
ing companies, most often to provide bus-like services to otherwise underserved ar-
eas. (Brustein, 2016)
Despite the clear possible benefits of ridesharing, concerns have emerged about the
interaction between ridesharing and other transport modes such as taxi operators
and public transport players. BCG has therefore explored these concerns and poten-
tial ways forward. From our assessment, we found that a net positive outcome can
be realized for all stakeholders ridesharing is not and need not be a "zero sum"
game.To achieve net positive benefits to Asian cities, several conditions must be
achieved regarding:
This risk can be further mitigated by rideshare platforms and governments working
together to establish programs that make ridesharing services an appealing comple-
ment to public transport. For example, governments can work with ridesharing
platforms to provide commuters with live inter-modal travel data and to establish
discounts or pooling schemes for feeder transport to arterial public transport infra-
structure.
Utilisation of taxis
The rise of rideshare has been perceived to reduce taxi ridership in some cities. For
example, data from the Land Transport Authority of Singapore suggests that the
proportion of taxis sitting idle in yards has increased from 2016 to 2017.5 However,
the Ministry of Transport in Singapore has also suggested that rideshare has served
as a positive complement to taxis, particularly in peak hours.6, 7 In addition, the
emergence of rideshare technologies may have encouraged taxis to adopt more so-
phisticated technological advancements such as electronic applications, dynamic
pricing and smart supply-demand matching tools enhancing their competitive po-
sition and ultimately benefitting commuters. Furthermore, in Sydney, taxi ridership
has grown since the entrance of rideshare, suggesting that the risk of disruption to
taxis is uncertain and market specific.
Governments can also play a role in ensuring taxi companies improve their compet-
itive position while offering commuters better outcomes.For example,taxis should
be able to access the same technologies available to ridesharing vehicles. Both taxis
and private vehicles can form part of the flexible supply base necessary to realise
the congestion benefits outlined above. In particular, governments should ensure
that taxis can use apps to connect with passengers, and ensure that taxis can avail
themselves of supply-demand matching mechanisms such as dynamic pricing.
Partnerships between rideshare platforms and taxi companies can also benefit taxi
drivers. Recent examples of partnerships between rideshare platforms and taxi
companies include UberTAXI in Taiwan, UberFLASH in Malaysia and Grabs part-
nerships with multiple Singaporean and Vietnamese taxi companies. These part-
nerships promise to benefit taxi drivers by offering them access to technology
which may allow more responsive matching of supply to demand, thereby increas-
ing vehicle utilisation and ridership. These partnerships also benefit drivers by of-
fering access to large networks of potential passengers.
2. Quantitative analysis
The focus of the quantitative analysis is to assess the impact of ridesharing on road
congestion under different scenarios of rideshare adoption. We define congestion as
the percentage of time difference in traveling during peak and non-peak hours com-
pared to the time it would take to travel the same distance at posted speed limits.
We have assessed peak hours at 7-9AM and 6-8pm.
3. Traffic volume on road during the defined periods (peak, non-peak hours)
0
Road congestion
f
1 2
Actual drive-speed Post speed limit
1
f
3 4
Trac volume on road Road capacity
5 6
Passenger car
# vehicles by type equivalent conversion
7 8 9
Total people-KM demand Average occupancy by
per vehicle type Annual KM per vehicle
vehicle type
10 11
Total people-KM demand Modality share
of the city per transport mode
0
Road congestion % of additional travel time on average in peak, non-peak Tom Tom Trac Index
hours, when compared to driving at post speed limit Government statistics
2 Government data
Post speed limit Post speed limits on highways, urban roads per city
Press search
Academic studies on
3 Transportation
Total trac measured in passenger car equivalent units
Trac volume on road Engineering
on the road in peak, non-peak hours
Government statistics
UBER data
Academic studies on
6 Vehicle units used to convert dierent types of vehicles
Transportation
Passenger car equivalent to standard car unit based on the size/volume taken of
Engineering
a vehicle on the road
Expert interviews
9 Government statistics
Average occupancy by Average number of people in a vehicle per trip Survey
vehicle type Expert interviews
11 Modality share per % of KMs travelled by each mode of transport Government statistics
transport mode
AppendixAPPENDIX
exhibit XII: Current
EXHIBIT road
XII: CURRENT congestion
ROAD CONGESTION during peak
DURING PEAK hours
HOURS across
ACROSS cities
CITIES in 2017
IN 2017
150
100
Asia avg
132 134 67%
105 112
50
79
63 65 68 70
57
0
Singapore Hong Kong Surabaya Kuala Taipei Jakarta Bangkok Ho Chi Minh Manila Hanoi
Lumpur
Vehicle 0.2% 3.4% 6.3% 7.7% 0.8% 10.0% 6.4% 6.4% 4.0% 10.6%
growth (%)1
1. From 2011-2016 where data available from published government statistics 2. Peak hours dened as 7-9am, 6-8pm
1. From 2011-2016 where data available from published government statistics 2. Peak hours defined as 7-9am, 6-8pm
Note: Asia average taken from average of East Asian cities based on TomTom trac index Source: TomTom trac index;
Note: Asia average taken from average of East Asian cities based on TomTom traffic index Source: TomTom traffic index;
GoogleGoogle API;Government
API; Uber; Uber; Government statistics;
statistics; BCG analysis
BCG analysis
Indeed, we find that during peak hours, road capacity across all cities is in excess of
capacity to allow travel at posted speed limits.
