Milwaukee City Council Proposal Would Pave Way For Uber, Lyft

New submitter rjune (123157) writes with some rare positive news from the online ride-sharing world, specifically from Milwaukee. "Ald. Robert Bauman is drafting a proposed ordinance that, if approved by the Common Council, would change the way public passenger vehicles are regulated and licensed. The proposal, expected to be outlined on Friday before the Common Council's Public Transportation Review Board, not only lifts the cap on taxicab vehicle perimits but accommodates new smartphone app services such as Uber and Lyft. Both Uber and Lyft are already in the marketplace." I wish that the cities I spend the most time in would do the same, but they've been busily protecting the local cartels, instead.

Comments

that's a nice city you got there.

[turkeydance]

it would be a shame.......

Busy protecting the cartels?

[rahvin112]

Busy protecting the cartels

I see this argument all the time but for the most part there is little substance behind it. Most cities are only trying to ensure that some basic rules are being followed. Like background checks on the drivers, that the cars are maintained and insured with commercial drivers insurance and that the drivers aren't driving 18 hours a day.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the drivers for Lyft and Uber are doing so with their regular non-commercial insurance (which won't cover a damn thing once they find out they were) and are driving significantly more hours than allowed and that at least some of those drivers are able to drive so long because they are taking amphetamines (just like truckers do that drive those kind of hours).

Outside placed like New York these taxi commissions are charged with protecting the public from taxi drivers that have a dozen rape convictions, taxi's that haven't seen a mechanic in 20 years and drivers running around hopped up on speed driving 36 hours straight. The vast majority of these commissions are only interested in these public safety objectives and Uber and Lyft don't give a damn about. The few places they've been threatened with the same rules and expenses they drop the market because they can't make money, which is frankly understandable because in competitive taxi markets (ie almost anywhere outside NY and DC) the margins are razor thin and Uber/Lyft can only make money because they don't do the checks everyone else has to.

Re:Busy protecting the cartels?

[rjune]

There is some substance behind the charge that the current system favors the cartels. The Institute for Justice, https://ij.org/milwaukee-taxis... has some interesting background on this. The current system freezes all newcomers out of the market and gives the current (limited by law) permit holders a monopoly. The present system has been ruled unconstitutional: http://www.jsonline.com/news/m... The ordinance as drafted: "The proposal requires permits for all public passenger vehicles, and all vehicles must be inspected. In addition there are penalties for operating a public passenger vehicle without a permit and driving a public passenger vehicle without a license." so public safety is protected. Lyft and Uber could require drivers offering rides to have the proper licensing. These services aren't going to go away, its time to completely legitimize them.

Re:Busy protecting the cartels?

[AK Marc]

I see this argument all the time but for the most part there is little substance behind it.

Depends on how you define "cartel". I've lived places where the number of medallions was not set by the city, but by those who own medallions. The only way to make new medallions is for the current owners to vote in new ones. And they *never* do. That meets every definition of "cartel" I know, and isn't a silly conspiracy theory as you postulate.

Re:Busy protecting the cartels?

[rahvin112]

There is substance to it in some locations. NY and DC are prime examples of a protected marketplace where the regulators and taxi companies are in collusion to limit competition. In these market the regulator isn't a regulator anymore, they are part and parcel of enforcing monopolies for the benefit of the existing taxi services. This is the reason NY medallions are so expensive.

But have you considered that in some markets those limits have a place in some markets. Limited markets had problems in the past with too many taxi's driving everyone out of business. This happened because too many people and companies put taxi's on the road, the result was far more taxi's than there was demand and ultimately driving all of them out of business. It also resulted in a bunch of the taxi's cutting corners in ways that put the public at risk.

I'm all for leveling the playing field and bringing these internet taxi services into the fold but that means they obey the same regulations as everyone else. I don't want my wife killed by some Uber or Lyft driver that's been driving for 30 hours and fell asleep at the wheel nor do I want convicted rapists out there driving cars in a taxi service hunting for new victims. Most of the municipal taxi regulations throughout the country are good regulations, we shouldn't be painting the entire country with the incompetence seen in NY's regulator and demanding an end to sensible regulations where the regulator isn't in the pocket of the taxi companies.

Re:Busy protecting the cartels?

[nbauman]

There is some substance behind the charge that the current system favors the cartels. The Institute for Justice, https://ij.org/milwaukee-taxis... has some interesting background on this.

In New York City, there were good reasons to limit the number of taxis. If we had twice the number of taxis, we would have bumper-to-bumper traffic jams during the rush hours, and nobody could use the streets. Taxi drivers are using a government resource -- the streets. The owner of those streets has a right to regulate the use of those streets in a way that maximizes their use. The owner of a private gated village has a regulate the use of cars on its streets.

Free markets don't always work, particularly when they use a common resource. It's called the tragedy of the commons.

Insurance?

[rsilvergun]

How will they regulate insurance? Professional drivers carry different (and more) insurance.

Also, has anyone given a thought to supply and demand? There was just a story that said people weren't doing this out of love or entrepreneurial, but out of desperation (thanks! 30 years of declining wages). One of the other reasons to limit the supply of cabbies is so somebody can make a living off it. I suppose it's OK that we're all working 4 jobs 16 hours a day too though...

Re:Dear Timothy

[AK Marc]

So getting into a car with a Uber driver with lots of good feedback is more risky than getting in an average cab? I don't think you've been many places or taken many cabs.

