Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

The 2016 thread was getting a bit derailed about Uber vs Taxis so I decided to make a new thread. There's a lot in play here. How does innovation affect highly regulated industries? Is Uber skirting regulations? Are the cab companies making a legitimate complaint or are they trying to muscle out competition? How does Uber impact service to traditionally underserved areas?

Relevant posts from the 2016 thread we can use to continue discussion.

De Nomolos posted:

I'm not so sure the drug/surveillance stuff doesn't become a wash. I mean, this is a theoretical in which the Rand Paul Reboot crap takes hold. When it comes to the other stuff, an appeal to THE techno-Utopianism that you see among young professionals in SF/DC/NYC who think Uber is just a smarter business trying to be unfairly brought down by jealous cab companies (refusing to see how it's an issue of inconsistent and unfair application of regulation) could swing them to the selfish side, no doubt.

Talk to any young "liberal" professional in DC about cabs and Uber and they'll sound like a right winger.

Kalman posted:

Most of us just want to be able to pay for a cab with a credit card. (Something that DC cabs finally added in 2013... if it isn't "broken."). And to be able to call for a cab and expect it to arrive (which DC cabs still haven't mastered.). And to be able to get picked up and dropped off while black/in traditionally minority areas of DC. (Technically illegal for a cab not to pick up a black person but they still do it.)

Basically, the reasons that people in DC like Uber aren't linked to the regulations Uber skirts (especially since they're regulated by statute now) but rather to actually treating their customers with something resembling respect. If DC cabs weren't so poo poo, I would have kept riding them, but come the gently caress on.

Jackson Taus posted:

Taxi regulations are pretty lovely though - we basically hand a monopoly in the form of medallion auctions to big incumbent companies. So you've got basically a government-sanctioned oligopoly that's relatively insensitive to customer needs because there's no competition who turn around and lobby heavily against any pro-customer regulations. It's like the worst form of regulation out there - you don't need to be a Rand-Paulite to see that it's a load of crap.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Or they could just apply the same basic regulations to Uber? The problem that people have with taxi companies is that they actively fight against things that would benefit consumers - getting credit cards into DC taxis was a process to say the least, and some cabbies are still refusing to comply. Or as Kalman mentioned, try getting a taxi while black in the city. Before Uber came around, I have had more than one occasion where a friend or co-worker asked me to flag down a cab for them for exactly that reason.

There are legitimate licensing and safety concerns that should absolutely apply to Uber. Chances are they would have to raise prices some if they were held to all the same requirements as taxis, and this is just fine and creates a level playing field. But instead you get a bunch of taxi companies concerned that they suddenly aren't playing in an oligopoly and demanding that Uber not be allowed to operate because their profits are at risk. At no point does any concern for consumers seem to come into the equation for those people, so they aren't garnering a lot of sympathy.

Again, there are different sets of regulations in question here. Insurance requirements? Awesome. Licensing requirements? Great. Non-discrimination standards, vehicle inspections - we could go on for a while about the things that taxi companies, Internet based or otherwise, could reasonably be required to do. All of this should apply evenly across the board to anyone transporting passengers.

The regulations people are complaining about are the ones that explicitly target companies like Uber from operating or limit the number of taxis on the road. It's obvious rent-seeking behavior from taxi companies who have been in bed with local politicians since time immemorial, and consumers are justifiably upset because they get an inferior service at a higher price as a result.

Just because the right has adopted a knee-jerk 'regulation bad' policy doesn't mean that the opposite is true and all regulation is good. You're falling into the same ideological trap.

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm not sure how this thread became the Uber thread, but there's a difference between requiring Uber to act just like a cab company and regulating uber at all. I'm not willing to believe that Uber couldn't operate if they required commercial vehicle insurance for their drivers or provided it. I'm not willing to believe that Uber couldn't handle the legal liability when their drivers kidnap people (twice thus far), cab companies are able to do so.

Also I like how you think Uber, with a $17 Billion USD valuation isn't a "huge corp" that can't pay the costs of regulation. Did you know that there isn't a "yellow cap company" that owns all the yellow cabs across the US and that many cab drivers are "independent contractors" too?

I'm also unclear how a company with a $17B valuation is being "strangled" exactly, unless being unable to anything you want is being "strangled".

Uber is using the strawman of Taxi corps to avoid regulations that would prevent them from shifting legal and economic liability to their drivers and customers while the profits remain firmly in their hands.

ReindeerF posted:

Your response is bizarre. I worked in zone 1 and want to go to zone 3 and it's 9.50. Unless you lived just across zones it was pretty handy, frankly, for me anyway. No need to go on about it.

