DC "Uber Amendment" would force sedans to charge 5x more than taxis
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer. We are left paying the higher prices for what should be a relatively free market.
When does price fixing ever help the consumer? Honestly.
That is unless all of the landlords get together and price-fix, though I suspect that would correct itself rather quickly.
Only if you overvalue the benefits and ignore lots of costs.
Rent-control discourages turnover and maintenance. It also discourages building new capacity. The various tweaks to try to get around these things have other problems.
> the businesses hiring those people and by extension their customers.
How many biz want fewer potential customers and employees?
Whenever you hear a politician say "I remembered {group}", he's telling you that other people were "forgotten". (Actually, they weren't forgotten, they're paying the bills, and then some.)
It's not clear to me how/why rent stabilization (which merely limits how much rents can increase each year) would lead to less "building new capacity" -- an argument could be made that it forces new capacity to be created, because landlords can't make much more money off their existing units.
Rents are supposed to be set at fair market for new construction, but if you finish the unit in a downturn, or if there is oversupply, and you ever rent for less than you'd like, you'll never get out of the hole (without a tenant moving out) under rent stabilization.
There's also the risk of additional regulation -- part of why I won't buy in EPA is that it has rent control now (the only place on the peninsula), which is sort of tolerable as it exists now but which could easily get worse. Unincorporated San Mateo County is effectively never going to have rent control, so even for 5% more (on top of the "not being in the ghetto" premium), it's a better deal.
If they're not making "enough" off of a unit, why would they build more units?
Demand isn't the whole story. Demand that can be satisfied profitably will be satisfied. Demand that can't be satisfied profitably won't be satisfied.
For example, there's a huge demand for $1000 "supercars". Yet, the only supercars made cost far more.
I'd love to hear the argument for rent control, though.
I didn't say it made the market efficient, I said an argument could be made that it was a net positive. That's not the same thing.
Example: efficient markets sometimes produce monopolies, who then abuse their monopoly power. That's a net negative - but it isn't an example of an inefficient market.
Net positive? Sounds like some kind of value theory. Which "net positive" are you talking about? Can't argue something you don't understand..
In this instance it would mean that the sum total of the economic benefits to NYC that come from rent-controlled apartments outweigh the sum total of the negatives.
On your point, it could be argued that Google's overall platform dominance might not be attributed to barriers to entry, but rather barriers to exit. While Google offers some of your data back to you in a portable format it's still quite difficult to leave their services, and even when you do they will still be tracking you for advertising. To form their potential natural monopoly in your mind, you can imagine how difficult and inefficient it would be to have multiple different firms tracking you to the same extent that Google does (search, Google+, Gmail, calendar, Google Docs).
I am not an amateur economist.
I would go so far as to say: governments themselves are "free-market monopolies" in this sense. That is, there is no binding unilateral authority which solves intergovernmental disputes, and each government instead has to negotiate with other governments in an open and unregulated forum where even backstabbing and flagrant contract violations are permitted. If governments are monopolies on power, then the market of power is surely not a well-regulated one.
Pepsi and Coke are not a monopoly - as you explicitly acknowledge, there are at least two suppliers in this market.
Microsoft was never a monopoly, there were always other suppliers (Sun, Be, IBM, Apple, Linux, at different points in time).
Mission is another neighborhood which is pretty much a shit-hole, but IS a cool place. There are lots of great places to eat and drink and there are festivals, parties and parades most every night.
Usually when you hear about someone being shot, it's either in Oakland or the Mission.
It sounds like you're justifying rent control on the basis of aesthetics.
Same idea: You will lose the character without some sort of effort to not.
Absolutely. In Bangkok there are more taxis on the streets than all other cars combined. You can find one anywhere, anytime and a ten minute ride costs about $1. No need to own a car, even if you can afford one.
Our minimum wage wouldn't allow for that but there is no reason it needs to cost $60 to take a 15 minute ride from San Bruno into SF. The gas cost + labor cost of that ride should be 1/10th of that. Double that to account for profit, administration and the car and you have a $10-15 ride.
Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars - and there would be a lot more taxis on the streets to account for the increased demand. And a lot of jobs.
