If I read the article correctly, it seems that the models don't consider increased economic activity. Are they proposing that year 2010 and 2016 were similar in that respect?
Anyway, they seem to have baked in so many adjustments and estimates that they could justify pretty much anything they'd want. Perhaps one area requiring further study is how ride sharing during commute hours displaces the ride share fleets, requiring a counter flow, perhaps reducing the effectiveness of high way lanes that switch direction based on major flows in/out of the area.

This is supposed to be ride sharing, not ride selling. Drivers should only be allowed new fares after time for own errands, or on proof of another delivery job. We should have safe, convenient hitchiking, with multiple riders encouraged and easy transfers.

Points made by "aki009" are spot on. The studies seem based on the idea the people in general would not want to go places, if there were not a convenient means to do that. Maybe not, but that means that any targeted restrictions on ride sharing are directly hurting the customers, as well as the drivers. I could support congestion pricing as long as it's neutral to the purpose that people choose to travel. The role of Price, in any economy, is as communication: "if you don't want to go This Much, then find alternatives".

IMHO, there is a huge difference between, disrupting an industry via innovation vs disrupting an industry via unfair competition!
IMHO, Uber & Lyft are nothing but illegitimate Taxi services destroying all legitimate Taxi businesses in the world via unfair competition!
IMHO, their unfair competition means, they would kill all legitimate Taxi businesses in the world, sooner or later, if they are not shutdown!
IMHO, the hugest question is, do we really want a future world, where/when, our only options for Taxi are Uber & Lfyt!
(& so everybody will be forced to use Taxis driven by lowest of low wage drivers!)

I see thousands of people on electric scooters there. Have they reduced traffic?

Laughable some of the Green Freaks on GreenCar Reports that said Uber and Lyft would DECREASE traffic by more than 50%. I argued no the won't part and just circle the block endlessly awaiting a rider. I was right. Again.

I recently serviced my 2017 Mazda at the dealer. The service writer was telling me about another 2017 CX-5 owner who has 130K miles on their 2 year old car and how well the car holds up having performed 7500 mile interval oil changes every 2-3 weeks. The owner is a Uber/Lyft driver. Surely those miles weren't on a dynamometer.

Uber is the best thing to happen to transportation in a long time. I love using them, compared to a taxi, which is difficult to call to your location, dirty and uncomfortable, usually a beat up old police car, and more expensive. Sorry, but they are here to stay. Maybe not with human drivers but people will ALWAYS prefer to have a vehicle pick them up right where they need it using a smartphone app, pay through the same app (another reason taxis are terrible) and deliver you directly where you need to go based on the address you entered into the app (not the address you need to tell the taxi to enter into their google maps, another reason they are terrible). Not to mention the way taxis love to gouge tourists by taking the scenic route. Nope, sorry, Uber and Lyft are the best.

If all ride services were required to remain at their last location, or close to it, while awaiting new passenger pick-up requests, that might alleviate the problem.

To guzmanchinky: The best, eh? Relying on sat nav with no knowledge of the area, using dubious drivers who seem to have a pre-disposition to rape, assault and even murder and (in the case of Uber) an all-round culture of bending the rules.