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

131–140 of 141 posts

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

#131

Post by InitialLastName »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79
InitialLastName wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they should charge more (read: any price > $0) for parking. It baffles me how much of the most expensive real estate on earth is dedicated to free car storage.

> they should charge more (read: any price > $0) for parking People who park their cars go to town halls. They turn out to vote. They call their representatives. I called my City Councilman, who is also the Speaker proposing this bill, and was apparently the first person to call in opposition. Everyone else focussed on how Uber is a den of sexual harassment and it's about time we did something about them. If that is…

People who park their cars have enough money to be able to vote, call their representatives, and go to town halls (not to mention to have cars).

It's not "good politics" if influence is only available to the affluent.

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

#132

Post by mancerayder »

lovich wrote: post #127
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been following the red-light-camera issue, was not aware of this "overpolicing" but that certainly explains a lot.

Wasn't the over policing they wanted stopped policies like Stop and Frisk which were targeting people based on race? That's a far cry from policing people based on actually breaking the law

It's a loaded term, over-policing. Stop and frisk is one thing, but local politicians use it to mean other things, too. When the police deployed during the K2 overdoses in Bed Stuy (the first news incident), politicians said on record that we needed to be careful not to over-police the neighborhood. What they meant by this was presence - don't put police everywhere, people dislike it.

There's more. They reclassified numerous crimes that were deemed quality of life crimes that deserve at most a desk ticket. They also stopped cracking down on turnstile jumpers, they became more lax with the homeless by policy (you can read DeBlasio's quotes on that too).

There's a general Zeitgeist against policing in general. Is it good, moral social justice policy? I don't know, but I strongly suspect we care more about equality of outcome (and statistics) than true justice.

Back to the cameras. There's a terrible irony here: the police union was instrumental in pressuring to not renew them. Fear of being automated out of a job? That's a strong HN topic if I ever saw one.

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

#133

Post by mancerayder »

a_tractor wrote: post #118
mancerayder wrote: post #88

NYC Cabbies deserve the cold shoulder: - They're frequently rude and unaccountable. They'll talk with friends on speaker (car speaker) and you can't rate them. - Oh, sorry sir. Can't go to Brooklyn. Grumble grumble. - Smells, garbage and other horrors on the back seat. Why bother cleaning it when you're a monopoly? - Road rage, dangerous driving, etc. that requires a more complicated TLC complaint while Uber and Lyft…

Ive lived in NYC for 10 years, and have never personally used Uber/Lyft. Its surprising to a lot of people, which is funny to me in a place with so many other options. So, besides taking friend's Ubers, maybe I dont know what I'm missing completely, but I always have enjoyed and preferred the experience of walking out into the streets and hailing a cab. It is one of the reasons this city was so appealing in the first…

I get the impression you live or spend most of your time in vibrant, perhaps wealthy neighborhoods like Williamsburg or just Manhattan. Your green cab story doesn't pan out in most of North Brooklyn outside of Williamsburg, they are invisible because the market dictates that it's too poor for them to bother to look for rides. Then there are the wealthier areas like Cobble Hill and Park Slope and so on - I wouldn't expect to see green cabs in Flatbush or something.

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

#134

Post by dahdum »

mancerayder wrote: post #133
a_tractor wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive lived in NYC for 10 years, and have never personally used Uber/Lyft. Its surprising to a lot of people, which is funny to me in a place with so many other options. So, besides taking friend's Ubers, maybe I dont know what I'm missing completely, but I always have enjoyed and preferred the experience of walking out into the streets and hailing a cab. It is one of the reasons this city was so appealing in the first…

I get the impression you live or spend most of your time in vibrant, perhaps wealthy neighborhoods like Williamsburg or just Manhattan. Your green cab story doesn't pan out in most of North Brooklyn outside of Williamsburg, they are invisible because the market dictates that it's too poor for them to bother to look for rides. Then there are the wealthier areas like Cobble Hill and Park Slope and so on - I wouldn't ex…

I got the same impression. While I don't doubt the OP's sincerity, it sounds like a cliche story of privilege.

IIRC, Uber/Lyft have shown objective data highlighting the improvements of service to disadvantaged communities and groups.

Taxis aren't at risk of going away entirely any time soon, so the iconic experience should still be around.

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

#135

Post by jschwartzi »

ohyes wrote: post #46
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)

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.

The sensible solution is to use the congestion charge to fund mass transit improvements. As mass transit gets better congestion goes down.

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

#136

Post by jschwartzi »

Daishiman wrote: post #51
mhb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Considering the astronomically high costs of setting up parking, it's an unrealistic solution. It also doesn't consider that drivers still have to drive to pick up passengers.