The system is broken.
Not saying there aren't any inefficiencies or that there isn't established-player protectionism at work, just pointing out that a lot of the cost estimates floating around in this thread are clearly hugely inaccurate.
The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public transport. It does not reduce the total number of cars on the road. It's useful from a consumer standpoint but the low cost means people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity.
"Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars." Possibly in other cities -- though I doubt it -- but it certainly didn't help in Bangkok. People don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them. The number of news cars sold in the country per day is astounding (though the number escapes me) and that's despite the fact that they cost 50% - 350% more than the same cars in the US.
Bangkok needs to regulate the shit out of the taxi industry and make it more expensive to drive in the city if it wants to sort out its remaining traffic issues.
Uber can probably work in US cities that have the traffic capacity, but it's a horrible idea in congested areas.
That method of driving is not unique to taxi drivers - and those issues exist in several other Asian countries, regardless of the number of taxis on the road. I'll leave it at that.
"people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity."
That's not accurate. Taking the BTS from Thonglor to MBK is faster than driving or taking a taxi at nearly all times. Thats an extreme example but traffic is so bad that its faster in a lot of cases. That's why both the BTS and MRT are always packed, with people of all classes.
You make some good points otherwise, some I disagree with like whether Bangkok is an example of an unregulated market failing or thriving, but I don't want to get too off into the weeds of a political discussion :)
Why is it bad that people are "less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway"? Is it because they're "state of the art"? That hardly seems compelling. Is it because the train and subway are faster or cheaper? Sounds like they're not, otherwise more people would take them. Why is train and subway usage important if no one wants to use them?
It sounds like you're advocating forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and I don't understand why you're advocating that.
The trains are faster in many cases (provided you're starting / ending close the line) but they're not cheaper. Making cabs more expensive would change this.
Take a look at what Singapore does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing to keep cars off the road. It might seem a bit draconian but it's effective.
If the trains aren't cheaper, why should that be the cars' problem? Why not make the trains a better alternative instead of making cars worse?
Why would you advocate something that "seems draconian" to you?
The shared resource in this case is traffic capacity.
It's proved ineffective to regulate traffic by making cars expensive in this market. That's because cars are not profit centers for people -- they give mostly intangible benefits (increased comfort, status, etc). Taxis on the other hand are cars that are used for profit and therefore will respond efficiently to regulation (if that regulation increases capital or operating costs).
What's your model here? That if there were fewer cars on the roads of Bangkok, it would be able to support more cars? What would there be more of, in total, if you confiscated a bunch of people's cars?
Would you advocate banning most people from a popular public beach on the grounds of overcrowding? Would you justify that as preventing a "tragedy of the commons"?
Congested traffic makes everyone's trip longer and less convenient. Any individual gains from using a car as opposed to not using a car as long as the traffic is not congested. Too many individuals doing what personally benefits them make it worse for everyone. This is the definition of tragedy of the commons. In the sheep example, every shepherd benefits from using the field, but if too many sheep use the field, it's ruined and noone can use it. Same with congested traffic.
Again, I just hopped into here, and haven't much evidence to back that up, but it's the sort of thing that seems likely.
As you continue to add cars, you reach a point where cars start to slow down, but throughput continues to go up. Once you reach a certain point, people begin to drive slower due to congestion. But at low levels, this is offset by the additional number of people using the road, resulting in greater total throughput.
Past that point, you reach another point where adding more cars does not increase throughput, as the added cars are balanced by the slowing of traffic as a whole. Beyond this point, adding more cars reduces the throughput of the road. Take this to the extreme, and you have a giant parking lot with people gradually inching forward, and people/cars per minute excruciatingly low.
No sources, but I'd think this is all fairly obvious.
Road. Fewer cars on the road would mean a more constant speed for the cars on the road.
"Would you advocate banning most people from a popular public beach on the grounds of overcrowding?"
You generally don't have to. Since the benefits of going to the beach are relatively low, people more efficiently self-regulate their usage. That is, if a beach is too crowded to put down a towel, you'll probably leave.