EDIT: I just looked up the rates in Austin and I'm ing online here. They look so cheap online with all these purported flat rates. Try to take a taxi and see what happens. "But it said on the web like $30 from Bergstrom to town." Same in Houston or Memphis and so on. DC I found pretty reliable and I've spent a fair amount of time in taxis in DC, Houston, Austin, San Francisco, New Orleans, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Manila and a bit in Paris, London, Singapore and so on. I agree that sprawl is part of it, but getting from 51st street in Austin to Guadalupe is about as outrageous as getting from DuPont Circle to King Street in DC and it's half the distance.

I think the larger problem isn't the size or population density, it's the supply of taxis and usage. That's one reason Uber works in these areas, it goes into areas that traditionally have shunned public transport and goes, "Same thing, but nicer and re-branded - go."

De Nomolos posted:

You know, the "getting a cab while black" thing is well-documented, but wasn't Spike Lee complaining about how Uber still doesn't touch the South Bronx, as a part of a general rant about how it used to be lovely or no services in Bed-Stuy before gentrification and now that it's full of white kids, they actually pick up the trash?

Another issue in transit is what we saw in the BART strikes and the "disrupters" apathy or outright disdain for strikers and BART users, since they get their own GoogleBus. The technorati is seceding from the public sphere, and who has been talking about ditching onshore COLLECTIVISM for their figurative Sealands for decades? Fuckers like Pete Thiel...and Rand Paul.

Taxis may be poo poo, but the public sector is worth defending. I'm uncertain how much the young tech professionals have to care though, and thus they're more susceptible to the Randian (not Paul) appeals leading them to disdain public options.

Swan Oat posted:

I dunno what it's like where y'all live but in Houston taxi drivers are legally forbidden from refusing fares and the rates have to be the same at all times. Also, and this is what is actually important, taxi drivers have to carry commercial insurance but Uber drivers do not. That is actually hosed up and bad. I hope future president Joe Biden nationalizes taxi transport and bans Uber.

Swan Oat posted:

I dunno what it's like where y'all live but in Houston taxi drivers are legally forbidden from refusing fares and the rates have to be the same at all times. Also, and this is what is actually important, taxi drivers have to carry commercial insurance but Uber drivers do not. That is actually hosed up and bad. I hope future president Joe Biden nationalizes taxi transport and bans Uber.

axeil posted:

In DC they'll pull up, lock their doors and won't unlock them till you tell them where you're going. If you're not going somewhere trendy where they can get more fares they'll just speed off. If you try and get a cop to cite them for breaking the law they've already been gone for half an hour and a license plate number isn't good enough.

Uber brought in actual innovation. Smartphone hailing is such a minor difference but it makes life so much easier. You know when the cab will be there. If you call a cab it takes longer and usually doesn't show up. Uber will say "driver will be there in x minutes." They also simplified payment. Everything's auto-calculated and billed to your credit card on file. When you get where you're going you just hop out, no waiting for 5 minutes to pay and backing up traffic. There's also surge pricing, which is controversial, but ensures there's always Ubers on the road for those who absolutely need them. Plus the app warns you twice if surge pricing is in effect so you don't accidentally take a surge ride when you don't want to.

These are useful, customer experience improving innovations and the taxicab industry's response has basically been screaming that they're losing their market. Because their rent is more important than making their passengers happy.

Uber needs to bury the rent-seeking taxicab industry. I'm glad to know that I'm Ayn Rand for having this opinion though. You know, because breaking up monopolies and preventing rent-seeking is a very libertarian.

No idea what the prices are in NYC, but here's DC's price structure courtesy of the DC Taxicab Commission.

http://dctaxi.dc.gov/page/taxicab-fares

Fares:

First 1/8 mile: $3.25

Each additional 1/8 mile: $0.27

Wait rate per hour: $35.00
Wait time begins five (5) minutes after time of arrival at dispatch location.
No wait time charged for premature response to a dispatch.
Wait time charged while taxicab is stopped or slowed to less than ten (10) miles per hour for longer than sixty (60) seconds.
Wait time charged for delays or stopovers at the direction of the passenger.

Hourly Contract Rate
$35.00 for the first one (1) hour or fraction thereof.
$8.75 for each additional fifteen (15) minutes or fraction thereof.

Extras:

Taxicab passenger surcharge, twenty-five cents per trip $0.25
Telephone Dispatch, two dollars $2.00
Additional passenger, one dollar $1.00
(regardless of the number of additional passengers)

Declared Snow Emergency Fee, fifteen dollars $15.00

axeil posted:

Wanamingo posted:
Isn't Uber's whole deal basically that it's cheaper than a normal taxi service because none of the drivers are insured?

Not really. If I recall correctly, the $1 million they have in insurance is more than they're required to actually carry. The issue the cab companies have been raising is that it's not quite structured the same as cab insurance, but it seems like it's functionally equivalent.

http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurancepolicy

Uber posted:
Since launching ridesharing in early 2013, Uber has put industry-leading insurance policies in place to cover every ridesharing trip on the Uber platform throughout the U.S. Over time we have added more coverage to include the time between trips and to cover comprehensive and collision.

