Slashdot Mirror
New York City May Cap the Number of Uber, Lyft Vehicles On Its Streets (engadget.com)
New York City may become the first major U.S. city to cap the number of Uber and other ride-sharing vehicles on the road. According to Engadget, "The City Council is looking at proposed legislation that would largely freeze the issuance of ridesharing vehicle licenses while officials work on a year-long study of the cars' effects." Wheelchair-accessible vehicles would be exempt from any cap. From the report: This wouldn't be the first time the city tried a cap -- it abandoned an attempt in 2015. There's greater pressure to consider a limit this time, though. NYC now has over 100,000 ride-hailing cars (up from 63,000 back in 2015), and a string of suicides by both ridesharing and taxi drivers has raised questions about working conditions that can include low pay, long hours and poor compensation for time off. On top of the cap, the Council is looking at raising minimum pay and otherwise regulating on-demand transportation services. NYC is concerned that the growth of ridesharing is coming at the expense of drivers' well-being (regardless of who they work for), and it's unlikely to back down until it's satisfied these workers are receiving fair treatment. Uber argues the cap would "leave New Yorkers stranded" without solving issues like congestion, taxi medallion ownership and mass transit. It claimed it would hinder passengers who live outside of Manhattan and don't have reliable alternatives to cabs or public transportation. The company even posted a commercial underscoring how difficult it was for some residents to hail taxis.
Normal cabs are already capped by the limited number of taxi medallions that are out there.
Real cabs are already capped you stupid retard.
City streets can only handle a certain amount of traffic before becoming a congested mess.
If you are for street neutrality, you support this congested mess!
Legal cabs are limited by the number of taxi licenses, known as medallions. A New York can medallion sells for about $500,000, because that's how limited the supply is.
We can. Different taxi companies all compete with each other.
Well, we better make sure to get cap the ridesharing, then, before the streets of New York get congested for the first time ever in history.
#inconvenientfacts
Sure they do. Suuure they do. Just like how the cable companies "compete" with each other, and the phone companies "compete" with each other, and the healthcare insurers "compete" with each other.
Is it impossible to contemplate letting the free market work?
The pay is shit and drives are suiciding? Well, people KEEP SIGNING UP TO DRIVE, don't they? If it's that bad, and it's just that they're stupid, let them fucking suffer the consequences of their choices.
Seriously, I keep hearing people discussing about how free-market economics doesn't really work anymore...of course it doesn't. Capitalism only succeeds by failures, in the same sense evolution advances from death. Protect people and companies from failure, and that's not capitalism.
-Styopa
Imagine how bad it would be with 10000 more yellow cabs on the road.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You know the NY City Council is 92% Democratic and 8% Republican, right?
Pretty sure the anti-Uber/Lyft crowd are the Democratic members, not the 4 Republicans on the council. That would be indicated by this effort being led by the Democratic Speaker of the City Council, Corey Johnson and the Democratic Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
It doesn't seem much of a contradiction for the Republicans to be the pro-free market Party on both the issues you mentioned and the Democratic Party to be the anti-free market Party on both of them.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
The city sets the rules. The rules are there will be a limited number of cabs and the price will be fixed.
Cab companies compete as they can within that framework.
If we no longer need that framework, just cancel it. We don't need a two tiers system with some companies allowed not to respect the framework. And Uber is a taxi company, despite what they pretend to be.
The goal of this policy like others worldwide is volume restriction for pollution reduction and traffic control. Whether a car is a taxi or one of these private taxi services claimed as ride-share services, its exhaust creates air pollution. Even if it is electric, there is air pollution created at the utility. Wasting energy is a waste. Cities also have finite areas meaning traffic must be managed. Access for emergency vehicles must be ensured.
If we don't want the city to regulate this, we can elect politicians who will dismiss the regulation. I have no problem with that.
But until then, Uber should have to buy medallion like every other cab company.
It's regulated because there can only be so many cars on the road. I think that has already been covered.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Maybe they should just build more tubes.
If we don't want the city to regulate this, we can elect politicians who will dismiss the regulation. I have no problem with that.
But until then, Uber should have to buy medallion like every other cab company.
Do you have no problem with that because you don't care, or because you think they should be able to do that? Because defending the law simply because it is the law is a hole you don't want to go down.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wouldn't being told they are not allowed to work due to the cap be bad as well? Instead of making crap pay, make none! (though with poor pay I can see working for Uber in NYC being negative income....)
I do care. I'm fine with both options (regulate or not) but what I can't stand is a two tiered system where some taxi drivers have to buy medallions and/or get special plate/permit and others do not.
