The NBA’s Stats API provides data for every single shot attempted during an NBA game since 1996, including location coordinates on the court. I built a tool called BallR, using R’s Shiny framework, to explore NBA shot data at the player-level.
BallR lets you select a player and season, then creates a customizable chart that shows shot patterns across the court. Additionally, it calculates aggregate statistics like field goal percentage and points per shot attempt, and compares the selected player to league averages at different areas of the court.
Analyze your favorite players in the app below:
Run the App Locally
It’s very easy to run the app on your own computer, all you have to do is paste the following lines into an R console:
BallR lets you choose from 3 primary chart types: hexagonal, scatter, and heat map. You can toggle between them using the radio buttons in the app’s sidebar.
Hexagonal charts, popularized by Kirk Goldsberry at Grantland, group shots into hexagonal regions, then calculate aggregate statistics within each hexagon. Hexagon sizes and opacities are proportional to the number of shots taken within each hexagon, while the color scale represents a metric of your choice, which can be one of:
FG% vs. league average
Points per shot
For example, here’s Stephen Curry’s FG% relative to the league average within each region of the court during the 2015–16 season:
The chart confirms the obvious: Stephen Curry is a great shooter. His 3-point field goal percentage is more than 11 percentage points above the league average, and he also scores more efficiently than average when closer to the basket.
Compare to another all-time great, Kobe Bryant, who has been shooting poorly this season:
Kobe’s shot chart shows that he’s shooting below the league average from most areas of the court, especially 3-point range (Kobe’s 2005–06 shot chart, on the other hand, looks much nicer).
Scatter charts are the most straightforward option: they plot each shot as a single point, color-coding for whether the shot was made or missed. Here’s an example again for Stephen Curry:
Anecdotally I’ve found that heat maps often show that most shot attempts are taken in the restricted area near the basket, even for players you might think of as outside shooters. BallR lets you apply filter to focus on specific areas of the court, and it’s sometimes more interesting to filter out restricted area shots when generating heat maps. For example here’s the heat map of Stephen Curry’s shot attempts excluding shots from within the restricted area (see here for Curry’s unfiltered heat map):
The heat map shows that—at least when he’s not shooting from the restricted area—Curry attempts most of his shots from the “Above the break 3” zone, with a slight bias to right side of that area (confusingly, that’s his left, but the NBA Stats API calls it the “Right Center” of the court)
LeBron James even more heavily shoots from the restricted area, but when we filter out those shots, we see his favorite area is mid-range to his right:
I was curious if this pattern of LeBron favoring his right side has always been so pronounced, so I took all 19,000+ regular season shots he’s attempted in his career since 2003, and calculated the percentage that came from the left, right, and center of the court in each season:
It’s a bit confusing because what the NBA Stats API calls the “right” side of the court is actually the left side of the court from LeBron’s perspective, but the data shows that in 2015–16, LeBron has taken significantly fewer shots from his left compared to previous seasons. The data also confirms that LeBron’s shooting performance in 2015–16 has been below his historical average from almost every distance:
The BallR app doesn’t currently have a good way to do these historical analyses on-demand, so I had to write additional R scripts, but a potential future improvement might be to create a backend that caches the shot data and exposes additional endpoints that aggregate data across seasons, teams, or maybe even the whole league.
Limitations of Shot Charts
There’s a ton of data not captured in shot charts, and it’s easy to draw unjustified conclusions when looking only at shot attempts and results. For example, you might look at a shot chart and think, “well, points per shot is highest in the restricted area, so teams should take more shots in the restricted area.”
You might even be right, but shot charts definitely don’t prove it. Passing or dribbling the ball into the restricted area probably increases the risk of a turnover, and that risk might more than offset the increase in field goal percentage compared to a longer shot, though we don’t know that based on shot charts alone.
Shot charts also don’t tell us anything about:
Locations of the nearest defenders
Probability of an offensive rebound after a miss
Probability that the shooter will get fouled
Next-best options at the time of the shot: was another player open for a higher value shot?
Game context: a high percentage 2-point shot is useless at the buzzer if you’re down by 3
I’d imagine that NBA analysts try to quantify all of these factors and more when analyzing decision-making, and the NBA Stats API probably even provides some helpful data at various other undocumented endpoints. It could make for another area of future improvement to incorporate whatever additional data exists into the charts.
Much like with the taxi and Uber post, I’ve split the analysis into sections, covering visualization, the relationship between cyclist age, gender, and Google Maps time estimates, modeling the impact of the weather on Citi Bike ridership, and more:
I took Citi Bike trips from Wednesday, September 16, 2015, and created an animation using the Torque.js library from CartoDB, assuming that every trip followed the recommended cycling directions from Google Maps. There were a total of 51,179 trips that day, but I excluded trips that started and ended at the same station, leaving 47,969 trips in the visualization. Every blue dot on the map represents a single Citi Bike trip, and the small orange dots represent the 493 Citi Bike stations scattered throughout the city:
If you stare at the animation for a bit, you start to see some trends. My personal favorite spots to watch are the bridges that connect Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan. In the morning, beginning around 8 AM, you see a steady volume of bikes crossing from Brooklyn into Manhattan over the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges. In the middle of the day, the bridges are generally less busy, then starting around 5:30 PM, we see the blue dots streaming from Manhattan back into Brooklyn, as riders leave their Manhattan offices to head back to their Brooklyn homes.
