|
Radbot posted:Then you request a fare review from within the app, and your card is credited if they took a suboptimal route. Doesn't help with your lost time, but it's miles better than riding with a scamming cabbie. I thought UberX fares were preset based on distance and the uber app route. An uber cabbie shouldn't be able to adjust the rate since he's not even paid directly by the fare.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Exactly how many people out there don't have a cellphone at this point? People fresh off an airport from another country is one example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:They really aren't though. Again, NYC has issued more taxi medallions in the past, at best it was a wash and at wort it actually increased congestion. Do you think that might have something to do with the value of medallions generating incentives to utilize them 24-7, while cities without artificial limits have much lower utilization of any given cab license, leading to cabs using the road less and in ways that are less likely to generate congestion since the opportunity cost of not employing the license is much much lower? Oh god, I just read that paper you linked - he generates his "40x worse" by comparing average taxi mileage per day (113) to average private car mileage per day (3) without ever acknowledging taxi mileage is spread out over time while private car mileage is more clustered into the rush hour timeframe. It's a terrible analysis, which explains why it produces estimates at odds with the data (which says that traffic stayed the same last time they sold more medallions, which matches up with the traffic engineering rule of thumb that adding lanes or adding trips won't affect traffic on any given road but rather affects substitution to other paths.). It's not an expert traffic analysis at all - that dude is an "energy economist" and it shows in the way he analyzes traffic. Kalman fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:They really aren't though. Again, we've tested what happens when you issue more taxi medallions, it's at best a wash and at worse it actually increased congestion. "Medallions" themselves are licenses to pick up passengers that made much more sense when cities had to physically limit the amount of horses on the road because of horse poo poo and/or the guys with whips fighting each other. Issuing more of them might cause more congestion issues if the question is about allowing more cabs that randomly patrol around a city looking for fares to pick up, but the point should be for the cab to magically appear when someone needs a ride and not roll around polluting the air and doing nothing when no one does, which sounds like a perfect job for a smartphone app.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Adar posted:
Is that how Uber drivers operate, though? I totally believe it increases utilization over traditional taxis by dispatching them to fares, but I suspect a fair amount of time is spent driving around waiting for a fare. I wonder if they've released any actual utilization rates anywhere. quote:This driver says his average utilization per hour is roughly 44 percent. So for every mile he drives per hour, only 44 percent those miles actually earn him money. http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/how-much-do-uber-drivers-really-make/2189259
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:I thought UberX fares were preset based on distance and the uber app route. An uber cabbie shouldn't be able to adjust the rate since he's not even paid directly by the fare. Nope, they're based on pickup fee + distance fee + time fee. They don't need to use the navigation within the Uber app, in fact there wasn't navigation (or a suggested route) within the Uber driver app itself until recently. Also keep in mind that you don't need to enter your destination into the app at any point, so a pre-set fare could never be calculated. Except it's not like you're just driving around aimlessly when you don't have a fare - good drivers either park it and wait for a fare or drive back to a hotspot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I find the UberX drivers to be completely incompetent at not driving in the wrong direction. How do they compare to cab drivers there? In Boston my uberx drivers tend to know where they're going way more often than cabbies do
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Why it's almost as if some kind of a balance is needed. Now if only we had some way to have some taxicabs, but not too many. I know, we could sell permits! Limiting the number of taxis on the roads may be a reasonable public policy goal, but why do taxi companies get to absorb the rents from the medallions just because they were there first? If you want to cap the number of taxis on the road, make the medallions last a year (or three) and auction them off with all proceeds going to the municipal government. Or impose a tax on taxi services to bring down the supply. This is the same nonsense that comes out of cap and trade - companies who are already big polluters are subsidized as a result of having been irresponsible in the past, while new competitors have an extra cost imposed on them. It's not a surprise when these schemes emerge (corruption and corporate welfare at the expense of consumers? well I never!), but why in the world would anyone but a taxi company executive (or a power company executive in the cap and trade analogy) support it? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Why is the thread even talking about medallions? The only thing I can find about UberX and medallions is this, where even the medallion owning companies that are against uber say that UberX should be regulated as a car service, not like a yellow cab. Car services (AFAIK) do not require medallions at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Riptor posted:How do they compare to cab drivers there? In Boston my uberx drivers tend to know where they're going way more often than cabbies do Much worse in my experience. Cab drivers (or even regular Uber drivers) are pretty good about getting me to where I need to go without any problems. Sometimes if it's a weird location in the middle of nowhere they'll ask me for directions, but I'd say 60% of the time I get in an uberx to go from one major location to another, they get confused and pull out the GPS and ask for the street address or they'll ask me how to get there. And NW dc is a grid, so there's not really an excuse. And obviously I'd rather they use the gps or ask me than get lost or go the wrong way, which has happened, but if this is your job, you should be able to find a cross street.