What do people here think about the rise of non-taxi car-hailing services like UberX? It has been a huge debate in this area.
On one side are people claiming this is a brilliant revolution that frees a constrained market, lowering prices and improving car access. These folks tend to decry obstructions to it as luddism and pandering to corrupt monopolies. There are a lot of tech-industry people in this camp.
On the other hand are people who say the services circumvent the security of background checking and price protections built into the cab industry.
What I haven't heard much of is the fairness of people losing tremendous equity in their medallion investments because played by established rules (laws), and the fairness of folks entering into that same business without having to make the same investment, dramatically devaluing medallions that have in some cases required tremendous sacrifice to buy. The response I've heard most amounts to, "Why is that my problem? I deserve the cheap ride without some artificial regulated price."
I see their point, but it feels to me like allowing your neighbors to start building under a dramatically reduced building code, essentially granting them the same level of hone value as you without the investment you had to make.
Thoughts?
I find it interesting the way the people who run Uber seem to think they're not bound by state laws–when Virginia told them to cease operating in the Commonwealth, and when a town in Maryland (I forget which, but I think Annapolis) told them they had to abide by the regulations governing taxis, they essentially said, "We do not" and announced they would ignore the government's orders because they want to "educate" the government on their business. It doesn't work that way. The non-taxi car services are all regulated as well, even if they're not subject to the same regulations the taxis are, and there's no reason why Uber and the like ought to be subject to different rules.
Sure, there have been times in our history when ignoring the law was the principled thing to do. The Montgomery Bus Boycott readily comes to mind. But it's ludicrous to equate an operation like Uber with something like segregated seating on the buses.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 11:44:56 AM
I see their point, but it feels to me like allowing your neighbors to start building under a dramatically reduced building code, essentially granting them the same level of hone value as you without the investment you had to make.
Thoughts?
Would that really be the case, though? If I were selling a house that was built to code and my neighbors was not, I'd be advertising the hell out of that fact. I'd think the market would take care of itself in such a case.
Regarding medallions, yeah, the price of one isn't my problem. That's a case of artificially low supply. I think this is a fine example of the customer demanding a change and the market responding. You want your taxi to be worth the cost of a medallion? Step up the experience of riding in one. Get one here when I want it, not three hours later. And keep people from pissing on the seats.
Uber and Lyft were recently approved here in Columbus, with many of the insurance and licensing issues being address in the legislation. I'm curious to see if the companies can sustain the hype.
It's been a pretty big news item here in Pittsburgh as well. They have been operating despite some citations against drivers and cease and desist orders from the state PUC (why this is something the Public Utilities Commission is in charge of is beyond me).
Everyone I know who has used them says the whole experience was way better than Yellow Cab, and most public comment/letters to the editor take that tone, since unless you are going to be a fare to the airport, cabs are notoriously late/no-shows, and expensive.
So, basically, there is a push to make more common-sense rules, instead of what we have now.
Quote from: 6a on July 30, 2014, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 11:44:56 AM
I see their point, but it feels to me like allowing your neighbors to start building under a dramatically reduced building code, essentially granting them the same level of hone value as you without the investment you had to make.
Thoughts?
Would that really be the case, though? If I were selling a house that was built to code and my neighbors was not, I'd be advertising the hell out of that fact. I'd think the market would take care of itself in such a case.
Regarding medallions, yeah, the price of one isn't my problem. That's a case of artificially low supply. I think this is a fine example of the customer demanding a change and the market responding. You want your taxi to be worth the cost of a medallion? Step up the experience of riding in one. Get one here when I want it, not three hours later. And keep people from pissing on the seats.
Uber and Lyft were recently approved here in Columbus, with many of the insurance and licensing issues being address in the legislation. I'm curious to see if the companies can sustain the hype.
I guess my example is of much less expensive standards being imposed on one party and not another, which is not fair competition, whatever you think of the standards.
As far as the price of medallions, the system created by law causes that scarcity. People who took out a decades-long loan (or who just paid cash–either way) did so because that was the cost of playing within the rules.
Is it fair competition that a company gets to ignore those rules, devalue the investment individuals made in a low-margin, long-hours business, and get a free pass just because it has a good idea or does a good job?
I think it isn't. I'm not sure what the fair answer is, but if there are two classes providing the same service, they should do business under the same terms, or else talk of fair competition ends up necessarily tainted.
Oh, I agree 100% about the fair competition. I looked up a couple articles pertaining to Boston - it seems the taxi union is raising the biggest stink. Of course they are, their business model is being threatened. But is that alone, or even the medallion system, good reasons to ban competition? I'm not even necessarily asking you, I'm working this out in my head.
If they do end up getting approved in Boston, and that devalues the medallions, is that still unfair? I'd think not, that's a cost of working with a century old business model. Taxi owners can still pay to play by their rules, app services would have another set. Some people shop at Nordstrom, some at Wal Mart.
Except Nordstrom doesn't exist in a government-sanctioned system of price and other controls that they had to raise tons of capital to participate in, while Wal-Mart runs free.
It's primarily the cab companies' fault for not being quicker to innovate here, but even still, if their very expensive model is to be dismantled, it should be done carefully and thoughtfully, not instantaneously because some yuppies keep shouting at council meetings.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 06:21:52 PM
Except Nordstrom doesn't exist in a government-sanctioned system of price and other controls that they had to raise tons of capital to participate in, while Wal-Mart runs free.
It's primarily the cab companies' fault for not being quicker to innovate here, but even still, if their very expensive model is to be dismantled, it should be done carefully and thoughtfully, not instantaneously because some yuppies keep shouting at council meetings.
You can have reasonable regulations (driver qualifications, minimum vehicle standards) for taxi and livery companies without the need for the medallion system. Just because some people took a risk in purchasing something that was overvalued on the private market is no reason to justify continuing a system that provides NO BENEFITS to the users of the service. For that matter, perhaps we should be asking why is it even legal for a government-issued license to be bought or sold on the private market in the first place.
Besides medallions, the other thing that really needs to be changed with how taxis operate is this utter nonsense of "You bring someone into Boston from (insert name of your favorite suburb here), but you cannot pick up somebody from Boston going back to that suburb". All that does is waste time, fuel, and creates unnecessary pollution.
Doesn't government share some responsibility in this for mandating the medallion system? It has required them for businesspeople to provide a service the public demands. Who created this mess, anyway?
I completely agree that the taxi fare rules seem onerous and arcane. I've been turned down late at night when cabs were scarce for those reasons, and also very nervously picked up by drivers who couldn't resist.
