Ridesharing as an Alternative to Ambulance Transport for Voluntary Psychiatric Patients in the Emergency Department

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) crowding is a growing problem. Psychiatric patients have long ED lengths of stay awaiting placement and transportation to a psychiatric facility after disposition.Methods: Retrospective analysis of length of ED stay after disposition for voluntary psychiatric patients before and after the use of Lyft ridesharing services for inter-facility transport.Results: Using Lyft transport to an outside crisis center shortens time to discharge both statistically and clinically from 113 minutes to 91 minutes (p = 0.028) for voluntary psychiatric patients. Discharge time also decreased for involuntary patients from 146 minutes to 127 minutes (p = 0.0053).Conclusion: Ridesharing services may be a useful alternative to medical transportation for voluntary psychiatric patients

Transportation network companies as cost reduction strategies for paratransit

Paratransit service is an auxiliary type of public transportation provided for people with disabilities and older adults. Federal ADA regulations require all transit agencies receiving federal funding to provide paratransit service, but the per trip cost to transit operators is extremely expensive. Many transit agencies are looking for ways to reduce costs without limiting services. For many agencies, this results in providing the minimum services as required by ADA regulations. However, Boston’s Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) has taken a different approach to cost reduction by entering into one of the first partnerships with transportation network companies. In September 2016, MBTA’s paratransit service, The Ride, began a partnership with both Uber and Lyft as a cost reduction strategy for paratransit provision. Since the beginning of the partnership, MBTA has been able to reduce costs of providing paratransit while maintaining the same level of service. This report will examine the benefits and limitations of such partnerships between transit agencies and transportation network companies, using MBTA’s The Ride partnership as an example for potentially successful partnerships throughout the United States.Community and Regional Plannin

Gender and the Sharing Economy

While the sharing economy has been celebrated as a flexible alternative to traditional employment for those with family responsibilities, especially women, it presents challenges for gender equality. Many of the services that are “shared” take place in the context of intimacy, which can have substantial consequences for transacting, particularly by enhancing the importance of identity of both the worker and the customer. Expanding on previous research on intimate work — a critical area that exists largely in limbo between the law of the market and the law of the family — this Article, written for the Cooper-Walsh Colloquium, explores the significance of intimacy in the sharing economy and the implications for its regulation of the sharing economy and for sex equality. It argues that the intimacy of many sharing economy transactions heightens the salience of sex to these transactions, in tension with sex discrimination law’s goal of reducing the salience of sex in the labor market. But even if existing sex discrimination law extends to these transactions, the intimacy of the transactions again limits the law’s ability to promote gender equality in the same transformative way that it has in the traditional economy. The sharing economy thus raises serious concerns for proponents of sex equality

Investigating the Influence of Dockless Electric Bike-share on Travel Behavior, Attitudes, Health, and Equity

Cities throughout the world have implemented bike-share systems as a strategy for expanding mobility options. While these have attracted substantial ridership, little is known about their influence on travel behavior more broadly. The aim of this study was to examine how shared electric bikes (e-bikes) and e-scooters influence individual travel attitudes and behavior, and related outcomes of physical activity and transportation equity. The study involved a survey in the greater Sacramento area of 1959 households before (Spring 2016) and 988 after (Spring 2019) the Summer 2018 implementation of the e-bike and e-scooterservice operated by Jump, Inc., as well as a direct survey of 703 e-bike users (in Fall 2018 & Spring 2019). Among householdrespondents, 3–13% reported having used the service. Of e-bike share trips, 35% substituted for car travel, 30% substituted for walking, and 5% were used to connect to transit. Before- and after-household surveys indicated a slight decrease in self-reported (not objectively measured) median vehicle miles traveled and slight positive shifts in attitudes towards bicycling. Service implementation was associated with minimal changes in health in terms of physical activity and numbers of collisions. The percentages of users by self-reported student status, race, and income suggest a fairly equitable service distribution by these parameters, but each survey under-represents racial minorities and people with low incomes. Therefore, the study is inconclusive about how this service impacts those most in need. Furthermore, aggregated socio-demographics of areas where trips started or ended did not correlate with, and therefore are not reliable indicators of, the socio-demographics of e-bike-share users. Thus, targeted surveying of racial minorities and people with low-incomes is needed to understand bike-share equity