Re:Dear Timothy

[Noah Haders]

you're referring to uber drivers or taxi drivers? because uber and lyft take care of these.

1) there's a background check process when you sign up.
2) the user rates the driver 1-5 after every interaction, and you can provide feedback with every rating like dirty car, bad routing etc.

the other thing is that uber and lyft have 100% control over whether a driver works or is cut off. I'm sure if people complain about low-profit routes or extortion they would be "fired". I've never heard concern about working too many hours in a day, but presumably uber or lyft can cut the drivers off after a certain number hours if it became a problem.

I find the whole system to work really well.

Re:Dear Timothy

[ArmoredDragon]

Those services are no better than hitchhiking since there is no vetting of the driver. Insurance won't stop you from being taken to the woods, beaten, raped, robbed and murdered (not necessarily in that order)

Sorry but that's a load of crap. Regulated cab drivers have done all of these things.

These services offer the advantage of making that less likely to happen than with a regulated driver for a few reasons:

1) There's a pretty clear cut record of the fact that your last known activity was getting in a taxi via Lyft or Uber, regardless of payment method.
2) There's a well established identity of the person who is driving you (if they are a veteran to the service, they will have numerous ratings.)
3) Both you AND the driver are carrying smartphones that are metering how far you've gone, which means a third party is also tracking your movement and has a very good way for the authorities to trace your last steps.
4) You made your destination clear to a third party before going for a ride, and if your driver significantly strays from that destination at the time that something happened to you, then he's got some splainin' to do.

These safety features don't exist with a traditional taxi. The few that do (e.g. calling the cab company and telling them to pick you up) don't carry any kind of audit mechanism (with Lyft and Uber, there are six audit sources that should match up 100% of the time, so there's no possibility of any two parties conspiring against a third.)

Sorry but your concerns are not legitimate. It's just a tired old argument to keep an already protectionist racket in place. The city governments won't listen to any of the four points I made though because they WANT to have an oligopoly that they can suck more money from. If its tax revenue they need, then just make it a fucking tax instead of making it hell to be able to get a ride without owning your own car. It's not as if they couldn't tax these services (they already plan on regulating them out of the market, whereas simply taxing them would be a lot easier to do.)

Re:Dear Timothy

[ArmoredDragon]

Drivers deliberately taking sub-optimal routes to run up the meter.

Apparently you've never ridden in a taxi before.

That aside, both the passenger and the driver are aware of the optimal route. The client did schedule the route on their smartphone you know, the same kind of smartphone that already has the optimal route calculated, and the source and destination are already known before the driver even picks them up, so your number 4 and 5 are completely moot, and essentially just pulled out of your ass.

Guess who does those things though? The already existing taxi drivers.

Lyft also screens both drivers and passengers, by the way (criminal and DMV) and both the driver and passenger rate one another. Regular taxis offer no such service.

um...

[Charliemopps]

So I don't know if any of you live near Milwaukee... But I do... In Wisconsin an "Alderman" is the absolutely lowest elected public office there is. 3 of my neighbors have been Alderman. People just vote for whomever they know. They don't even know what their policies are... not that it matters, they have no power. An Alderman riding to work on his recumbent bike and introducing some hair brained scheme that will never even remotely be considered is about as common here as cows. How is this news?

Re:um...

[haaz]

Milwaukee alders are very powerful in their community and on the city council. What's different here is that Milwaukee is the largest city in the state. It's the state's economic driver. So what happens here has resonance.

What may not be so different is that here, the taxi scene is dominated by one company with a de facto monopoly made possible by previous city action. Ald. Bauman is interested in expanding the choices available to consumers. Hence this action.

I serve on the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. That body has been maligned so many times it's not funny. One of my colleagues was just elected as an alderman. But that's another story.

Meanwhile, I've got this open data resolution that I'm working on...

Re:Dear Timothy

[ShanghaiBill]

Insurance won't stop you from being taken to the woods, beaten, raped, robbed and murdered (not necessarily in that order)...

How is that different from a taxi? Is the taxi medallion going to protect you? When I use Lyft, at least I can read the driver's reviews, and see what others experienced. When I get in a taxi, I know nothing.

Sign, "protecting cartels"

[ddtstudio]

Yes, and cities also ask private and Uber cars to stop at red lights and stop signs. And obey the speed limit signs. And small and large companies to follow published pollution, hiring, and health & safety regulations.

If you can't make your smartphone-enabled car service make a profit while following the same public, published, long-established safety and other regulations that taxi companies have to and found a way to follow, to all our benefits, then maybe you should rethink things. At least don't whine about it.

"What do you mean, _I_ can't own a slave? You're stifling innovation! And my business model didn't account for paying salaries!"

Here in milwaukee...

[Alien7]

I've lived here in Milwaukee on and off for the last decade or so, and I can tell you right now this is the right decision for our town. Milwaukee is a city whose economy is entirely based on alcohol, that being said we have had awful cab service for as long as I've lived here. All summer long drunks flood the street for this festival and that festival, and every weekend the wait for a cab is frequently over an hour, sometimes it takes 20 or 30 minutes just to get on the phone with a dispatcher. Seeing as how the underfunded and overpriced bus system stops running an hour before bar close what we end up with is a plague of drunk drivers. Our cab companies have failed to provide us with the proper service we need (presumably because of the cost of keeping up an unused fleet in the winter months) , Uber gave the city an alternative and we made sure nothing would impede the solution to our problems.