Throughout, we have shared our $1 million commercial liability policy in full with policymakers and regulators upon request. We are proud to share it publicly here and answer some important questions.

Why hasn�t Uber shared this policy before?

Uber has shared this policy before, doing detailed reviews with city officials and regulators across the country. We have also previously posted the Certificate of Insurance along with details about the policy. This is, however, the first time we have published the entire policy for the public at large. We are confident it is a best-in-class policy and hope that this additional transparency addresses any remaining questions about the insurance provided to ridesharing partners on our platform.

When did this policy go into effect?

Ridesharing coordinated through Uber technology has had similar coverage since the very beginning. Of course, we are constantly looking to upgrade and enhance the coverage afforded our partners and the riders. This insurance policy reflects the broad coverage in place today for trips that happens through the coordination of Uber�s technology platform.

Who is the insurer?

The policy is issued by James River Insurance Company, which is rated A- (Excellent) by A.M. Best, the industry standard rating agency for the financial strength of insurance companies.

The insured parties are listed as �Rasier�, etc. What is Rasier?

Rasier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies Inc. that partners with ridesharing drivers. All ridesharing drivers have a contract with Rasier.

Who and what are covered by this policy?

This policy covers the liability of 1) ridesharing drivers (described as �Named Operators� in the policy) who have accepted a trip and are en route to pick up passengers or that are transporting passengers to their destination 2) Rasier and 3) Uber Technologies, Inc. Liability coverage is up to $1 million per incident for bodily injury or property damage to passengers or any other third parties, such as pedestrians, other vehicles, buildings, etc. The policy also covers bodily injury caused by uninsured and underinsured motorists up to $1 million/incident, so that no matter who is at fault, coverage is in place.

Is there an aggregate limit to the policy?

No. This policy provides up to $1 million in coverage for each and every incident that occurs from the time a driver has accepted a trip and is en route to pick up passengers or is transporting passengers to their destination.

How does this policy work?

From the moment a driver accepts a trip to conclusion, primary liability coverage is in place and applies up to $1 million coverage per incident. Specifically, this policy is primary to your personal auto insurance policy but remains excess to any commercial auto insurance you may have for the vehicle.1

Does this policy cover collision insurance?

Comprehensive and collision are covered under a separate policy and include $50,000 of contingent comprehensive and collision insurance. If a ridesharing driver maintains personal comprehensive and collision insurance, this policy covers physical damage to that vehicle that occurs during a trip, for any reason, up to $50,000 and with a $1,000 deductible.

What about a driver�s time between trips?

Most personal auto policies cover the period of time when a driver is between commercial trips and not carrying a passenger. However, we have also recently added a separate commercial insurance policy that went into effect on March 14, 2014 in order to add commercial liability coverage to this period of time between trips and eliminate any ambiguity. More details here.

What else is important?

Some states have specific local regulatory needs and have additional endorsements or separate policy numbers. These policies have the same structure and provide equivalent or greater coverage. No fault coverage (e.g., Personal Injury Protection) is provided in certain states at similar levels as limos or taxis in those cities.

THIS POST PROVIDES AN INFORMATIONAL SUMMARY OF INSURANCE POLICIES FOR QUICK REFERENCE AND DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND, OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THOSE POLICIES.

edit: Here are the required coverages for each city:

Maximum Coverage for Taxis by City

Atlanta: $50K
Baltimore: $60K
Boston: $40K
Chicago: $350K
San Francisco: $1000K
Washington DC: $50K

As for the frequently mentioned "insurance gap":

Uber posted:
Starting today, if a driver�s personal insurance policy is found not to cover an accident during this period, this new policy will provide contingent coverage for a driver�s liability at the highest requirement of any state in the U.S: $50,000/individual/incident for bodily injury, $100,000 total/incident for bodily injury and $25,000/incident for property damage.

http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance

That was posted on March 14th.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 17:54

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

Wanamingo posted:

Isn't Uber's whole deal basically that it's cheaper than a normal taxi service because none of the drivers are insured?

Probably not in Michigan, since here all drivers are required to have insurance with their car.

Why are people so upset at a new company exploding because it actually does change up an industry so much?

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:24

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

Jackson Taus brought up the issue that, at least here in Boston, is the crux of the issue to me. Regulations that protect the safety of consumers and other people on the road (drivers need to be licensed, cars need to be inspected, etc etc) are 100% fine with me. The medallion system is a complete joke that drives up the prices of cabs in the area

the article above posted:

There are only 1,825 [medallions] available for the whole city of Boston. And the last time one went up for auction, it sold for about $400,000.