That's not the case with taxis. As long as buying taxies and renting them out is profitable, taxi operators will continue to do so. To make things worse, the profitability of driving a taxi is only indirectly related to the profitability of renting that taxi out. The cost of rental is relatively stable while the money made by the driver varies considerably. The drivers absorb short-term (even medium-term) fluctuations in the market.
Car is not the goal. There are other means to move people way more efficient.
If you'd ever been to Bangkok you'd know why it needs fewer cars. Pollution is terrible, and traffic is appalling - often a journey which should take 20 minutes takes hours, and safety standards are very low - the most popular form of taxi is a pick-up truck with bench seats in the back which is really unsafe in the event of an accident. They desperately need to encourage more public transport and get rid of some of the cars/trucks on the road to prevent rush-hour gridlock and massive pollution.
The easiest way to clear up the roads for public transport is to make driving more expensive and use some of that money for improvements in the public infrastructure. I doubt they'll ever do it, but they could do worse than follow the example of London with a congestion charge for central areas, and use the money to subsidise public transport, which is underused at present (because the train is so expensive, and the buses are so slow due to all the other traffic).
Driving is already fairly expensive in Thailand: cars and gas are both pretty expensive. Taxis in Bangkok are much more expensive than they are where I live (tourist areas are even worse with their taxi mafias). Bangkok already has a public transportation system that is much better than other cities in the area (barring Singapore), they aren't doing that poorly.
The public transport there is good (what there is of it), but the BTS and MRT are both expensive and therefore underused by anyone other than tourists and business people - most people don't use it and it's not as extensive as other cities. At least when I've been there the skytrain is remarkably quiet compared to the streets given how quick and easy it is. It's a shame they won't tax the cars more in town and use the money for improving public transport instead IMHO, and Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which needs less regulation - they need far more regulation on their taxis and traffic in general in order to manage it as at the moment it is bedlam at rush hour, partly because of all the taxis, motorbike taxis and trucks. It is a great example of the free-for-all which results from unregulated capitalism though.
Beijing cut the subway to 2 yuan during/after the olympics (it was 4 yuan before and even in 1999 it was 3 yuan). The result is that the subway is very elgalatarian and very packed; I avoid it for the taxi accordingly (spend about 80 yuan a day on taxis). But Beijing traffic is also worse than Bangkok's, and there is more regulation (no private minibuses, not many tuktuk that are useful). Whatever they do, the answer to our problems probably isn't more taxis but public transit is also a problem (for the middle class).
I like Japan the best, where the transit is affordable, convenient, and mostly comfortable (when not rush hour).
In Zhuhai (near Guangzhou) there are far less taxis on the street than demand would dictate, however plenty of citizens drive around offering people rides at similar rates and everybody uses them, locals and foreigners alike. It is obviously illegal but it is so widespread and common (happens right in front of you and the police on every major street all day) that it is clear the police aren't doing anything about it.
That system is very Chinese. They make laws that would seem to restrict business and then local officials tell the police to ignore them when they deem their area is better off without them. Unfortunately this also extends to things like drugs and even kidnapping in some areas. No system is ever perfect.
The pollution argument is valid and is a case of "tragedy of the commons", but the traffic argument isn't.
Yes, so that I can drive faster.
Or to show that they can afford them. "Oh you take the taxis? Poor you. I actually own my own vehicle, I don't have to share"
The big problem with regulation in general is that it sets a single value, static in time and across preferences, as both floor and ceiling. For some things, that might make sense ("levels of acceptable poison in baby formula"), but for other things it doesn't make sense ("housing").
For Bangkok, I think the right thing would be to encourage public transit over taxis, but to encourage taxis over private cars. Charging a per-day fee to have a vehicle inside the city (similar to London), combined with actual traffic law enforcement, open access to getting a taxi medallion once you pass minimum qualifications, and either market rates or at least fair rates for taxi rides, would probably go a long way.
If taxis substitute for several cars, increasing taxis should decrease congestion. That is the London model, but London taxi drivers are kind of the polar opposite of Bangkok taxi drivers. Other SE Asian taxi drivers are fine, though -- Hong Kong and Singapore -- and it's easy to convert taxi fleets to NGV or Electric compared to private vehicles.