We can observe this phenomenon directly from the data, by looking at an hourly graph of trips that travel between Manhattan and the outer boroughs:
Sure enough, in the mornings there are more rides from Brooklyn to Manhattan than vice versa, while in the evenings there are more people riding from Manhattan to Brooklyn. For what it’s worth, most Citi Bike trips start and end in Manhattan. The overall breakdown since the program’s expansion in August 2015:
88% of trips start and end in Manhattan
8% of trips start and end in an outer borough
4% of trips travel between Manhattan and an outer borough
There are other distinct commuting patterns in the animation: the stretch of 1st Avenue heading north from 59th Street has very little Citi Bike traffic in the morning, but starting around 5 PM the volume picks up as people presumably head home from their Midtown offices to the Upper East Side.
Similarly, if we look during the morning rush at the parallel stretches of 1st and 2nd avenues stretching from the Lower East Side through Murray Hill, there’s clearly more volume heading north along 1st Avenue heading into Midtown. In the evening there’s more volume heading south along 2nd Avenue, as workers head home to the residential neighborhoods.
If we take all trips since Citi Bike’s expansion in August 2015, and again assume everyone followed Google Maps cycling directions, we can see which road segments throughout the city are most traveled by Citi Bikes. Here’s a map showing the most popular roads, where the thickness and brightness of the lines are based on the number of Citi Bikes that traveled that segment (click here to view higher resolution):
This map is reminiscent of the maps of taxi pickups and drop offs from my previous post, but they’re actually a bit different. The taxi maps were made of individual dots, where each dot was a pickup or drop off, while the Citi Bike map above counts each trip as a series of line segments, from the trip’s starting point to its finish.
The map shows a handful of primary routes for cyclists: 8th and 9th avenues heading uptown and downtown, respectively, on the west side, and 1st and 2nd avenues heading uptown and downtown, respectively, on the east side. The single road segment most trafficked by Citi Bikes lies along 8th Avenue, from W 28th Street to W 29th Street. Other main bike routes include Broadway, cutting diagonally across Midtown Manhattan, and the west side bike path along the Hudson River.
Remember that the map and animation assume people follow Google Maps cycling directions, which is definitely not always true. Google Maps seems to express strong preference for roads that have protected bike paths, which is why, for example, 8th Avenue has lots of traffic heading uptown, but 6th Avenue has very little. Both avenues head northbound, but only 8th Avenue has a protected bike path.
Unlike taxis, Citi Bikes cannot pick up and drop off at any arbitrary point in the city. Instead, riders can pick up and drop off bikes at finite number of stations across the city. Citi Bikes haven’t reached the ubiquity of taxis—in 2015 there were likely about 175 million taxi trips, 35 million Uber trips, and 10 million Citi Bike rides—but the bike share has plans to continue its expansion in the coming years.
Citi Bike makes data available for every individual trip in the system. Each trip record includes:
Station locations for where the ride started and ended
Timestamps for when the ride started and ended
Rider birth year
Whether the rider is an annual Citi Bike subscriber or a short-term customer
A unique identifier for the bike used
Here’s a graph of monthly usage since the program’s inception in June 2013:
The system gets more usage on weekdays than on weekends, and if we look at trips by hour of the day, we can see that weekday riders primarily use Citi Bikes to commute to and from work, with peak hours from 8–9 AM and 5–7 PM. Weekend riders, on the other hand, prefer a more leisurely schedule, with most weekend rides occurring in the mid afternoon hours:
Age, Gender, and the Accuracy of Google Maps Cycling Time Estimates
The age and gender demographic data can be combined with Google Maps cycling directions to address a host of interesting questions, including:
How fast do Citi Bike riders tend to travel?
How accurate are Google Maps cycling time estimates?
How do age and gender impact biking speed?
For each trip, we’ll proxy the trip’s average speed by taking the distance traveled according to Google Maps, and dividing by the amount of time the trip took. This probably understates the rider’s actual average bike speed, since the trip includes time spent unlocking the bike from the origin station, adjusting it, perhaps checking a phone for directions or dealing with other distractions, and returning the bike at the destination station.
Additionally, it assumes the rider follows Google Maps directions. If the rider actually took a longer route than the one suggested by Google, that would be more distance traveled, and we would underestimate the average trip speed. On the other hand, if the rider took a more direct route than suggested by Google, it’s possible we might overestimate the trip speed.
We have no idea about any individual rider’s intent: some riders are probably trying to get from point A to point B as quickly as safely possible, while others might want to take a scenic route which happens to start at point A and end at point B. The latter group will almost certainly not follow a direct route, and so we’ll end up calculating a very slow average speed for these trips, even if the riders were pedaling hard the entire time.
Accordingly, for an analysis of bike speed, I restricted to the following subset of trips, which I at least weakly claim is more likely to include riders who are trying to get from point A to point B quickly:
Weekdays, excluding holidays
Rush hour (7–10 AM, 5–8 PM)
Average trip speed between 4 and 35 miles per hour (to avoid faulty data)
I then bucketed into cohorts defined by age, gender, and distance traveled, and calculated average trip speeds:
The average speed across all such trips is 8.3 miles per hour, and the graph makes clear that younger riders tend to travel faster than older riders, men tend to travel faster than women, and trips covering longer distances have higher average speeds than shorter distance trips.
