It's a bit of a misleading headline: they weren't offering a bailout, they were offering to exchange money for services from the city. In any other world that would be a bribe. Lyft said "it's a bit astonishing to us" because I guess they're used to their bribes being accepted.
If anyone thinks "bribe" is too strong of a word, they were offering $100m "to help medallion owners" in exchange for the city dropping a proposal that would limit the number of Lyft/Uber drivers and set a minimum wage for the drivers. Again, in any other world this would be called a bribe in exchange for making favorable laws. In this world I guess it would be called lobbying.
> they were offering $100m "to help medallion owners" in exchange for the city dropping a proposal that would limit the number of Lyft/Uber drivers and set a minimum wage for the drivers
The purported problem is taxi drivers bought medallions. The medallions then dropped in value. (Put aside, for a moment, that most NYC medallions are owned by large corporations.)
Uber and Lyft are saying "instead of capping our numbers to help the taxis, we'll help you buy back the taxis from underwater medallion owners." That is good policy. Extending the medallion system to ride sharing freezes market shares. That's a handout to Uber, who have recently been bleeding share to Lyft and Juno. It's also stupid in the midst of a broken subway system and ahead of the L train shutdown.
Of course, none of this matters. This bill's purpose is to hand out cash. Our mayor is in the medallion owners' pockets [1]. And apparently they've also been doling out money to this bill's sponsors on the City Council. The hope is this passes in August while nobody is looking. From ground level, it seems they're right.
The wage issue is a bigger problem. If Uber and Lyft control the taxi industry in NYC, and it's impossible for their drivers to earn minimum wage, that's something the government needs to fix.
It's a huge problem. And the minimum-wage proposal is a good idea. (I'd go further and extend it to taxi drivers.)
There is no need--apart from paying off the mayor and Speaker's cronies--for it to be tied to the cap. (I even believe they're presented as separate bills, though someone might have later combined them.)
This isn't a bribe. It's a fair deal which offered the money to medallion owners who lost value, not politicians.
If you want to see bribes, you should look at all the money the taxi companies have spent on politicians over decades to create the (now broken) monopoly in the first place, bribes which are still continuing to affect policy despite immense public support for ride-sharing against taxis.
Gov't: "We established the medallion system to stabilize the cost of transportation and ensure that drivers would be able to make a living wage."
The companies who tanked the value of medallions by ignoring the law and are now facing regulation similar to the medallion system: "What if we bought current medallion holders out of their medallions in exchange for you looking the other way and letting us not pay drivers a living wage."
They're not literally bribing the politicans but they're effectively putting up cash to make it easier for them to vote against the public interest.
This is a common misconception but in NYC, somewhat uniquely, Uber and Lyft did not break the law. They stayed within the existing system of TLC licensed livery cars. It's a fundamentally different story than the Uber vs. Taxis stories that played out elsewhere.
Interesting how you ended that post with the words "public interest", because the public is actually overwhelmingly interested in efficient ride-sharing over the old taxi system.
The medallions lost value because a better transit system was developed, which they could've done themselves but failed to do so. They are attempting to via new apps but it just isn't enough, and is nobody's fault than their own. Perhaps uber and lyft skirted some laws (nothing outright broken) but the law needs to serve the public, not the other way around, and when times change then policy needs to change as well.
Not sure why you were downvoted. This is absolutely right. The $100m fund is much cheaper than the cost of providing their drivers a minimum wage long term. I don't think the right call is to cap the number of people who can work in a given industry but that doesn't make this move any less of a PR move to make it slightly more palatable to lawmakers that these companies are slowly killing their more regulated counterpart by mostly ignoring the law. And don't get me wrong, I'm all about what is effectively a peaceful demonstration that the current body of regulation needs revamped when it comes to hired cars but trying to buy your employees into poverty is inexcusable.
The money quote:
"Lyft and other high-volume for hire vehicle companies are welcome to establish such a fund with a non-profit and assist drivers who are experiencing serious financial difficulties,” he added. “They don’t need any Council authority to do that."
> The $100m fund is much cheaper than the cost of providing their drivers a minimum wage long term
There is popular support for the minimum-wage bill. The opposition is to the cap. Note, too, that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down.