While I'm pro drug legalization, testing for meth in drivers would probably be worthwhile too. I always checked the eyes of any driver I used, since so many of them were tweaked out of their minds and thus even more unsafe than usual. (I actually had one driver assault me, too, which was kind of funny afterward).
Public transport suffers because of prioritising cars in general.
It doesn't particularly matter if cars are privately owned or taxis but as long as the city infrastructure has been designed more for automobile traffic than pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit, then these other forms of transport suffer.
To make public transit relatively more efficient, the streets must be put on a diet and narrowed down. This frees more space for pedestrians and while car travel is still possible it's more cumbersome so it effectively taxes out all but truly necessary car traffic. Try driving through Central London versus taking the tube: you can do that but you don't want to.
And the city doesn't have a shortage of cabs.
And talking with drivers in my uneasy Spanish, I have found many are former doctors and lawyers who turned to taking cabs because it was more lucrative.
Fares are artificially high there but nobody is under any illusions who is in control. The city and the cab companies had an argument about pricing some time back and it lead to a taxi cab strike.... which meant cabs blocking traffic and the city was shut down (streets impassible) until the city backed down....
I was in Quito during a bus driver strike and everyone was talking about it. They even called in the army to tow busses.... It was amusing to see uniformed soldiers pushing busses around.... But there were fewer busses than cabs and so the streets were still passable.
This benefits politicians as well, because the ability to change regulations is useful for raising donations. "You gotta mighty fine business here, it would be a shame if we lowered your tariff...."
Combine that better experience with app convenience and for most people the extra money doesn't matter.
I also get really, really tired of the credit card dance that every cab driver does. Before I hop in a cab, "You take credit cards, right?" "Oh, sure! Of course!" Then we arrive at destination "Buddy, you don't have cash? C'mon? My machine doesn't work. There's an ATM inside, you could just run in and get some cash." "Not my problem, champ. You can take the card, or you call call your boss."
Not to be stingy, but complaining at me for paying you the way I said I was going to pay you is not the best way to get a good tip.
I'll definitely checkout the Uber service (If it is still around) next time I'm in DC.
Yes, safety regulation costs money. The reason we accept higher prices is to avoid the catastrophic costs that could result if there was no regulation forcing taxis to maintain their vehicles, carry insurance, accept all passengers, etc. Licensing forces a minimum level of insurance on taxi providers to guarantee that injured passengers are properly cared for in the event of an accident involving the taxi provider. The cost of the insurance and maintenance requirements are the primary drivers (pun intended) of taxi costs. Uber avoids these costs (i.e, the disruption of its business model) by maintaining smaller insurance policies and pushing the maintenance costs onto drivers.
And then there's proposed laws like this, where they force a higher cost _just to prevent competition_.
For example, if the market was to become saturated with drivers undercutting the market, it is plausible that some drivers would be forced out of the market as they are unable to make enough to sustain themselves. If this happens to enough 'regular' drivers the service may become irregular and the goal of providing accessible, consistent public transport (or whatever the goal is) suffers.
I guess what I am saying is that a completely free market _might_ actually harm the market in the end. We expect free markets to self-correct, but are we willing to accept sub-par services whilst waiting for that correction?
I have seen this concern in the taxi market in Canberra Australia. Taxis there are tightly regulated, and the numbers are kept low to make sure it is profitable. Their numbers have recently been increased to try an accommodate the increased Monday morning and Friday evening rushes as more people are flying in and out every week. The traffic during the rest of the week has remained fairly constant. This means that profits are lower and so some taxi drivers are getting out of the business. In a free market it's possible that this inflation of service providers could happen unchecked for a time, before it is realised that there is not enough consistent work to support the new drivers. The possibility for extreme fluctuation in service provision is high, and this could have terrible consequences for anyone who happens to need a taxi home on a Wednesday evening after too many drinks at the pub.
It is hard to say for sure if a free market would deal with the irregular nature of taxi business in that city better than a regulated market, but I think it is clear that the purpose of a taxi system could be at odds with the outcomes of a free market. A free market could fluctuate between too many and too few providers, removing the reliability that is essential in an effective taxi service, even though the regulated service might provision a greater than optimal service cost.