Autonomous Cars, Electric and Hybrid Cars, and Ridesharing: Perceptions vs. Reality

Autonomous Cars, Electric and Hybrid Cars, and Ridesharing are all important new technologies in today\u27s society that can have potentially large impacts on the environment in the future. This study was conducted to determine the differences in perceptions of Gettysburg College students regarding Autonomous Cars, Electric and Hybrid Cars, and Ridesharing and the reality of these topics in the real world. This paper also compares the perceptions of Environmental Studies majors/minors to the perceptions of other majors at Gettysburg College. The primary research was conducted by analyzing questions that were a part of a survey consisting of 16 questions which was administered to Gettysburg College students via Facebook class group pages and the Environmental Studies majors email alias. The study group consisted of 110 students with 31 of them being Environmental Studies majors/minors and 79 of them being non-Environmental Studies majors/minors. It was determined that there were no statistically significant differences between the Environmental Studies majors/minors and students that are other majors/minors at Gettysburg College. From our survey, we found that there is a distinct gap in knowledge on the current and future impacts on the environment from Autonomous Cars, Electric and Hybrid Cars, and Ridesharing. The questions that ask which power method produces more greenhouse gas emissions as well as the questions about the miles per gallon of participants’ personal vehicles were the most accurately answered. Overall, Gettysburg College students regardless of major or minor were found to have mostly inaccurate perceptions on the topics of Autonomous Cars, Electric and Hybrid Cars, and Ridesharing

The Corporate Purpose of Social License

This Article deploys the sociological theory of social license, or the acceptance of a business or organization by the relevant communities and stakeholders, in the context of the board of directors and corporate governance. Corporations are generally treated as “private” actors and thus are regulated by “private” corporate law. This construct allows for considerable latitude. Corporate actors are not, however, solely “private.” They are the beneficiaries of economic and political power, and the decisions they make have impacts that extend well beyond the boundaries of the entities they represent. Using Wells Fargo and Uber as case studies, this Article explores how the failure to account for the public nature of corporate actions, regardless of whether a “legal” license exists, can result in the loss of “social” license. This loss occurs through publicness, which is the interplay between inside corporate governance players and outside actors who report on, recapitulate, reframe and, in some cases, control the company’s information and public perception. The theory of social license is that businesses and other entities exist with permission from the communities in which they are located, as well as permission from the greater community and outside stakeholders. In this sense, businesses are social, not just economic, institutions and, thus, they are subject to public accountability and, at times, public control. Social license derives not from legally granted permission, but instead from the development of legitimacy, credibility, and trust within the relevant communities and stakeholders. It can prevent demonstrations, boycotts, shutdowns, negative publicity, and the increases in regulation that are a hallmark of publicness — but social license must be earned with consistent trustworthy behavior. Thus, social license is bilateral, not unilateral, and should be part of corporate strategy and a tool for risk management and managing publicness more generally. By focusing on and deploying social license and publicness in the context of board decision-making, this Article adds to the discussions in the literature from other disciplines, such as the economic theory on reputational capital, and provides boards with a set of standards with which to engage and address the publicness of the companies they represent. Discussing, weighing, and developing social license is not just in the zone of what boards can do, but is something they should do, making it a part of strategic, proactive cost-benefit decision-making. Indeed, the failure to do so can have dramatic business consequences

A Commentary on Litigation Involving Uber Technologies, Inc.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network managed in San Francisco, California. Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp developed the idea for the ridesharing app in 2008, after experiencing difficulty hailing a cab. They originally designed the app to be used in major metropolitan areas, but the business inevitably took off; it now operates in 633 cities worldwide. In 2017, Uber claimed that the company earned roughly $7.5 billion in revenue, employed more than 12,000 “independent drivers,” and connected over one billion people (“Finding the Way”). Though widely successful and heralded as a major influencer in the “gig economies,”1 or “sharing economies,”2 its role in the vanguard has attracted much criticism and engendered a plethora of lawsuits. According to the Courthouse News database, Uber has been sued at least 433 times in 2017 alone (Kahn, Robert)