Riptor fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:30

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Riptor posted:

Jackson Taus brought up the issue that, at least here in Boston, is the crux of the issue to me. Regulations that protect the safety of consumers and other people on the road (drivers need to be licensed, cars need to be inspected, etc etc) are 100% fine with me. The medallion system is a complete joke that drives up the prices of cabs in the area

I've heard people argue that the medallion system is in place to keep the roads from becoming clogged with taxis.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:32

Communist Zombie: Nov 1, 2011

Beamed posted:

Probably not in Michigan, since here all drivers are required to have insurance with their car.

Why are people so upset at a new company exploding because it actually does change up an industry so much?

Isnt the actual issue is that they require personal car insurance and not commercial car insurance, so when they get into an accident on the clock the insurance wont cover it. And in a A/T thread about driving for Uber/lyft, they also mention that the $1 million that Uber provides wont be enough to cover everything despite it apparently being more than enough? :shrug:

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:35

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

Condiv posted:

I've heard people argue that the medallion system is in place to keep the roads from becoming clogged with taxis.

That's fine, cap the number of medallions at whatever number you want. But just issue them by lottery, and don't allow people to sell them

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:36

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

Communist Zombie posted:

Isnt the actual issue is that they require personal car insurance and not commercial car insurance, so when they get into an accident on the clock the insurance wont cover it. And in a A/T thread about driving for Uber/lyft, they also mention that the $1 million that Uber provides wont be enough to cover everything despite it apparently being more than enough?

You're right, that may be true, I'll leave it up to the Law Folks.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:36

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Condiv posted:

I've heard people argue that the medallion system is in place to keep the roads from becoming clogged with taxis.

Yeah, definitely.

quote:

Similarly, adding more taxis in an urban area can slow not just cabs but all traffic, making urban driving less efficient for everyone.

A new plan to increase the number of cab medallions � and hence the number of taxis � in New York City has been greeted with enthusiasm. But the plan could backfire.

The economist Charles Komanoff has developed a computer model that estimates the impact of the planned addition of about 2,000 taxicabs (all of them wheelchair accessible) to Manhattan streets.

Cars in the central business district of Manhattan, already hampered by traffic, currently average about 9.5 miles per hour, a speed that many bicyclists can match. Cabs spend far more time than private cars cruising the streets. Mr. Komanoff estimates that adding one cab to the transportation mix is the equivalent of adding 40 private cars.

His model predicts that a 15 percent increase in taxi traffic (equivalent to the planned increase in cab medallion sales) will cause travel speeds across all of Manhattan south of 60th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays to fall by 12 percent.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/traffic-jam-economics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Cabs spend a lot of time cruising the streets and therefore cause a much greater impact on congestion than private vehicles. Medallion systems allow a way to put a price on a real scarcity in the system - road throughput in urban areas.

It's kind of funny how much a left-leaning forum like this will shout the virtues of urban planning to the mountains, but as soon as you talk about planning effective usage of road capacity or imply that circumventing city planning with apps might be a bad thing we're right into :bahgawd:

territory. You can't just plan urban areas and then leave effective transportation systems to some jackass who wrote an app.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:37

Communist Zombie: Nov 1, 2011

Condiv posted:

I've heard people argue that the medallion system is in place to keep the roads from becoming clogged with taxis.

From what Ive heard in other threads is that the medallion system is for taxis that drive around and are flagged down on the street, and doesnt cover taxicab services where you call/order one like Uber. They talk about the distinction abit more in depth in the A/T thread i linked.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:37

Perry Mason Jar: Feb 24, 2006; "Della? Take a lid"

By the time the legislature sorts it out user-operated vehicles will be a minority.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:39

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Riptor posted:

That's fine, cap the number of medallions at whatever number you want. But just issue them by lottery, and don't allow people to sell them

That doesn't make a ton of sense, it makes having a company of taxi drivers impossible (unless companies get a higher chance to win). If you want to encourage more independent cabbies and small cab companies, a better idea might be to create two classes of medals, one for small business and independent cabbies, and one for large cab companies.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:42

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

Condiv posted:

That doesn't make a ton of sense, it makes having a company of taxi drivers impossible (unless companies get a higher chance to win). If you want to encourage more independent cabbies and small cab companies, a better idea might be to create two classes of medals, one for small business and independent cabbies, and one for large cab companies.

Either way, the point is to remove the value of the medallion itself from the equation

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:45

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Riptor posted:

Either way, the point is to remove the value of the medallion itself from the equation

I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that medal costs need to be brought lower for fledgling companies and such. Uber wouldn't count as such a thing though, they have a lot more money than most large cab services.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:49

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

Paul MaudDib posted:

Yeah, definitely.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/traffic-jam-economics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Cabs spend a lot of time cruising the streets and therefore cause a much greater impact on congestion than private vehicles. Medallion systems allow a way to put a price on a real scarcity in the system - road throughput in urban areas.

