4 ms·

>For the first six months of the pilot, a total of 1,250 scooters may be permitted. If the first six months are successful, the total number of scooters may inc

by cjlars 8y ago

>For the first six months of the pilot, a total of 1,250 scooters may be permitted. If the first six months are successful, the total number of scooters may increase to 2,500 in months seven through 12. While I support the city's efforts to balance the downsides, mainly the sidewalk parking issue, with the upsides of cheap, clean, and accessible mobility, I think there are two wrongheaded decisions the city is making. 1. Why limit the number of operators? Is this an effort to create a medallion system or similar? That failed tremendously as it was administered under the old Cab system. It also risks preempting new developments, e.g. at some point the scooters will be able to drive themselves to you. You do not want to give incumbents a legal mechanism to block that competitive challenge. 2. Why limit the number of scooters? It is already difficult to find one of these for a ride to / home from work. Limiting the number just creates incentives for bad behavior by users. Ever seen someone 'guarding' an inactive scooter? I saw someone hiding one under his lunch table (it was 'available' in the app), presumably so that he could ride it home when done. Artificial scarcity is likely to create many more problems than it solves. In both cases a better public policy proposal would be marginal taxes per unit on the scooters themselves with no cap on number. The community incurs an externality in allowing these operators to enjoy free on sidewalk parking, simply set a price to balance that and let commuters decide how many units should be around. Or to put it into econospeak: Pigovian taxes are better than quotas.

eridius 8y ago
> Why limit the number of operators? Is this an effort to create a medallion system or similar? No. It's because this is a pilot program. At the end of the program, if the program is successful and a decision is made to allow this on a more permanent basis, then presumably the restrictions will be lifted. For context, the bike share pilot programs (e.g. the Ford GoBikes and the JUMP bikes) also have similar restrictions. Same answer goes for why limiting the number of scooters.
- cjlars 8y ago
  They may regulate it appropriately in the end, but it sets a bad framework as precedent. Regardless, the deadweight loss from this decision is substantial. Imagine that the equilibrium number of scooters (the # the market will support, note that we are in the 'rapid adoption phase' right now) is 5000, instead of 2500. At 10 rides per day, times $3 per ride, times the duration of both levels of the quota, that's about $40M in lost economic value. You may fairly argue about those assumptions, but if the city were to propose a special $40M (or $5M or $10M) tax to pay for a study on the scooters, we would rightly be outraged. But they both have the same impact -- people in the city are $40M worse off with what, exactly, being gained in return? Also note specifically that a big issue with the taxi medallion system was that the quotas prevented the discovery of the equilibrium # of taxis. If we do not allow a market equilibrium to be reached, it's very easy for regulators to endlessly argue over the 'right' number without ever getting close to what the market actually wants. Politics has a lot of inertia -- the medallion system perpetuated itself for generations -- so I do not think you can understate the importance of bad precedent.
  - eridius 8y ago
    > it sets a bad framework as precedent Not really, this is how pilot programs generally always work. You limit the scope of the program for two reasons: 1. It keeps the program manageable, and it keeps the data more consistent. If the number of operators or scooters are constantly changing it makes it hard to actually draw any conclusions from the program. 2. The pilot program is being run because the SFMTA hasn't yet made the decision to allow this going forward (or they haven't finalized the rules governing it). Not having any restrictions on the program is basically the same thing as simply approving it, but the pilot program exists to determine if it should be approved and what rules it should be governed by. > Regardless, the deadweight loss from this decision is substantial. The theoretical loss under certain assumptions, true. What if it turns out that the usage of scooters actually produces a net economic drain in the city? The pilot program limits the potential benefit, but it also limits the potential downside too. > Also note specifically that a big issue with the taxi medallion system was that the quotas prevented the discovery of the equilibrium # of taxis. If we do not allow a market equilibrium to be reached, it's very easy for regulators to endlessly argue over the 'right' number without ever getting close to what the market actually wants. Politics has a lot of inertia -- the medallion system perpetuated itself for generations -- so I do not think you can understate the importance of bad precedent. It sounds to me like you don't understand what a pilot program is. The pilot program only lasts a year, so these restrictions are only in place for a year. After the pilot program ends, the SFMTA will determine the new rules to use (assuming they decide to allow the scooters to continue operating at all) and the rules that governed the pilot program won't apply anymore. Presumably the SFMTA will continue to require companies operating in this space to obtain a permit, but they'll also likely drop the "only 5 companies can participate" rule because that rule exists to limit the scope of the pilot program and keep it manageable. As for restrictions on the total number of scooters allowed, I guess that depends on the outcome of the pilot program. However, if the outcome is "2,500 scooters is better, or at least not worse, than 1,250 scooters" then the SFMTA is unlikely to put a cap on the scooters (since, as you said, they won't know what the optimal number is at that point).