> by mostly ignoring the law
Cab drivers still refuse drop-offs in Brooklyn (last week), are on their phone for the entirety of the ride (Monday evening) and refuse to pick up my black friend (two weeks ago). I'm not sure either side can claim strict adherence to the law.
> It's also noteworthy that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down.
Of course it was, because it's a law bought and paid for by the big taxi corporations.
It's not for the benefit of the drivers, or NYC residents. It's for the sole benefit of these corporations, who "donated" millions of dollars to the mayor and other politicians enacting this law.
I agree with you about not having a cap, especially when a minimum wage will effectively create one that scales with demand.
And it's terrible that cabs do that but this is really about ride sharing services in a vacuum. Just because cabs can be terrible doesn't give others a pass. Assuming that ride sharing companies can provide for their employees and serve the public good I have no problem with them putting taxis out of business.
> Is there a law that says taxi drivers can't refuse to take someone ?
Yes. The "unjustified refusal to transport passengers within NYC or defined counties" is punishable by fines and "revocation of license" [1]. (Same with the driver "seeking [the] destination before [the] passenger is seated inside [the] vehicle.")
In Canada and in US absolutely.
They are not allowed to discriminate based on destination, length, let alone race, etc.
Nevertheless, I take taxis many times a week for work in Ottawa (Canadian Capital), and they regularly refuse rides they deem too short or too long (or, grudgingly accept them and complain or yell the entire time). This is #1 reason I've used Uber last year, because it's a more civil, pleasant, safe experience (work covers expenses so cost is a non-issue, and Taxi would in principle be more convenient as they're waiting at the hotel).
> The company has been calling Uber customers directly, asking them to send messages of support for Uber to their council members, according to BuzzFeed. Lyft has been emailing customers with its own appeal to “speak up for ridesharing.”
If some company ever called me up to rally political support, that'd be the immediate end of any business. Ever.
Anecdotally Lyft did this years ago in Denver. My friend was called because she was a top 10% Lyft user and was asked to come protest because Colorado was thinking regulating ride sharing services in a way they didn't like.
Why? If you're a customer of a service, and you appreciate this service, and you hear that in your city there are political debates about making this service/activity illegal, wouldn't you want to be informed and make sure you express your voice?
Uber and Lyft solved the issue for rides to and from the outer boroughs, full stop. Lets have the Taxi drivers solve that issue and then there would be no need for Uber and Lyft.
Or, hear me out, let's have ride sharing companies continue to solve those problems while abiding by some, at least I think, basic regulations to make sure drivers aren't stuck in poverty. I do think it's silly to cap the number of drivers when a wage floor is a more direct way to achieve the gov't's goal.
I still don't understand the fight with Taxi companies (aside from pure greed and a desire to maintain a monopoly). The very first Uber I took was in a Taxi in Chicago, which at the time had partnered with Uber. At the time I thought Uber partnering with Taxi companies was brilliant. (I can't find any history of why that came to an end - so if someone has a resource, that would be great reading)
Correction: Most taxi medallions are not owned by drivers. There are certainly drivers who own their own medallions (18% as of 2012). This is a non-trivial sector
> The offer to bail out taxi drivers is an unforeseen twist in the years-long struggle by New York City regulators to contain the explosion of ride-hailing app drivers. City Council members have said they were partly motivated by the plight of taxi medallion owners, who have seen the value of their licenses plummet in recent years in direct correlation to the rise of ride-hailing apps. Six taxi drivers have committed suicide in the last six months, a grim reminder of the human costs of technological disruption.
This is such an upsetting characterization of the situation.
The city government sold a bunch of medallions to investors/"speculators" (depending on your politics). Those medallions declined in value. Who should bear that loss?
The entire situation was created by a government monopoly that never needed to exist in the first place. Now that someone's figured out how to go around it, all the investors in the manufactured, useless regulation are losing their shirts.
It's really hard to feel bad for these guys. They were willing participants in a system designed to line their pockets by fleecing ordinary people, choking supply to ensure their prices were kept artificially high. They're basically the OPEC of transportation. Do we feel bad because electric cars are disrupting OPEC?
Lyft and Uber really aren't the bad guys here, at all.
US, State and local governments seem to have taken on the job of propping up the values of (some) people’s investments and bailing them out when they lose value. See all the crazy things done to keep home prices inflated and the risk-swallowing they did for the financial services industry. All at the people’s expense.