It’s also interesting to compare actual trip times to estimated times from Google Maps. Google Maps knows, for example, that the average speed along a wide, protected bike path will be faster than the speed along a narrow cross street that has no dedicated bike lane. I took the same cohorts and calculated the average difference between actual travel time and Google Maps estimated travel time:
If everyone took exactly the amount of time estimated by Google Maps cycling directions, we’d see a series of flat lines at 0. However, every bucket has a positive difference, meaning that actual trip times are slower than predicted by Google Maps, by an average of 92 seconds. As mentioned earlier, part of that is because Google Maps estimates don’t account for time spent transacting at Citi Bike stations, and we can’t guarantee that every rider in our dataset was even trying to get from point A to B quickly.
I ran a linear regression in R to model the difference between actual and estimated travel time as a function of gender, age, and distance traveled. The point of the regression isn’t so much to make any accurate predictions—it’d be especially bad to extrapolate the regression for longer distance trips—but more to understand the relative magnitude of each variable’s impact:
lm(formula = difference_in_seconds ~ gender + age + distance_in_miles, data = rush_hour_data)Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)(Intercept)34.030.338846100.4<2e-16genderMale -87.130.192166-453.4<2e-16age 2.250.007327306.3<2e-16distance_in_miles 25.690.072994352.0<2e-16---Residual standard error:213.6 on 7226125 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:0.05475, Adjusted R-squared:0.05475F-statistic:1.395e+05 on 3 and 7226125 DF, p-value:<2.2e-16
The regression’s low R^2 of 0.055 reiterates that the data has lots of variance, and for any given trip the model is unlikely to produce a particularly accurate estimate. But the model at least gives us a simple formula to make a crude estimate of how long a Citi Bike subscriber’s rush hour trip will take relative to the Google Maps estimate:
Start with 34
If male, subtract 87
Add (2.2 * age in years)
Add (25.7 * trip distance in miles)
The result is the average number of seconds between actual and Google Maps estimated trip times, with a positive number indicating a slower than estimated trip, and a negative number indicating a faster than estimated trip. Yes, it means that for every year you get older, you’re liable to be 2.2 seconds slower on your regular Citi Bike commute route!
Anonymizing Data is Hard!
In my post about taxi data, I included a section about data privacy, noting that precise pick up and drop off coordinates might reveal potentially sensitive information about where people live, work, and socialize. Citi Bike data does not have the same issues with precise coordinates, since all Citi Bike trips have to start and end at one of the 493 fixed stations.
But unlike the taxi data, Citi Bike includes demographic information about its riders, namely gender, birth year, and subscriber status. At first glance that might not seem too revealing, but it turns out that it’s enough to uniquely identify many Citi Bike trips. If you know the following information about an individual Citi Bike trip:
The rider is an annual subscriber
Their birth year
The station where they picked up a Citi Bike
The date and time they picked up the bike, rounded to the nearest hour
Then you can uniquely identify that individual trip 84% of the time! That means you can find out where and when the rider dropped off the bike, which might be sensitive information. Because men account for 77% of all subscriber trips, it’s even easier to uniquely identify rides by women: if we restrict to female riders, then 92% of trips can be uniquely identified. It’s also easier to identify riders who are significantly younger or older than average:
If instead of knowing the trip’s starting time to the nearest hour you only knew it to the nearest day, then you’d be able to identify 28% of all trips, but still 49% of trips by women.
On some level this shouldn’t be too surprising: a famous paper by Latanya Sweeney showed that 87% of the U.S. population is uniquely identified by birthdate, gender, and ZIP code. We probably have a bias toward underestimating how easy it is to identify people from what seems like limited data, and I hope that people think about that when they decide what data should be made publicly available.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about the logistics of running a bike share system. I’d imagine, though, that one of the big issues is making sure that there are bikes available at stations where people want to pick them up. If station A starts the day with lots of bikes, but people take them out to other stations and nobody returns any bikes to A, then A will run out of bikes, and that’s bad.
The bike share operator could transport additional bikes to A to meet demand, but that costs time/money, so the operator probably wants to avoid it as much as possible. The data lets us measure how often bikes “magically” transport from one station to another, even though no one took a ride. I took each bike drop off, and calculated the percentage of rides where the bike’s next trip started at a different station from where the previous trip dropped off:
From July 2013 through March 2015, around 13% of bikes were somehow transported from their drop off stations to different stations before being ridden again. Since April 2015, though, that rate has decreased to about 4%. I have no idea why: my first guess was that there were more total bikes added to the system, but the number of bikes in use did not change in March 2015. There were no stations added or removed around then either, so that seems like an unlikely explanation. Maybe the operator developed a smarter system to allocate bikes, which resulted in a lower transfer percentage?
Different neighborhoods have different transfer patterns, too. Bikes dropped off in Manhattan’s East Village have a much higher chance of being transported if they’re dropped off in the evening:
While transfers are more likely in Fort Greene, Brooklyn for bikes dropped off in the morning:
And in Midtown, Manhattan, drop offs at morning or evening rush hour are more likely to be transported:
Add it all up and I’m not exactly sure what it means, but it seems like something that could be pursued further. The Citi Bike program has plans to continue its expansion in 2016, I wonder how the new stations will impact the transport rate?
Quantifying the Impact of the Weather on Citi Bike Activity
We saw earlier that there are many more Citi Bike rides in the summer than in the winter. It’s not surprising: anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that it’s not very pleasant to bike when it’s freezing cold. Similarly, biking is probably less popular on rainy and snowy days. This got me wondering: how well is Citi Bike’s daily ridership predicted by the weather?