by cjlars 8y ago

eridius 8y ago

> Why limit the number of operators? Is this an effort to create a medallion system or similar? No. It's because this is a pilot program. At the end of the program, if the program is successful and a decision is made to allow this on a more permanent basis, then presumably the restrictions will be lifted. For context, the bike share pilot programs (e.g. the Ford GoBikes and the JUMP bikes) also have similar restrictions. Same answer goes for why limiting the number of scooters.

cjlars 8y ago
They may regulate it appropriately in the end, but it sets a bad framework as precedent. Regardless, the deadweight loss from this decision is substantial. Imagine that the equilibrium number of scooters (the # the market will support, note that we are in the 'rapid adoption phase' right now) is 5000, instead of 2500. At 10 rides per day, times $3 per ride, times the duration of both levels of the quota, that's about $40M in lost economic value. You may fairly argue about those assumptions, but if the city were to propose a special $40M (or $5M or $10M) tax to pay for a study on the scooters, we would rightly be outraged. But they both have the same impact -- people in the city are $40M worse off with what, exactly, being gained in return? Also note specifically that a big issue with the taxi medallion system was that the quotas prevented the discovery of the equilibrium # of taxis. If we do not allow a market equilibrium to be reached, it's very easy for regulators to endlessly argue over the 'right' number without ever getting close to what the market actually wants. Politics has a lot of inertia -- the medallion system perpetuated itself for generations -- so I do not think you can understate the importance of bad precedent.
- eridius 8y ago
  > it sets a bad framework as precedent Not really, this is how pilot programs generally always work. You limit the scope of the program for two reasons: 1. It keeps the program manageable, and it keeps the data more consistent. If the number of operators or scooters are constantly changing it makes it hard to actually draw any conclusions from the program. 2. The pilot program is being run because the SFMTA hasn't yet made the decision to allow this going forward (or they haven't finalized the rules governing it). Not having any restrictions on the program is basically the same thing as simply approving it, but the pilot program exists to determine if it should be approved and what rules it should be governed by. > Regardless, the deadweight loss from this decision is substantial. The theoretical loss under certain assumptions, true. What if it turns out that the usage of scooters actually produces a net economic drain in the city? The pilot program limits the potential benefit, but it also limits the potential downside too. > Also note specifically that a big issue with the taxi medallion system was that the quotas prevented the discovery of the equilibrium # of taxis. If we do not allow a market equilibrium to be reached, it's very easy for regulators to endlessly argue over the 'right' number without ever getting close to what the market actually wants. Politics has a lot of inertia -- the medallion system perpetuated itself for generations -- so I do not think you can understate the importance of bad precedent. It sounds to me like you don't understand what a pilot program is. The pilot program only lasts a year, so these restrictions are only in place for a year. After the pilot program ends, the SFMTA will determine the new rules to use (assuming they decide to allow the scooters to continue operating at all) and the rules that governed the pilot program won't apply anymore. Presumably the SFMTA will continue to require companies operating in this space to obtain a permit, but they'll also likely drop the "only 5 companies can participate" rule because that rule exists to limit the scope of the pilot program and keep it manageable. As for restrictions on the total number of scooters allowed, I guess that depends on the outcome of the pilot program. However, if the outcome is "2,500 scooters is better, or at least not worse, than 1,250 scooters" then the SFMTA is unlikely to put a cap on the scooters (since, as you said, they won't know what the optimal number is at that point).