Medallion systems aren't structured to do that, though. Once a medallion is bought the incentive is to have the cab circulating as much as possible to make the most of the investment. I think they're more about limiting competition than congestion, tbh.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:52

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

wateroverfire posted:

Medallion systems aren't structured to do that, though. Once a medallion is bought the incentive is to have the cab circulating as much as possible to make the most of the investment. I think they're more about limiting competition than congestion, tbh.

I believe you your opinion outweighs his actual evidence.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:53

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

Paul MaudDib posted:

Yeah, definitely.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/traffic-jam-economics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Cabs spend a lot of time cruising the streets and therefore cause a much greater impact on congestion than private vehicles. Medallion systems allow a way to put a price on a real scarcity in the system - road throughput in urban areas.

It's kind of funny how much a left-leaning forum like this will shout the virtues of urban planning to the mountains, but as soon as you talk about planning effective usage of road capacity or imply that circumventing city planning with apps might be a bad thing we're right into territory. You can't just plan urban areas and then leave effective transportation systems to some jackass who wrote an app.

Isn't the Uber model explicitly lowering the amount of time a cab cruises around aimlessly?

Also, whatever the issues with road thoughtput, Uber is not on the scale to effect that.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:53

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Adar posted:

Isn't the Uber model explicitly lowering the amount of time a cab cruises around aimlessly?

Also, whatever the issues with road thoughtput, Uber is not on the scale to effect that.

The point is that commercial vehicles which spend all day driving around on the streets cause a lot more road congestion than someone who drives to work, parks for 8 hours, then drives home. During the time periods in which Uber drivers are working, which are likely the peak times for road congestion anyway, they are commercial vehicles and they are causing more congestion by taking fares than if they just drove home and got off the streets.

The scale doesn't matter, cities have a right to manage their transportation systems so that getting from place to place is as easy an experience as possible. If cities want to ban semi-trucks or other commercial vehicles from driving on certain streets, that's within their powers too.

The obvious comparison is ride-sharing, but the fact is that not enough passenger car traffic is displaced to make it worthwhile, at least according to that analysis. Adding 2,000 taxis will not displace 80,000 passenger vehicles.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:01

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

We could always look at DC (which has no medallion system and as a result is not dominated by large cab companies and has around 8x as many licensed cab drivers per capita as NY) to see if medallions reduce congestion.

They don't appear to. There are roughly 8000 licensed cab drivers in DC. If they were all on the road at the same time, during rush hour, they would increase the number of car-type vehicles on the road by about 8% (per the 2010 ACS estimate of roughly 111k vehicles aggregate in DC used by commuters daily.). While that's not insignificant, it's also not going to drive congestion in and of itself, especially since every cab being in use simultaneously isn't a realistic condition in the absence of medallions because there's no incentive or even capability to have full utilization of a given cab.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:11

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Kalman posted:

While that's not insignificant, it's also not going to drive congestion in and of itself, especially since every cab being in use simultaneously isn't a realistic condition in the absence of medallions because there's no incentive or even capability to have full utilization of a given cab.

The thing is congestion doesn't care whether or not there's a passenger in the back. A cab driving around looking for a fare is still adding to congestion.

Kalman posted:

We could always look at DC (which has no medallion system and as a result is not dominated by large cab companies and has around 8x as many licensed cab drivers per capita as NY) to see if medallions reduce congestion.

They don't appear to. There are roughly 8000 licensed cab drivers in DC. If they were all on the road at the same time, during rush hour, they would increase the number of car-type vehicles on the road by about 8% (per the 2010 ACS estimate of roughly 111k vehicles aggregate in DC used by commuters daily.).

You're just some guy pretending his napkin math overrules experts in traffic studies.

Washington DC's transportation system is probably less congested than New York City's, given. But you're making a huge number of handwaves on an analysis that's tenuous at best. Commercial vehicles do have disproportionate impacts on roads - road surfaces, road congestion, etc. The NYC study pegged the impact of an additional taxicab as the equivalent of 40 passenger vehicles.

Do you think the equivalent of an additional 320,000 passenger vehicles might degrade throughput? Again, relative to your figure of 110k commuter vehicles?

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:15

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Adar posted:

Isn't the Uber model explicitly lowering the amount of time a cab cruises around aimlessly?

Also, whatever the issues with road thoughtput, Uber is not on the scale to effect that.

I would imagine so, but I don't think the problem with Uber is medallions (I think those are only required for cabs that look around for customers). The problem with uber is that they claim UberX is a ride sharing system where they just allow like minded people to carpool for a small percentage of the fare. They claim the UberX drivers do not actually work for UberX, and therefore UberX is not a cab company or driver service, and should not be regulated like one (or at all).

