Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#41

Post by ropans808 »

TuringNYC wrote: post #3

(Former NYC resident here.) For those who don't know, the state of the NYC Subway System is abysmal and plummeted several years ago due to neglect and underinvestment. I went to NYC last weekend and, just like the previous 7 times i went there, subways weren't running normally after-hours (growing up, it functioned well 24-7). This time (last weekend) no subways were running to where I needed to go. The only option w…

Yes weekend service has gotten to the point of being unusable, with repair work (both routine, and fixing up tunnels flooded by Sandy) limited to off-peak and weekend hours. Unfortunately we aren't really addressing this in any sane way. Replacing mass transit with vehicles for hire is just making surface congestion awful, when options like expanding and enforcing bus-only lanes, bike lanes and more bike-share are not getting the attention they deserve. There are more solutions than just Uber and Lyft.

Watching communities vote down protected bike lines because they lose 1-2 parking spaces per block (I'm looking at you, Sunnyside) or fight increased bus service (the village..) is very frustrating.

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#42

Post by jdanp »

jamiequint wrote: post #24
Daishiman wrote: post #15

I'm sorry but everyone here is completely ignoring the congestion arguments, which like it or not, are actually very valid, just as much as the race to the bottom and long-term unsustainably low prices. I dislike yellow cabs as much as the next guy but street space is definitely a limited resource and not being regulated in a healthy manner.

They should charge a congestion fee then and let the market sort it out, as opposed to artificially regulating one small source of cars (100k for hire vehicles vs 2.7m vehicles entering the city per day). Why would the thought even be to regulate 3% of cars vs. attacking the actual core problem (2.7m cars/day). It makes absolutely no sense (aside from protectionism of the taxi industry)

Why not just let the market sort it out without a congestion fee? Surely there's a point at which there is so much traffic that people will stop taking uber/lyft and prefer to take the subway. Why should the government set an arbitrary bar to that?

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#43

Post by dr_ »

Whereas I'm sure they are useful in the outer boroughs, I feel ride hailing apps are becoming less useful in Manhattan itself. It's not uncommon for me to request Lyft or Uber, be told to expect a car in 5 minutes or so during which time the driver gets stuck in traffic or is unable to make a turn somewhere because of construction, etc - and that 5 minutes turns into 10 minutes or longer. In the interim, several yellow cabs will have gone by and I'm left wondering why I didn't just take a taxi.

I find the apps to be incredibly useful outside of Manhattan, and especially when I'm traveling to other cities, but in Manhattan I've nearly stopped using them.

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#44

Post by dunpeal »

tashoecraft wrote: post #14
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #5

Before becoming mayor, de Blasio lived here in Park Slope. I guess he never used these yellow cabs he’s so interested in preserving because getting one to go to Brooklyn from Manhattan is fucking impossible. Seriously, everything about yellow cab service is worse. Why don’t they buy back the medallions instead?

So true, my girlfriend had a driver pull his emergency brake then claim his brakes "didn't work" and she had to get out, because he didn't want to drive to Brooklyn. I have 0 sympathy for yellow cabs, Uber and Lyft have raised the bar. If cabs want to compete they need to completely rethink their experience.

I had so many similar issues with NYC cabbies. Off the top of my head:

1. Cabbie turning off his meter right before my stop, then quoting me a price that was x3 times the meter when I last caught glimpse of it.

2. Cabbies flat out refusing to accept credit cards. Forcing me to withdraw cash on an ATM to pay them.

3. Cabbies rudely demanding tip after being rude and inconsiderate the whole ride.

There's a reason why Uber/Lyft are so popular. Yellow Cabs in NYC were never a pleasant experience, and all too often - an awful one.

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#45

Post by mcny »

Previously on HN, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16602151

If you care about congestion, address congestion. As much as I would like to support Mr Mayor, I find it difficult to do so. This mayor points the finger at Mr Governor and the state legislature -- rightly so I assume about 99% of the time. However, this last one percent is what grinds my gears. There is not a lot that the city can do on its own but this isn't something they can't fix.

