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

Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 327 posts

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#301

Post by habosa »

nitwit005 wrote: post #177
habosa wrote: post #160

The congestion caused by Uber and Lyft in SF is bad . It's not because of the number of cars on the road, although that's certainly something, it's because of how those cars behave. Ubers and Lyfts pull over at unpredictable spots (wherever the app says to) and then just throw on their flashers. It doesn't matter if they're blocking a lane in rush hour they just stop. I will never for my life understand why an Uber o…

All the delivery services park illegally as well. For a long time I assumed they had some sort of exemption because it was so common. They just eat the tickets as cost of doing business.

I think more often they just don't get the tickets. I've had Uber and Lyft drivers complain to me about tickets they got and it seems like they were paying out of pocket for them and it was a very huge and noticeable expense.

Pretty sure one $200 ticket can wipe out 2-4 days of hard driving profits.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#302

Post by 100ideas »

adventured wrote: post #165
reaperducer wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuel tax revenue and other direct user fees like annual registration in California amount to less than 25% of what the state and its cities pay to maintain the roads and streets. Roads are massively subsidized from general revenues. Which is why I always laugh when I hear people complaining about evil subsidized high-speed rail in America. That's just talking points from the airline and trucking industries, which are…

The problem with the US and high-speed rail isn't on-going subsidization per se, it's the comically enormous cost to initially build it out. Major infrastructure is wildly expensive to build in much of the US. To do national high-speed rail, you'd have to figure that out. The only solution I've ever seen that might work, would be a belligerent Federal Government that just brutalizes anyone that gets in the way, threa…

Florida already did - gobrightline.com. Private rail linking west palm beach with Miami, expansion plans to Orlando.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#303

Post by kbos87 »

jak92 wrote: post #281
kbos87 wrote: post #65

Amen. Uber and Lyft are adding congestion to our roads and undermining public transportation, all while profiting off public infrastructure and a class of driver “partners” who incur all of the costs for a razor thin upside. Id like to see the start of a state owned rideshare network with specially zoned drop off, pick up, and lane privileges that Uber and Lyft don’t get access to.

> Id like to see the start of a state owned rideshare network You mean a bus.

Buses yes, but the market has asserted that buses serve a pretty different use case vs. door to door car service.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#304

Post by kbos87 »

kmlx wrote: post #253
kbos87 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying they need to deliver a better service. I’m saying they should meet the current status quo, and use their regulatory power to make Uber and Lyft’s services inferior.

if your purpose is to make people hate politicians and government even more than they do now, then this would be a good way to do it. but this idea that somehow the state/government knows better is very condescending.

I’m not saying they know better. I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built any real competitive moat. Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system.

Also - why instantly criticize government for “knowing better”? Any entrepreneur starting a business in an existing space is doing the same thing, and they’d likely be celebrated.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#305

Post by anth_anm »

burlesona wrote: post #2

This doesn’t fundamentally change the supply and demand problem in LA, which is a city built entirely for cars and nowhere near the road capacity for everyone to be able to make all the car trips they would like to. For cities that want people to be able to get around AND for the roads to be relatively uncontested, the only reasonable solution is to lower demand by raising the cost of driving - ie. significant conges…

If you raise the cost of driving without a vastly improved public transit option, you're just putting in more regressive taxes on the middle class.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#306

Post by twblalock »

kbos87 wrote: post #254
twblalock wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the private market provides a service at a fair price, and consumers like it, why should the city try to duplicate it? It would be a waste of taxpayer money for the city government to try to clone a business that is doing just fine already.

Why draw an artificial line between cities and private markets? Innovation isn’t the exclusive domain of for profit companies. Part of the reason why we end up in these situations where public utilities are in such an embarrassing state is that we don’t expect or allow them to innovate, even down what is now a well proven pathway.

It's not an artificial line because of stuff like this, which you mentioned:

> specially zoned drop off, pick up, and lane privileges that Uber and Lyft don’t get access to

There are clear differences between the state and private businesses. The state can make laws to prevent private businesses from competing with it, can grant monopolies, etc.

The state is not operated for profit, and the profit motive is the only reason things like Uber and Lyft exist -- the state never would have thought to create something like that.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#307

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

sokoloff wrote: post #298
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty obvious. Uber is more convenient and it comes directly to your home. People will pay more for that, which is why it probably shouldn’t be so cheap as to make public transit easy to dismiss, especially when that pricing structure encourages more cars on the road with only 1-2 people in them and the negatives that go along with it (more carbon usage, more cars idling in traffic, more road damage, more p…

So, rather than examining if there are ways to make public transport more convenient, appealing, and competitive, the only solution is to make private transport less appealing?

I didn't say that, but maybe it should be a combination of both. Which is why some cities are partnering with Uber/Lyft to do the last mile part (to the home), but using public transit for the bulk of it.

I do think you really have to question an economic model where Uber/Lyft have clobbered cabs using an unsustainable VC-funded model that will eventually run out and substantially increase cost to the end-user.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#308

Post by sokoloff »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #307
sokoloff wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, rather than examining if there are ways to make public transport more convenient, appealing, and competitive, the only solution is to make private transport less appealing?

I didn't say that, but maybe it should be a combination of both. Which is why some cities are partnering with Uber/Lyft to do the last mile part (to the home), but using public transit for the bulk of it. I do think you really have to question an economic model where Uber/Lyft have clobbered cabs using an unsustainable VC-funded model that will eventually run out and substantially increase cost to the end-user.

I think they're likely profitable in the cities where they've achieved scale. Specifically, I suspect that Uber (and Uber drivers) in the Boston/Cambridge market (where I live) are making a net profit overall.

Drivers who drive full time can afford to pay for the car expenses (variable and fixed). Drivers who drive part time are able to cover the variable costs (and they already had their fixed costs anyway). Uber is probably not losing money in Boston. If all three of those things are true, Uber is sustainable in Boston.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#309

Post by Dylan16807 »

imtringued wrote: post #267
Dylan16807 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance. Then many trucks could be adjusted to have more axles and lighter loads, saving money on both ends. The end result is a better system.

Is this some kind of joke? If the taxes already cover 25% of the expenses then adding 1000x on top means you would tax 249 times more than you need. To make it fair you first have to give truck fuel an adequate tax (so it covers 100%) and then divide this tax by 1000 for light vehicles.

If you think it's a joke you're taking the words far too literally.

"like 1000 times more" is not a full proposal. Yes you would reduce car taxes appropriately. Yes you would figure out the actual amount to balance the budget.

Re: Taxing Uber and Lyft rides is L.A's latest plan to free up congested roads

#310

Post by [deleted] »

alkibiades wrote: post #199
integrate-this wrote: post #88

I'm a LA resident. People in this city like to talk about congestion as though they see it as a problem, but they don't actually see it as a problem. Only people in the valley see it as a problem because there are limited choke points into and out of LA proper which keep people from getting to work. LA's limited transportation infrastructure prevents DTLA's homeless from getting to Beverly Hills, Long Beach's gang-re…

if those rails were built, those ghettos would be gentrified so quick.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN