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

Post by mjevans » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 8:23 PM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #71

Waterluvian wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cab driving is a low skill job, which is why it's so important that proper competition can exist. My first ever Uber driver had water bottles and gum and even throw pillows and a blanket in the back. He was in a suit. He was really polite and all that. Because he's looking for 5 star rankings. Dump all taxi drivers into the same market as this guy and they'll have to improve or be pushed out of business when they get…

Yeah, I think discussions like this one tend to focus on price, which is certainly one of the benefits Uber and Lyft bring to the table, but certainly not the only one. I typically travel for business, so I don't care about the price so much. Uber/Lyft are great because they provide a much better experience . I hate cabs because of all the friction: rude drivers imposing their personal preferences upon me, often ille…

Post by fcbrooklyn » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 8:30 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #87

fcbrooklyn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, that's a good one. I had a guy take his seatbelt off, and try to tell me that the dinging I was hearing was an alarm about oil pressure. The only sympathy I have for the yellow cabs is that the city screwed them with those pricey medallions, the city should refund a substantial portion of the money.

I'm not so sure the city was selling them for that much, although I don't know the list price. The artificially limited supply was causing the secondary market to skyrocket. So the stories of $1m medallions were usually rich guys or corporations that already owned a bunch of medallions. Most of the drivers out there don't own their own medallion, they just pay a lease fee to the medallion owner.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 8:38 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #77

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those 2.7m cars don't spend 10+ hours driving each day No, they spend 10+ hours parked on two sides of my narrow street.

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.

Post by npongratz » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 8:45 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #12

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #5

Before becoming mayor, de Blasio lived here in Park Slope. I guess he never used these yellow cabs he’s so interested in preserving because getting one to go to Brooklyn from Manhattan is fucking impossible. Seriously, everything about yellow cab service is worse. Why don’t they buy back the medallions instead?

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).

Post by schuyler2d » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

jamiequint wrote: post #24

Daishiman wrote: post #15

I'm sorry but everyone here is completely ignoring the congestion arguments, which like it or not, are actually very valid, just as much as the race to the bottom and long-term unsustainably low prices. I dislike yellow cabs as much as the next guy but street space is definitely a limited resource and not being regulated in a healthy manner.

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)