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

Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 303 posts

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#121

Post by gojomo »

bumholio wrote: post #47
gojomo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] that congestion-pricing is regressive. I'd expect the exact opposite: those in NYC who take private cars, rather than public transit, are higher-income. Everyone gets a benefit from the public roads even if they don't use them directly: they feed the high-value trips that make the businesses there possible. But there's still not enough road-capacity for everyone without value-destroying congestion:…

It's regressive amongst those who drive, that's the point. By definition, that category is more oriented towards middle class, upper middle class; the poor don't pay the tax because they can't afford city driving in general.

That's not quite evidence, and my intuition would still be: the more one drives inside NYC city limits, the richer one is. And the more one uses car services that would also pay the tax, the wealthier one is.

So: it's highly progressive when you consider all NYC residents, including those who don't drive. And it's maybe a little regressive between the wealthy and the very-wealthy, just on the general pattern that the very-wealthy spend less of their income. So, boo-hoo for the merely wealthy.

Congestion pricing doesn't seem nearly as regressive as gas taxes or sales taxes, narrowly focused as it is on just those driving in an especially wealthy and especially congested area.

And the parent post's idea that it'd hit the "blue collar" especially hard is, without evidence, just hand-waving. Their time is valuable too, and commute/on-the-job-travel time saved, from pushing lower-value travelers to non-road (or on-road-but-shared-vehicle) paths, could be worth more than the congestion fees.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#122

Post by cryptonector »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #85
madamelic wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>supply stays constant. Licenses for new drivers are stopped so the supply will dwindle, riders will get frustrated and stop heavy reliance on it.

From the article: The City Council approved a package of bills that will halt new licenses for Uber and other ride-hail vehicles for a year while the city studies the booming industry. The legislation also allows the city to set a minimum pay rate for drivers. So not quite the leap made in your comment.

The supply absolutely will go down because there will be some drivers over the next year who exit the system anyways, but no new drivers because the city says so.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#123

Post by cryptonector »

ahoy wrote: post #80
romwell wrote: post #22

Alternative title: "NYC Taxi mafia strikes back, gives Uber 12 months to come up with a large enough bribe". Really, the life of nearly everyone (who's not a taxi driver, perhaps) improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Even the fabled subway in its theoretical best has been dysfunctional in Brooklyn since the takedown of streetcars a hundred years ago (see how all the tracks are running towards Manhattan and ver…

This post is full of schlock. I live in brooklyn and commute to manhattan via subway everyday. It's reliable and good.

Not all of Brooklyn is close to a subway station.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#124

Post by pradn »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #70
pradn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue is that cab drivers are committing suicide because of their debts. Simple market analysis ignores the real human toll these technological changes are making. Yes, better service should be rewarded. But those hurting should get some relief. (I personally don't care too much about medallion-owning companies/groups.)

The idea that Uber, or any other company, is responsible for someone else committing suicide is both bizarre and offensive.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/nyregion/a-taxi-driver-to...:

Immigrants from Romania, the couple had bought their New York City taxi medallion nearly three decades ago. Lately, it had been difficult to find fares. Her husband worked 12-hour shifts, but brought home less money. He was worried about the plunging value of their once-lucrative medallion and frustrated about Uber’s takeover of the industry.

On a cold day in March, Mr. Ochisor hanged himself in his garage in Queens. His family blames the growing hopelessness he felt over his fortunes as a taxi driver.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#125

Post by pastor_elm »

asah wrote: post #34
colinbartlett wrote: post #29

If the problem they are trying to solve is "too many vehicles" then we need a congestion tax. They should certainly not be limiting vehicles that are more likely to take multiple people with a Pool option. If the problem they are trying to solve is "drivers aren't making enough" then they should impose a minimum wage on drivers or force an actual employee relationship. If the problem they are trying to solve is a bai…

In NYC a tax would be wildly regressive and favor wealthy wall st users over all others. EDIT: congestion tax = more expensive mobility (incl taxis and ride sharing) = less affordability It's similar to local sales taxes: the 1% aren't affected by the cost of basic items, but the 99% are.

How so? Why do poor people need to drive to downtown Manhattan on weekdays? The car volume is almost exclusively for hire vehicles.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#126

Post by zone411 »

strict9 wrote: post #74
romwell wrote: post #22

Alternative title: "NYC Taxi mafia strikes back, gives Uber 12 months to come up with a large enough bribe". Really, the life of nearly everyone (who's not a taxi driver, perhaps) improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Even the fabled subway in its theoretical best has been dysfunctional in Brooklyn since the takedown of streetcars a hundred years ago (see how all the tracks are running towards Manhattan and ver…

>Really, the life of nearly everyone improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Except for bus riders and cyclists that deal with much more congestion. And transit riders that deal with services changes as a result of decreased transit ridership. Not to mention behavior like drivers randomly stopping in places that weren't designed for stopped cars.