Yes. When the service goes to shit, a competitor comes in, steps up their game, and if demand for a superior service is high enough, they succeed.
The proposed amendment sets the minimum for a sedan at 5x the flag pull rate on a taxi. So, in DC this would mean that the minimum rate for a sedan is $15 bucks. While I'm against government creating arbitrary and anti-competitive laws like this, it hardly seems as bad as forcing sedans to charge 5x more than taxis.
For me, the difference here is clear. When I order an Uber, I have a certain expectation of quality, and I have the option of never using their service if they totally blow it sometime (or I can give a driver a bad rating, and if he/she gets enough he gets booted from the service). If I get a lousy ride from a Taxi, I don't have many alternatives. If a law is passed that prevents anyone else from competing on price, I have even less options.
Anecdote: I live on the far eastern side of downtown, near Penn Quarter, and am able to get from my apartment to damned near anywhere in town for Uber's minimum charge (the major exception being the far reaches of NW, in the Friendship Heights/Van Ness area). Looking back at my history, only 4 of my 23 fares have been more than $15—three to the airport (in Virginia) and one to Tenleytown.
You can certainly blow this argument up if you want to leave the District, but let's be real...who would want to go to Virginia? ;)
> “I want to get a license to drive a limo,” I told him.
“There’s a moratorium,” he said, and pointed to a memo posted on the wall.
I’d like to tell you exactly what the memo said, but the commission wasn’t giving out copies—“We had some, but we ran out,” said the security guard, and no wonder, given that the “temporary” moratorium has been going on for years. The gist was that there would be no new limo licenses until the commission decided to hand them out.
“Take a picture with your phone,” suggested a nice driver who was waiting for an appointment in front of the desk.
“No pictures!” said the guard.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-...
Uber is maybe 10% more expensive, yet 500% more reliable. I don't know if you've ever tried to hail a cab in SF, but it's a huge exercise in frustration. Calling a dispatch service is equally vexing. I'm with you, the doom of the Taxi business can't come soon enough for me.
I have done comparison drives twice. Once I took a cab from SOMA to Pac heights: $8.35, Uber back to the same spot: $15.95
SOMA to Dolores Park. Cab: 7.90. Uber: 15.25
Clearly not 10%. I guess the big thing for me is that I really don't care about bottles of water or the type of car the person shows up in. I just want an on demand service that gets everything done in a sensible way. If there was a cheaper version of Uber for regular cabs I would be all over it.
The bigger picture though is how much people will fight to keep crappy businesses in business. We will hear the argument about how we cant lose jobs right now when unemployment is so high, but for the love of god, this is progress people. If some cab drivers lose their jobs in the name of progress is this really worth hurting society over?
1. http://allthingsd.com/20120702/a-status-symbol-moves-down-ma...
We are still in beta and so we usually have a backup driver, often one of us, who'll go and pickup customers if there is no taxi nearby. It's been quite interesting meeting people this way. I think I have had 5 "office hours" with Justin Kan this way :)
Anyway, I wouldn't have minded if I had expected it. My girlfriend was skeptical, and I wouldn't expect her to get in some random car if I wasn't with her.
I'd suggest asking riders if they're ok with a backup driver picking them up first (assuming this is even legal...)
I'll give it another try. I hope you guys succeed. TaxiMagic and Cabulous never work for me precisely because drivers will cancel your pickup at the drop of a hat if they find a closer pickup, and there's no feedback mechanism to discourage this.
The average cab driver skips a couple of hails to pick up someone a few blocks away. So, in addition to the feedback mechanism (which is coming), the driver needs an assurance that the customer will be there when they show up. By asking you for a credit card when you register, we do this a little bit better. With some competitors, even when the customer registers with a credit card, the money first goes to the taxi company, not to the driver. The company deducts a processing fee (often over 10%, 5% in SF), and may hold the money for several days (3 days in SF for some companies, two weeks in other places!).