Ho Chi
Kuala
Singapore Hong Kong Taipei Bangkok Surabaya Jakarta Minh Manila Hanoi
Lumpur
City
Vehicles in
excess of 40% 43% 47% 46% 62% 44% 51% 65% 72% 73%
capacity
80
60 Motorbikes
40 81
58
51 Taxi
20 37 Private Cars
23
13 17 Public
4 9 10 transport
0
Hong Kong Singapore Taipei Kuala Bangkok Ho Chi Jakarta Manila Surabaya Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Modality
share, Mean 59% 18% 18%
public
transport Median 58% 18% 0%
The ability for ridesharing vehicles to provide greater transportation benefit de-
pends on the difference in people-kilometres each rideshare vehicle provides in
comparison to other modes of transport. To estimate people-kilometres, we used
available information on relative kilometres travelled per vehicle for ridesharing in
Singapore vs. taxis. In Singapore, based on available information, rideshare cars
travel 1/38 the kilometres of taxis per annum. We then extrapolated this across
Asian markets compared with taxi kilometres in each market. Despite the relatively
low kilometres travelled compared with taxis, ridesharing is still substantially more
efficient compared to private vehicles.
Appendix exhibit XIV: Average annual people-kilometres travelled per vehicle type
APPENDIX EXHIBIT XIV: AVERAGE ANNUAL PEOPLE-KILOMETERS PER VEHICLE TYPE
Rideshare vehicles vs. #1 preferred mode of privately owned vehicle (car or motorbike)
RIDESHARE VEHICLES VS. # 1 PREFERRED MODE OF PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE (CAR OR MOTORBIKE)
People KM per vehicle, per annum
80,000
3.4x
1.7x 2.7x
60,000
3.2x
1.3x
1.8x 1.8x
40,000 1.9x 2.0x
1.7x
20,000
0
Hong Kong Singapore Manila Bangkok Taipei Kuala Lumpur Jakarta Ho Chi Surabaya Hanoi
Minh City
Private Motorbike Private Car Rideshare
Appendix exhibit XV: Percentage of private vehicles (car and motorcycle) and total vehi-
cles reduced with rideshare APPENDIX EXHIBIT XV:
PERCENTAGE OF PRIVATE VEHICLES (CAR AND MOTORCYCLE) AND TOTAL VEHICLES REDUCED WITH RIDESHARE
100%
80%
73% 71%
70%
66%
63% 63%
60%
60% 57% 56% 55%
53%
46% 46%
42%
39% 39%
40% 35%
31%
24%
20%
11%
0%
Singapore Hong Kong Taipei Kuala Bangkok Manila Jakarta Ho Chi Hanoi Surabaya
Lumpur Minh City
Total #
vehicles2
(million) 0.7 0.7 1.6 6 9.6 2.5 22 8 6 2.2
Total #
private 0.5 0.6 0.6 4 6 1.5 4 7.8 5.6 1.8
vehicles 3
(million)
Car Motorcycles
1. With rideshare scenario under which ridesharing replaces private cars as the #2 or #3 mode of transport in respective cities and pool
1. Withconstitutes
rideshare50%
scenario under
of rides which
2. Total ridesharing
number replaces
of vehicles private
includes cars
private asmotorcycles,
cars, the #2 or #3buses,
modetaxi
of and
transport in respective
rideshare cities
cars, 3. Total and pool
number of cars
include
constitutes private
50% cars 2.