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
In London the death-causing polluters black cabs went on strike (read try and cause a big traffic jam) over Uber. Backfired as it made Uber go from an in-the-know niche service to something that the whole city knew about.
The issue that the black cabs went nuts over is that the Uber app calculates the fare by distance - minicabs* aren't allowed meters in London (the rules about taxis in London are crazy and wikipedia just said "complicated" and "unknown to outsiders"). However the way Uber does it is not illegal as it's not measured by something in the cab.
Locals, save the rich, will usually use minicabs if they plan on getting a taxi. Black cabs mostly deal with tourists who, other than the iconic car, don't know much about how hard The Knowledge is (I have a mind for geography, a decent memory, and a love of roads, but I'd struggle to get The Knowledge in the average time of 34 months). At least, other than taking 3 years to learn The Knowledge, you don't have to spend too much to be able to drive a Black Cab - looking it's about £1000 in admin fees - other than getting a Black Cab (very expensive vehicles) itself.
*licensed private hire vehicles - you can't hail them (with public warning campaigns about rape that don't mention that its illegal for them to take you as a fare unless you pre-book, just that you will be raped if you get in a minicab you've not booked).
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 06:43:58 PM
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
I'd expect that to be $20 or so, plus tip. Unless you're in a hurry and it's not a busy time of day, you're better off riding the Red Line 6 stops (under 20 minutes) for $2 and change.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 06:43:58 PM
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
I'd expect that to be $20 or so, plus tip. Unless you're in a hurry and it's not a busy time of day, you're better off riding the Red Line 6 stops (under 20 minutes) for $2 and change.
Yeah, it was my first time in the city (any city) and I had no experience on the subway. I quickly learned though.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 06:43:58 PM
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
you're better off riding the Red Line 6 stops (under 20 minutes) for $2 and change.
$2.10, but only if you have the magic CharlieCard (RFID card). If you don't, it's $2.50. And getting the RFID cards is not as easy as one might think.
Plus, depending on the time of day and accounting for the usual problems the MBTA seems to have (be they mechanical, signal, or track related), 20 minutes from South Station to Harvard Square might be optimistic.
There should be no government regulation of the taxi business. The laws on the books requiring vehicles to be licensed, insured and pass safety/smog inspections (as per the jurisdiction the vehicle is registered in) is enough for the vehicles. Drivers need a license and to be considered an acceptable risk by the taxi services's insurance company. No more is needed on the government end.
I ran a taxi fleet of 12 vehicles and did so with ZERO government regulation but with careful attention to taking care of drivers, vehicles, vendors and most importantly, the customers. That business doubled in a recession that caused Bush The First to lose the election under my leadership. We had reasonable rates, fast response time (90% of calls picked up in 10 minutes or less) and the drivers made $100 a shift. This was in the late 80's/early 90's. Since I have a great head for business I saved this company from collapse, turned it into the second largest in Oregon at that time and provided my community with a tremendous resource WITH NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION OR AID.
When I see how piss-poor things are in PDX for cab service, a highly regulated market that protects the incompetent, I cringe. Had I ever decided to enter that market and been given a free hand with no crony capitalism/nanny statism going on, I would have owned that market lock, stock and barrel within two years ON MY OWN MERITS.
Guess what? Grocery stores, clothing stores, restaurants, music shops, electronics retailers and many other businesses manage to do just fine without the protected, er, rigged market that the taxi industry enjoys. Other than obeying zoning and business license laws, YOU CAN OPEN A STORE AND TRY YOUR HAND AT BUSINESS!!! Capitalism at it's best folks.
Let the medallion system and anything like it die a fast death so new operators can come in. Some will do poorly just like some other businesses do. Some will do well as some other businesses do. That's the nature of the capitalist beast. If you aren't up for taming it, don't go running to Uncle Sugar and his minions for help to keep the competition out!
If you want a government ride, take public transit. Leave the private hired ride biz to the pros and those who think they can be one. In the end everything sorts itself out.
Rick
I think part of this is a problem with where to draw the lines in the "sharing economy". I think the sharing economy is a great thing, as it allows better use of resources that would otherwise sit idle (or be deadheading while spewing exhaust into the air). If I'm on vacation, why should my apartment sit empty when a visitor to town could benefit by staying in it? Why should I pay to park my car at the airport when someone else could be using it? I think it is perfectly reasonable to loan my apartment and car to a friend when I'm away (and to ask for a reasonable amount of compensation in return), and the sharing economy players (AirBNB for example) simply connect the haves with the ones who are in need. Likewise, if I am driving from New York to Boston, and I have an extra seat in my car, why wouldn't I want to put a person into that seat and charge them for the ride? It is likely a better experience for them than riding the bus or Amtrak, and it is an empty seat that otherwise wouldn't be filled and just go to waste.
But the key to all of this is that either: I have something that I normally use all the time, but am temporarily not using so I can go on vacation and want to let someone else use, or I have extra capacity in my vehicle that I am trying to fill on a trip I am taking anyway. In my mind, it becomes a totally different game if I were to buy an apartment that I never plan to live in for the sole purpose of regularly renting out. Or if I start making car trips that I wouldn't otherwise be making solely to be able to charge someone for a ride. Then it becomes more of an example of me providing a service to users for the purpose of making money, rather than incidentally making a few extra bucks while I am away on vacation by renting out the stuff I don't need.
Where I draw the line is that if I am offering a ride from a specific place to another specific place at a certain time, then that seems to be "sharing" which I should be free to do at will, whereas if I offer up my driving service for anyone to choose their own origin, destination, and time, then that is more like "providing a service" which should be regulated alongside any similar established services.
Therefore, I have no problem with regulating Uber/Lyft as Limos (they really aren't taxis since people aren't hailing them, they are more equivalent to car service, or NYC's "black cars" because they are reserved in advance, even if only minutes in advance). But I do have a problem with trying to regulate "informal sharing" that does not occur on a regular basis.
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2014, 08:18:54 PM
There should be no government regulation of the taxi business. The laws on the books requiring vehicles to be licensed, insured and pass safety/smog inspections (as per the jurisdiction the vehicle is registered in) is enough for the vehicles. Drivers need a license and to be considered an acceptable risk by the taxi services's insurance company. No more is needed on the government end.
