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

21–30 of 303 posts

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

#21

Post by pavel_lishin »

ddtaylor wrote: post #14
pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

I wonder what percentage of cars on the streets of Manhattan are Uber/Lyft, vs. taxi cabs, vs. private vehicles vs. other commercial ones. Claiming to limit Uber license to alleviate congestion is a bullshit argument unless you can show that they make up a significant percentage of traffic. Also, to be clear, I'm not an Uber apologist; they can go fuck themselves as quickly as they move and break things.

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?

Nothing's wrong with that; in fact, that seems like the ideal scenario. I think there should be a financial disincentive to owning a car in the city, especially if most of the congestion is due to private car ownership.

If Uber+Taxi make up a small percentage of traffic, then limiting them to fix congestion seems like a stupid idea.

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

#22

Post by romwell »

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 very few across?).

And need anyone be reminded of the countless problems with the yellow cabs (good luck hailing one around Kings Highway!), green cabs (too little too late, same problems), car services (aka taxis you order by phone, which may or may not come to pick you up and may or may not go where you need to, and can tell you to, quote, f$#k off when they're late), etc?

Obligatorily, I have a lot of reservations towards whatever Uber is doing elsewhere - but the NYC situation looked unfixable before Uber came a long with a stick (or candy) large enough.

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

#23

Post by bobthepanda »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

I wonder what percentage of cars on the streets of Manhattan are Uber/Lyft, vs. taxi cabs, vs. private vehicles vs. other commercial ones. Claiming to limit Uber license to alleviate congestion is a bullshit argument unless you can show that they make up a significant percentage of traffic. Also, to be clear, I'm not an Uber apologist; they can go fuck themselves as quickly as they move and break things.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/27/17621344/uber-lyft-nyc-ve...

> The number of new vehicles on the road has surged since the last time a cap was up for debate, growing from 63,000 in 2015 to over 100,000 today. These new vehicles have added an unprecedented number of new miles driven in New York City, according to a recent analysis by traffic analyst Bruce Schaller. Trip volumes have tripled in the last year and a half, and 600 million driving miles were added citywide. In addition, Schaller found evidence that ridership was shifting from public transportation to ride-hailing apps.

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

#24

Post by TuringNYC »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #17
TuringNYC wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure, but green cabs do address the bias against the non-Manhattan crowd. It is very common for yellow cabs in NYC to refuse rides to Brooklyn/etc. Destination discrimination "isnt allowed" but there isn't really a way to enforce the rule.

Could you lie when hailing the cab and once inside say they misheard you and say the genuine destination? Not allowed I imagine but pretty hard to enforce that rule? (Genuine question, as a UK reaident I’ve little experience of the US taxi system and have always had excellent service from taxi firms in the UK - as a result I’ve never really understood the problem Uber is solving in the UK)

Yes, I did that a couple of times. Then once I got in, i changed the destination. It made for a tense ride because you're already in an adverserial transaction for something that should be a default right of rider.

Oh, and my mom has bigger problems. Cabs pass her by at Manhattan hospitals. Of course no one knows drivers' intents for sure, but there is some quick eyeballing, i'm sure, of whether the potential passenger is B&T (Bridge and Tunnel -- NYC Yellow cabs hate B&T passengers because they often have to deadhead back to Manhattan on the return trip -- so they take pains to avoid B&T passengers, which favors wealthier Manhattan residents and harms residents of other boroughs.) Uber/Lyft has been a lifesaver for her.

There is also a larger problem Uber solves (one of many) -- once you lose density (i.e., outside airport/centercity) it is hard to hail a cab, so you have to dial a cab. You dail, they invariably say "wait outside be there in 5 min" -- sometimes they show up in 5min, sometimes 10min, sometimes 30min, sometimes never. Variable pricing and GPS tracking solves this.

A lot of these problems were traditionally not problems at all, but the NYC transit system has ground to a halt on evenings/nights/weekends in the past 3-5yrs, so people are relying increasingly on Uber/Lyft and pooled rides for things traditionally accomplished via mass transit.

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

#25

Post by votepaunchy »

CPLX wrote: post #13
tonysdg wrote: post #6

Given the problem, this seems like a reasonable action on the part of the NYC City Council. But I'm confused by section on congestion pricing: > Many experts believe congestion pricing is the best way for New York City to fix congestion and secure the funds needed to fix the subway. Mr. Johnson supports the idea, but Mr. de Blasio has opposed it. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who controls the subway, has said he will push fo…

Because it's regressive. It takes money away from people who drive, who are often people who are blue collar, spread out in the outer boroughs, or who need to bring tools to do their jobs, those who are forced to cross the city to get anywhere west of town, etc. Sure, that's not the only effect it will have, it will also cost money for bankers that drive in from Westchester and park underneath their midtown offices.…

Is there any reason NYC couldn’t implement progressive congestion pricing? Payment is automated and could be tied to tax returns.

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

#26

Post by mkolodny »

It looks like the city snuck in a ride-sharing vehicles cap by pairing it with a pay floor for for-hire vehicle drivers.

"[Caption] Drivers of for-hire vehicles on Wednesday demonstrated in support of a cap on ride-hail vehicles outside City Hall."

Then the signs in the picture above the caption are all focused on the pay floor...

"VOTE yes to create a pay floor for FHV drivers"

The pay floor and the ride-sharing cap are very separate issues, but it seems like the city pulled a fast one by pairing their legislation.

With the L train shutting down for a year+, this could be disastrous for getting from Brooklyn to Manhattan.

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

#27

Post by test6554 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #8

This benefits the drivers at the expense of consumers. Maybe that's worth doing, maybe not. I don't think there is a right answer to that since it depends on your perspective. In either case, it seems like the problem they're trying to address is congestion, which could be better addressed by taxing drivers more highly. Then only the more productive rideshare and taxi drivers would be on the streets, plus you'd get r…

The number of drivers finds equilibrium on its own. Too many drivers = too low wages, so people stop driving. Too few drivers = high wages/wait times, so more people become drivers.

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

#28

Post by gojomo »

CPLX wrote: post #13
tonysdg wrote: post #6

Given the problem, this seems like a reasonable action on the part of the NYC City Council. But I'm confused by section on congestion pricing: > Many experts believe congestion pricing is the best way for New York City to fix congestion and secure the funds needed to fix the subway. Mr. Johnson supports the idea, but Mr. de Blasio has opposed it. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who controls the subway, has said he will push fo…

Because it's regressive. It takes money away from people who drive, who are often people who are blue collar, spread out in the outer boroughs, or who need to bring tools to do their jobs, those who are forced to cross the city to get anywhere west of town, etc. Sure, that's not the only effect it will have, it will also cost money for bankers that drive in from Westchester and park underneath their midtown offices.…

[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: a massive toll paid by everyone in delays. So, more money should be raised to improve roads and alternatives. And, that money should be raised in a way that shifts those who are most-adaptable into alternatives, in proportion to the congestion they'd cause. Only congestion fees do that.

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

#29

Post by colinbartlett »

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 bail out of the failed and corrupt taxi medallion system, then maybe this will succeed. The real issue here is the cab drivers who are hurting because they provide an inferior service to a clientele who now have better options. I avoid cabs for all but the shortest trips because of the large percentage of bad driving experiences. Some solutions to improve yellow cabs like having a simple feedback mechanism for drivers could go a long way to leveling the playing field between Uber and Taxi.

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

#30

Post by lnrdgmz »

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…

Who are the cronies that are benefiting from the L-train shutdown?
Post reply on HN