Until recently, they had a very generous insurance policy that only kicked in if the UberX driver's insurance didn't kick in first, and only if the driver had a fare in his cab. Going to pick up a fare was a huge hole in their insurance. It was also almost assuredly malicious and poorly thought out, which is why regulations exist in the first place. Their driver's insurance first, corporate second policy creates a class of cab drivers who think they are paid well, but are actually absorbing all the risk and wear and tear to their vehicles. If you get in a wreck and your insurance doesn't cover it (and most personal auto insurance wont), then you have a choice between lying about driving for uber and getting fined for driving without insurance, or losing your job. This is still a problem even with the hole "closed" with the 50k limit insurance. The aforementioned hole was doubly evil because it was there so that uber could run a cab service without paying for a good half of the eventual property damage associate with one.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:16

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Adar posted:

Isn't the Uber model explicitly lowering the amount of time a cab cruises around aimlessly?

Also, whatever the issues with road thoughtput, Uber is not on the scale to effect that.

Right, Uber is a car service not a taxi service.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:16

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Paul MaudDib posted:

The thing is congestion doesn't care whether or not there's a passenger in the back. A cab driving around looking for a fare is still adding to congestion.

You're just some guy pretending his napkin math overrules experts in traffic studies.

Washington DC's transportation system is probably less congested than New York City's, given. But you're making a huge number of handwaves on an analysis that's tenuous at best. Commercial vehicles do have disproportionate impacts on roads - road surfaces, road congestion, etc.

Yes. So let's ban taxis and only allow dispatched car services, best possible solution!

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:21

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Kalman posted:

Yes. So let's ban taxis and only allow dispatched car services, best possible solution!

except for peeps without cells

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:22

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Kalman posted:

Yes. So let's ban taxis and only allow dispatched car services, best possible solution!

Why it's almost as if some kind of a balance is needed. Now if only we had some way to have some taxicabs, but not too many. I know, we could sell permits!

We'll call it a "medallion".

I mean you're basically right that it's about reducing competition, because more competition directly translates into more vehicles clogging up the streets circling and looking for fares. I hope you can recognize that it's possible for tragedies of the commons to exist, and also that your gut instinct doesn't count as expert testimony on traffic analysis.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:24

Thundercracker: Jun 25, 2004; Proudly serving the Ruinous Powers since as a veteran of the long war.; College Slice

hobbesmaster posted:

Right, Uber is a car service not a taxi service.

Quite honestly I'd be more than happy to condemn Uber's regulatory skirting if it wasn't for the fact that, at base both livery cab and taxi services in NYC are just truly awful with no real accountability.

When I have to resort to trickery and threats of reporting their badge just to get a taxi to go into Brooklyn the system is broken.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:27

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Condiv posted:

I would imagine so, but I don't think the problem with Uber is medallions (I think those are only required for cabs that look around for customers). The problem with uber is that they claim UberX is a ride sharing system where they just allow like minded people to carpool for a small percentage of the fare. They claim the UberX drivers do not actually work for UberX, and therefore UberX is not a cab company or driver service, and should not be regulated like one (or at all).

The use of independent contractors is questionable (though I think it has more to do with salary and liability than anything else), but I don't think you're right about uberx. Certainly uber uses the language of sharing to describe everything it does, but uberx is just uber with smaller non-black cars.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:31

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Thundercracker posted:

Quite honestly I'd be more than happy to condemn Uber's regulatory skirting if it wasn't for the fact that, at base both livery cab and taxi services in NYC are just truly awful with no real accountability.

When I have to resort to trickery and threats of reporting their badge just to get a taxi to go into Brooklyn the system is broken.

Probably luck of the draw but I've had bad taxi experiences but never one with a livery car in NYC. Not going deep into Brooklyn though so that probably has a lot to do with it.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:35

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Condiv posted:

except for peeps without cells

Exactly how many people out there don't have a cellphone at this point?

(Around one out of ten, per Pew, last year. Most of those have data plans. A good percentage are smartphones, and that percentage is increasing rapidly. I would bet that percentage is higher in urban areas where cab use is concentrated.)

And secondarily - how many people who don't have a cellphone also have enough spare cash that they're using a cab?

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:36

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Paul MaudDib posted:

Why it's almost as if some kind of a balance is needed. Now if only we had some way to have some taxicabs, but not too many. I know, we could sell permits!

We'll call it a "medallion".

I mean you're basically right that it's about reducing competition, because more competition directly translates into more vehicles clogging up the streets circling and looking for fares. I hope you can recognize that it's possible for tragedies of the commons to exist, and also that your gut instinct doesn't count as expert testimony on traffic analysis.

Or we could do that with cars as a whole, instead of targeting vehicles which can serve multiple people during the course of the day. Since we probably don't want to tell people not to buy cars since we don't care very much if they use them off-peak when congestion is limited, we could substitute a hard limit with a usage fee during congestion periods. And then lets apply it to all vehicles equally.