I ran a taxi fleet of 12 vehicles and did so with ZERO government regulation but with careful attention to taking care of drivers, vehicles, vendors and most importantly, the customers. That business doubled in a recession that caused Bush The First to lose the election under my leadership. We had reasonable rates, fast response time (90% of calls picked up in 10 minutes or less) and the drivers made $100 a shift. This was in the late 80's/early 90's. Since I have a great head for business I saved this company from collapse, turned it into the second largest in Oregon at that time and provided my community with a tremendous resource WITH NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION OR AID.
When I see how piss-poor things are in PDX for cab service, a highly regulated market that protects the incompetent, I cringe. Had I ever decided to enter that market and been given a free hand with no crony capitalism/nanny statism going on, I would have owned that market lock, stock and barrel within two years ON MY OWN MERITS.
Guess what? Grocery stores, clothing stores, restaurants, music shops, electronics retailers and many other businesses manage to do just fine without the protected, er, rigged market that the taxi industry enjoys. Other than obeying zoning and business license laws, YOU CAN OPEN A STORE AND TRY YOUR HAND AT BUSINESS!!! Capitalism at it's best folks.
Let the medallion system and anything like it die a fast death so new operators can come in. Some will do poorly just like some other businesses do. Some will do well as some other businesses do. That's the nature of the capitalist beast. If you aren't up for taming it, don't go running to Uncle Sugar and his minions for help to keep the competition out!
If you want a government ride, take public transit. Leave the private hired ride biz to the pros and those who think they can be one. In the end everything sorts itself out.
Rick
So people who did this business the way the law required just start this new era deep, deep in the hole due to another arbitrary (proposed) government decision?
That, too, is government meddling with people's money, and with no accountability for the consequences.
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2014, 07:38:52 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 06:43:58 PM
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
you're better off riding the Red Line 6 stops (under 20 minutes) for $2 and change.
$2.10, but only if you have the magic CharlieCard (RFID card). If you don't, it's $2.50. And getting the RFID cards is not as easy as one might think.
Plus, depending on the time of day and accounting for the usual problems the MBTA seems to have (be they mechanical, signal, or track related), 20 minutes from South Station to Harvard Square might be optimistic.
I got a CharlieCard pretty easily..............
I can't find it anymore but I HAD one.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 08:47:48 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2014, 07:38:52 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 06:43:58 PM
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
you're better off riding the Red Line 6 stops (under 20 minutes) for $2 and change.
$2.10, but only if you have the magic CharlieCard (RFID card). If you don't, it's $2.50. And getting the RFID cards is not as easy as one might think.
Plus, depending on the time of day and accounting for the usual problems the MBTA seems to have (be they mechanical, signal, or track related), 20 minutes from South Station to Harvard Square might be optimistic.
I got a CharlieCard pretty easily..............
I can't find it anymore but I HAD one.
Someone told me you can just ask station attendants for Charlie Cards and they give them to you for free.
My problem with them is that they "expire". Why do they need to expire? I've had my WMATA SmarTrip card for 12 years and it still works just fine. But no, Charlie Cards expire, unless you use it in the month when it happens to expire, where it uploads new software to extend the expiration date. That is fine and dandy if I go to Boston regularly, but I only use the T a couple times a year. Just so happens that in 2012 I used it the month the card expired and got the update. Otherwise, I'd have to get a new card every few years. I imagine quite a few "occasional" visitors to Boston are suburbanites who live very close by too.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 30, 2014, 09:06:48 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 08:47:48 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2014, 07:38:52 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 06:43:58 PM
What is the cab rate in Boston? 5 years ago, I took a cab from South Station to Harvard and paid $25. That was enough to scare me from ever trying that again.
you're better off riding the Red Line 6 stops (under 20 minutes) for $2 and change.
$2.10, but only if you have the magic CharlieCard (RFID card). If you don't, it's $2.50. And getting the RFID cards is not as easy as one might think.
Plus, depending on the time of day and accounting for the usual problems the MBTA seems to have (be they mechanical, signal, or track related), 20 minutes from South Station to Harvard Square might be optimistic.
I got a CharlieCard pretty easily..............
I can't find it anymore but I HAD one.
Someone told me you can just ask station attendants for Charlie Cards and they give them to you for free.
My problem with them is that they "expire". Why do they need to expire? I've had my WMATA SmarTrip card for 12 years and it still works just fine. But no, Charlie Cards expire, unless you use it in the month when it happens to expire, where it uploads new software to extend the expiration date. That is fine and dandy if I go to Boston regularly, but I only use the T a couple times a year. Just so happens that in 2012 I used it the month the card expired and got the update. Otherwise, I'd have to get a new card every few years. I imagine quite a few "occasional" visitors to Boston are suburbanites who live very close by too.
I just asked for mine and they gave it to me. I see no reason for the MBTA to make it difficult to get. More people having a CharlieCard saves them the money of having to print and dispose of tickets.
But back to this taxi business.......
I see a good reason for the government to regulate taxis. It has a compelling interest in ensuring that taxi drivers are good drivers and that their cars are regularly expected and in safe condition. Unlike going to a store or buying food, you often aren't in a position to conduct research on the car and driver before making the choice. The choice of taking a cab often comes down to which cabbie happens to be near you. If you let any yahoo with a car act as a taxi then you risk potentially unsafe drivers getting on the road and killing or hurting unaware passengers.
Mike mentioned Airbnb (or however they capitalize it). There was a report in the news the other day about some idiot in California who used that service to let someone stay in his apartment for a length of time that, under state law, makes them month-to-month tenants and restricts his right to get his place back.
It's all well and good for the 20-somethings to talk about how these "sharing" services are "supposed" to work, but there are people out there who can and will game the system for their own advantage because they know what the laws say and those laws trump the "rules" the "sharing" services seek to impose. The proverbial bottom line is that you use services like Uber or Airbnb or the like at your own risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/travel/airbnb-squatters/index.html
There's an easy way to fix the airbnb problem. Airbnb could simply make it impossible to book a stay longer than 30 days through their site. You only become a month to month tenant if you pay rent for over a month straight.
Absolutely the most sustainable, practical thing to do is to spread resources as much as possible, so these new service are a fantastic innovation.
I'd like to see it met somewhere in the middle. Medallion systems limit supply in order to allow for higher pricing, but they also provide some degree of safety.
What I'd like to see is a new type of medallion system for everybody to use that is not supply limited. Basically a "taxi operator's permit" of some sort, so that government ensures that the drivers are fairly safe people and the vehicles are in good operating condition with some level of insurance- possibly just through regulations requiring the cab operator/Uber to implement certain standards, with a sound auditing system in place. The fee for such a permit shouldn't be any more than the cost of administration with an unlimited supply of permits, and that permit should apply to ride-sharing services and taxi drivers alike. As for fare regulation...eh, I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. Certainly fares should have to be transparent to the rider before they get into the vehicle, and you don't want to confuse tourists by having every vehicle carry different fares, so there's pros and cons to that.