The only part of that which is non-free market and thus unfair is the medallion system. That part is anticompetitive, and it's the part we should be complaining about. The state might reasonably institute a background check system (with an at-cost fee structure) but these half million dollar medallions are bs. If the city wants to unclog the streets they can unfuck the subway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because when you get the medallion you agree to provide service 24/7 in all areas at reasonable fixed prices. With Uber/Lyft you might not get anyone to want to pick you up from where you are, or surge pricing will make it cost way more.
Well, we better make sure to get cap the ridesharing, then, before the streets of New York get congested for the first time ever in history.
It used to be a lot worse. You know what the city did to fix it? Capped the number of taxis.
They're not taking proper care of the tubes they've got.
Why should the city dictate this crap? This is just pointless and excessive regulation for the point of regulation. Why is there a limit on cabs, other than to create a market for medallions or limit a core commodity to just a few?
Because before they did, there were way too many taxis. And not just "traffic is a little slower" too many taxis, but literally drivers racing each other to get to a person standing on the sidewalk. Cities like New York decided that limiting the number of taxis was a fair tradeoff for reducing the number of collisions and fist fights.
Spare us the foolishness; anyone with a brain is aware of the history of collusion between mob-owned/controlled cab companies and the corrupt bureaucracies that tend to control city governments. Historically, it's been the same with trash-hauling and concrete.
The last few times I used Lyft, I clicked on "Shared Ride". The driver picked up other passengers enroute, and I received a 30% discount. By doubling up (or tripling up) passengers, they are reducing congestion more than taxis.
Because when you get the medallion you agree to provide service 24/7 in all areas at reasonable fixed prices.
Taxis are under no obligation to provide service 24/7. Nor are they required to "serve all areas". Uber has shown that taxis' "fixed prices" are far above the market price.
Neither is opposing government regulation simply because it is regulation.
Why should the city dictate this crap?
Because the old style of taxi service competition used to involve bodies floating in the East River.
Have gnu, will travel.
To discover if drivers are fairly treated the city only needs a written form from each driver every week. If hours or earnings are too low the city can fine the companies. The city is getting involved for some other reasons. After all, government is rarely concerned about the health of wealth of the working guy.
I agree. Tell today's so-called "kids" that before Uber came along your options were to stay at home or walk and they just won't believe you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Surely taxi prices are, by definition, the market price?
Or are you using the dickhead definition, which is "what I think it should be"?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Because defending the law simply because it is the law is a hole you don't want to go down.
Neither is opposing government regulation simply because it is regulation.
So what? That's not what's happening here. I oppose this regulation because it is bad regulation. Taxi licensing (whether medallion-based or not, whether severely scarce or not) does not accomplish any of the things it allegedly accomplishes. Not a single one of them. It does not prevent crime by taxi drivers, it does not ensure that cabs are in good condition, and it does not prevent traffic congestion.
What I want the government to do is to provide functional public transportation options, with substantial operator oversight. That would accomplish all of those things. Instead, they have an artificial scarcity system which both drives up the price and limits the availability of public transportation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry, I meant to say "they should just build more series of tubes."
Again.. no reference. These are conspiracy theories.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Glad I never lived in mega city where I couldn't safely just ride my bike or gasp, buy a used car for a couple grand and be on my way. You don't have to work that much to maintain a paid off car with liability insurance, even as a young adult. You buy in at 2-3k for the car, insurance is 100-$150 a month and fuel is whatever you use.
That's incredibly doable if you are a teenager living at home working part time. If you have half way useful parents, they would probably help you out at least partially with the car purchase. If you can't afford $150 plus fuel then you aren't trying.
Same liberal/socialists who *always* think they can improve situations by limiting people's freedom to do what they want to do.
So the streets are congested? Ok ... What else did you expect when you have a city that heavily populated in that relatively small amount of space? It's part of the package deal if you want to live in a place like that.
There's a good chance that every Uber or Lyft driver out there helps DECREASE congestion, vs. all of those people they take around opting to drive themselves. (A lot of people in large cities decide not to own an automobile at all, as long as they have enough transit options to make that doable.) If an Uber or Lyft or regular cab is too difficult to hail down ASAP, where you need it? It tends to motivate people to buy their own vehicles. Same thing if scarcity runs the prices up enough so you may as well just buy and drive your own.
I can see you regularly needing transportation, especially to and from parties.
What with you being such an utter fucking hoot and all that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ok, but in this case all parties are NOT able to act according to their own interests. If the Uber/Lyft drivers could set their prices do you not think they would set them higher to better fit a NYC cost of living? Or maybe they'd underbid eachother and make rides even cheaper? We don't' know because this is not a real Free Market. It's the NYC Taxi forced prices vs. the Uber/Lyft corporate forced price.
you are forgetting two important parts:
-the pollution
-the roads
Uber drivers don't pay their faire share for either.