Well, in this case the investments were originally sold by the city, based on the promise that the city would use its authority to maintain their scarcity, so I don't think it's unreasonable for the city to offer some kind of bailout.
>Well, in this case the investments were originally sold by the city, based on the promise that the city would use its authority to maintain their scarcity .."
The fact that there is a lot of student debt does not mean that a meltdown is coming. The housing market crash was so significant because of the amount of leverage that was in the system (and how obfuscated it was).
There leverage in the student loan market is much lower for the time being.
FHA and student loans allowed mortgages and higher education to be accessible to more people. This is not the same thing as propping up the value of my degree and my home's valuation in the market place after I have acquired them. The Middle Class in the US was built by former(and other New Deal policies) not the latter.
I think you're being a bit harsh to the individual drivers here. My dad was a yellow cab driver in NYC, lots of drivers, like my dad, were immigrants and owning / renting out a medallion was seen as the equivalent to owning your own home as a nest egg. I totally agree that taxi companies were colluding with government to create regulatory capture that was deservedly busted by innovation, but lots of families have been hurt by the drop in medallion prices. Many drivers have committed suicide. I'm disappointed that NYC didn't take the deal.
>"I totally agree that taxi companies were colluding with government to create regulatory capture that was deservedly busted by innovation, but lots of families have been hurt by the drop in medallion prices."
Why should investing upwards of a million dollars or more in a taxi medallion be treated differently than any other large investment with real risks involved? So when were profits from these medallions those were private but now that there's risk it should be socialized?
Because we can be better human beings by helping each other. Those private medallion holders made a mistake by putting all their eggs in that one nest, sure. But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"?
I realize a reply to this can be that bail outs lead to increased risk taking. I would still argue that it's better to risk the system and help those who can not recover from this kind of loss.
>"Because we can be better human beings by helping each other."
There have been 3 restaurants on my block that have opened and failed inn the last 18 months. Shouldn't we help them too by your logic? Should the city council pass legislation?
>"But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"?
Yeah that's a false equivalence. Empathy and bailouts are not the same things at all. I can have empathy and be against a bailout and that doesn't amount to me saying "screw you" to anyone.
No, of course not. Most restaurants fail. This is expected. There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them.
If the restaurant industry collapsed next year I'd say the same thing for them too. But there is a qualitative difference between ad hoc business failures and a systematic change.
But I agree that bailouts != empathy. Still, bailouts aren't the only option, and as a society it is in our interest to help a sector when it goes under. It may happen to you or me next.
EDIT: I should specify that I'm speaking about owner-operated cabs.
>" There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them."
The "industry" is not failing. There are still 13,586 yellow taxis on the streets in NYC[1] picking up and dropping off fares. And there no shortage of New Yorkers on the street raising their right hand and intently scanning for the "on duty" lights of yellow cars.
The "industry" is not the valuation of metal medallions bolted to the hood of the cars. You seem to be conflating the too.
Semantics. What I should have said is "when the valuation of a wide percentage of peoples earnings and assets who belong to an industry suddenly decreases from unforeseen outside forces caused by rapid technological advances..."
Or how about "when about 18% of taxi drivers nest egg devaluates and their retirement evaporates..."
To claim there is no difference between a restaurant failing and all independent taxi cab drivers in NYC simultaneously taking a giant hit that they did not see coming based on an (admittedly bad) policy of protectionism, is intentionally missing the point and I would say is intellectually dishonest.
Is a bailout the best way to fix this? I have no idea, seems like a relatively low cost way to fix what the city did but these things are complicated. I'm open to that discussion.
Are failure rates of the restaurant industry totally incomparable to this singular situation? Most definitely, and any argument based on this is flawed IMO.
NYC policy is what allowed the medallions to be so artificially inflated in the first place. The city has less medallions today than in the pre-war times. Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most.
"NYC policy is what allowed the medallions to be so artificially inflated in the first place."
You seem to be missing a bit of history.
It sounds like you are unaware that the original call for regulation of the taxi industry was by the taxi drivers themselves. Yes, the passage of the Haas act in 1937. During the Depression there were far more drivers than there was demand for taxis. This resulted an abundance of "wildcat" cab drivers who were threatening the livelihood of legitimate taxi drivers.[1][2]
>"Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most."