Uber and Lyft are Good Things- they are a free market solution that maximizes efficiency in a way that regulated taxicabs can't, so there should be some encouragement to keep these things around.
Is there a good reason for artificially limiting the amount of taxis? I can only imagine that it might be to limit traffic on the roadways but in a major urban area, that's a flimsy excuse.
The state DOES have to regulate taxis but restricting them is a bad idea.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:34:15 PM
Is there a good reason for artificially limiting the amount of taxis? I can only imagine that it might be to limit traffic on the roadways but in a major urban area, that's a flimsy excuse.
The state DOES have to regulate taxis but restricting them is a bad idea.
Basic economics- if you lower supply but keep demand the same, prices go up, in this case to a living wage for cabbies. The nice thing about Uber and Lyft is that most of its drivers use it for extra cash, not as a means to make a living, which means prices can be lower. The downside is that the supply is flexible (if nobody feels like driving, there's no cars), but realistically that's how taxis are in a lot of areas anyway.
Quote from: corco on July 30, 2014, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:34:15 PM
Is there a good reason for artificially limiting the amount of taxis? I can only imagine that it might be to limit traffic on the roadways but in a major urban area, that's a flimsy excuse.
The state DOES have to regulate taxis but restricting them is a bad idea.
Basic economics- if you lower supply but keep demand the same, prices go up, in this case to a living wage for cabbies. The nice thing about Uber and Lyft is that most of its drivers use it for extra cash, not as a means to make a living, which means prices can be lower. The downside is that the supply is flexible (if nobody feels like driving, there's no cars), but realistically that's how taxis are in a lot of areas anyway.
But if the medallions are prohibitively expensive then isn't much of the profit lost anyway? If that's the goal then the state could just make a licensing exam and make it so difficult that relatively few pass.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:54:54 PM
Quote from: corco on July 30, 2014, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:34:15 PM
Is there a good reason for artificially limiting the amount of taxis? I can only imagine that it might be to limit traffic on the roadways but in a major urban area, that's a flimsy excuse.
The state DOES have to regulate taxis but restricting them is a bad idea.
Basic economics- if you lower supply but keep demand the same, prices go up, in this case to a living wage for cabbies. The nice thing about Uber and Lyft is that most of its drivers use it for extra cash, not as a means to make a living, which means prices can be lower. The downside is that the supply is flexible (if nobody feels like driving, there's no cars), but realistically that's how taxis are in a lot of areas anyway.
But if the medallions are prohibitively expensive then isn't much of the profit lost anyway? If that's the goal then the state could just make a licensing exam and make it so difficult that relatively few pass.
Yes. Investors buy them and lease them to drivers in NYC. So taxi drivers have to hand back a significant chunk of their cash intake everyday to pay to lease the medallion.
The medallion system in itself is hideously flawed and needs to be abolished. State could issue refunds to those who bought into the system or whatever. It just needs to go.
Here's how I would do it:
1. Create another class of driver's licensing and give a more rigorous exam for those who seek to obtain it. Test their ability to operate in various forms of high traffic, test their ability to do the daily tasks of a cab driver.
2. Require every cabbie to register their vehicle and get it inspected monthly.
3. Require periodic retaking of the driving test to ensure that driving skills remain sharp.
These 3 things should act as barriers to keep people out. They're all time consuming but not expensive. Anyone found in violation will be issued a large fine.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2014, 09:27:27 PM
Mike mentioned Airbnb (or however they capitalize it). There was a report in the news the other day about some idiot in California who used that service to let someone stay in his apartment for a length of time that, under state law, makes them month-to-month tenants and restricts his right to get his place back.
It's all well and good for the 20-somethings to talk about how these "sharing" services are "supposed" to work, but there are people out there who can and will game the system for their own advantage because they know what the laws say and those laws trump the "rules" the "sharing" services seek to impose. The proverbial bottom line is that you use services like Uber or Airbnb or the like at your own risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/travel/airbnb-squatters/index.html
Yup, this is why I don't use stuff like Airbnb. And I'd certainly never rent my apartment out (despite it being in a decent neighborhood and Metro accessible..desirable attributes for an AirBNB property), because there is no shared responsibility if damage to my apartment happens...the responsibility is mine and only mine. Not to mention, I could easily see my landlord saying something about giving my access card to someone who hasn't had their background check done...big no-no.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 30, 2014, 10:13:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2014, 09:27:27 PM
Mike mentioned Airbnb (or however they capitalize it). There was a report in the news the other day about some idiot in California who used that service to let someone stay in his apartment for a length of time that, under state law, makes them month-to-month tenants and restricts his right to get his place back.
It's all well and good for the 20-somethings to talk about how these "sharing" services are "supposed" to work, but there are people out there who can and will game the system for their own advantage because they know what the laws say and those laws trump the "rules" the "sharing" services seek to impose. The proverbial bottom line is that you use services like Uber or Airbnb or the like at your own risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/travel/airbnb-squatters/index.html
Yup, this is why I don't use stuff like Airbnb. And I'd certainly never rent my apartment out (despite it being in a decent neighborhood and Metro accessible..desirable attributes for an AirBNB property), because there is no shared responsibility if damage to my apartment happens...the responsibility is mine and only mine. Not to mention, I could easily see my landlord saying something about giving my access card to someone who hasn't had their background check done...big no-no.
To AirBNB's credit, I think they actually do reimburse property owners for damages. I noticed that when I was looking into renting a AirBNB room and wanted to check into its legitimacy.
I see two issues with Uber and Lyft.
One is the established monopoly (taxi companies) whining about losing their protected status. To this I say, too bad. If they can't handle the competition without special protection, they deserve to go out of business.
The other is the government being unable to resist its natural urge to regulate and tax.
If there is concern about the driving skills, require the drivers to hold CDLs. Problem solved.
It's been a matter of controversy in Kentucky as well.
I use Uber extensively when I'm traveling for work. It's great. For the same price as a cab, I can have a black car show up within minutes, and it automatically bills my corporate card and sends me a receipt. It's so much nicer than traditional taxis who tell me they take credit cards and then find out that "the card reader stopped working" when we get to the destination.