You can buy monthly parking and load balance. Monthly contracts are comparatively expensive but less expensive than parking as a transient and paying hourly.

Uber and Lyft are big enough that they might be able to make deals with regional or national operators for flat-rate on-demand parking if that's what they need.

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

#137

Post by mcny »

mancerayder wrote: post #132
lovich wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't the over policing they wanted stopped policies like Stop and Frisk which were targeting people based on race? That's a far cry from policing people based on actually breaking the law

It's a loaded term, over-policing. Stop and frisk is one thing, but local politicians use it to mean other things, too. When the police deployed during the K2 overdoses in Bed Stuy (the first news incident), politicians said on record that we needed to be careful not to over-police the neighborhood. What they meant by this was presence - don't put police everywhere, people dislike it. There's more. They reclassified…

> They also stopped cracking down on turnstile jumpers, they became more lax with the homeless by policy (you can read DeBlasio's quotes on that too).

I am still waiting on Germany to make mass transit "free of cost" or paid for completely by tax payers. I think we can learn a lot from their experiment. What worries me here in the US is that everything costs so much more. I think I will be salty until the day I die about the WTC Path terminal being 100% over budget. I mean those FOUR BILLION DOLLARS I think would be better spent toward the second avenue train for the MTA or the signal problem on the Newark WTC Path bridge at Harrison (Disclaimer: I use neither of those two services but I still think either of those would have been a better choice.) I don't know the details but I think we ought to walk away from a bad deal at some point. If we are sure we can control costs, I am all for a fully taxpayer funded MTA subway and buses as well as a fully taxpayer funded Path train. I hope people understand that $2.75 does not fully cover the cost of a bus ride. I don't have any numbers but as someone mentioned here some time ago there is a lot of taxpayer money already going into building and maintaining the roads.

> Back to the cameras. There's a terrible irony here: the police union was instrumental in pressuring to not renew them. Fear of being automated out of a job? That's a strong HN topic if I ever saw one.

The main thing is we have to be willing to cut costs. Everything I say is a pipe dream until we can cut costs. This means automating as much as possible. This includes train conductors, bus drivers, and yes, the police (and the administrative staff at all these places).

Feels like a chicken and egg problem, right?

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

#138

Post by TheCoelacanth »

InitialLastName wrote: post #76
bluedevil2k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the city buy them back? They sold the assets, they have no obligation to re-purchase them. Investment risk is in the hands of those people (usually companies) who purchase them. Besides, at what price would they even buy them back at? They're certainly not worth the price that some people pay for them (last I checked, about $1M each).

They sold the medallions based on a guarantee that they would enforce a monopoly around those medallions. Then they didn't enforce that monopoly. Sounds like the city is in the wrong.

The medallions are only for street hails. Uber does not accept street hails, they just made another way of hiring a car convenient enough to replace a significant portion of street hails. The medallion owners invested in something that became less valuable because of technology (cellphones becoming ubiquitous). They have no one to blame except for themselves.

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

#139

Post by forapurpose »

JJMcJ wrote: post #123
forapurpose wrote: post #10

Right now space on NYC streets is free, leading to a 'tragedy of the commons': Businesses are each incentivized to overuse the resource because the costs, congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, are externalities for them - Uber and Lyft don't pay for them. With no cost to supply, it also leads to an oversupply of drivers, which depresses their incomes (another reason I don't like the 'contractor' model - the driver…

In fact, besides lobbying by wannabe monopolies, was the reason for medallions - there were so many cabs in Manhattan that driving was becoming untenable. I think Midtown has room for only 9,000 cars driving at any one time.

> I think Midtown has room for only 9,000 cars driving at any one time.

Very interesting way to frame the issue; thanks. Do you know where I could read more about that?

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

#140

Post by tk75x »

simonsarris wrote: post #102
greggman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subways not running between 1am and 5am seems like a good thing to me if it means they can use that time to maintain the tracks and stations. The trains and subways in Tokyo are amazing, clean, on time but they stop at 1am and start up around 5am. That sucks for you if you don't want to cab it home after around 12am. As a night owl I love it though as it means there are tons of night venues that are open until at lea…

Similar in Paris. Subways cease between 1am and 5am (approx), and instead there are night busses (Noctilien) The streets are not crowded between 1am and 5am so night busses make a lot of sense. Then of course you can do scheduled maintenance on the subways.

A similar situation exists in London. When I was traveling there for school, we had Oyster cards that let us travel on the tube trains and buses but the underground transport would shut down sometime after midnight and when we stayed out late, a bus was usually available.
Post reply on HN