Lastly the overwhelming majority of medallions are leased out as part of "fleets." The people that have been "hurt" the most have been the drivers who are required to lease the cab for a 12 hour shift for $130 and are also responsible for paying the insurance and gas on top of it. This is basically a feudal system where medallion owners are lords and the actual taxi driver is a serf.
Honestly, what innovation has Uber provided? More congestion than ever[1]? More ways to skirt the law[2]?
We already had an app to order a taxi: The phone app. We already had infrastructure to vet drivers: The registration systems in local governance. Taxi drivers were already taking credit cards.
"You don't have to worry about paying" isn't innovation; as a cab driver, I witness nightly Uber-in-middle-of-road-unloading-and-loading violations, while no taxi would ever dream of that where I am from. In the winter, people push their Uber up the street--and still pay for the ride.
"Deservedly busted by innovation" was their marketing ploy before it was so heavily debunked; they have pivoted, since.
<parody>
Horse and carriage drivers offered jobs in Ford factory, Horseback Union said no!
Six horse carriage drivers committed suicide in the past year.
</parody>
Most taxis are horrendous. They barely speak English or have some sort of hygiene issue or try and take me on some wacky route like I don't live here,
With uber starting to do stuff like upfront fares and uber pool, it's pretty much over with. I've seen a LOT of new yorker trends over the past two decades, and I can safely claim that Uber has reached an indispensable point for the average upper class new yorker.
The last linchpin imo for uber will be something like uber pool with better dedicated routes. Like a bus, but without all the people that ride the bus. That will be awesome.
>The last linchpin imo for uber will be something like uber pool with better dedicated routes.
They already launched a feature called Express Pool in some areas (at least the Bay Area) which does something like that: it's like Pool, but you might need to walk a little bit from/to your final destination. The routes aren't fixed, but the spirit of the idea is the same.
Sigh... stupid politics... caps (or equivalent) are a mathematical necessity in NYC: the city streets can only handle a very limited number of vehicles. After that, congestion becomes a classic tragedy of the commons.
Your comment made me think about the tragedy of the commons in a different light....
Looked at another way, smaller buildings are a necessity. From that point of view, the NYC politicians allowed people to cram too many buildings in too small of a space.
Or, maybe there are not enough roads. NYC could go double or triple-deck roads. It would be ugly as heck, but would ease the problem.
Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the root cause of the tragedy of the commons is that each person is fine with such a small space. If we made a minimum amount of space that people could own/rent/live in, then the problem would never exist. (for instance, Kansas doesn’t have this issue)
Or, maybe you could drop the expectation that urban life involves riding around in 4000 pound climate-controlled personal vehicles, and use public transportation/get a goddamn bike.
67 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadPlease don't post urls that redirect; it's important that HN show the real domain.
Sorry–shall do.
If anyone thinks "bribe" is too strong of a word, they were offering $100m "to help medallion owners" in exchange for the city dropping a proposal that would limit the number of Lyft/Uber drivers and set a minimum wage for the drivers. Again, in any other world this would be called a bribe in exchange for making favorable laws. In this world I guess it would be called lobbying.
The purported problem is taxi drivers bought medallions. The medallions then dropped in value. (Put aside, for a moment, that most NYC medallions are owned by large corporations.)
Uber and Lyft are saying "instead of capping our numbers to help the taxis, we'll help you buy back the taxis from underwater medallion owners." That is good policy. Extending the medallion system to ride sharing freezes market shares. That's a handout to Uber, who have recently been bleeding share to Lyft and Juno. It's also stupid in the midst of a broken subway system and ahead of the L train shutdown.
Of course, none of this matters. This bill's purpose is to hand out cash. Our mayor is in the medallion owners' pockets [1]. And apparently they've also been doling out money to this bill's sponsors on the City Council. The hope is this passes in August while nobody is looking. From ground level, it seems they're right.
[1] https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-o...
It's a huge problem. And the minimum-wage proposal is a good idea. (I'd go further and extend it to taxi drivers.)
There is no need--apart from paying off the mayor and Speaker's cronies--for it to be tied to the cap. (I even believe they're presented as separate bills, though someone might have later combined them.)
This isn't a bribe. It's a fair deal which offered the money to medallion owners who lost value, not politicians.
If you want to see bribes, you should look at all the money the taxi companies have spent on politicians over decades to create the (now broken) monopoly in the first place, bribes which are still continuing to affect policy despite immense public support for ride-sharing against taxis.
