Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by Jugglerofworlds » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #113

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100k Uber cars is fantastic. Let's boost that to 1M and get 10x the benefit. There is a limit where all these cars become a true public nuisance. It might be less than 100k.

At some point people might stop bothering with car ownership. That would open up a number of interesting possibilities. Imagine removing all parking on some (not all) streets during the day, thus doubling or tripling their bandwidth, and also increasing the number of cars that can be operated at the same time. I'm not saying that's the answer, but that there are lots of things that could be tried here.

I'm hoping that once self driving cars become common, we can remove parking spaces and replace them with protected bike lanes. A while back I bought an electric bike to ride around Boston, but I quickly returned it because I didn't want to end up as a splatter on the side of the road. Self-driving cars can't come soon enough.

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

#242

Post by euyyn » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:43 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #219

timr wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems consistent to me: Ubers don't want to places where they can't easily pick up a return trip; same as cabs. That's always been my assumption, anyway.

This is a result of poor logistics on the part of Uber and Lyft. There are a large number of Ubers and lyfts that will drop off and have to leave the airport without a passenger, meanwhile, you can call you car and be told it's a 10min wait as someone who isn't even on premises accepts the fare.

Are they actually allowed to do that, or is there a regulation preventing it?

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

#243

Post by dajohnson89 » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

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…

Uber drivers are also really bad drivers, compared to the norm. They don't know the streets as well, they make abrupt stops in the middle of the street (cabs at least pull over if possible), they drive just weird and it's annoying.

As a driver and pedestrian, I can spot an uber car immediately without even seeing the sticker. I like to play this guessing game in my head, and 9 times out of 10 I see the uber sticker, "T L & C" license plate, and/or a single passenger in the back seat staring at their phone.

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

#244

Post by lazyasciiart » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #140

weeksie wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's super weird, maybe I had another NYT article open. Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. No numbers at all in that one though. Anyway quick googling for 2017 numbers: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/13/16468716/uber-yellow-cab-ny... So we have 10k medallion holders and ~60k uber drivers giving the same number of rides per day. No, there's not enough there to give a rigorous analysis but that is a vast d…

Uber cars aren't on the road most of the time. Yellow cabs are. Those taxi medallions are expensive and they operate with shifts of drivers, the goal being to keep the taxi running 24/7, except when it needs maintenance. It's pretty typical for any given cab to have three different drivers running in 12 hour shifts. That way you keep it on the road all 168 hours of every week. An Uber just requires a relatively inexp…

That's a strong claim when the news is about "so many taxis sitting idle in parking lots and garages that they have become known as “taxi graveyards.” ". Is there any actual data on active time for each cab?

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

#245

Post by StanislavPetrov » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #208

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live and drive here. Parking is virtually non-existent. http://www.opencurb.nyc/ You see the sea of red lines? Those are all places you cannot park.

Looks to me like that map indicates about half of one side of all the steeets are ok for parking?

Take another look. Everywhere that is not green means that trucks, garbage trucks, UPS vans, and every other delivery service has to pull over and block a potential bike lane to make a delivery. That would be true even if every green area was open, and nobody else was parked anywhere. There is a reason that parking garages charge what they do in Manhattan, and its not because there is parking available on the street. ITT are people who have clearly never driven in the city, let alone made deliveries.

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

#246

Post by StanislavPetrov » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #197

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live and drive here. Parking is virtually non-existent. http://www.opencurb.nyc/ You see the sea of red lines? Those are all places you cannot park.

I'm seeing a sea of green as much as I am a sea of red. "Parking is virtually non-existent" is so far from the truth I don't even know where to begin with that. You're literally looking at the map and complaining that not every single square foot of Manhattan can be used for parking. Guess what, land in the densest city in the country has better uses than parking cars. And yet in many neighborhoods almost every singl…

The issue we are discussing is bike lanes. My whole point is the space just isn't there, and issuing tickets to trucks making deliveries in the vast areas that don't have parking isn't going to make it any better.

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

#247

Post by jkaplowitz » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

dyarosla wrote: post #240

jkaplowitz wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent, but most of the conversational focus regarding spending targets the taxi lobby - one of many widespread biases in which some bits of the for-hire transportation debate get more frequently talked about…

You are definitely coming off as biased which to me is strange. Maybe Uber isn’t a saint of a company, but thinking that bribery is somehow morally equivalent to advertising (whatever the multiple) is very odd.

I've never had any affiliation with any transportation company or lobby group on any side of the issue, nor have I bought or shorted any relevant stocks. I admitted my dislike of Uber and their peers very explicitly, but I'm only biased in the sense of having considered the issue and formed an opinion. As are we all, if we've thought about it enough.

Not sure where bribery entered the conversation. The person I was replying to said that Uber spent $2 million / year on legal expenditures to affect the debate in NY, mostly through advertising.

I have no reason to assume that this was any more bribery than PR campaigns and lobbying generally are, and indeed I presume it didn't go beyond that.

The mention of the taxi lobby having "bought" de Blasio and the City Council was from the comment I was replying to, which I quoted to marvel at the tone of the conversation which Uber has managed to shape so favorably.

And the public support which I said Uber has "bought" is, as I noted, "legitimately real" - they just fed skewed information to the public, which is not a bribe.

(They do give lots of loss-leader promotional incentives to make people use and like their service, but we usually categorize that as marketing and not bribery without elements that are absent here.)

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

#248

Post by stevehawk » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #92

djstein wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago and DC

DC Metro is having issues on par with NYC's. The cause is likely the same; improper maintenance.

But they are also heavily investing in expanding it (recently opened silver line) . Dc is banking heavily on the future of that rail where NYC seems to have quit caring entirely.

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

#249

Post by davidgay » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

dyarosla wrote: post #240

jkaplowitz wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent, but most of the conversational focus regarding spending targets the taxi lobby - one of many widespread biases in which some bits of the for-hire transportation debate get more frequently talked about…

You are definitely coming off as biased which to me is strange. Maybe Uber isn’t a saint of a company, but thinking that bribery is somehow morally equivalent to advertising (whatever the multiple) is very odd.

What's the moral difference between political ads and donations to a political campaign which will presumably spend that money on ads (or other campaign related expenses)?

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

#250

Post by jkaplowitz » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 2:01 AM UTC

euyyn wrote: post #239

jkaplowitz wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent, but most of the conversational focus regarding spending targets the taxi lobby - one of many widespread biases in which some bits of the for-hire transportation debate get more frequently talked about…

Who cares how much money they spend on public ads? On the other hand, it's easy to understand why people care about how much money is donated to the campaigns of the politicians that will make these decisions.

There's no legal problem with them spending as much on ads as they want, of course.

But if public opinion is mobilized as a weapon through very selective presentation of the issues in ads, in a disproportionate way that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. The public can't react in their own interests if they don't have the right facts, so then polls will legitimately show what the company wants, by and large.

Roughly the same problem arises if they fund a heavy "lobby your elected officials" campaign, targeted only at their supporters, with no equivalent resources mobilizing those who disagree - and indeed they did this.