If it did then it wouldn't increase total VMT. Again there are "deadhead" miles in those cars without any passengers at all, a fifth of those trips wouldn't have happened in the first place, and two fifths would have used alternatives that don't contribute to VMT. (According to the study.)
From the article, "Ride-hailing users have higher personal vehicle ownership rates than those who use “transit only”: 52% versus 46%." This point seems like a non-point. First, that's not a very big gap. Also, Do richer people pollute less or congest less than poorer people? I don't think so, so having the car in the garage is better than having it on the road, and no different than not having it at all.
Easy access to quick transportation is a general economic benefit for everyone. That’s not support for uber or lyft specifically, but if people can easily get around town, they’re more likely to make extra trips to bars, restaurants, shows, etc. where they may have otherwise considered just staying home.
The reality, in LA, is that if you're not going via Uber/Lyft, you're driving drunk. Not going is not even on the table. This is FOMO capital of the world.
Unlikely. Most trips are to bars, parties and restaurants.
The point about car ownership is really just refuting the belief that ridesharing leads to an immediate decrease in car ownership. Overall the study tries to focus on VMT as the more important metric, since you could sell your car and switch to ridesharing and still end up with greater VMT.