The companies who tanked the value of medallions by ignoring the law and are now facing regulation similar to the medallion system: "What if we bought current medallion holders out of their medallions in exchange for you looking the other way and letting us not pay drivers a living wage."
They're not literally bribing the politicans but they're effectively putting up cash to make it easier for them to vote against the public interest.
If your gripe is with money in politics, the taxi industry is the greater and more-persistent evil [1][2][3].
[1] https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/07/31/will-big-taxis-mas...
[2] https://nypost.com/2014/05/17/taxi-industry-gave-de-blasio-o...
[3] https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousa...
The medallions lost value because a better transit system was developed, which they could've done themselves but failed to do so. They are attempting to via new apps but it just isn't enough, and is nobody's fault than their own. Perhaps uber and lyft skirted some laws (nothing outright broken) but the law needs to serve the public, not the other way around, and when times change then policy needs to change as well.
The money quote:
"Lyft and other high-volume for hire vehicle companies are welcome to establish such a fund with a non-profit and assist drivers who are experiencing serious financial difficulties,” he added. “They don’t need any Council authority to do that."
There is popular support for the minimum-wage bill. The opposition is to the cap. Note, too, that amendments to subject drivers working for corporate medallion owners to a minimum wage were struck down.
> by mostly ignoring the law
Cab drivers still refuse drop-offs in Brooklyn (last week), are on their phone for the entirety of the ride (Monday evening) and refuse to pick up my black friend (two weeks ago). I'm not sure either side can claim strict adherence to the law.
Of course it was, because it's a law bought and paid for by the big taxi corporations.
It's not for the benefit of the drivers, or NYC residents. It's for the sole benefit of these corporations, who "donated" millions of dollars to the mayor and other politicians enacting this law.
Did someone say "bribe"?
And it's terrible that cabs do that but this is really about ride sharing services in a vacuum. Just because cabs can be terrible doesn't give others a pass. Assuming that ride sharing companies can provide for their employees and serve the public good I have no problem with them putting taxis out of business.
Is there a law that says taxi drivers can't refuse to take someone ?
Because this happens in pretty much every country.
Yes. The "unjustified refusal to transport passengers within NYC or defined counties" is punishable by fines and "revocation of license" [1]. (Same with the driver "seeking [the] destination before [the] passenger is seated inside [the] vehicle.")
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/2011rulebook_ch54.... page 4
Nevertheless, I take taxis many times a week for work in Ottawa (Canadian Capital), and they regularly refuse rides they deem too short or too long (or, grudgingly accept them and complain or yell the entire time). This is #1 reason I've used Uber last year, because it's a more civil, pleasant, safe experience (work covers expenses so cost is a non-issue, and Taxi would in principle be more convenient as they're waiting at the hotel).
If some company ever called me up to rally political support, that'd be the immediate end of any business. Ever.
This isn't an all or nothing thing.
This is such an upsetting characterization of the situation.
The city government sold a bunch of medallions to investors/"speculators" (depending on your politics). Those medallions declined in value. Who should bear that loss?
The entire situation was created by a government monopoly that never needed to exist in the first place. Now that someone's figured out how to go around it, all the investors in the manufactured, useless regulation are losing their shirts.
It's really hard to feel bad for these guys. They were willing participants in a system designed to line their pockets by fleecing ordinary people, choking supply to ensure their prices were kept artificially high. They're basically the OPEC of transportation. Do we feel bad because electric cars are disrupting OPEC?
Lyft and Uber really aren't the bad guys here, at all.
Where was that promise codified?
Perhaps do just a modicum of research before making such false and uninformed assertions:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_...
Coincidence?
There leverage in the student loan market is much lower for the time being.
FHA and student loans allowed mortgages and higher education to be accessible to more people. This is not the same thing as propping up the value of my degree and my home's valuation in the market place after I have acquired them. The Middle Class in the US was built by former(and other New Deal policies) not the latter.
Their actions are so transparently market friction and corruption.
I'm tired of the majority career politicians who have no knowledge of reality other than 'sound good' politics.
Companies would be able to build more housing and pay more in wages if they didn't have to grease the government's palms to do anything.
They need to go. All of them.
