New York City May Cap the Number of Uber, Lyft Vehicles On Its Streets (engadget.com) 73
New York City may become the first major U.S. city to cap the number of Uber and other ride-sharing vehicles on the road. According to Engadget, "The City Council is looking at proposed legislation that would largely freeze the issuance of ridesharing vehicle licenses while officials work on a year-long study of the cars' effects." Wheelchair-accessible vehicles would be exempt from any cap. From the report: This wouldn't be the first time the city tried a cap -- it abandoned an attempt in 2015. There's greater pressure to consider a limit this time, though. NYC now has over 100,000 ride-hailing cars (up from 63,000 back in 2015), and a string of suicides by both ridesharing and taxi drivers has raised questions about working conditions that can include low pay, long hours and poor compensation for time off. On top of the cap, the Council is looking at raising minimum pay and otherwise regulating on-demand transportation services. NYC is concerned that the growth of ridesharing is coming at the expense of drivers' well-being (regardless of who they work for), and it's unlikely to back down until it's satisfied these workers are receiving fair treatment. Uber argues the cap would "leave New Yorkers stranded" without solving issues like congestion, taxi medallion ownership and mass transit. It claimed it would hinder passengers who live outside of Manhattan and don't have reliable alternatives to cabs or public transportation. The company even posted a commercial underscoring how difficult it was for some residents to hail taxis.
Re:Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too the (Score:5, Informative)
Normal cabs are already capped by the limited number of taxi medallions that are out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too th (Score:1)
If you are for street neutrality, you support this congested mess!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should just build more tubes.
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too t (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant to say "they should just build more series of tubes."
Re: (Score:1)
Well, we better make sure to get cap the ridesharing, then, before the streets of New York get congested for the first time ever in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last few times I used Lyft, I clicked on "Shared Ride". The driver picked up other passengers enroute, and I received a 30% discount. By doubling up (or tripling up) passengers, they are reducing congestion more than taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we better make sure to get cap the ridesharing, then, before the streets of New York get congested for the first time ever in history.
It used to be a lot worse. You know what the city did to fix it? Capped the number of taxis.
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too th (Score:2)
We can. Different taxi companies all compete with each other.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure they do. Suuure they do. Just like how the cable companies "compete" with each other, and the phone companies "compete" with each other, and the healthcare insurers "compete" with each other.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too t (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too t (Score:3)
The city sets the rules. The rules are there will be a limited number of cabs and the price will be fixed.
Cab companies compete as they can within that framework.
If we no longer need that framework, just cancel it. We don't need a two tiers system with some companies allowed not to respect the framework. And Uber is a taxi company, despite what they pretend to be.
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too t (Score:3)
If we don't want the city to regulate this, we can elect politicians who will dismiss the regulation. I have no problem with that.
But until then, Uber should have to buy medallion like every other cab company.
Re: (Score:3)
If we don't want the city to regulate this, we can elect politicians who will dismiss the regulation. I have no problem with that.
But until then, Uber should have to buy medallion like every other cab company.
Do you have no problem with that because you don't care, or because you think they should be able to do that? Because defending the law simply because it is the law is a hole you don't want to go down.
Re: Cool. They are going to cap normal cabs too t (Score:2)
I do care. I'm fine with both options (regulate or not) but what I can't stand is a two tiered system where some taxi drivers have to buy medallions and/or get special plate/permit and others do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is opposing government regulation [liveleak.com] simply because it is regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The only part of that which is non-free market and thus unfair is the medallion system. That part is anticompetitive, and it's the part we should be complaining about. The state might reasonably institute a background check system (with an at-cost fee structure) but these half million dollar medallions are bs. If the city wants to unclog the streets they can unfuck the subway.
Re: (Score:2)
Because defending the law simply because it is the law is a hole you don't want to go down.
Neither is opposing government regulation simply because it is regulation.
So what? That's not what's happening here. I oppose this regulation because it is bad regulation. Taxi licensing (whether medallion-based or not, whether severely scarce or not) does not accomplish any of the things it allegedly accomplishes. Not a single one of them. It does not prevent crime by taxi drivers, it does not ensure that cabs are in good condition, and it does not prevent traffic congestion.
What I want the government to do is to provide functional public transportation options, with substantial
Re: (Score:2)
you are forgetting two important parts:
-the pollution
-the roads
Uber drivers don't pay their faire share for either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you get the medallion you agree to provide service 24/7 in all areas at reasonable fixed prices. With Uber/Lyft you might not get anyone to want to pick you up from where you are, or surge pricing will make it cost way more.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you get the medallion you agree to provide service 24/7 in all areas at reasonable fixed prices.