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:without ever acknowledging taxi mileage is spread out over time while private car mileage is more clustered into the rush hour timeframe. No, he's actually using a transportation model that's been used for over 50 years. He is indeed taking into account both location and timing of taxicab hails. The "as much congestion as 40 cars" is just an approximation that doesn't play into his analysis. Again, this is you thinking you're qualified to perform traffic analysis, when so far as I know your specialty is interpreting the runes of patent law. If you have a source that states additional taxicab medallions would reduce congestion, cite it, otherwise you're just nitpicking like a climate denier. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Why is the thread even talking about medallions? The only thing I can find about UberX and medallions is this, where even the medallion owning companies that are against uber say that UberX should be regulated as a car service, not like a yellow cab. Car services (AFAIK) do not require medallions at all. Price of cab rides vs price of uber rides as I mentioned in my original post
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Why is the thread even talking about medallions? Look at the third word in the title. Taxis are part of the discussion, because one of the points is how Uber does/doesn't differ from a taxi and how that affects things. Why do we want to regulate taxis differently from car services? How do these different regulations change things? Is Uber's advantage from ignoring regulation or a better product? Since medallions are an important part of taxi regulation in many cities, medallions are naturally going to be part of the conversation. My "ban taxis, Uber only!" suggestion was tongue in cheek, because there probably is a place for some amount of street hailed transportation, but in thinking about what that amount might be it helps to think about how taxis operate and how taxi regulations affect those operating structures. As I have pointed out several times, one reason DC hasn't really developed an oligopolistic taxicab market like the ones in medallion cities is because the barrier to entry is very low in comparison to medallion cities. This has other follow on effects (quality of service in DC tends to be less consistent, cabbies are more resistant to changes that cost money because the financial impact is more directly felt, etc.) But basically, it's a thread about Uber and cabs and medallions are kind of important to the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Limiting the number of taxis on the roads may be a reasonable public policy goal, but why do taxi companies get to absorb the rents from the medallions just because they were there first? If you want to cap the number of taxis on the road, make the medallions last a year (or three) and auction them off with all proceeds going to the municipal government. Or impose a tax on taxi services to bring down the supply. This is the same nonsense that comes out of cap and trade - companies who are already big polluters are subsidized as a result of having been irresponsible in the past, while new competitors have an extra cost imposed on them. It's not a surprise when these schemes emerge (corruption and corporate welfare at the expense of consumers? well I never!), but why in the world would anyone but a taxi company executive (or a power company executive in the cap and trade analogy) support it? I agree that's probably good policy, the purpose of the system is to limit the overall number of taxicabs looking for fares, not to make a sweet investment asset. Still though, the idea that we could just let as many taxicabs wander around Manhattan as they want without causing additional congestion is just stupid, and that's really what people are getting at with "get rid of the medallion system", not time limits. It's fundamentally a rejection of the idea of traffic planning, which is very problematic when you're talking about a dense urban environment. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Price of cab rides vs price of uber rides as I mentioned in my original post Unless I'm reading this article incorrectly, fares are controlled and regulated by the Taxi and Limousine Commission in new york, so I'm not really sure where the price of medallions factors into taxi price. Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think that's the real crux of the issue. If Uber was disrupting and industry that people generally like and runs well (grocery stores?) by skirting regulations people would be much more up in arms over it. Since, at least here in DC, the taxi system is an absolute mess people don't really mind Uber skirting the regulations because they get what they want/need (cab-like transportation). I'd be more than happy to keep the medallion system if there was also a brutal culling system where the bottom 20% rating of cabs lose their medallion every year. Make it like Yelp or something where people have to justify their ire and its hard to game. You can definitely justify the current system on an urban planning level, but id much rather take a slower car with more congestion than one with a driver that is just poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I'd be more than happy to keep the medallion system if there was also a brutal culling system where the bottom 20% rating of cabs lose their medallion every year. Also a bad idea. Such a culling system would add an extremely perverse incentive to sabotage other companies/drivers so you don't end up in that bottom 20%