We could call it "congestion pricing." Then we remove artificial medallion limits and people can decide "is it worth money for me to drive/be driven to work or should I take transit or bike or walk?"

Taxi medallion systems do not serve a useful purpose at this point - they may have in the past but there are better options available.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:40

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Kalman posted:

Or we could do that with cars as a whole, instead of targeting vehicles which can serve multiple people during the course of the day. Since we probably don't want to tell people not to buy cars since we don't care very much if they use them off-peak when congestion is limited, we could substitute a hard limit with a usage fee during congestion periods. And then lets apply it to all vehicles equally.

We could call it "congestion pricing." Then we remove artificial medallion limits and people can decide "is it worth money for me to drive/be driven to work or should I take transit or bike or walk?"

Taxi medallion systems do not serve a useful purpose at this point - they may have in the past but there are better options available.

How would you even begin to monitor such a thing?

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:41

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

socialsecurity posted:

How would you even begin to monitor such a thing?

Tolls, parking fees. Latter is less applicable to taxis, but congestion pricing is not an unusual concept. London does it in certain parts of the city.

quote:

The standard charge is �11.50[2] for each day, for each non-exempt vehicle that travels within the zone, with a penalty of between �65 and �195 levied for non-payment. Enforcement is primarily based on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR). Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for the charge which has been operated by IBM since 1 November 2009.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:44

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Thundercracker posted:

Quite honestly I'd be more than happy to condemn Uber's regulatory skirting if it wasn't for the fact that, at base both livery cab and taxi services in NYC are just truly awful with no real accountability.

When I have to resort to trickery and threats of reporting their badge just to get a taxi to go into Brooklyn the system is broken.

I think that's the real crux of the issue. If Uber was disrupting and industry that people generally like and runs well (grocery stores?) by skirting regulations people would be much more up in arms over it. Since, at least here in DC, the taxi system is an absolute mess people don't really mind Uber skirting the regulations because they get what they want/need (cab-like transportation).

My curiosity is this: does anyone live in a city that has a pretty well functioning cab system? What's the reaction to Uber there?

socialsecurity posted:

How would you even begin to monitor such a thing?

If you're using a highway with EZ-Pass or another transponder system you can make it mandatory, like Montgomery County's Inter-county Connector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Route_200

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:49

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Kalman posted:

Or we could do that with cars as a whole, instead of targeting vehicles which can serve multiple people during the course of the day. Since we probably don't want to tell people not to buy cars since we don't care very much if they use them off-peak when congestion is limited, we could substitute a hard limit with a usage fee during congestion periods. And then lets apply it to all vehicles equally.

We could call it "congestion pricing." Then we remove artificial medallion limits and people can decide "is it worth money for me to drive/be driven to work or should I take transit or bike or walk?"

Taxi medallion systems do not serve a useful purpose at this point - they may have in the past but there are better options available.

Congestion pricing doesn't substitute for taxi medallions, they are complimentary. The paper I cited is actually arguing in favor of congestion pricing rather than additional medallions. Doing like you suggest and allowing unlimited medallions would be a disaster.

Really though the problem with road usage schemes is that they don't ever distribute costs where they are actually incurred, it always falls heavily on passenger vehicles rather than commercial usage. Like road wear, one semi truck causes damage equivalent to 9600 passenger vehicles, and road use fees for semi trucks are nowhere equivalent to 9600 times passenger vehicles per mile. Like many forms of pollution, it's a lot easier to reduce concentrated sources rather than dilute ones. It's a defacto subsidy of commercial activity with regressive personal fees.

Taxi medallions amortize out to about $45k per year, taxicabs cause congestion equivalent to 40 passenger vehicles. So congestion pricing should run about $1150 per year, or spread out across 251 workdays about $4.50 per trip. That's nothing to someone who's paying $11 every time they cross a bridge. Under this logic, medallions are actually underpriced in relation to the congestion they cause, and we should probably issue fewer. This actually matches the observed results of adding medallions in the 2004-2006 period - congestion didn't improve, and it may have actually gotten worse.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:49

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Paul MaudDib posted:

Congestion pricing doesn't substitute for taxi medallions, they are complimentary. The paper I cited is actually arguing in favor of congestion pricing rather than additional medallions. Doing like you suggest and allowing unlimited medallions would be a disaster.

Really though the problem with road usage schemes is that they don't ever distribute costs where they are actually incurred, it always falls heavily on passenger vehicles rather than commercial usage. Like road wear, one semi truck causes damage equivalent to 9600 passenger vehicles, and road use fees for semi trucks are nowhere equivalent to 9600 times passenger vehicles per mile.

Taxi medallions amortize out to about $45k per year, taxicabs cause congestion equivalent to 40 passenger vehicles. So congestion pricing should run about $1150 per year, or spread out across 251 workdays about $4.50 per trip.