I've had hit or miss luck with UberX so I tend to pay the extra few bucks for regular Uber cars.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:29:44 PM
There's an easy way to fix the airbnb problem. Airbnb could simply make it impossible to book a stay longer than 30 days through their site. You only become a month to month tenant if you pay rent for over a month straight.
Airbnb would have to adapt to the laws of each state, as tenant law can vary.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 30, 2014, 10:01:29 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:54:54 PM
Quote from: corco on July 30, 2014, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 30, 2014, 09:34:15 PM
Is there a good reason for artificially limiting the amount of taxis? I can only imagine that it might be to limit traffic on the roadways but in a major urban area, that's a flimsy excuse.
The state DOES have to regulate taxis but restricting them is a bad idea.
Basic economics- if you lower supply but keep demand the same, prices go up, in this case to a living wage for cabbies. The nice thing about Uber and Lyft is that most of its drivers use it for extra cash, not as a means to make a living, which means prices can be lower. The downside is that the supply is flexible (if nobody feels like driving, there's no cars), but realistically that's how taxis are in a lot of areas anyway.
But if the medallions are prohibitively expensive then isn't much of the profit lost anyway? If that's the goal then the state could just make a licensing exam and make it so difficult that relatively few pass.
Yes. Investors buy them and lease them to drivers in NYC. So taxi drivers have to hand back a significant chunk of their cash intake everyday to pay to lease the medallion.
Medallions are a form of Real Property. If one abolishes that, it's like abolishing land ownership and telling land owners they knew the risk when they tried to own part of a planet.
If medallions are abolished, then at the very least–and it will satisfy very few–the issuing bodies should be required to buy back medallions at whatever their base price (as opposed to market price) is.
This story from Denver was big news recently:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/hey-denver-police-harrass-riding-uber/
Here is some coverage from Kentucky:
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/06/16/3294844/new-ride-sharing-services-drove.html#storylink=misearch
These same kinds of issues are also in play regarding moving companies.
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/03/3067431/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of.html#storylink=misearch
We have so many businesses who are protected against competition and the open market that it makes me sick. The same is true of hospitals and medical facilities. The state has to determine that there's a need for a new service instead of letting investors and business owners just go ahead and do it, and let the free market decide.
It's not like the idea of non-taxi car services is a new idea. The term people use varies around the country–my relatives in New York always say "car service," whereas here in the DC area I've normally heard "limo service" even when the car isn't what most people think of as a "limo." We've used services like Boston Coach (sedan service employing Lincoln Town Cars) to take us to the airport several times; I chose them mainly because my firm used them and I was able to bill it to myself through the firm using the "personal charge" code so I didn't have to pay the driver on the spot.
Uber strikes me as being similar to those types of car services but with a different way of reserving the vehicle on shorter notice. That's a fine idea, but if they're going to operate a car service/limo service/whatever name you use, they need to be subject to the same regulations all such other services are. I haven't even attempted to keep up with the avalanche of coverage of this issue from all over the country (and from the UK), but my impression is that they're certainly either skirting or flat-out ignoring at least some portion of those regulations. For example, Uber isn't even registered to do business in Virginia, which is a basic requirement in every state in the country (designed in part, though not entirely, to assist the state with collecting taxes; some types of business are also more heavily-regulated than others, such as insurance–if you buy car insurance from a company not licensed to issue insurance in your state, your policy probably isn't valid). If you don't register to do business, sooner or later the state is likely to come after you when somebody complains.
What happens if regular taxis go out of business, and then someone who doesn't have a smartphone (and therefore can't use the app) needs one?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2014, 09:28:27 AM
This story from Denver was big news recently:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/hey-denver-police-harrass-riding-uber/
Here is some coverage from Kentucky:
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/06/16/3294844/new-ride-sharing-services-drove.html#storylink=misearch
These same kinds of issues are also in play regarding moving companies.
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/03/3067431/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of.html#storylink=misearch
We have so many businesses who are protected against competition and the open market that it makes me sick. The same is true of hospitals and medical facilities. The state has to determine that there's a need for a new service instead of letting investors and business owners just go ahead and do it, and let the free market decide.
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business. Someone with no hopes of making a living will charge A LOT less than someone who is.
At least in San Francisco, taxi drivers dug their own grave. Before Uber/Lyft, if you tried to hail a cab on the street, there would be a 50% chance the cab would refuse to take you where you wanted to go, and if you called dispatch for one, you could be waiting forever - I've waited 45+ minutes for cabs that never came on multiple occasions. Also refusing to take credit cards, claiming their credit card machine is broken, but it magically works when I inform them that I have no cash. More detail about this sort of stuff here: http://sfist.com/2013/01/02/sf_cabs_often_refuse_fares_endanger.php
I'd agree that there probably a few regulatory things that need to happen regarding insurance and liability. I'm perfectly happy seeing the medallion system go - from what I understand, cabbies often had to lease medallions at exorbitant cost from third-party owners, and in many cases they come out ahead without that system. (At least, I've talked to a few UberX drivers that used to be cabbies, and that's what they said - it's probably by no means universal.) And as the previous paragraph implies, you can have regulatory pressure, but you need to actually make things enforceable....
Basically, as long as UberX (or Lyft, although I haven't used them) keep the ability to reliably get a ride from A to B, not subject to the whims of somebody who (illegally) doesn't want to stop at A or B, then I'm happy. It's a bonus that it's usually slightly cheaper than a traditional cab. I'm in an UberX probably 3-6 times a month and have been mostly satisfied. Only downside for me so far is that there are a lot of newer drivers who don't know their way around as much - I end up giving directions a lot.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business.
So we let the government keep them propped up via regulation. Yep, that's the answer.
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2014, 09:51:16 AM
What happens if regular taxis go out of business, and then someone who doesn't have a smartphone (and therefore can't use the app) needs one?
They can call for one on their stupid-phone.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2014, 01:17:05 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business.
So we let the government keep them propped up via regulation. Yep, that's the answer.
I'm with HB on this. Sometimes jobs that were once good enough to make a decent living off of are not anymore. That's just life, and the people that work those jobs are free to innovate and find new ways to earn more money, just like the industry innovated and found a way to provide the services in a cheaper way.
I had a relative who drove a city bus in the 1940's and 1950's in New York City, and was able to live a middle class life without his wife working, he owned a house, and had two kids. Times are different now. Society has decided that we no longer wish to pay bus drivers a high wage where the driver can afford to purchase a single family home in NYC, have two kids, and not have his/her spouse work. Society has decided this for a lot of jobs, in fact, because people would rather get crappier service if they can get it cheaper (Exhibit 1: Airfares).