We fix this mess for the driver, and they are incentivized to provide better service because of this. These are interesting times in the ground transportation space, with all the activity from Uber, taxis, and ridesharing folks and there is much debate about regulation. Ultimately, I hope this results in a better, sustainable solution for everyone involved.
For me, choosing to ride with vetted drivers who have the proper insurance is an easy choice. I'm willing to pay much more for that. If I feel the need to joke around with someone during the ride, I just bring a friend. It certainly costs more (all other things being equal), to have a properly insured driver come pick you up. I think it's worth it.
For me, "Fun" comes far down the list of things I look for in a transportation service. Safe cars, vetted drivers, quick pickups and professional service are all much more important to me than riding with a driver who is "fun" (or who put a mustache on the front of their car with the hopes of appearing fun). I've had a couple UberX rides now, and honestly, that's the sweet spot for me (affordable ride, clean cars, professional drivers, timely service, environmentally-friendly and properly insured). It hits all the things I'm looking for in a transportation service, at a price very close to a Taxi.
That being said, it's not that easy to just blame the public officials for all the chaos. It is a reasonable danger to these services, there are so many unknowns. The reason why the cab business is regulated in the first place was for public safety, so that cab drivers wouldn't just ask for exorbitant prices, take your luggage hostage etc. Remember, you are still just jumping into a stranger's car. Regulation was introduced to remedy these concerns (I'm not saying they are effective)
Airbnb shows how regulation is a reasonable concern. Once you go beyond the early adopters, there are so many things you have to deal with like insurance, liability, cleanliness etc. We can't just expect the world to change in an instant and naively believe everyone in the world does good.
e.g., Ask any payments startup about how they feel about payments regulation.
Their source claims that law requires they provide a certain level of service 24 hours a day, 365 days per year regardless of demand. This includes a large portion of cabs be equipped to accommodate the disabled. Further, they are not allowed to discriminate based on the distance or size of fare.[1]
1. http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/155305029/its-taxis-vs-limos-i...
The regulations in place are rarely (if ever) enforced. It's an issue for the free market to settle. Let consumers decide if they want 24 hour a day 365 days per year service, and they can hire the company that will meet that demand. If they want drivers to come pick them up at their house, let them choose a company that is willing to do that. Setting an artificial price floor doesn't do anything other than limit consumer's choices.
Now that you can dial up a cab on your smart phone, things might be quite different.
Doing so would put themselves in a position where they are much harder to vilify.
If NPR was interested in journalism they could try calling some cab companies for a ride form the city center out to the boonies, where the drivers were unlikely to find a return fare.
Companies like Uber, Sidecar and Lyft have to get by on their reputation, or users stop using their apps. These services don't need the same regulation, because customers can vote with their wallets. Insurance,liability and cleanliness are handled by Uber, Sidecar and Lyft sidestep those issues to bring down the price. Ultimately the customer gets to decide how much risk they want to take on, and what service to use. The answer is more choice, not price fixing to prevent honest competition.
In some industries, however, the market fails to regulate quality by itself. E.g. in the food industry, people can't see measure directly, and when people get sick from invisible contamination, they usually can't precisely trace their sickness to specific food.
E.g. in the medical industry, people are rarely repeat customers. You're unlikely to go back to the same heart surgeon because you had a good experience with them the first time.
Cabs fall in the latter bucket. Because cabbies almost never get repeat customers, and because cabs are selected based on location not reputation or quality, cabbies have no incentive to provide good, safe service. And even if customers were willing to pay more money for better service or safety, they would have very little way to express that through who they hired.
Company A: - driver smokes - driver shows up late - driver doesn't speak English - driver drives dangerously
Company B: - driver communicates well - driver arrives right on time - driver drives quickly and safely - driver offers you a choice of different routes
In what sense could reputation not matter?
What happens in the case of an accident? Cab drivers are insured afaik, what happens to a Sidecar driver?
What I'd do as a special DC-specific hack is charge the 5x rates, but then have Uber rebate some percentage back to the user. So if the goal is to charge $15 for the ride, charge the $50 required under the law and then the taxi company pays Uber $35 in "Special fuck-DC licensing fee" and then Uber pays $35 to the user in "DC victim's compensation fund".
