Except Uber and Lyft are already delivering more rides in SF than taxi companies did and both customers and drivers are far happier under the new regime than the old one. It’s hard to claim that it’s not going to change reality when it already has changed reality.
That’s not what I said.
There is no direction for Uber and Lyft to go except to increasingly resemble existing taxi service. That they are temporarily skating around the realities of the industry is neither surprising nor sustainable.
The Taxi Medallion industry in SF is notoriously corrupt.
Why, because there are 200 million people in this country who can install a water heater?
Plumbers have actual skills that other people don’t have. Taxi drivers don’t.
Uber has already improved it by making it possible to increase supply when demand peaks. If my town has a strict limit on medallions, that’s it. I’m not getting 20 more cars out on a Saturday night, no matter how many people are stuck waiting for a cab to arrive. That’s improvement #1, increasing supply.
You also dismiss improvements to hailing, pickup and payment as trivialities, as if those are not important aspects of providing high quality taxi service. Of course you can’t think of an improvement outside of these ‘trivialities’ because literally any driver can execute the remainder of the service, namely driving somewhere, and leaving when the passenger gets out.
Okay, I won’t argue further. Maybe it is time that a truly improved and motivated breed of humans replaces the trogs who have done the tedious, grinding, dangerous, low-paid job for the last 100 years. Mixing in smartphones will completely change all of that, and unlimited competition can only be an improvement. Let’s see how it all runs in a few years when that competition has ground rates down to barely-profitable levels and the bright entrepreneurial sprogs have all moved on to the latest liberating tech innovation.
Leaving behind…
Q: Is it any easier to get an UberLyft at a crappy bar in a bad part of town at 2 a.m., or do the sprogs leave that messy end to, you know, the cabs? A lot of what I’ve been saying is based on a rather cherry-picking model of operation. If all of your clientele is young tech-professionals in nice parts of town traveling at reasonable hours… that’s not the same thing as providing service to anyone who lifts their hand at you, anywhere you’re driving, any hour of day or night. And like lots of these shiny Silicon Valley innovations, they’re fun fun fun as long as you get to pick and choose the conditions.
See you in a couple of years.
This discussion has, not surprisingly, veered off into the relative merits of Uber vs. traditional taxi companies and traditional regulation. It’s interesting, but let me go back to my OP.
I understand now that some jurisdictions have told Uber that the emperor has no clothes, and whether you think that’s good or bad for the ride-needing public, that’s what I would have expected all municipalities to do. So I’m still wondering why many (most?) communities have, in effect, gone along with Uber’s ballsy declaration that it is not a taxi service even though it clearly provides … um, a taxi service.
Do they go along with Uber’s position because they fear public backlash? Obviously, Uber has a lot of fans. Or do civic leaders actually see it as offering a benefit to the community and decide to go along with it?
I’m drilling into that particular question because it just seems odd for bureaucrats who love power and taxes to pass up an opportunity to interfere with a business.
Supposedly, that’s already happened more than once.
There are, of course, bent and criminal cab drivers, too, but allegedly cab drivers are better screened than Uber or Lyft drivers.
I know a guy in Denver who drives a traditional taxi. He says that the companies were slow to change, not seeing a reason to do so, and now the one he drives for is scrambling to get some sort of on-line app booking service. So I think Uber/Lyft are going to help push taxis to the 20th Century on that.
These sorts of things are an issue - taxis can only charge one price for a particular ride no matter what the demand is, but Uber/Lyft can increase the price significantly during high demand. So that’s one area where consumers might not get a better deal with the new services.
Taxis are often compelled to accept the handicapped and their service animals, service all parts of town, and so on - are Uber/Lyft drivers likewise compelled or not?
Doing so takes time, however, and meanwhile consumers suffer from “poor business practices”.
If you have a smartphone, sure - but 1/3 of the country doesn’t. Guess they’re out of luck, huh? Screw them anyway, right? Who cares if Uber/Lyft puts the taxis out of business and leave 33% of the population with no alternative.
Again as was pointed out in many posts there are significant differences and in other posts that they are regulated.
I acknowledged that some communities ban or restrict Uber. Is that what you mean when you say they are regulated?