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Unless I'm reading this article incorrectly, fares are controlled and regulated by the Taxi and Limousine Commission in new york, so I'm not really sure where the price of medallions factors into taxi price. Might come as a shock, I know, but there are cities other than New York From the article I posted earlier quote:In New York, the per mile charge is a flat $2. In Montreal, the per-mile charge is only $1.60. In DC, it’s a mere $1.50. Riptor fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I'd be more than happy to keep the medallion system if there was also a brutal culling system where the bottom 20% rating of cabs lose their medallion every year. Uber is already starting to suffer from the consequences of a system like this. Drivers have hassled riders to ensure they get a 5 star rating. If bad ratings meant you lost your job we'd have cab drivers kidnapping people until they agreed the service was wonderful and posting on CabReview.com about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Might come as a shock, I know, but there are cities other than New York Do any of those cities also have a medallion system without regulating fares, while also having Uber and UberX service? Cause skimming through this says no so far. quote:In New York, the per mile charge is a flat $2. In Montreal, the per-mile charge is only $1.60. In DC, it’s a mere $1.50. Of course the local cab industry would blame medallions, do you trust internet providers when they say net neutrality would make internet service more costly? Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Might come as a shock, I know, but there are cities other than New York Wow sure looks like regulating prices would remove that "problem"! That was easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
I find myself almost uncontrollably hostile to Uber because of the absolute bullshit of their "ride sharing" claims. Uber and Lyft are car/taxi services, where you pay someone to take you somewhere. No one is "ride sharing". An actual ride sharing ap (where I post that I'm going from Sacramento to San Jose tomorrow at 3pm and can take 3 people with me for 15 bucks a person) would be cool. But that is not what these are. Stop pretending to be a ride sharing ap and accept that you are a technology savy car service that can bypass the traditional crap of hoping a taxi comes by or a cumbersome phone call that may or may not result in a taxi. It will open up the discussion and let us really solve this issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
cheese posted:I find myself almost uncontrollably hostile to Uber because of the absolute bullshit of their "ride sharing" claims. Uber and Lyft are car/taxi services, where you pay someone to take you somewhere. No one is "ride sharing". An actual ride sharing ap (where I post that I'm going from Sacramento to San Jose tomorrow at 3pm and can take 3 people with me for 15 bucks a person) would be cool. But that is not what these are. Stop pretending to be a ride sharing ap and accept that you are a technology savy car service that can bypass the traditional crap of hoping a taxi comes by or a cumbersome phone call that may or may not result in a taxi. It will open up the discussion and let us really solve this issue. Except if you want to do that you'll need insurance and some sort of third party vetting, which makes it uneconomical to do it once in a while. Now that you're doing it on a regular basis, you might as well sign up with a company who has economies of scale with those requirements, and more importantly can direct you business ... and oops, we're right back where we started. I don't see how you can regulate "ride sharing" as anything other than a car service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Except if you want to do that you'll need insurance and some sort of third party vetting, which makes it uneconomical to do it once in a while. Now that you're doing it on a regular basis, you might as well sign up with a company who has economies of scale with those requirements, and more importantly can direct you business ... and oops, we're right back where we started. I think that once the 'price' gets above a nominal fee or gas money regulators start looking at it as a car service and not ride sharing, since the intent of uber et all is for the driver to make a profit as opposed to helping out random strangers. Ridesharing is "Im going here whether or not I have passengers" while Uber is "Im only making this trip because someone paid me to."
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Much worse in my experience. Cab drivers (or even regular Uber drivers) are pretty good about getting me to where I need to go without any problems. Sometimes if it's a weird location in the middle of nowhere they'll ask me for directions, but I'd say 60% of the time I get in an uberx to go from one major location to another, they get confused and pull out the GPS and ask for the street address or they'll ask me how to get there. And NW dc is a grid, so there's not really an excuse. My experience has been the complete opposite, and I've used Uber in Seattle, Los Angeles and San Diego. Taxis only know popular locations and major landmarks. If you're going to an obscure place, such as a hostel in the suburbs, they either have to punch it into their GPS or ask the dispatch operator for directions. Uber drivers on the other hand tend to be local, and all of the ones I've ridden with (with the exception of one dude, who was very new) knew where stuff was, and a few actually took shortcuts (which they asked me beforehand if it was OK to do, and I verified later that it was actually a shortcut).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
However bad taxis may be, doesn't mean Uber shouldn't be regulated. It doesn't meant uber gets a free pass to break the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Wow sure looks like regulating prices would remove that "problem"! That was easy. Sure. Additionally, allow a competitor like uber to operate. Regulate it for safety and such, but allow it to operate outside of this medallion system. That was my original point That uber/uberx drivers (in my experience) are nicer, more professional, know where they're going more often, actually take credit cards without lying about "broken machines" and appear to be from a more diverse slice of the population is just a bonus Riptor fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:However bad taxis may be, doesn't mean Uber shouldn't be regulated. It doesn't meant uber gets a free pass to break the law. Uber should be regulated if and only if said regulation is updated for modern times first. Otherwise, it will become just another cab company. What's the point of that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Riptor posted:That uber/uberx drivers (in my experience) are nicer, more professional, know where they're going more often, actually take credit cards without lying about "broken machines" and appear to be from a more