I think the correct answer is to enforce existing traffic laws and strengthening them where necessary. Traffic violation? Suspend their TLC license at the first offense. Ideally, there would be no additional cost to the driver. The TLC license is simply suspended for a short period of time (lets say three months). At the end of three months, the driver can apply to be reinstated at no cost (assuming no further violations -- by which I mean no Uber or Lyft work -- during this time).

Now the important part: actually enforce this. This is the difficult part because I frequently see cars with a reflective vest in front of the steering wheel (which I assume is supposed to signify the car belongs to a police officer?). I think it is difficult to ask for strict enforcement of traffic laws when even the police officers so blatantly disregard traffic laws.

New York Times reports ridership on the MTA and MTA bus is stagnating at best or likely declining. In another world, I would be advocating for turning many of the existing bus lines into subway lines (at least here in Queens) because as someone else commented a few months back, a bus every three minutes is no longer a bus but a very expensive train.

In any case, I thought there was a solution coming in the form of congestion tax in New York City. What happened of it?

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#46

Post by ohyes »

jamiequint wrote: post #24
Daishiman wrote: post #15

I'm sorry but everyone here is completely ignoring the congestion arguments, which like it or not, are actually very valid, just as much as the race to the bottom and long-term unsustainably low prices. I dislike yellow cabs as much as the next guy but street space is definitely a limited resource and not being regulated in a healthy manner.

They should charge a congestion fee then and let the market sort it out, as opposed to artificially regulating one small source of cars (100k for hire vehicles vs 2.7m vehicles entering the city per day). Why would the thought even be to regulate 3% of cars vs. attacking the actual core problem (2.7m cars/day). It makes absolutely no sense (aside from protectionism of the taxi industry)

The problem is that the public transit in NYC area has gone to crap. They haven't made the infrastructure investments considering the potential ridership, and we're paying the price for it.

I say this as someone who hates hiring a car (because they make me motion sick), but if you have to be somewhere on time, even with the congestion, hiring a car is more likely to get you there on time.

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#47

Post by Daishiman »

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #38
Daishiman wrote: post #15

I'm sorry but everyone here is completely ignoring the congestion arguments, which like it or not, are actually very valid, just as much as the race to the bottom and long-term unsustainably low prices. I dislike yellow cabs as much as the next guy but street space is definitely a limited resource and not being regulated in a healthy manner.

Uber/Lyft use limited road space more efficiently vs traditional cabs due to 1. Shared rides (Uber Pool and Lyft Line) 2. Lower deadheading factor, as Uber and Lyft work on larger scale and use better dispatching algorithms, so they need to drive less to pickup next passenger

This is false.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/07/25/uber-and-lyft-are-ove...

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#49

Post by mhb »

Daishiman wrote: post #15

I'm sorry but everyone here is completely ignoring the congestion arguments, which like it or not, are actually very valid, just as much as the race to the bottom and long-term unsustainably low prices. I dislike yellow cabs as much as the next guy but street space is definitely a limited resource and not being regulated in a healthy manner.

So if Uber were to set up parking where their cars could wait, would that address this congestion argument? Or would there then be an argument that they were driving up real estate prices?

Re: New York Could Become First Major U.S. City to Cap Uber and Similar Vehicles

#50

Post by Daishiman »

jdanp wrote: post #42
jamiequint wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should charge a congestion fee then and let the market sort it out, as opposed to artificially regulating one small source of cars (100k for hire vehicles vs 2.7m vehicles entering the city per day). Why would the thought even be to regulate 3% of cars vs. attacking the actual core problem (2.7m cars/day). It makes absolutely no sense (aside from protectionism of the taxi industry)

Why not just let the market sort it out without a congestion fee? Surely there's a point at which there is so much traffic that people will stop taking uber/lyft and prefer to take the subway. Why should the government set an arbitrary bar to that?

Because there's this thing called the Nash Equilibrium, and in a complex system like streets the equilibria are not optimal.

Individually, humans are really bad at judging these things and you cannot have optimal traffic and congestion control without some measure of centralized management of incentives.

Nobody wins when all car traffic is slower than optimal and driving just becomes an objectively worse experience for everyone on the road.

Post reply on HN