I said I was curious as to the reasoning used by other communities that don’t regulate them. Perhaps you’re saying that the differences you see as significant swayed the local bureaucrats. Maybe so but I haven’t heard that articulated. Just because that’s the reason you would waive the taxi rules for Uber doesn’t mean that’s what motivated them.
See post #2, 18, etc.
In many cities and areas you dont call cabs. You find them waiting at taxi-stands or the doorman calls one for you by using his whistle. You can’t do this with Uber, etc.
Is the difference that significant? I dunno.
But it seems like you’re not asking a question. You’re saying that Uber needs to be regulated like a taxi service.
North Carolina isn’t exactly Silicon Valley. And yes, here you can absolutely get an uber in a shitty part of town at 2am. Not only that, but you’ll know exactly when it will arrive as you watch it on your smartphone so you can stay inside instead of standing on the corner in some shitty neighborhood while you wait forty minutes after some dispatcher told you it would be there in five minutes.
Okay, I get it. You see differences and you see them as significant. Posts #2, 18, etc. agree with you about the differences. Again, not what I’m asking about.
If you don’t know the answer to my question, fine. No problem. I don’t know either and I didn’t find any quick answer with some Googling, hence my question here.
The fact that I see Uber as just another taxi service doesn’t mean I can’t ask the question about what reasoning was used by the communities that don’t hinder Uber. I still find that an intriguing question, and I will even if the answer doesn’t jibe with my own personal opinion about the issue.
“Here’s why I think Uber is different and shouldn’t be treated the same as a taxi service” is not the same as “Here’s what these local officials used as their reasoning.”
That’s all I’m saying. See the difference? “Here’s what I think” versus “Here’s what they said was their reason.” We’ve pretty well established what you and I think on the matter, but the other question remains.
Your question then is unanswerable since there are some 20000 cities in the USA. And, governments rarely post why they DON’T do something. You’d have to pull the minutes for 20000 cities for five years to see if the issue had come up and what the debate was. Not just for the Council for for whatever Commission handled that. Good luck.
Note, I was a City Commissioner for over 20 years.
That’s an easy question: the cities that aren’t worried about Uber are the ones whose taxi services have minimal political influence and/or whose leaders like the service.
That is not to say that the taxi lobby is not doing a public service by opposing Uber expansion, just that there aren’t many other people standing in the way.
Some people are just resistant to change, I guess.
See, I view it exactly opposite. Perhaps you’ve heard that sometimes black people have problems hailing a cab? Doesn’t happen with Uber/Lyft. Drivers and riders get rated so it’s helpful for both to behave accordingly; cabbies really don’t care. Uber/Lyft helps the poor (who often don’t own cars) because they can ride more cheaply; if they do own a car they can generate more income. As someone already pointed out U/L can increase the number of “cabs” on the road at peak times which makes them even more efficient.
Sure there can be problems but I see this as overwhelmingly good. I think a lot of the government opposition is driven by the loss of revenue (via medallions) and is bogus.
Charging people more at peak times might be more “efficient” for the drivers… not so good for the passengers. You haven’t addressed that.
Yes. It is WAY easier to get an uberlyft at a crappy bar in a bad part of town at 2 am. MUCH MUCH easier and faster and cheaper. With it being so much cheaper and easier and faster, there has been so many fewer people driving home drunk than there used to be (including myself). Of course, I can only talk for my particular crappy bar in my particular bad part of town and the drunken fools who I frequently talk to/become.
If the price starts to go up during peak hours then more people will want to become U/L drivers which will lower the price. That makes it more convenient for everybody plus some people get to make some extra money.
Standing on a street corner in the rain for 20 minutes waiting for an unoccupied cab to come by isn’t good for passengers either.
There is a healthy middle ground between having the same price and massive shortages of service and gouging the hell out of people just because you can. A manageable premium that drives sufficient supply is not all bad.
Somehow, for many decades, when poorer working class people try to make a little extra income offering rides to people it’s called a gypsy cab and is illegal. However, when a tech company gets involved all of the sudden its a new innovative cost saving wave of the future that everyone absolutely needs. It’s just one of those things.