I downloaded daily Central Park weather data from the National Climatic Data Center and joined it to the Citi Bike data in an effort to model the relationship between Citi Bike usage and the weather. The weather data includes a few variables, most notably:
Daily max temperature
Daily snow depth
Even before I began investigating the data, I suspected that a linear regression would not be appropriate for the weather model, for two main reasons:
Our dependent variable, total number of trips per day, is by definition positive. A standard linear regression can’t be guaranteed to produce a positive number
The relationship between bike rides and the weather is probably nonlinear. For example, I’d guess the change in ridership between 40 degree and 60 degree days is probably a larger magnitude than the change in ridership between 60 degree and 80 degree days
We could use a linear model with log transformations to deal with problem 1, but even then we’d be stuck with the nonlinearity issue. Let’s confirm though that the relationship between weather and ridership is in fact nonlinear:
This graph makes it pretty clear that there’s a nonlinear relationship between rides and max daily temperature. The number of trips ramps up quickly between 30 and 60 degrees, but above 60 degrees or so there’s a much weaker relationship between ridership and temperature. Let’s look at rainy days:
And snowy days:
Rain and snow are, not surprisingly, both correlated with lower ridership. The linearity of the relationships is less clear—there are also fewer observations in the dataset compared to “normal” days—but intuitively I have to believe that there’s a diminishing marginal effect of both, i.e. the difference between no rain and 0.1 inches of rain is more significant than the difference between 0.5 and 0.6 inches.
For the nonlinear regression, we first need to specify the form of the model, which I chose to look like this:
The d variables are known values for a given date d, β variables are calibrated parameters, and the capitalized functions are intermediaries that are strictly speaking unnecessary, i.e. we could write the whole model on a single line, but I find the intermediate functions make things easier to reason about. Let’s step through the model specification, one line at a time:
dtrips is the number of Citi Bike trips on date d, the dependent variable in our model. We’re breaking trips into two components: a baseline component, which is a function of the date, and a weather component, which is a function of the weather on that date.
The Baseline(d) function uses an exponent, which guarantees that it will produce a positive output. It has 3 calibrated parameters: a constant, an adjustment for days that are non-holiday weekdays, and a fudge factor for dates in the “post-expansion era”, defined as after August 25, 2015, when Citi Bike added nearly 150 stations to the system.
The Weather(d) function uses every mortgage prepayment modeler’s favorite formula: the s-curve. I readily admit I have no “deep” reason for picking this functional form, but s-curves often behave well in nonlinear models, and the earlier temperature graph kind of looked like an s-curve might fit it well.
The input to the s-curve, WeatherFactor(d), is a linear combination of the maximum temperature, precipitation, and snow depth on date d.
Raising the daily max temperature from 40 to 60 degrees increases ridership by 12,100 trips, while raising the temperature from 60 to 80 degrees increases ridership by 7,850 trips:
1 inch of rain has the same effect as decreasing the temperature by 24 degrees
1 inch of snow on the ground has the same effect as decreasing the temperature by 1.4 degrees.
In order to assess the model’s goodness of fit, we’ll look at some more graphs, starting with a scatterplot of actual vs. predicted values. Each dot represents a single day in the dataset, where the x-axis is the actual number of trips on that day, and the y-axis is the model-predicted number of trips:
The model’s root-mean-square error is 4,138, and residuals appear to be at least roughly normally distributed. Residuals appear to exhibit some heteroscedasticity, though, as the residuals have lower variance on dates with fewer trips.
The effect of the “post-expansion” fudge factor is evident in the top-right corner of the scatterplot, where it looks like there’s an asymptote around 36,000 predicted trips for dates before August 26, 2015. Ideally we’d formulate the model to avoid using a fudge factor—maybe by modeling trips at the individual station level, then aggregating up—but we’ll conveniently gloss over that.
We can also look at the time series of actual vs. predicted, aggregating to monthly totals in order to reduce noise:
I make no claim that it’s a perfect model—it uses imperfect data, has some smelly features and omissions, and all of the usual correlation/causation caveats apply—but it seems to do at least an okay job quantifying the impact of temperature, rain, and snow on Citi Bike ridership.
As always, there are still plenty more things we could study in the dataset. Bad weather probably affects cycling speeds, so we could take that into account when measuring speeds and Google Maps time estimates.
I wonder about modeling ridership at the individual station level, especially as stations are added in the future. Adding a new station is liable to affect ridership at existing stations—and it’s not even clear whether positively or negatively. A new station might cannibalize trips from other nearby stations, which wouldn’t increase total ridership by very much. But it’s also possible that a new station could have a synergistic effect with an existing station: imagine a scenario where a neighborhood with bad subway access gets a Citi Bike station, then an existing station located near the closest subway might see a surge in usage.
There are also probably plenty of analyses that could be done comparing Citi Bike data with the taxi and Uber data: what neighborhoods have the highest and lowest ratios of Citi Bike rides compared to taxi trips? And are there any commutes where it’s faster to take a Citi Bike than a taxi during rush hour traffic? Alas, these will have to wait for another time…
The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission has released a staggeringly detailed historical dataset covering over 1.1 billion individual taxi trips in the city from January 2009 through June 2015. Taken as a whole, the detailed trip-level data is more than just a vast list of taxi pickup and drop off coordinates: it’s a story of New York. How bad is the rush hour traffic from Midtown to JFK? Where does the Bridge and Tunnel crowd hang out on Saturday nights? What time do investment bankers get to work? How has Uber changed the landscape for taxis? And could Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have made it from 72nd and Broadway to Wall Street in less than 30 minutes? The dataset addresses all of these questions and many more.