Some legal hacks work, others don't.
When your business is based around regulatory arbitrage, you have to know that you will only enjoy that advantage for a limited window.
I'm trying to stay away from the political hot potato of whether taxi regulation is a net positive thing or not! It's not really relevant to the point I'm making.
Whether it's profit or bureaucracy that are the drivers now, I think we agree: Uber must have known this was coming. I look forward to seeing what Uber has planned; perhaps operating a dispatch service over regular taxis?
No new taxis in D.C.:
The supply of cabs is limited by a licensing exam for drivers that's been closed since 2010.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/22/the-medallion-bill-is-back...
From an article about D.C.'s plans to establish explicit supply caps (quotas), like the ones already in place in NYC, SF, etc.
During the Great Depression, many taxi drivers drove unsafe cars. There were many accidents involving unlicensed drivers of unmaintained cabs. The medallion system was introduced to improve the safety of taxis by imposing minimum capital requirements, i.e., the cost of purchasing/renewing the medallion, and ongoing compliance requirements (insurance, vehicle maintainence, etc.).
Uber has not negated the underlying justification for the medallion system. All it has done is to take all of the risks that taxi companies normally accept and push it on to the drivers and passengers. Uber's disruptive edge is essentially its exploitation of its customers/service providers.
When your business is based around exploiting the financial naivete of others, you have to know that you will only enjoy that advantage for a limited window.
It seems like there is a a whitepaper that, in three parts, went into some detail on the situation in NYC, examining the causes and pulling apart the proposed solutions, for various of the complaints people have about the system.
http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm "Factors of Production in a Regulated Industry: New York Taxi Drivers and the Price for Better Service"
http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm "Villain or Bogeyman? New York's Taxi Medallion System"
http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm "Fixing New York City Taxi Service"
e.g. if a ride costs $7 dollars, charge the user $15 and give them an $8 discount off the next ride. This gives users an incentive to use Uber again and again since they will always have credit with Uber.
If a user consistently uses less than $15, do something where they get entire rides "comped". You can't charge less than $15, but I bet this law has a loophole for "free rides" because no charging is involved.
Either way, some creative thinking with payments + loyalty benefits should help them get around this if this law eventually passes.
Look at this Washington Post article from 2006, before the fare system was changed from zones to meters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06...
On the old zone system: ""Last night, I had to go to a dinner, and the cab that brought me back charged me twice as much as the cab that took me there," he said as he waited for another taxi outside his downtown hotel. Well, maybe not quite twice as much, he amended, but $12 vs. $19.50."
And on meters: "But opponents of the meter say it would bring unwanted changes to D.C. taxi service: Residents traveling from poorer outlying neighborhoods in Southeast or Northeast probably could not afford a meter ride, they say, because it could add up to much more than a zone fare. Another reason fares could rise is that the meter would not stop clicking when the cab is idling in one of the city's infamous traffic jams." and "If they get the meters, the only cab you'll see in this town will be at hotels, like the other major cities," Wright said. "You won't find them anyplace else. You won't find them in the neighborhoods."
The regulation on fares forces taxicabs to pass up many people who want to go outside areas with heavy foot traffic or deep pockets because they aren't going to be able to find a return fare. As such, there are "taxi deserts" all over the city where you might see one taxi every 45 minutes, and they've already got a fare, or their meter is off. Slugging through a 1.5-hour bus ride is often the most reliable form of transportation for these areas.
In order to maximize their payout, plenty of DC taxis will take zig-zagging routes, go slower than the speed limit, and ride their brakes. A 5.6-mile ride from the Atlas District up to Petworth may cost the same as an 8.5-mile ride from Columbia Heights up to Bethesda, using the meter system. Take a cab from outside the district and you'll find your trip takes significantly less time.
