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

31–40 of 303 posts

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

#31

Post by bumholio »

wpietri wrote: post #16
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…

Congestion pricing is generally politically unpopular in that it trades clear price increases and the attendant hassle around charging for hazy-sounding benefits. At least until it's implemented, anyhow. Once people see congestion drastically reduced, it becomes more popular: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/12/06/for-politicians-conge... It also pretty obviously favors the rich, which is not a big vote-getter.

> It also pretty obviously favors the rich, which is not a big vote-getter.

In many ways, a congested city works like a income-adjusted congestion tax, where you pay with your time. Since the time of rich people is more valuable, the burden seems "fair". The only problem is that the time is wasted, no tax is collected.

Maybe we should accept that political reality and setup income adjusted congestion taxes, putting the revenue to work to ease congestion for everybody.

Another option is to disburse a limited, equal number of "tradable driving hours" to each citizen regardless of income. You now have a market that eficiently allocates the limited public resource, allowing poor or thrifty citizens to earn tax credits, while allowing rich drivers to pay a fixed rate for each driving hour exceeding their allocation.

It's good politics, bad economics - but still much better than wasting millions of man hours each day.

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

#32

Post by tomjakubowski »

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…

> So far, the city has proposed more water taxis as the primary solution to handle rerouting the 300k daily riders.

I don't understand what your complaint is. Not every L train ride crosses the river (I'll concede at least half probably do, though). MTA is also adding supplemental bus and train service. Do you think they should instead allow ride share to fill the gap? If so, I have doubts the city's geometry (particularly on the Manhattan end) would permit enough cars on the streets to support 300k additional trips, especially since they are likely concentrated around morning/evening rush hours.

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

#33

Post by chlvsl »

dionidium wrote: post #18
CPLX wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

This is the most common objection, but it's not a very strong one, for at least two reasons: 1. There's no reason we couldn't provide exceptions for the kinds of vans and trucks that blue-collar workers need to drive into the city to make their livings. 2. There's no reason we couldn't offer income-based exceptions to people who absolutely cannot ride transit for this or that reason. As in all proposals to ration som…

If we start to allow those who can't afford the congestion pricing to get a discount on congestion pricing, do we really have congestion pricing? Or just a new proportional-to-income "driving tax" in addition to state, county, and city taxes?

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

#34

Post by asah »

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.

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

#35

Post by sbuttgereit »

Is this title really fair?

"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."

While yes, this does impact Uber, it also impacts Lyft, etc.

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

#36

Post by lqdc13 »

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…

There is lots of corruption and bureaucracy and lawsuit-avoidance driven construction. Right now the cost of constructing subway stations in NYC is the highest in the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

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

#38

Post by moorhosj »

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…

==NYC is one of the few (like 2, maybe 3) America cities with an actual usable rail system==

Interested to hear what the other cities are. Chicago? San Fran?

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

#39

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> the cab drivers who are hurting because they provide an inferior service to a clientele who now have better options

This is a bill for bail out medallion owners, not cab drivers. Most NYC taxi medallions are corporate owned.

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

#40

Post by jeffreyrogers »

test6554 wrote: post #27
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.

It doesn't solve the congestion problem though since lots of drivers are on the road for other reasons.
Post reply on HN