I mapped the coordinates of every trip to local census tracts and neighborhoods, then set about in an attempt to extract stories and meaning from the data. This post covers a lot, but for those who want to pursue more analysis on their own: everything in this post—the data, software, and code—is freely available. Full instructions to download and analyze the data for yourself are available on GitHub.
I’m certainly not the first person to use the public taxi data to make maps, but I hadn’t previously seen a map that includes the entire dataset of pickups and drop offs since 2009 for both yellow and green taxis. You can click the maps to view high resolution versions:
These maps show every taxi pickup and drop off, respectively, in New York City from 2009–2015. The maps are made up of tiny dots, where brighter regions indicate more taxi activity. The green tinted regions represent activity by green boro taxis, which can only pick up passengers in upper Manhattan and the outer boroughs. Notice how pickups are more heavily concentrated in Manhattan, while drop offs extend further into the outer boroughs.
If you think these are pretty, I recommend checking out the high resolution images of pickups and drop offs.
NYC Taxi Data
The official TLC trip record dataset contains data for over 1.1 billion taxi trips from January 2009 through June 2015, covering both yellow and green taxis. Each individual trip record contains precise location coordinates for where the trip started and ended, timestamps for when the trip started and ended, plus a few other variables including fare amount, payment method, and distance traveled.
I used PostgreSQL to store the data and PostGIS to perform geographic calculations, including the heavy lifting of mapping latitude/longitude coordinates to NYC census tracts and neighborhoods. The full dataset takes up 267 GB on disk, before adding any indexes. For more detailed information on the database schema and geographic calculations, take a look at the GitHub repository.
Thanks to the folks at FiveThirtyEight, there is also some publicly available data covering nearly 19 million Uber rides in NYC from April–September 2014 and January–June 2015, which I’ve incorporated into the dataset. The Uber data is not as detailed as the taxi data, in particular Uber provides time and location for pickups only, not drop offs, but I wanted to provide a unified dataset including all available taxi and Uber data. Each trip in the dataset has a cab_type_id, which indicates whether the trip was in a yellow taxi, green taxi, or Uber car.
Borough Trends, and the Rise of Uber
The introduction of the green boro taxi program in August 2013 dramatically increased the amount of taxi activity in the outer boroughs. Here’s a graph of taxi pickups in Brooklyn, the most populous borough, split by cab type:
Once boro taxis appeared on the scene, though, the green taxis quickly overtook yellow taxis so that as of June 2015, green taxis accounted for 70% of Brooklyn’s 850,000 monthly taxi pickups, while yellow taxis have decreased Brooklyn pickups back to their 2009 rate. Yellow taxis still account for more drop offs in Brooklyn, since many people continue to take taxis from Manhattan to Brooklyn, but even in drop offs, the green taxis are closing the gap.
Let’s add Uber into the mix. I live in Brooklyn, and although I sometimes take taxis, an anecdotal review of my credit card statements suggests that I take about four times as many Ubers as I do taxis. It turns out I’m not alone: between June 2014 and June 2015, the number of Uber pickups in Brooklyn grew by 525%! As of June 2015, the most recent data available when I wrote this, Uber accounts for more than twice as many pickups in Brooklyn compared to yellow taxis, and is rapidly approaching the popularity of green taxis:
Note that Uber data is only available from Apr 2014–Sep 2014, then from Jan 2015–Jun 2015, hence the gap in the graph
Manhattan, not surprisingly, accounts for by far the largest number of taxi pickups of any borough. In any given month, around 85% of all NYC taxi pickups occur in Manhattan, and most of those are made by yellow taxis. Even though green taxis are allowed to operate in upper Manhattan, they account for barely a fraction of yellow taxi activity:
Uber has grown dramatically in Manhattan as well, notching a 275% increase in pickups from June 2014 to June 2015, while taxi pickups declined by 9% over the same period. Uber made 1.4 million more Manhattan pickups in June 2015 than it did in June 2014, while taxis made 1.1 million fewer pickups. However, even though Uber picked up nearly 2 million Manhattan passengers in June 2015, Uber still accounts for less than 15% of total Manhattan pickups:
Queens still has more yellow taxi pickups than green taxi pickups, but that’s entirely because LaGuardia and JFK airports are both in Queens, and they are heavily served by yellow taxis. And although Uber has experienced nearly Brooklyn-like growth in Queens, it still lags behind yellow and green taxis, though again the yellow taxis are heavily influenced by airport pickups:
If we restrict to pickups at LaGuardia and JFK Airports, we can see that Uber has grown to over 100,000 monthly pickups, but yellow cabs still shuttle over 80% of car-hailing airport passengers back into the city:
Most of these vehicles [heading to JFK Airport] would undoubtedly be using the Van Wyck Expressway; Moses’s stated purpose in proposing it was to provide a direct route to the airport from mid-Manhattan. But the Van Wyck Expressway was designed to carry—under “optimum” conditions (good weather, no accidents or other delays)—2,630 vehicles per hour. Even if the only traffic using the Van Wyck was JFK traffic, the expressway’s capacity would not be sufficient to handle it.