Taxi drivers are no different. Society has demanded far better service than is currently being provided, without the artificial inflations in price due to unnecessary protectionist regulations. Obviously some legal changes have to take place in order for this to pass muster, and the battle has begun. We shall see who prevails.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2014, 01:17:05 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business.
So we let the government keep them propped up via regulation. Yep, that's the answer.
There are tons of essential industries that the government has historically propped up though. Cabbies are essential in areas with poor public transit because they're often instrumental in keeping people from driving home drunk. Extreme scenario but what do you do when your part time drivers aren't willing to show up at 3 AM to take a drunk person home? That drunk person will probably notice the unreliability of these apps and take their own vehicle to the bar where.........you know.
There are also tons of industries where regulatory agencies set high barriers to entry. Ever talked to your doctor, lawyer or accountant? Without barriers to entry, you end up with incompetent people who can undercut people who are actually experienced and are dedicating their lives to what they do.
I'm against the idea of running a cabbie out of business in favor of some hotshot with a car and a few extra minutes. The free market is not infallible and if we had relied solely on the free market, much of rural America would be sitting in the dark without electricity or phone lines because it took government intervention for that to happen.
There has to be a compromise here. I'm all about going forward but I want protections for the guys who have sunken their lives into driving cabs.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business. Someone with no hopes of making a living will charge A LOT less than someone who is.
If there were no artificial limit on medallions, would a taxi driver still be able to earn a living?
Quote from: 6a on July 31, 2014, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business. Someone with no hopes of making a living will charge A LOT less than someone who is.
If there were no artificial limit on medallions, would a taxi driver still be able to earn a living?
The whole medallion system should be scrapped, but there should be a way to restrict who CAN drive taxis. Just institute a monthly vehicle inspection requirement and create a yearly licensing removal. That's a low-cost barrier to entry that will keep the casuals out.
It also protects consumers because it ensures that the drivers and cars are safe.
If you're in the mood for a wall of text, here (PDF) (https://columbus.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=3160587&GUID=87604E0D-BDCF-4DC1-8967-AA38E5AAEC7A) is the legislation approved by Columbus. It addresses many of the complaints brought up in this thread. The one missing is the fact Uber was operating before this was passed. In that sense I guess we're back to square one.
The point is, though, some cities are willing to work with this new technology and create rules to level the playing field, while others are not. Pete from Boston and I came up with terrible examples of something similar earlier, and I think that's because there really isn't anything similar. VHS & Beta vs. the TV & movie industries, maybe? The RIAA vs. pirates? I don't know, both of those had outcomes that ended up with the "old" industry adapting to survive. As a consumer, I care about how much a medallion costs just as much as I care how much Target paid for the land their store sits on. It's all about the experience inside and any value, perceived or real, I gain from using one over the other. If the taxi companies in other cities are truly being harmed, they should do more than circling city hall honking for hours (happened in Boston.) even here, where it was approved, the city sued Uber while the legislation was pending.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 04:12:31 PM
Quote from: 6a on July 31, 2014, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
But the free market ISN'T the best way to deal with something like this. As someone else mentioned, Uber drivers are doing this for side change whereas cab drivers do it for a living. The free market will price those doing it for a living out of business. Someone with no hopes of making a living will charge A LOT less than someone who is.
If there were no artificial limit on medallions, would a taxi driver still be able to earn a living?
The whole medallion system should be scrapped, but there should be a way to restrict who CAN drive taxis. Just institute a monthly vehicle inspection requirement and create a yearly licensing removal. That's a low-cost barrier to entry that will keep the casuals out.
It also protects consumers because it ensures that the drivers and cars are safe.
A CDL-type license and separate license plates might be a start. I know that Illinois has a separate license plate for taxis (as well as limos) with two different colors and a vertical "TX" on the plate. Limos have "LIVERY" vertically on the plate. There is no separate driver's license for a cabbie or limo driver. Taxi companies are licensed by municipality.
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2014, 09:51:16 AM
What happens if regular taxis go out of business, and then someone who doesn't have a smartphone (and therefore can't use the app) needs one?
They can call an uber using text messages. If they don't have a cell phone, they can call a traditional car service.
Innovation often runs afoul of regulation.
A lot of cities or states require you have a livery license to operate a taxi, with the original intent being a matter of consumer protection - if the driver is licensed for that business, you can reasonably expect they won't take advantage of or harm you. No such protection exists for unlicensed cabs, at least not by traditional means.
The key thing that enables services such as these to operate in a trustworthy fashion is that users can review providers and providers can review users. Shady characters are kept out by crowdsourcing data about people's respectability and honesty. In an era before smartphones this wasn't practical or even possible. So, the regulations banning such things are outdated, and unfortunately you have an often vocal and powerful interest group (medallion owners) which profits by keeping it that way and is going to fight change for selfish reasons.
I believe Uber and Lyft both operate in New York City but as best as I am aware neither does a large amount of business here. New York does have rules which say that if you don't have a medallion you can't accept street hails, but they aren't particularly enforced. Uber and Lyft don't have a huge untapped market to cash in on here since we already have a robust and decades old network of black-market taxi services, often colloquially known as "gypsy cabs", which will offer cheap hush-hush rides. Like all black market things, though, it does come with its risks. I have a friend who once had a gypsy cab driver lock the doors, pull a knife on her, and demand her wallet. Yellow cabs, meanwhile, have security cameras in them so you are protected against such things.
Airbnb has been running a lot of ads around the city as of late and is trying to make a name for themselves here. The case history here is interesting, though - in New York City you can have someone as a month to month tenant on almost whatever terms you feel like so long as either you own the property or your lease allows it. But you cannot operate a hotel without a license from the city to do so. So, it is completely legal here to use Airbnb - so long as you only book stays lasting at least 30 days. Less than that and you as a host can find yourself facing hefty fines for operating an unlicensed hotel. The city has not (thankfully) decided to make a point of enforcing this and Airbnb has thus far been able to operate here with little interference. There have, however, been cases of hosts getting hit with those fines after a disgruntled guest filed a complaint with the department of consumer protection.
So basically, you're fine unless you piss someone off and they snitch on you. And you only take this risk as a host, as a guest you can't face any penalties.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 01:58:53 PMCabbies are essential in areas with poor public transit because they're often instrumental in keeping people from driving home drunk. Extreme scenario but what do you do when your part time drivers aren't willing to show up at 3 AM to take a drunk person home?
Two observations. One is that this scenario you describe is exactly why traditional taxis will continue to operate, because there will always be a demand for that type of service.