But we have an example of a city with unlimited medallions: DC, where the cab system isn't working but there aren't cabs as far as the eye can see on the road. There's still an impediment to business and declining marginal utility which prevents everyone from making a cab company.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:52

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Xandu posted:

The use of independent contractors is questionable (though I think it has more to do with salary and liability than anything else), but I don't think you're right about uberx. Certainly uber uses the language of sharing to describe everything it does, but uberx is just uber with smaller non-black cars.

No, uber is a legit car service, and I think it follows the regulations associated with such an industry, but UberX is just random peeps off the street that sign up with the service, go through a recently added minimal background check, and use their own vehicles as taxis.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:55

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Ok, totally misunderstood what you meant. Yeah the drivers are pretty lovely. I'm less concerned about the background check (plenty of sketchy cab drivers too), but at least in DC, I find the UberX drivers to be completely incompetent at not driving in the wrong direction.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:58

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

Okay, let's ban or heavily tax semis and allow Uber. Win win.

I mean, most of Eastern Europe (don't know about the rest of the world but I'm sure they're not alone) already effectively did this - people step on the curb and raise their hand and random cars whose drivers want spare cash pull over. When I originally heard of Uber my first thought was "oh, that guy's been to Moscow." It's not some huge innovation, and it gets people to where they need to go faster than cabs for less cost and less problem being black. Insurance is a problem but that is exactly what good regulations can solve (for example, by putting the onus on Uber itself to require proof of adequate insurance).

Taxi medallions are literally left over from horse and carriage monopolies. There are better battles to fight about protecting industries than that one.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:59

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

quote:

Ok, totally misunderstood what you meant. Yeah the drivers are pretty lovely. I'm less concerned about the background check (plenty of sketchy cab drivers too), but at least in DC, I find the UberX drivers to be completely incompetent at not driving in the wrong direction.

Well, it's not just sketchy drivers, the background check is minimal enough that UberX drivers are frequently caught without proof of insurance. Even the background check I had to pass to deliver pizzas for dominos and pizzahut was more stringent than that. And even that flimsy nothing of a background check was only offered up after a woman got creeped on by an UberX driver who recorded her in the park and then started calling her house.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 23:02

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

Xandu posted:

Ok, totally misunderstood what you meant. Yeah the drivers are pretty lovely. I'm less concerned about the background check (plenty of sketchy cab drivers too), but at least in DC, I find the UberX drivers to be completely incompetent at not driving in the wrong direction.

Then you request a fare review from within the app, and your card is credited if they took a suboptimal route. Doesn't help with your lost time, but it's miles better than riding with a scamming cabbie.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 23:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 17:54

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Adar posted:

Taxi medallions are literally left over from horse and carriage monopolies. There are better battles to fight about protecting industries than that one.

They really aren't though. Again, NYC has issued more taxi medallions in the past, at best it was a wash and at wort it actually increased congestion.

quote:

The nearest precedent for the pending 2012-2014 sale of 2,000 medallions was the auction of 900 medallions in 2004-2006. That sale increased the number of medallions by 7.4%, or around half of the 15.1% rise from the pending sale of 2,000 treated here . The BTA model predicts that a 7.4% rise in the number of medallion taxis should have caused CBD travel speeds to fall 6% � half of the 12% decline projected for the 2,000 new medallions. 13 Data on changes in CBD travel speeds during 2004 - 2006 could confirm our modeling approach and validate the projections here for 2012 - 2014 .

Unfortunately, consistent annual data for that period aren�t available. Nevertheless, the impression is strong that traffic congestion did not ease during that period and may have gotten worse. Certainly, the intractable nature of Manhattan traffic was a constant topic of discussion at that time, and it is probably unlikely that Mayor Bloomberg would have promulgated his April, 2007 congestion pricing plan, had not traffic in the Manhattan core been an ongoing concern of business interests and other stakeholders. (On the other hand, it must be noted that the advent in 2003 of London�s congestion charging scheme contributed heavily to interest in congestion pricing here.)

http://www.komanoff.net/cars_II/Komanoff_Taxi_Analysis.pdf

Getting your rear end in a taxicab 1.2 minutes faster doesn't mean much when you spend 1.0 minutes longer actually sitting in the cab. Meanwhile you've hosed up all the rest of traffic too.

Now, it can certainly be argued that other urban areas don't have the congestion problems to the same extent as Manhattan, but we're still talking majorly congested cities. Washington DC, for example, is the 7th most congested city, far above New York City as a whole at #15.

People are just throwing out gut wisdom and claiming it carries the same weight as an expert traffic analysis. I'm not an expert myself, and I'm more than willing to look at some actual traffic studies in other cities, but this idea that medallions have no place in managing traffic congestion is stupid. I totally agree that other types of commercial vehicle traffic should be taxed and aggressively reduced too, but people are outright rejecting the mechanisms for doing that.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 23:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

«‹›32 »