[…] The air age was just beginning: air traffic was obviously going to boom to immense dimensions. If the Van Wyck expressway could not come anywhere near handling JFK’s traffic when that traffic was 10,000 persons per hour, what was going to happen when that traffic increased to 15,000 persons per hour? To 20,000?
A subject near and dear to all New Yorkers’ hearts: how far in advance do you have to hail a cab in order to make your flight at one of the three area airports? Of course, this depends on many factors: is there bad rush hour traffic? Is the UN in session? Will your cab driver know a “secret” shortcut to avoid the day’s inevitable bottleneck on the Van Wyck?
I took all weekday taxi trips to the airports and calculated the distribution of how long it took to travel from each neighborhood to the airports at each hour of the day. In most cases, the worst hour to travel to an airport is 4–5 PM. For example, the median taxi trip leaving Midtown headed for JFK Airport between 4 and 5 PM takes 64 minutes! 10% of trips during that hour take over 84 minutes—good luck making your flight in that case.
If you left Midtown heading for JFK between 10 and 11 AM, you’d face a median trip time of 38 minutes, with a 90% chance of getting there in less than 50 minutes. Google Maps estimates about an hour travel time on public transit from Bryant Park to JFK, so depending on the time of day and how close you are to a subway stop, your expected travel time might be better on public transit than in a cab, and you could save a bunch of money.
The stories are similar for traveling to LaGuardia and Newark airports, and from other neighborhoods. You can see the graphs for airport travel times from any neighborhood by selecting it in the dropdown below:
Could Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have made it from the Upper West Side to Wall Street in 30 minutes?
Airports aren’t the only destinations that suffer from traffic congestion. In Die Hard: With a Vengeance, John McClane (Willis) and Zeus Carver (Jackson) have to make it from 72nd and Broadway to the Wall Street 2/3 subway station during morning rush hour in less than 30 minutes, or else a bomb will go off. They commandeer a taxi, drive it frantically through Central Park, tailgate an ambulance, and just barely make it in time (of course the bomb goes off anyway…). Thanks to the TLC’s publicly available data, we can finally address audience concerns about the realism of this sequence.
McClane and Carver leave the Upper West Side at 9:50 AM, so I took all taxi rides that:
Picked up in the Upper West Side census tracts between West 70th and West 74th streets
Dropped off in the downtown tract containing the Wall Street 2/3 subway stop
Picked up on a weekday morning between 9:20 and 10:20 AM
And made a histogram of travel times:
There are 580 such taxi trips in the dataset, with a mean travel time of 29.8 minutes, and a median of 29 minutes. That means that half of such trips actually made it within the allotted time of 30 minutes! Now, our heroes might need a few minutes to commandeer a cab and get down to the subway platform on foot, so if we allot 3 minutes for those tasks and 27 minutes for driving, then only 39% of trips make it in 27 minutes or less. Still, in the movie they make it seem like a herculean task with almost zero probability of success, when in reality it’s just about average. This seems to be the rare action movie sequence which is actually easier to recreate in real life than in the movies!
How Does Weather Affect Taxi and Uber Ridership?
Since 2009, the days with the fewest city-wide taxi trips all have obvious relationships to the weather. The days with the fewest taxi trips were:
I downloaded daily Central Park weather data from the National Climatic Data Center, and joined it to the taxi data to see if we could learn anything else about the relationship between weather and taxi rides. There are lots of confounding variables, including seasonal trends, annual growth due to boro taxis, and whether weather events happen to fall on weekdays or weekends, but it would appear that snowfall has a significant negative impact on daily taxi ridership:
On the other hand, rain alone does not seem to affect total daily ridership:
Since Uber trip data is only available for a handful of months, it’s more difficult to measure the impact of weather on Uber ridership. Uber is well-known for its surge pricing during times of high demand, which often includes inclement weather. There were a handful of rainy and snowy days in the first half of 2015 when Uber data is available, so for each rain/snow day, I calculated the total number of trips made by taxis and Ubers, and compared that to each service’s daily average over the previous week. For example, Uber’s ratio of 69% on 1/26/15 means that there were 69% as many Uber trips made that day compared to Uber’s daily average from 1/19–1/25:
Snowfall in inches
Taxi trips vs. prev week
Uber trips vs. prev week
Precipitation in inches
Taxi trips vs. prev week
Uber trips vs. prev week
Although this data does not conclusively prove anything, on every single inclement weather day in 2015, in both rain and snow, Uber provided more trips relative to its previous week’s average than taxis did. Part of this is probably because the number of Uber cars is still growing, so all things held constant, we’d expect Uber to provide more trips on each successive day, while total taxi trips stay flat. But for Uber’s ratio to be higher every single day seems unlikely to be random chance, though again I have no justification to make any strong claims. Whether it’s surge pricing or something else, Uber’s capacity seems less negatively impacted by bad weather relative to taxi capacity.
NYC Late Night Taxi Index
Many real estate listings these days include information about the neighborhood: rankings of local schools, walkability scores, and types of local businesses. We can use the taxi data to draw some inferences about what parts of the city are popular for going out late at night by looking at the percentage of each census tract’s taxi pickups that occur between 10 PM and 5 AM—the time period I’ve deemed “late night.”