Two is that this FEAR!!! rationale reminds me of that story I saw trying to explain why New Jersey still bans self-service gas pumps -- that untrained people fueling their cars might cause a disaster. I live in a rural area with no taxi service available and there are drunks on the road all the time, yet I don't incessantly worry about one of them running into me.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 31, 2014, 01:58:53 PMCabbies are essential in areas with poor public transit because they're often instrumental in keeping people from driving home drunk. Extreme scenario but what do you do when your part time drivers aren't willing to show up at 3 AM to take a drunk person home?
Two observations. One is that this scenario you describe is exactly why traditional taxis will continue to operate, because there will always be a demand for that type of service.
Two is that this FEAR!!! rationale reminds me of that story I saw trying to explain why New Jersey still bans self-service gas pumps -- that untrained people fueling their cars might cause a disaster. I live in a rural area with no taxi service available and there are drunks on the road all the time, yet I don't incessantly worry about one of them running into me.
I don't worry about it either in my rural neck of the woods. There's no cost efficient way to get drunk rural citizens home, I would be more than happy to see one get developed though. Drunk driving deaths in rural areas dwarf their rural and suburban counterparts.
Something like Uber and Lyft would be a good in rural or smaller urban areas without consistent taxi service.
Having a designated driver is one option. Planning to sleep within walking distance of where you drink is another. Although granted, there will be cases where neither is practical. In such circumstances the only safe option is to limit yourself to a couple drinks and stay under the limit.
I mean, realistically getting a taxi in suburbia in most places isn't all that easy. Try to get a cab to go out to Oro Valley from downtown Tucson at 2 AM on a Saturday- it's really not easy to do at all. I know this because I used to work overnight at a resort and drunk guests were constantly trying to get back- the only real way to help them was to call a car service.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2014, 12:48:37 PM
I find it interesting the way the people who run Uber seem to think they're not bound by state laws–when Virginia told them to cease operating in the Commonwealth, and when a town in Maryland (I forget which, but I think Annapolis) told them they had to abide by the regulations governing taxis, they essentially said, "We do not" and announced they would ignore the government's orders because they want to "educate" the government on their business. It doesn't work that way. The non-taxi car services are all regulated as well, even if they're not subject to the same regulations the taxis are, and there's no reason why Uber and the like ought to be subject to different rules.
Sure, there have been times in our history when ignoring the law was the principled thing to do. The Montgomery Bus Boycott readily comes to mind. But it's ludicrous to equate an operation like Uber with something like segregated seating on the buses.
Uber and Lyft are now legal in Virginia: http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/state-reaches-agreement-with-lyft-uber/ (http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/state-reaches-agreement-with-lyft-uber/)
Quote from: citrus on July 31, 2014, 11:01:27 AM
At least in San Francisco, taxi drivers dug their own grave. Before Uber/Lyft, if you tried to hail a cab on the street, there would be a 50% chance the cab would refuse to take you where you wanted to go, and if you called dispatch for one, you could be waiting forever - I've waited 45+ minutes for cabs that never came on multiple occasions. Also refusing to take credit cards, claiming their credit card machine is broken, but it magically works when I inform them that I have no cash. More detail about this sort of stuff here: http://sfist.com/2013/01/02/sf_cabs_often_refuse_fares_endanger.php
Absolutely. I had such an unpleasant experience with Jimmy's Cab here in Baltimore County that I will never use them again. They refused to take my credit card info and couldn't give me an estimate when they would arrive. They were rude to me on the phone and hung up on me...three times. So I hitchhiked instead.
Call 1: Hi, I'd like to reserve a cab.
What's your address?
Gave address. Can I pay by credit card?
Okay.
Started to give credit card info but got disconnected.
Called back. (Call 2): Hi, we got disconnected.
No we didn't, we were done.
Um, no, I didn't finish giving my CC info. Also, how long will it take for cab to arrive?
I don't know.
Hung up on me again.
At this point I got fed up, wasn't sure if the cab would show, so I hitched a ride. Ten minutes later, the cab company calls me back and yells at me, asking where I am. I told them that since they had terrible customer service that I had no idea if they were actually coming or not, so I got a ride elsewhere. They yelled at me that I should have called and cancelled them and then hung up on me again.
Yeah. Here's their yelp, where others have complained about their lack of customer service: http://www.yelp.com/biz/jimmys-cab-company-baltimore-county
Cab companies deserve to go under if they think it's okay to treat people this way. I never wrote a review on yelp or anywhere after it happened because I was so angry and didn't want people to disregard me as some crazy woman.
Well Laura, at least you got through on the phone. When my friend and I were in PDX, we tried to call up two different cab companies on a Saturday night and both times we got put into some sort of hold system with the wait count being in the teens. There's no one to talk to!
We were lucky and found a cab that we could hail so we got our ride but we were sure sweating it!
Rick
Quote from: Laura on August 07, 2014, 10:44:46 AM
Quote from: citrus on July 31, 2014, 11:01:27 AM
At least in San Francisco, taxi drivers dug their own grave. Before Uber/Lyft, if you tried to hail a cab on the street, there would be a 50% chance the cab would refuse to take you where you wanted to go, and if you called dispatch for one, you could be waiting forever - I've waited 45+ minutes for cabs that never came on multiple occasions. Also refusing to take credit cards, claiming their credit card machine is broken, but it magically works when I inform them that I have no cash. More detail about this sort of stuff here: http://sfist.com/2013/01/02/sf_cabs_often_refuse_fares_endanger.php
Absolutely. I had such an unpleasant experience with Jimmy's Cab here in Baltimore County that I will never use them again. They refused to take my credit card info and couldn't give me an estimate when they would arrive. They were rude to me on the phone and hung up on me...three times. So I hitchhiked instead.
Call 1: Hi, I'd like to reserve a cab.
What's your address?
Gave address. Can I pay by credit card?
Okay.
Started to give credit card info but got disconnected.
Called back. (Call 2): Hi, we got disconnected.
No we didn't, we were done.
Um, no, I didn't finish giving my CC info. Also, how long will it take for cab to arrive?
I don't know.
Hung up on me again.
At this point I got fed up, wasn't sure if the cab would show, so I hitched a ride. Ten minutes later, the cab company calls me back and yells at me, asking where I am. I told them that since they had terrible customer service that I had no idea if they were actually coming or not, so I got a ride elsewhere. They yelled at me that I should have called and cancelled them and then hung up on me again.