of rides and ridesharing
Total numbercars.
of vehicles includes private cars, motorcycles, buses, taxi and rideshare cars, 3. Total number of cars
include private
Source: cars and ridesharing
Government cars.
statistics; BCG Analysis
Source: Government statistics; BCG Analysis
Appendix exhibit XVI: Road congestion during peak hours, before and after rideshare im-
pact under scenario
APPENDIX where
EXHIBIT rideshare
XVI: ROAD substitutes
CONGESTION for
DURING PEAK #1 mode
HOURS, ofAND
BEFORE private
AFTER vehicle
RIDESHARE
IMPACT UNDER SCENARIO WHERE RIDESHARE SUBSTITUTES FOR #1 MODE OF PRIVATE VEHICLE
Peak congestion %
150
-88% -85%
-85%
-92%
100
-51%
-91% -81%
-90% -72%
-77%
50
0
Singapore Hong Kong Kuala Taipei Jakarta Bangkok Manila Surabaya Ho Chi Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
No. of private
vehicles reduced 0.2 0.3 2.5 0.4 2.5 3.7 1 0.7 2.4 3.5
after rideshare
(million)
Car Motorcycles
200
150
100
50
0
Taipei Singapore Hong Kong Kuala Bangkok Surabaya Manila Hanoi Jakarta Ho Chi
Lumpur Minh City
Based on this projected demand and historical vehicle growth in each city, we esti-
mate that congestion during peak hours will worsen in a number of cities, assuming
that modality and vehicle utilization remain the same as 2017. For Singapore, we
have assumed car growth will be controlled by government mechanisms to main-
tain congestion. For Taipei, the congestion will likely decrease due to negative his-
torical vehicle growth.
400 +177%
+204% +152%
300
+93%
200 +108%
371
340 333
+94%
+47%
+46%
100 +4% -16% 203
164
126 132 134
100 105 112
92 79
57 59 63 70 59 68 65
0
Singapore Hong Kong Taipei Kuala Surabaya Bangkok Jakarta Ho Chi Manila Hanoi
Lumpur Minh City
2017 peak congestion level 2022 peak congestion level
Note: 2022 congestion is forecasted based on trac volume increase, which is in line with travel demand increase, Assumptions include same
Note: 2022 congestion is forecasted based on traffic volume increase, which is in line with travel demand increase, Assumptions include
modality share and vehicle utilization as 2017.
sameSource:
modality
Tomshare and vehicle
Tom Trac utilization
Index; Google Map as
API;2017.
Economist Intelligence Unit; BCG analysis
Source: Tom Tom Traffic Index; Google Map API; Economist Intelligence Unit; BCG analysis
The increase in travel demand in the city could potentially be met by a greater
adoption of public transportation. However, we estimate that the required increase
in rail network infrastructure may be greater than the capacity which will come
online by 2022 in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities.
80
60
40
20
0
Singapore Hong Kong Taipei Kuala Bangkok Ho Chi Manila Jakarta Surabaya
Lumpur Minh City
Investment
US$ Billion 20 25 14 6 24 10 51 5 0.09
(2017 2022)
1.Capacity is estimated based on current rail network and new rail lines/existing line extensions in operation before 2022 in each city: Thomson East
1.Capacity is estimated
Coast Line, Downtown based
line 3on current for
extension railSingapore;
network andtotalnew
new rail lines/existing
railway line extensions
projects equivalent to 25% ofin operation
current before
capacity 2022Kong;
in Hong in each city: Line
Circular
Thomson
stageEast CoastLine,
1, Anking Line, Downtown
Danhai line 3 Line
LRT, Wanda extension
stage 1,for Singapore;
Xinzhuang Linetotal new railway
extension projects
for Taipei; equivalent
MRT Line to 25%
2 for Kuala of current
Lumpur; 10 newcapacity
rail lines in
and 3
Hongexisting
Kong; Circular Line stage
line extensions 1, Anking
for Bangkok; rstLine,
MetroDanhai
Line andLRT, Wanda
3 LRT linesLine stage 1,
for Jakarta; Xinzhuang
6 Metro Line 109
Rails (total extension
KM) forfor
HoTaipei;
Chi MinhMRT Linerailway
; 6 new 2 for Kuala
lines
Lumpur;
(total10246
new railforlines
KM) andone
Manila; 3 existing
monorailline
for extensions
Surabaya for Bangkok; first Metro Line and 3 LRT lines for Jakarta; 6 Metro Rails (total 109
KM) for Ho Chi
Source: Minh ; 6 announcement
Government new railway lines (total 246infrastructure
on transport KM) for Manila;masterone monorail
plan; for Surabaya
BCG analysis
Source: Government announcement on transport infrastructure master plan; BCG analysis
126% 65%
Surabaya
1. Forecasted based on trac volume increase, which is in line with travel demand increase, Assumptions include same modality share and vehicle
1. Forecasted based
utilization as 2017.on traffic volume increase, which is in line with travel demand increase, Assumptions include same modality share and