Some people want to live in a city that never sleeps, while others prefer their peace and quiet. According to the late night taxi index, if you’re looking for a neighborhood with vibrant nightlife, try Williamsburg, Greenpoint, or Bushwick in Brooklyn. The census tract with the highest late night taxi index is in East Williamsburg, where 76% of taxi pickups occur between 10 PM and 5 AM. If you insist on Manhattan, then your best bets are the Lower East Side or the Meatpacking District.
Conversely, if you want to avoid the nighttime commotion, head uptown to the Upper East or Upper West Side (if you’re not already there…). The stretch in the east 80s between 5th Avenue and Park Avenue has the lowest late night taxi index, with only 5% of all taxi pickups occurring during the nighttime hours.
Here’s a map of all census tracts that had at least 50,000 taxi pickups, where darker shading represents a higher score on the late night taxi index:
BK nights: 76% of the taxi pickups that occur in one of East Williamsburg’s census tracts happen between 10 PM and 5 AM, the highest rate in the city. A paltry 5% of taxi pickups in some Upper East Side tracts occur in the late night hours
Whither the Bridge and Tunnel Crowd?
The “bridge and tunnel” moniker applies, on a literal level, to anyone who travels onto the island of Manhattan via a bridge or tunnel, most often from New Jersey, Long Island, or the outer boroughs. Typically it’s considered an insult, though, with the emerging popularity of the outer boroughs, well, let’s just say the Times is on it.
In order to measure B&T destinations from the taxi data, I isolated all trips originating near Penn Station on Saturday evenings between 6 PM and midnight. Penn Station serves as the point of disembarkation for New Jersey Transit and Long Island Rail Road, so although not everyone hailing a taxi around Penn Station on a Saturday evening just took the train into the city, it should be at least a decent proxy for B&T trends. Here’s the map of the neighborhoods where these rides dropped off:
The most popular destinations for B&T trips are in Murray Hill, the Meatpacking District, Chelsea, and Midtown. We can even drill down to the individual trip level to see exactly where these trips wind up. Here’s a map of Murray Hill, the most popular B&T destination, where each dot represents a single Saturday evening taxi trip originating at Penn Station:
As reported, repeatedly, in the NYT, the heart of Murray Hill nightlife lies along 3rd Avenue, in particular the stretch from 32nd to 35th streets. Taxi data shows the plurality of Saturday evening taxi trips from Penn Station drop off in this area, with additional clusters in the high 20s on 3rd Avenue, further east along 34th Street, and a spot on East 39th Street between 1st and 2nd avenues. With a bit more work we might be able to reverse geocode these coordinates to actual bar names, perhaps putting a more scientific spin on this classic of the genre from Complex.
According to taxi activity, the most ascendant census tract in the entire city since 2009 lies on Williamsburg’s north side, bounded by North 14th St to the north, Berry St to the east, North 7th St to the south, and the East River to the west:
The Northside neighborhood is known for its nightlife: a full 72% of pickups occur during the late night hours. It’s difficult to compare 2009–2015 taxi growth across census tracts and boroughs because of the introduction of the green boro taxi program, but the Northside tract had a larger increase in total taxi pickups over that time period than any other tract in the city, with the exception of the airports:
Even before the boro taxi program began in August 2013, Northside Williamsburg experienced a dramatic increase in taxi activity, growing from a mere 500 monthly pickups in June 2009, to 10,000 in June 2013, and 25,000 by June 2015. Let’s look at an animated map of taxi pickups to see if we can learn anything:
The cool thing about the animation is that it lets us pinpoint the exact locations of some of the more popular Northside businesses to open in the past few years, in particular along Wythe Avenue:
But the data still contains precise latitude and longitude coordinates, which can potentially be used to determine where people live, work, socialize, and so on. This is all fun and games when we’re looking at the hottest new techno club in Northside Williamsburg, but when it’s people’s homes it gets a bit weird. NYC is of course very dense, and if you take a rush hour taxi ride from one populus area to another, say Grand Central Terminal to the Upper East Side, it’s unlikely that there’s anything unique about your trip that would let someone figure out where you live or work.
But what if you’re going somewhere a bit off the beaten path for taxis? In that case, your trip might well be unique, and it might reveal information about you. For example, I don’t know who owns one of theses beautiful oceanfront homes on East Hampton’s exclusive Further Lane (exact address redacted to protect the innocent):
But I do know the exact Brooklyn Heights location and time from which someone (not necessarily the owner) hailed a cab, rode 106.6 miles, and paid a $400 fare with a credit card, including a $110.50 tip. If the TLC truly wanted to remove potentially personal information, they would have to remove latitude and longitude coordinates from the dataset entirely. There’s a tension that public data is supposed to let people know how well the taxi system serves different parts of the city, so maybe the TLC should provide census tracts instead of coordinates, or perhaps only coordinates within busy parts of Manhattan, but providing coordinates that uniquely identify a rider’s home feels excessive.
While we’re on the topic of the Hamptons: we’ve already covered the hipsters of Williamsburg and the B&Ts of Murray Hill, why not see what the taxi data can tell us about investment bankers, yet another of New York’s distinctive subcultures?
Goldman Sachs lends itself nicely to analysis because its headquarters at 200 West Street has a dedicated driveway, marked “Hudson River Greenway” on this Google Map:
We can isolate all taxi trips that dropped off in that driveway to get a sense of where Goldman Sachs employees—at least the ones who take taxis—come from in the mornings, and when they arrive. Here’s a histogram of weekday drop off times at 200 West Street:
The cabs start dropping off around 5 AM, then peak hours are 7–9 AM, before tapering off in the afternoon. Presumably most of the post-morning drop offs are visitors as opposed to employees. If we restrict to drop offs before 10 AM, the median drop off time is 7:59 AM, and 25% of drop offs happen before 7:08 AM.
