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

Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

humantransit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#81

Post by pdx_flyer »

SilasX wrote: post #71
pdx_flyer wrote: post #65

Calling Portland "dense" is hysterical. As a Portlander, I can say we are a terrible example of what NIMBYism does to efforts to lower housing costs by adding density. Our city has a decent public transit setup and if the focus was on adding usable density with improved transit options, rather than people trying to protect neighborhoods, we'd be much better off. I am fine with Lyft wanting this regulated at the state…

“Less dense than than optimal” does not imply “density effects don’t matter for city management as claimed in the letter [eg for scarcity of road capacity or pickup points]”.

Well, the city has done very little to move density forward. They continue to approve buildings that are mostly overpriced, poorly built, studio apartments.

The other problem is that the commute pattern in Portland isn't into downtown only. There are people who commute from the east side of town, through downtown, through the tunnel (or one of the other limited transit options over the hills) to Beaverton or Hillsboro to work at Nike, Intel, etc. The efficient public transit options for that commute simply don't exist. It can take 1.5+ hours to do that via MAX and bus.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#82

Post by SilasX »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #2

After reading the article (including the letter which was reproduced within), I feel an equally fair title could be: "Mayor and Commissioner of Transportation lobby for the right to enforce their own rules, not just state laws, on Lyft"

That would be more misleading, because cities generally have authority to enforce their own local ordinances on top of state laws.

Certainly, states set the scope of what the ordinances can be, but there's nothing unusual about a city enforcing its "own rules" on top of state laws.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#83

Post by SilasX »

pdx_flyer wrote: post #81
SilasX wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Less dense than than optimal” does not imply “density effects don’t matter for city management as claimed in the letter [eg for scarcity of road capacity or pickup points]”.

Well, the city has done very little to move density forward. They continue to approve buildings that are mostly overpriced, poorly built, studio apartments. The other problem is that the commute pattern in Portland isn't into downtown only. There are people who commute from the east side of town, through downtown, through the tunnel (or one of the other limited transit options over the hills) to Beaverton or Hillsbor…

Which, I agree, are important issues, but don't obviate the mayor's reference to municipalities' need to manage the problems of density (rather than be overridden by voters that don't encounter such problems).

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#84

Post by iamdave »

scarejunba wrote: post #53
iamdave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Governing itself" isn't some magical good I don't think one who holds this particular stance is particularly concerned with the merits of democracy. Call me on it, if I'm wrong, scarejunba.

Oh no, I have to call you out. What a challenge! Will I rise to meet this grave insult to my honour? But I must, I surely must. Give me a break. I honestly don't even know what you're insinuating here but perhaps you're too afraid to say it out loud?

No, because I already did.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#85

Post by moosey »

darawk wrote: post #30
pbreit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference?

Seriously? Lobbyists are paid to talk to politicians. They represent interest groups, and make their case in DC and other places. They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. There are actual places in the world where bribery is rampant, and if you lived in one of those places, you really wouldn't need to…

Local level bribery might not take the same forms that it takes in other countries, but the top level bribery is easy to see. We have massively expensive elections that are used to direct money towards a massively expensive system of 'election contractors' all of whom were elected officials at some point that now receive dark money via this system.

Of course, compared to our lobbying system, where people like Joe Lieberman now work, taking money to inform other elected officials that if they play the game right, they'll also make millions from corporations 'lobbying' the government. They'll help to make sure that you have a long career with lots of attention by funding your campaigns.

Lobbying sounds great, but like many things, we've perverted it.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#86

Post by cozzyd »

beerlord wrote: post #41
a_imho wrote: post #22

How is Lyft different from any taxi service?

Because its much better, and so attracts more people to the service. Uber has a great potential to be used as public transport, with dynamic route pathing based on supply and demand. Something traditional public transport could never do.

Traditional public transport certainly could do that (and demand-response routes are a thing in rural places), but fixed-route consistent routes make more sense in urban areas from geometric considerations (and you know, not requiring a charged smart phone to get from point A to B).

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#87

Post by dvtrn »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #29
dvtrn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these seek to influence state legislators, and the evidence is right there in the article. Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying? I'd like to counter your question with a question: why shouldn't a mayor be speaking up to influence state legislators if they believe legislative issues could have an impact on their city? This is literally one of the primary duties of being an elected leader at the city level.

> why shouldn't a mayor be ...but nobody said they shouldn't.

I'm sorry, taking into context the comment I quoted from the chain it resides in, from the way the person I'm responding to initially reacted to this post, it looked otherwise at a glance.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#88

Post by cozzyd »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #28
CaptainZapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is low quality about the source? Apart from the fact that Mr. Walker is without question an expert in public transport most of the blog post reprints a letter from the city of Portland outlining Lyft's dirty tacticts. The actual blog entry simply outlines the different requirements between dense - and suburban city areas. Your comment, smearing the original poster, seems to me vile and totally beyond the…

Repeatedly stating that only city folk can understand a city is uh... rather divisive and insults the reader's intelligence.

It's not about understanding, it's about wanting what's best. For example, suburbanites probably want free parking and more highways in cities, even though that's not in the cities best interest.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#89

Post by bobthepanda »

TuringNYC wrote: post #79
joecool1029 wrote: post #37

Honestly, I would much prefer everything get regulated at state level. I live in NJ. There are 565 municipalities here. Every single one has different regulations. For example, if one were to pick up a prearranged regular fare from Terminal A at EWR (Newark Liberty International), they might not know that this terminal is in the City of Elizabeth. The city sometimes has plainclothes detectives write $783 tickets. For…

>> I'm aware large cities provide unique challenges and can understand why NYC for instance should be allowed to regulate their own taxi/livery situation, Firstly -- NYC's regulation of Uber/Lyft probably had much to do with the mayor's massive campaighn donations received from the TLC: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/nyregion/de-blasio-reaps-... NYTIMES: Taxi Industry Opens Wallet for de Blasio, a Chief Ally by M…

Medallions have always been regulated and restricted, not to benefit an asset owning class of rent seekers (that was a side effect), but to prevent the narrow, constricted island of Manhattan from choking on gridlock. Lyft and Uber essentially abused a loophole and caused traffic speeds to decline in the core.

Congestion pricing with a fee on all yellow & black car rides for origin and destination within CBD would be the best way other than a cap to regulate this, but that is still quite the political lift due to the windshield perspective of the city’s and state’s politicians.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#90

Post by almost_usual »

subroutine wrote: post #46

ITT there seems to be a lot of sentiment that city/county local governments shouldn't be able to implement policy on anything but the most trivial matters. As if politicians and corporations residing in other cities are better suited to make impactful local policy. I dont get it... Then again I am still scathing from a similar case study in my home town of San Diego, with Airbnb. Our city council passed some policies…

This makes me sick. As a Bay Area resident I was happy when I heard South Lake Tahoe passed a VHR ban in residential areas.

People who buy homes only to Airbnb them do not care about neighborhoods or their impact on community.

Post reply on HN