Cyclists? There are 450k daily bike trips/day vs. 170k in 2005 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/30/nyregion/new-yorkers-bike...). There are new Citi Bikes and new bike lanes. The cyclists seem to be least affected by the congestion, especially if you take into account how most of them ride.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#127

Post by cryptonector »

Retric wrote: post #68
ddtaylor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a vast majority of the vehicles on the road not being owned by the people who use them for transportation? It seems that a large amount of people don't want to purchase and maintain a vehicle they might not always be using and instead pay on-demand like they do for many other services where someone specializes to reduce the cost for others?

Driving a car from A to B is less miles driven than someone driving from X to A to pick you up before driving to B to drop you off them Y to wait for next ride. Thus Uber increases congestion.

On the other hand utilization in the ownership case is very low, which therefore consumes lots of parking space which... consumes lots of street space which... reduces total bandwidth.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#128

Post by romwell »

jroblak wrote: post #76
romwell wrote: post #22

Alternative title: "NYC Taxi mafia strikes back, gives Uber 12 months to come up with a large enough bribe". Really, the life of nearly everyone (who's not a taxi driver, perhaps) improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Even the fabled subway in its theoretical best has been dysfunctional in Brooklyn since the takedown of streetcars a hundred years ago (see how all the tracks are running towards Manhattan and ver…

There is a lot of ridiculous hyperbole and disingenuousness in this post so it's a little hard to take seriously. As someone who has lived in New York for the past ten years, the entrance of Uber hasn't changed my life at all, other than some VCs subsidizing/coercing some lower income drivers into taking $10 off my fare when I go to the airport. Public transportation, which you deride, usage utterly dwarfs taxis/uber…

>There is a lot of ridiculous hyperbole and disingenuousness in this post

Nothing but actual experience, hello from Brooklyn.

>The entrance of Uber hasn't changed my life at all, other than [...] when I go to the airport.

Good for you, and I can actually know I can go to the airport.

>Public transportation, which you deride,

Who, me? I love public transportation. Especially when it works. Have fun using the MTA getting from Brooklyn to Queens, though.

>but calling it dysfunctional because it takes a little extra time to go from Astoria to Prospect Park is absurd.

A little?

Getting to LGA from, say, Kings Highway in Brooklyn is a 2+ hour trip using trains and buses, going through Manhattan and crossing the water twice.

Getting to JFK is 2+ hours using subway, LIRR, and Airtrain.

Taxi? 45 minutes.

That's one practical example for you, but we can sit down with the map one day and talk actual trip times for people living outside Manhattan.

>I don't need to be reminded of the standard, clean, regulated experience I have every time I jump into a yellow or green cab

Hahahaha. These cabs only got GPS and card readers like, what, five years ago? I still remember getting into a yellow cab with a driver who circled around the block asking for directions - and charging me for it.

>Boro taxis were introduced into the city _two years after_ Uber entered NYC. How can you possible hand wave them away with "too little too late"

That's why I called it too little too late. First, because it was too late. Two years too late, thanks for pointing that out. Secondly, because it's still too little; I very rarely see green cabs (but tons of Ubers).

>They're taking about limited the number and providing a minimum wage, hardly life changing stuff.

This sentence, to me, seems, how should I say it - ah, hyperbolic and disingenuous; thank you.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#129

Post by cryptonector »

djsumdog wrote: post #19
pmart123 wrote: post #3

NYC is closing down the L train next year for a year at the very least. So far, the city has proposed more water taxis as the primary solution to handle rerouting the 300k daily riders. Right now, the water taxi ridership is 1370 people per day. Secondarily, the city has indicated it might make some of the bridges carpool or ride-share only. Either way, all signs point to the shutdown heading towards a painful if not…

This is sad. NYC is one of the few (like 2, maybe 3) America cities with an actual usable rail system and it's rotted into disrepair. I'm all for limiting rid share vehicles and better wages for drivers, but they need to dump a shit ton of time and money into the rail system, both the subway and intercity. Fix Penn Station, and get the tracks up to spec! That should be the #1 priority for city transport infrastructur…

Did you know that the NYC subway system was originally built and operated by two private companies that competed with each other? Guess how that came to no longer be the case.

(The city froze their rates until they were no longer able to improve services, then the city took them over.)

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#130

Post by pradn »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #70
pradn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue is that cab drivers are committing suicide because of their debts. Simple market analysis ignores the real human toll these technological changes are making. Yes, better service should be rewarded. But those hurting should get some relief. (I personally don't care too much about medallion-owning companies/groups.)

The idea that Uber, or any other company, is responsible for someone else committing suicide is both bizarre and offensive.

Companies are huge economic actors. They can have very large effects on people's livelihoods. If people feel hopeless, they may commit suicide. Here, we have a very direct link between app-hailing and the reduction in taxi driver incomes. There's no denying that a major factor in these people's suicides were these apps.
Post reply on HN