A few blocks to the north is Citigroup’s headquarters at 388 Greenwich St, and although the building doesn’t appear to have a dedicated driveway the way Goldman does, we can still isolate taxis that drop off directly in front of the building to see what time Citigroup’s workers arrive in the morning:
Some of the evening drop offs near Citigroup are probably for the bars and restaurants across the street, but again the morning drop offs are probably mostly Citigroup employees. Citigroup’s morning arrival stats are comparable to Goldman’s: a median arrival of 7:51 AM, and 25% of drop offs happen before 7:03 AM.
The top neighborhoods for taxi pickups that drop off at Goldman Sachs or Citigroup on weekday mornings are:
So what’s the deal, do bankers not live above 14th St (or maybe 23rd St) anymore? Alas, there are still plenty of trips from the stodgier parts further uptown, and it’s certainly possible that people coming from uptown are more likely to take the subway, private cars, or other modes of transport, so the taxi data is by no means conclusive. But still, the cool kids have been living downtown for a while now, why should the bankers be any exception?
As I mentioned in the introduction, this post covers a lot. And even then, I feel like it barely scratches the surface of the information available in the full dataset. For example, did you know that in January 2009, just over 20% of taxi fares were paid with a credit card, but as of June 2015, that number has grown to over 60% of all fares?
And for more expensive taxi trips, riders now pay via credit card more than 75% of the time:
There are endless analyses to be done, and more datasets that could be merged with the taxi data for further investigation. The Citi Bike program releases public ride data; I wonder if the introduction of a bike-share system had a material impact on taxi ridership? [Update: I did some analysis of the Citi Bike system] And maybe we could quantify fairweather fandom by measuring how taxi volume to Yankee Stadium and Citi Field fluctuates based on the Yankees’ and Mets’ records?
There are investors out there who use satellite imagery to make investment decisions, e.g. if there are lots of cars in a department store’s parking lots this holiday season, maybe it’s time to buy. You might be able to do something similar with the taxi data: is airline market share shifting, based on traffic through JetBlue’s terminal at JFK vs. Delta’s terminal at LaGuardia? Is demand for lumber at all correlated to how many people are loading up on IKEA furniture in Red Hook?
Lastly, I mentioned the “medium data revolution” in my previous post about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the same ethos applies here. Not too long ago, the idea of downloading, processing, and analyzing 267 GB of raw data containing 1.1 billion rows on a commodity laptop would have been almost laughably naive. Today, not only is it possible on a MacBook Air, but there are increasingly more open-source software tools available to aid in the process. I’m partial to PostgreSQL and R, but those are implementation details: increasingly, the limiting factor of data analysis is not computational horsepower, but human curiosity and creativity.
If you’re interested in getting the data and doing your own analysis, or just want to read a bit about the more technical details, head over to the GitHub repository.
Update September 2016
The NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission has released an additional year of data, covering taxis, Uber, and other for-hire vehicle (FHV) trips through June 2016. The complete dataset now includes over 1.3 billion trips, and the GitHub repo has been updated to process everything, including the new FHV file formats.
In Brooklyn, Uber is now bigger than taxis
October 12, 2015 marked the first day that Uber made more pickups in Brooklyn than yellow and green taxis combined. As of June 2016, Uber makes 60% more pickups per day than taxis do, and the gap appears to be growing. Lyft has also surpassed yellow taxis in Brooklyn, but still makes fewer pickups than green boro taxis.
Taxis still rule Manhattan and the airports, for now
In Manhattan, taxis still make more than three times as many pickups per day than Ubers do. But taxi activity shrank by 10% from June 2015 to June 2016, while Uber grew by 63% over the same time period. That’s a 1.1 million trips per month loss for taxis, coupled with a 1.2 million trips per month increase for Uber.
Uber has also increased its share of pickups at LaGuardia and JFK airports. Uber’s airport pickups doubled in the past year while taxi activity remained flat, and Uber now makes 40% as many pickups at NYC airports compared to taxis.
Will Uber overtake taxis in New York City?
Uber’s growth rate in NYC is slowing, which is not terriby surprising since intuitively it should be harder for a company to grow as it serves a larger percentage of the population. That said, Uber’s NYC year-over-year growth was still +90% as of June 2016, down from +325% one year earlier.
Taxi losses accelerated slightly over the same time period: year-over-year pickups declined 10% as of June 2016, compared to a loss of 7% the year before.
If taxi trips average an 8% annual decline over the next two years, then Uber would have to average a 40% annual growth rate in order to equal taxi activity by June 2018.
If we consider ridesharing services as a group—specifically Uber, Lyft, Via, Juno, and Gett—then that aggregate cohort would have to average a 22% annual growth rate over the next two years, again assuming 8% annual taxi decline (note that Via, Juno, and Gett do not yet appear in the trip-level TLC data, but they do report aggregate trip counts).
There are enough unknowns—in particular, I wonder if ridesharing fares are unsustainably low due to intense competition—that it’s impossible to say if or when the lines will cross, but at least for now, the overall trend is unmistakable.
You can continue to see monthly live-updating TLC aggregate data here, and the open-source code to process and analyze everything is here.