diverse slice of the population is just a bonus Same here. My experiences with Uber have ranged from good to excellent; my experiences with taxis, not so much. I can't tell you how many times a taxi's card machine has been "broken," or that I've flagged a cab down for a black friend (they won't even bother to stop for them) only to have them speed off when my friend goes to hop in. Never mind the insanely dangerous driving, cell phone usage, and filthy cars. Uber absolutely ought to be required to comply with safety and insurance regulations, but I don't support any measures to protect the medallion owners. Taxis atrocious in large part because they're state enabled monopolies, and any competition that forces them to up their level of service is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Sure. Additionally, allow a competitor like uber to operate. Regulate it for safety and such, but allow it to operate outside of this medallion system. That was my original point Uber is allowed to operate, they just have to follow laws. What laws do you think they shouldn't have to follow? PS medallions have absolutely nothing to do with any Uber service, becuase Uber does not offer street hailing. enraged_camel posted:Uber should be regulated if and only if said regulation is updated for modern times first. Otherwise, it will become just another cab company. What's the point of that? Name the exact regulations you think are outdated that apply to Uber. Having to carry car insurance policies that actually allow you to use your personal car for paid transport? Being subject to commercial-level driver's license testing? Obeying fare regulations where applicable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Unless I'm reading this article incorrectly, fares are controlled and regulated by the Taxi and Limousine Commission in new york, so I'm not really sure where the price of medallions factors into taxi price. Because a ridiculously high medallion price means ridiculously high profits which means the prices are too high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:
Insurance, commercial license, background check, all that makes sense. Requiring dispatch/chauffeur licenses is unnecessary. Local rules in some markets requiring a minimum wait time between booking and dispatching a car are bullshit protectionism. Elaborate on fare regulations. I don't think requiring minimum fares makes any sense if that's what you mean, though that's been a big issue in some of the markets they've tried to enter. Xandu fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Insurance, commercial license, background check, all that makes sense. Requiring dispatch/chauffeur licenses is unnecessary. Local rules in some markets requiring a minimum wait time between booking and dispatching a car are bullshit protectionism. The dispatch/chaffeur licenses aren't even present in most jurisdictions, and same goes for minimum wait times. Regardless, Uber is at least pretending to be a multibillion dollar company so they should be willing to pay for dispatch licenses. Maximum fare regulations are really good for consumers. Stuff like how NYC successfully kneecapped most of the "surge price" aka price gouging from Uber et al. Minimum fare regulations often make sense too, but it's been rare for them to actually not match minimum fares to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:
I was thinking along the lines of requiring a minimum fare (like 20-50 dollars) to dispatch a car, which does happen sometimes. I'm on board with banning surge pricing. Sadly DC is trying to encourage it and considering allowing taxis using e-hail apps to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Also if there is a law that uber thinks is "unfair" or "protectionist", is it ok for them to ignore that law or should they abide by that law until it is changed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Maybe Uber looks at it as a form of civil disobedience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because a ridiculously high medallion price means ridiculously high profits which means the prices are too high. The taxi companies can obviously survive at the current rates they charge. Why would they lower their prices if they didn't have to pay as much for medallions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:The taxi companies can obviously survive at the current rates they charge. Why would they lower their prices if they didn't have to pay as much for medallions? Part of the reason taxi companies can "afford" a medallion is the same reason people can "afford" a house: "The value can only go up from here!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Uber should be regulated if and only if said regulation is updated for modern times first. Otherwise, it will become just another cab company. What's the point of that? Because that's what they are, having a fancy app doesn't change anything. Anyway, I can't say I've ever had the problems with cabs people are talking about. I can't remember the last time I couldn't use a credit card or something like that. It really sounds like some cities just have really lovely systems but that has nothing to do with cabs in general. Fix the poo poo, don't let some company skirt the rules because they are lying about what they are. cheese posted:I find myself almost uncontrollably hostile to Uber because of the absolute bullshit of their "ride sharing" claims. Uber and Lyft are car/taxi services, where you pay someone to take you somewhere. No one is "ride sharing". An actual ride sharing ap (where I post that I'm going from Sacramento to San Jose tomorrow at 3pm and can take 3 people with me for 15 bucks a person) would be cool. But that is not what these are. Stop pretending to be a ride sharing ap and accept that you are a technology savy car service that can bypass the traditional crap of hoping a taxi comes by or a cumbersome phone call that may or may not result in a taxi. It will open up the discussion and let us really solve this issue. This too, pretending to new and hip and oh you'll meet people while being a glorified taxi cab.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because a ridiculously high medallion price means ridiculously high profits which means the prices are too high. How does this follow when the taxi companies in medallion areas have their rates set by government regulation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 09:37
|
|