vehicle utilization
2. Assuming as 2017.
rideshare complements public transport in tier 1 cities to reach all-day average congestion level, and in tier 2 and 3 cities to maintain
2. Assuming
current peakrideshare complements public transport in tier 1 cities to reach all-day average congestion level, and in tier 2 and 3 cities to
congestion.
maintain
Source:current peak congestion.
BCG analysis
Source: BCG analysis
Hectares (k)
20
24.8
10
16.8 17.6
6.0
2.1 2.4 2.6 1.5 1.3 1.7
0
Singapore Hong Kong Taipei Kuala Bangkok Jakarta Hanoi Ho Chi Manila Surabaya
Lumpur Minh City
Lots(k) 1,100 1,253 1,341 8,829 12,995 9,247 802 705 3,165 896
Note: Area represents estimated total flat area of all parking lots (existing and needed) to serve a citys car population. Area estimated by
Note: Area represents estimated total at area of all parking lots (existing and needed) to serve a city's car population. Area estimated by deriving
derivingratio
ratioofofcars
cars(private
(private + rideshare)
+ rideshare) to estimated
to estimated parking
parking lots
lots in in Singapore
Singapore (~2.2) (~2.2) andextrapolating
and then then extrapolating
this ratiothis ratiopopulations
to car to car populations
in other
in othermarkets.
markets.Assumes
Assumes standard
standard parking
parking lot (19m2).
lot (19m2).
HDB, LTA,
Source:Source: HDB,URA,
LTA, expert interviews,
URA, expert BCGBCG
interviews, analysis
analysis
Appendix exhibit XXII: Estimated space that can be saved by adopting rideshare assuming
APPENDIX
rideshare substitutes forEXHIBIT
privateXXII: ESTIMATED SPACE THAT CAN BE SAVED BY ADOPTING
cars
RIDESHARE ASSUMING RIDESHARE SUBSTITUTES FOR PRIVATE CARS
1. HCMC
1. HCMCZooZoo
andandGarden complex
Garden complex
Note: SizeSize
Note: of local landmarks
of local landmarksvary
vary greatly betweencities.
greatly between cities. Area
Area represents
represents estimated
estimated total total flatofarea
at area of all parking
all parking lots and
lots (existing (existing
needed)andto needed)
serve
to serve a citys
a city's car population.
car population. AreaArea estimated
estimated by deriving
by deriving ratio ofratio
carsof cars (private
(private + rideshare)
+ rideshare) to estimated
to estimated parking
parking lots lots in Singapore
in Singapore (~2.2) and (~2.2)
then
extrapolating
and then this ratio
extrapolating to car
this populations
ratio in other markets.
to car populations in otherAssumes
markets. standard parking
Assumes lot (19m2),
standard Area lot
parking saved underArea
(19m2), hypothetical scenario
saved under in which
hypothetical
rideshare
scenario becomes
in which displaces
rideshare private displaces
becomes vehicles in private
terms ofvehicles
modal split and 50%
in terms ofofmodal
rideshare
splitisand
pooling.
50% of rideshare is pooling.
Source:
Source: ASEANASEAN Maritime
Maritime WorkingGroup,
Working Group,Data.Gov.Sg,
Data.Gov.Sg, FIFA,
FIFA, MapDevelopers/Google
MapDevelopers/Google Maps, HDB,
Maps, HK HK
HDB, Census and Statistics
Census Dept.,Dept.,
and Statistics LTA, Manila
LTA,
Times,
Manila Perdana
Times, Botanical
Perdana Garden,
Botanical URA, Thanhnien
Garden, News, The
URA, Thanhnien Straits
News, TheTimes, Taipei
Straits Botanical
Times, TaipeiGarden, expert
Botanical interviews,
Garden, BCGinterviews,
expert analysis BCG
analysis