There's probably still a market for an Uber service, even with this brazen attack on (what seems to me as fair) competition. But don't expect the taxi lobby to roll over in a town where it took 75 years just to introduce meters.
edit To clarify, I'm not saying there are no problems with the current cab systems, only that public safety and consistent fares are one of the main reasons cabs are regulated by the government
1. The taxi driver refused to turn on his meter and then just demanded a fee.
2. Taxis refusing to take you where you want to go, i.e. getting a cab to brooklyn.
3. Taxis not showing up when they've been reserved ahead of time, early morning airport runs.
4. Taxis taking long and wrong routes to drive up the fare.
5. Taxis not knowing the area, and not having a GPS, so they get lost and then just give up leaving you somewhere.
6. Being in a taxi where the license picture does match the driver.
So, I've had lots of bad experiences of "regulated" taxis. I've had lots of good experiences too. As for unregulated, I've been in a few in south and central america, not sure if they were regulated or not.
Get into an unregulated taxi, and you're at their mercy.
The fact that some people might accept the service-failures listed by the GP as not being bad just shows how low expectations to taxies has become. Luckily some people believe taxies can do better.
Finally, all but the stauchest libertarians would accept a sensible minimum of regulation that would provide a minimum of protection, including mandatory insurance and conspicuous display of photo ID inside the vehicle.
I have been ripped off by licensed ones, though - twice, I think. Both cases involved foreign counties and drivers who conveniently and suddenly lost their command of English.
Any demonstration in the vein you propose will rely on a measure of caveat emptor. I would guess I am willing to accept a greater degree of this (trading strict consumer protection for better competition leading to better service and lower prices) than you seem to be.
I’ve always been to flustered to get a medallion number when things are going south. And I always figured that it didn’t matter anyhow.
2) Report the company to the local taxi licensing commission. After a few complaints, they lose their license/medallion. One caveat: taxis at the end of a shift are allowed to pick their destination. If the taxi isn't at the end of the shift, let the local bouncer/valet know and that taxi won't be allowed back.
3) See #2.
4) See #2.
5) See #2.
6) See #2. Also, call the police because you are probably not in a licensed taxi.
And it sounds like your pitfalls are already illegal.
Looking to the future, things like smartphones and Google Glass will lessen the need for consumer protection by making user-reviews always at-hand. If you look at a taxi and see "Two stars, poor service" automatically overlaid, or if you get a list of rated companies when you try to call a cab, the market will be able to weed out bad eggs. This is a far more democratic solution than legislation.
This behavior by the govt is pressure exerted by the desire for homeostasis of control. Shameful.
It's worth pointing out that Marion Barry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry) is still sitting on the DC Council.
I can't believe he's still around.
What is it with the armchair lawyers on HN today?
I love using über. I like to be able to relax at the table finishing my coffee as I wait for the car to arrive. I hate standing on the side of the street in the rain with my hand in the air wondering when a cab will show up. I hate paying for a driver of a pre-ubercab car service to wait outside for four hours while I have a drink with friends. Uber eliminates all this crap.
I'd like to help, love to hear a constructive suggestion on what I can do.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_...
That's right, they can't even set their own fares. Taxis are regulated to astonishing degrees. I don't know why they aren't simply brought on as full-fledged government employees in many of these cities. They'd almost certainly be getting paid better.
Sounds like they've got plenty of cash to lobby that could be better spent improving NYC taxi services.
Taxi service: picks up any passenger, off the street, anywhere, without any prior arrangement to do so. The passenger may not have any opportunity to investigate the taxi provider ahead of time, or to choose their taxi (i.e.,at airports or hotels), so regulation is placed on taxi providers for the protection of passengers.
Car service: picks up a passenger by virtue of a prior arrangement. In some locations, that arrangement can be be minutes old; in others, the arrangement must be made hours in advance. The passenger has the opportunity to investigate and choose the car service provider, so regulation is significantly reduced.
https://twitter.com/SegravesWTOP/status/222696651620483072
Does anyone know if this means Uber gets to operate Uber X in the meantime?
As a DC resident,and one who has a partner that's a social worker.
The "corruption" that is blocking your business maybe partially fueled by the taxi drivers who don't want to become unemployed. Almost all drivers fall below the poverty line and rely on social services to support them and their families.
I'm not really sure how the cab companies do with revenue and profit, but you'd probably be best off appealing to hiring the drivers to circumnavigate this issue.