Honolulu lawmakers agree to cap surge pricing for Uber and Lyft
latimes.com
latimes.com
So what's the problem? Let them take a cab.
Oh, there's not enough cabs to meet demand when hundreds of sailors get off the ship? Well that's why they have surge pricing -- to get more drivers on the road. If you don't like the surge price, wait until demand subsides.
I'd rather have the option to split a $200 ride with my buddies and get to Waikiki now than to pay $44 and have to wait 2 hours for a cab. If I wanted to wait, I'd just wait until the surge pricing dropped.
I am no fan of cabs. They were unreliable and overpriced, which is why they got driven out. I am willing to pay slightly more some of the times in exchange for the better availability, reliability and price that Uber will provide me most of the time. But not 5x more! This price should in theory be determined by the free market. However, because Uber determines the price, not the driver, it is not really a free market. I'd love to see an Uber-like service where the drivers outbid each other <del>and Uber takes a fixed percentage cut</del>.
Edit: I learned that Uber does in fact charge a fixed percentage cut, even during surge (20%).
At least with Uber, if I really need to be there, I can pay to get a car.
Would you rather pay a 5X surcharge or have no car at all?
Uber is already has incentive to keep the surge pricing reasonable -- not only do they suffer from spoilage, but if a driver clocks in during the surge and doesn't get a rider, he's less likely to clock in during the next surge.
Uber already has competition in Lyft -- I just use "Uber" as a generic name, I only take Lyft unless I'm in a city that Lyft doesn't serve. It's (mostly) the same drivers anyway.
I disagree. Since Uber takes a percent of the price, it's in its best interest that the surge scales fast. 5X is unreasonable, it should be capped at 3X. It's not like the Honolulu Uber drivers would multiply as the surge increases, the service is already maxed out and has become first come first served.
Using surge pricing to get drivers on the road is unnecessary. If the Navy knows that many of its sailors will be going into Waikiki after getting off the ship, why doesn't it just organize some buses to bring them in? Surge pricing seems more like a last resort "we didn't see this coming, but this can help bring supply to the demand", but in this case a little forethought would be much better.
And who wants to wait an hour for the official shuttle bus to leave when you can call an Uber and leave now? And if they want to take a bus, they can take TheBus and spend less than $3. Some day (7 years or so), taking the train to Waikiki will be an option.
For all I know, maybe the military already contracts with buses for those that are willing to put up with the inconvenience, but there are always those that are willing to pay more to get there faster.
This ensures minimum levels of service for everyone, but if you want to rideshare on demand, you can!
The part where this really goes off the rails is "id rather pay $200 than wait 2 hours". That's because you can time-price your time out to that level. The average american solider is earning $33K a year, I don't want to make assumptions, but I'd be mindblown if there is a choice to be made here.
15 cent an item surcharge for every minute you wait in line at the grocery store.
Bus crash? 10k added to emergency room bills that day.
crank those restaurant prices through the roof for dinner.
Or, go to the gourmet market down the street that's not as busy -- it's more expensive, but lines are shorter.
Bus crash? 10k added to emergency room bills that day.
Would it be better to force every emergency room visit to cost $40 regardless of whether it's an emergency? Then the guy that's in the bus crash has to wait hours behind every stubbed toe to get service. ER visits are expensive which naturally reduces demand.
crank those restaurant prices through the roof for dinner.
Isn't that what "lunch specials" are? Take a look at the prices between the lunch menu and dinner menu at any restaurant. If eating at a restaurant was the only way you could get food, wouldn't you rather pay 5X the price to get a meal now versus waiting hours for a table?
If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.
Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly.
> If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.
Careful what you wish for. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for Honolulu's government to hire someone to roll their own and ban Uber/Lyft.
https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber...
I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand).
I agree. Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?
I am waiting for a single-click multi-modal transportation app. I say “I want to get to the Hamptons” and have a car pick me up, deposit me at Penn Station, notify me before the change and have a car waiting on the other side.
Probably because taxis and pseudo-taxis don't want to be commoditized. They want to steer users towards their platform, not be a part of someone else's platform.
Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access.
In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.
This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?
• the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less).
Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.
So if the cab ride was $44, why not just take the cab?!
When there is scarcity, there are three ways to solve it: - allocating to those who exchange (pay) most - allocating based on lottery - allocating based on nepotism
We now know what the politicians there prefer.
I think it should be permissible to ask ${WHATEVER}, as long as the price is clearly stated prior to both parties agreeing to the transaction. I do however think that one doesn't have a right to have paying customers at ${WHATEVER} price. And I don't think people are suggesting that Uber or Lyft have a right to customers paying the prices they set. Both parties in the transaction have some agency with respect to whether or not the transaction happens at ${WHATEVER}.
We call them buses. And yes, Honolulu has buses. Flat fee however far you go or however long the trip takes. Bonus: they take the same amount of time as Uber or a cab to get from the airport to Wakiki.
Capping them will shrink the supply.
The point is, it's trivial to make a rational argument either way. My question is, what do we need to know to separate these two cases.
Yes, you could use another app / transport method, or go nowhere. But based on the behaviour (anecdotally) I have seen from my friends they reluctantly accept uber is ripping them off. Hence, regulation. I would like to see this enacted in Australia as well.
Yes, that choice is called waiting for the surge to end, and then ordering a ride.
Cab companies are locally based, therefore have more to lose from loss of business in any given market, and are more likely to have connections to local politicians. So parent is suggesting that cab companies may use their political influence to try to shape policy in their economic favor.
These decisions should be discussed based on the merits of the decisions themselves, not simply assuming that the politicians took everything into consideration and understood all of the consequences. There are many of "the people" who will wholeheartedly disagree with these price caps.
If two individuals agree to a price, what makes the politicians brilliant enough to tell them what the right price is.
This is what happens when you can't challenge this shit without getting flagged.
This place is slowly turning into a cesspool.
When I see a law that aims to prevent "price gouging", my first instinct is to oppose it. This is in general a choice that favors shortages instead of market prices.
Also, Uber wants to maximize profits. There are no profits when riders can't pay. They have an incentive to ensure they aren't pricing riders out of the market or driving them to competitors.
As it turns out, sometimes the government does know better than private companies. In general, in any situation dealing with a utility-type service (including transportation), the government has a better bird's eye view than any of the participants and more of an incentive to maintain the quality/availability of service over the long-term than any of the short-term-profit-seeking participants.
Almost all customers of airlines want lower prices, not more amenities.
And that ONE thing, the politicians think they can do better?
I'm all for a supportive state, but regulatory capture and forced pricing is not supportive.