Bring back empiricism
Why should investing upwards of a million dollars or more in a taxi medallion be treated differently than any other large investment with real risks involved? So when were profits from these medallions those were private but now that there's risk it should be socialized?
I realize a reply to this can be that bail outs lead to increased risk taking. I would still argue that it's better to risk the system and help those who can not recover from this kind of loss.
There have been 3 restaurants on my block that have opened and failed inn the last 18 months. Shouldn't we help them too by your logic? Should the city council pass legislation?
>"But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"?
Yeah that's a false equivalence. Empathy and bailouts are not the same things at all. I can have empathy and be against a bailout and that doesn't amount to me saying "screw you" to anyone.
If the restaurant industry collapsed next year I'd say the same thing for them too. But there is a qualitative difference between ad hoc business failures and a systematic change.
But I agree that bailouts != empathy. Still, bailouts aren't the only option, and as a society it is in our interest to help a sector when it goes under. It may happen to you or me next.
EDIT: I should specify that I'm speaking about owner-operated cabs.
The "industry" is not failing. There are still 13,586 yellow taxis on the streets in NYC[1] picking up and dropping off fares. And there no shortage of New Yorkers on the street raising their right hand and intently scanning for the "on duty" lights of yellow cars.
The "industry" is not the valuation of metal medallions bolted to the hood of the cars. You seem to be conflating the too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City
Or how about "when about 18% of taxi drivers nest egg devaluates and their retirement evaporates..."
To claim there is no difference between a restaurant failing and all independent taxi cab drivers in NYC simultaneously taking a giant hit that they did not see coming based on an (admittedly bad) policy of protectionism, is intentionally missing the point and I would say is intellectually dishonest.
Is a bailout the best way to fix this? I have no idea, seems like a relatively low cost way to fix what the city did but these things are complicated. I'm open to that discussion.
Are failure rates of the restaurant industry totally incomparable to this singular situation? Most definitely, and any argument based on this is flawed IMO.
You seem to be missing a bit of history.
It sounds like you are unaware that the original call for regulation of the taxi industry was by the taxi drivers themselves. Yes, the passage of the Haas act in 1937. During the Depression there were far more drivers than there was demand for taxis. This resulted an abundance of "wildcat" cab drivers who were threatening the livelihood of legitimate taxi drivers.[1][2]
>"Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most."
Lastly the overwhelming majority of medallions are leased out as part of "fleets." The people that have been "hurt" the most have been the drivers who are required to lease the cab for a 12 hour shift for $130 and are also responsible for paying the insurance and gas on top of it. This is basically a feudal system where medallion owners are lords and the actual taxi driver is a serf.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/nyregion/medallion-limits...
[2] http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_...
We already had an app to order a taxi: The phone app. We already had infrastructure to vet drivers: The registration systems in local governance. Taxi drivers were already taking credit cards.
"You don't have to worry about paying" isn't innovation; as a cab driver, I witness nightly Uber-in-middle-of-road-unloading-and-loading violations, while no taxi would ever dream of that where I am from. In the winter, people push their Uber up the street--and still pay for the ride.
"Deservedly busted by innovation" was their marketing ploy before it was so heavily debunked; they have pivoted, since.
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-lyf... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...
Six horse carriage drivers committed suicide in the past year. </parody>
Most taxis are horrendous. They barely speak English or have some sort of hygiene issue or try and take me on some wacky route like I don't live here,
With uber starting to do stuff like upfront fares and uber pool, it's pretty much over with. I've seen a LOT of new yorker trends over the past two decades, and I can safely claim that Uber has reached an indispensable point for the average upper class new yorker.
The last linchpin imo for uber will be something like uber pool with better dedicated routes. Like a bus, but without all the people that ride the bus. That will be awesome.
They already launched a feature called Express Pool in some areas (at least the Bay Area) which does something like that: it's like Pool, but you might need to walk a little bit from/to your final destination. The routes aren't fixed, but the spirit of the idea is the same.
Looked at another way, smaller buildings are a necessity. From that point of view, the NYC politicians allowed people to cram too many buildings in too small of a space.
Or, maybe there are not enough roads. NYC could go double or triple-deck roads. It would be ugly as heck, but would ease the problem.
Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the root cause of the tragedy of the commons is that each person is fine with such a small space. If we made a minimum amount of space that people could own/rent/live in, then the problem would never exist. (for instance, Kansas doesn’t have this issue)