Taxis are under no obligation to provide service 24/7. Nor are they required to "serve all areas". Uber has shown that taxis' "fixed prices" are far above the market price.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely taxi prices are, by definition, the market price?
Or are you using the dickhead definition, which is "what I think it should be"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the city dictate this crap? This is just pointless and excessive regulation for the point of regulation. Why is there a limit on cabs, other than to create a market for medallions or limit a core commodity to just a few?
Because before they did, there were way too many taxis. And not just "traffic is a little slower" too many taxis, but literally drivers racing each other to get to a person standing on the sidewalk. Cities like New York decided that limiting the number of taxis was a fair tradeoff for reducing the number of collisions and fist fights.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the city dictate this crap?
Because the old style of taxi service competition used to involve bodies floating in the East River.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Tell today's so-called "kids" that before Uber came along your options were to stay at home or walk and they just won't believe you.
Re: (Score:1)
Glad I never lived in mega city where I couldn't safely just ride my bike or gasp, buy a used car for a couple grand and be on my way. You don't have to work that much to maintain a paid off car with liability insurance, even as a young adult. You buy in at 2-3k for the car, insurance is 100-$150 a month and fuel is whatever you use.
That's incredibly doable if you are a teenager living at home working part time. If you have half way useful parents, they would probably help you out at least partially with th
Re: (Score:2)
I can see you regularly needing transportation, especially to and from parties.
What with you being such an utter fucking hoot and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
#inconvenientfacts
Re: (Score:2)
Real cabs are already capped you stupid retard.
Half million dollars for a cab license (Score:2)
Legal cabs are limited by the number of taxi licenses, known as medallions. A New York can medallion sells for about $500,000, because that's how limited the supply is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Half million dollars for a cab license (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're not familiar with taxi medallion issues, let's just start with the biggest. Their massive cost (way down from $500k, but still very high: $160-300k as of this posting) means they're rarely owned by the drivers themselves, who rent them. A slow day often means actually losing money, since fares don't recoup the rental fee. Or even if the owner collects a percentage, a slow day still can often come out below minimum wage. It's a system that pretty much exclusively enriches those who got in a very very long time ago and got them for next to nothing, or those already wealthy who can invest in high cost medallions (though those buying in right before Uber/Lyft crashed the price took it pretty hard); exploiting drivers, who can make decent money but just as often get screwed.
Cabbies who speak clear English... (Score:1)
Verboten! This will not end well. *defeated sigh*
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know the NY City Council is 92% Democratic and 8% Republican, right?
Pretty sure the anti-Uber/Lyft crowd are the Democratic members, not the 4 Republicans on the council. That would be indicated by this effort being led by the Democratic Speaker of the City Council, Corey Johnson and the Democratic Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
It doesn't seem much of a contradiction for the Republicans to be the pro-free market Party on both the issues you mentioned and the Democratic Party to be the anti-free market Party on
Let Adam Smith decide? (Score:2)
Is it impossible to contemplate letting the free market work?
The pay is shit and drives are suiciding? Well, people KEEP SIGNING UP TO DRIVE, don't they? If it's that bad, and it's just that they're stupid, let them fucking suffer the consequences of their choices.
Seriously, I keep hearing people discussing about how free-market economics doesn't really work anymore...of course it doesn't. Capitalism only succeeds by failures, in the same sense evolution advances from death. Protect people and companies
Re: (Score:2)
sigh, if you think this is capitalism, you're really deluded, truth is most capital is tightly controlled and the people have to pay for access to it.
sigh, the definition of capitalism is that capital controls the means of production, which is exactly what we have.
Perhaps you're thinking of free market capitalism, which is a utopian ideal.
Re: Let Adam Smith decide? (Score:2)
It would be a free market if drivers paid for their own roads and their own pollution.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Ensure the service has good working equipment.
The way to measure the amount to pay was set and could not be tampered with.
Police knew of staff and that staff could be trusted with all the different people who would use the service.
That the person who was approved to drive knew the city to a good level. Was able to welcome a tourist. Provide a service for any travel distance needed.
Pollution and Traffic (Score:3)
Capping (partially) due to suicides? (Score:1)
Rotten Red Herring (Score:2)
Of COURSE they will ... (Score:2)
Same liberal/socialists who *always* think they can improve situations by limiting people's freedom to do what they want to do.
So the streets are congested? Ok ... What else did you expect when you have a city that heavily populated in that relatively small amount of space? It's part of the package deal if you want to live in a place like that.
There's a good chance that every Uber or Lyft driver out there helps DECREASE congestion, vs. all of those people they take around opting to drive themselves. (A lot