Yeah. Here's their yelp, where others have complained about their lack of customer service: http://www.yelp.com/biz/jimmys-cab-company-baltimore-county
Cab companies deserve to go under if they think it's okay to treat people this way. I never wrote a review on yelp or anywhere after it happened because I was so angry and didn't want people to disregard me as some crazy woman.
FYI, on the off chance you didn't already know, Uber serves Baltimore. Fuck cabs.
I once had a dispatcher in Anchorage ask me where a particular address was.
"I don't know - precisely one party in this conversation lives around here, and it ain't me!"
Quote from: realjd on August 07, 2014, 10:04:15 PM
Quote from: Laura on August 07, 2014, 10:44:46 AM
Quote from: citrus on July 31, 2014, 11:01:27 AM
At least in San Francisco, taxi drivers dug their own grave. Before Uber/Lyft, if you tried to hail a cab on the street, there would be a 50% chance the cab would refuse to take you where you wanted to go, and if you called dispatch for one, you could be waiting forever - I've waited 45+ minutes for cabs that never came on multiple occasions. Also refusing to take credit cards, claiming their credit card machine is broken, but it magically works when I inform them that I have no cash. More detail about this sort of stuff here: http://sfist.com/2013/01/02/sf_cabs_often_refuse_fares_endanger.php
Absolutely. I had such an unpleasant experience with Jimmy's Cab here in Baltimore County that I will never use them again. They refused to take my credit card info and couldn't give me an estimate when they would arrive. They were rude to me on the phone and hung up on me...three times. So I hitchhiked instead.
Call 1: Hi, I'd like to reserve a cab.
What's your address?
Gave address. Can I pay by credit card?
Okay.
Started to give credit card info but got disconnected.
Called back. (Call 2): Hi, we got disconnected.
No we didn't, we were done.
Um, no, I didn't finish giving my CC info. Also, how long will it take for cab to arrive?
I don't know.
Hung up on me again.
At this point I got fed up, wasn't sure if the cab would show, so I hitched a ride. Ten minutes later, the cab company calls me back and yells at me, asking where I am. I told them that since they had terrible customer service that I had no idea if they were actually coming or not, so I got a ride elsewhere. They yelled at me that I should have called and cancelled them and then hung up on me again.
Yeah. Here's their yelp, where others have complained about their lack of customer service: http://www.yelp.com/biz/jimmys-cab-company-baltimore-county
Cab companies deserve to go under if they think it's okay to treat people this way. I never wrote a review on yelp or anywhere after it happened because I was so angry and didn't want people to disregard me as some crazy woman.
FYI, on the off chance you didn't already know, Uber serves Baltimore. Fuck cabs.
Yep! I haven't had a chance to use them yet, but I will.
iPhone
I drive a cab in the Myrtle Beach area.
The City of Myrtle Beach has issued tickets to Uber drivers ($1000+ I think) for operating an illegal taxi within the city limits.
While Myrtle Beach is a major tourist destination, I support the Myrtle Beach's efforts to limit the number of medallions they issue for new cabs. Currently, I feel like there are too many *legal* taxis in operation within Myrtle Beach and the surrounding areas. I believe that the city realizes this too and thus has capped the number of medallions they issue to taxis. I drive for a county cab (no medallion required), and in the area I work there are a large number of taxis in operation.
Looking at the economics of the situation; with Myrtle Beach flooded with taxis, there are not enough customers to justify the amount of cabs in operation. Now with Uber and other pseudo-taxi services trying to operate, it further reduces the customer base for drivers like myself who need this job to pay their bills in an area that is 90% seasonal employment.
In Myrtle Beach and other major cities, taxi rates are typically set by the governing city/county/etc. Example, a taxi in Myrtle Beach runs $2.80 per mile, $0.35 per minute idle, $1 for each additional passenger over 15 years. So, a 10 mile ride will run about $30 give or take.
Each cab company is very different, some companies couldn't care at all about their customers, and unfortunately it scares off first-time or generally non-taxi riders. Not every cab company is the same, not every driver is the same.
Finally, a bit of news about Uber, they don't pay their drivers as well as they advertise. ALL the Uber drivers quit after their first two weeks because their paychecks only earned them $70 (they paid for their own gas, just like us taxi drivers!) So, they may be more inclined to rip off customers to fill their own pockets. You have been warned!
Can't the market take care of that though? If there's not enough customer base to justify that many taxis, the taxis will go away on their own. If they don't go away, there probably aren't too many taxis.
Obviously you personally would like more work, but if you're still getting enough work that you're willing to drive a taxi, that's just the free market at work. The customer won't be happy with fewer cabs, since they have to wait longer, even if it means you as the person collecting the fare spend more time with an occupied cab. That makes folks less happy with the service, requiring the price to be lowered in order for the industry to stay viable, meaning you make less money.
With the price of a cab ride already set by the government, the only variable (assuming constant demand) is the actual supply of cabs, so it should naturally reach equilibrium.
I'm sure there are wide swings in the demand for cabs and that it must be difficult to match supply and demand. That said, while in the abstract I want all cab drivers to make a decent living, in the here and now I want enough cabs in service and available that when I call for one (especially when booked in advance) that I can reasonably expect to make my flight or whatever.
The problem I see (at least in my area) is that a few people get excited about the money they made working under somebody and think they'll instantly double their money by buying a car/van and outfitting it as a taxi.
Yes, the market does take care of that to an extent. In Myrtle Beach, most of the independent cabs get parked during the winter because there are no tourists who need taxis. The few more established taxi companies (like where I work) have a loyal local customer base to carry them through the slow periods.
I don't think the people who sign on to drive for Uber are interested in trying to build a cab company from scratch, which is basically what they have to do. In New York City, Uber probably had no trouble at all getting started, but Myrtle Beach is too small for Uber to really take off.
If you're looking for an airport ride, you'll have no problem trying to land a cab in North Myrtle Beach. Airport rides from North Myrtle generally run about $50 flat rated (varies by cab company and location).
http://www.my9nj.com/story/26403517/hoboken-cracking-down-on-uber-car-services
Sudden thought: Wonder what Randy Hersh would have thought about this?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2014, 10:05:33 PM
I once had a dispatcher in Anchorage ask me where a particular address was.
"I don't know - precisely one party in this conversation lives around here, and it ain't me!"
If they contract out to a call center, the dispatcher might not live around there. My mom worked in a call center taking calls for the bus service in Fairfax County, Virginia. The call center was in western Maryland. If I remember correctly, after that contract ended they shipped it off to a call center in Mexico.