6 ms·

Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Come on this

Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Come on this is just classic "I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" A form of limited licensing for ride-hailing companies can exist without any of the inputs from the taxicab lobby and work out really well.

macspoofing 8y ago
>Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Because there is an ideological (i.e. irrational) component to some objections. It's true. >Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place Taxi lobby pressuring municipal governments? I cannot imagine you using the past system as an example of a well-run program. There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. There were good reasons for some regulations, such as driver registration, transparent pricing, vehicle standards, but not regulations around limiting number of vehicles. >"I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" There is no new problem recreated. Your argument went away when EVERYONE could afford a car and clogged the streets anyway. In the present day, any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good.
- axlprose 8y ago
  > any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good. Are companies offering to pay you to drive people around, with little barrier to entry, in a tough economy where it's getting increasingly difficult to afford living in urban centers, not also an incentive to own a car? More so, since the problem isn't so much about car ownership, but rather about the number of cars actually on the road at any given time: are these companies not also creating additional incentive for many existing car owners to drive their cars more in the hopes of earning extra cash? Because even when they're not actively giving rides, many of these drivers are still going to be driving around waiting for their next client. Then we have to take into account the fact that the shifts these drivers can potentially work are much longer than the amount of time an average driver would normally stay on the road for. Incentives in a complex system are not an easy clear-cut thing to figure out, so it shouldn't be surprising that the incentives in one direction might actually outweigh and completely counteract the intended incentives of a plan in the opposite direction. Not saying that's actually the case here, but it's far from an impossibility, and it wouldn't require any malevolent bias to happen.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >Are companies offering to pay you to drive people around, with little barrier to entry, in a tough economy where it's getting increasingly difficult to afford living in urban centers, not also an incentive to own a car? You'd think so, but Uber drivers aren't exactly rolling in money. In fact, if they aren't smart about it (i.e. if they don't know how to pick their routes, their customers, and opportune times where 'surge pricing' is in effect), they'll lose money from fuel costs + wear and tear. Seriously, if you think it's easy to make money driving Uber, try it. My buddy is a truck mechanic and he sees it all the time. Lots of truckers now are independent contractors who own the truck. Some of those guys will spend as little as possible on a truck, get a couple gigs make some "decent" money. Inevitably they'll go in for maintenance and repairs and get hit with a $15,000 repair bill (or more, there is no upper bound) and watch all their profits evaporate. >More so, since the problem isn't so much about car ownership, but rather about the number of cars actually on the road at any given time That's a problem today in major urban centers. Do you know what people do? They take mass transit. I make that decision all the time, and sometimes it's just not worth to grab a cab or an uber because I know it's going to get stuck in traffic and a trip that should take 10 minutes, will take 50 minutes - even when work is willing to pay for my transit. In a world with unlimited taxi/ride-sharing licenses, an equilibrium will be established, and price will fall. There is no downside. The current medallion system is there to protect capital investment of medallion owners and (to a lesser extent) the income of operators (thought, if they are contractors they make no money anyway).
- seandougall 8y ago
  > Your argument went away when EVERYONE could afford a car and clogged the streets anyway. I'm not sure I agree. If I drive a car to work, it sits in a parking garage all the rest of the day. If I take a Lyft, it continues to roam the streets waiting for the next fare. Any rideshare (or taxi, for that matter) that is not actively hired is a car that would not otherwise have been out on the road. I don't think they're currently numerous enough to make a huge difference, at least where I live (outside L.A.), but the difference definitely isn't on the side of less traffic. I'm all for transportation options (and don't forget housing options!) that incentivize people not to own cars, but replacing my car with another car that has to drive a bit farther doesn't get cars off the road.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >If I drive a car to work, it sits in a parking garage all the rest of the day. If I take a Lyft, it continues to roam the streets waiting for the next fare. I argued this in another post, but this is a pipe dream of driverless car aficionados. Your car is never going to be able to compete with fleets. The base operating cost of a driverless car is fuel+maintenance and fleets will always be able to underprice you due to economies of scale. In essence, you will lose money every time you rent out your car. This is also a limiting factor for fleets as well. Too many cars will impact fleet revenues too because if they can't make up fuel and maintenance costs they will also have a operating loss. Even in the world where this somehow doesn't happen, what's wrong with deploying your capital? If the streets get clogged (like they are today in major municipal centers), people will opt to for mass public transit until some sort of equilibrium is reached (like it does today). When I'm in Hong Kong or New York, sometimes I opt for subways instead of taxis or uber because it may take uber forever to fight through traffic to my destination.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  > Taxi lobby pressuring municipal governments? I cannot imagine you using the past system as an example of a well-run program. There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. There were good reasons for some regulations, such as driver registration, transparent pricing, vehicle standards, but not regulations around limiting number of vehicles. New York implemented a medallion system because Manhattan is a long, narrow island with high travel demand. Commuters, shoppers etc. do own cars and clog streets during the peak hours, but commuters and shoppers also park their cars while they're off doing their jobs and errands; taxis are constantly driving for fares. Were medallion prices high? Sure. But that doesn't mean a race to the bottom to provide a cornucopia of taxi services doesn't have negative externalities.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >New York implemented a medallion system because Manhattan is a long, narrow island with high travel demand. I'm sure it was well intentioned ... initially. And then it became a boondoggle that protected the invested capital of medallion owners. >Commuters, shoppers etc. do own cars and clog streets during the peak hours, but commuters and shoppers also park their cars while they're off doing their jobs and errands; taxis are constantly driving for fares. OK. But they aren't just driving around. They are moving people meaning there is a public good being served. I have no doubt there will be traffic LIKE THERE IS TODAY and customers will price that in. If traffic gets too terrible, more people will move to mass public transit LIKE THEY DO TODAY. When I'm in New York or Hong Kong, I'd love to be able to cab or uber it everywhere but I don't because many times a 10 minute trip will take an hour - so I opt for subway in many cases. An equilibrium which balances price, convenience, time, etc. will be established - so don't fight it, let it establish itself. I didn't even talk about costs. Low density transit options like Taxis/Ubers are pricey compared to high density transit options liks buses and subways - people will opt for those just for price alone. You see that with the daily commute to work where even affluent people will take the subway instead of cabbing it. I did that because Uber is great for going to a bar on a Friday night, but it sucks to pay $30/day on a round-trip to work ... and subways are faster during rush hour. >Were medallion prices high? Sure. Talk about an understatement.
- gascan 8y ago
  There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. Without some kind of limit/pricing on the public good that is city streets, what in particular is to stop Cab Company X from saturating the roads with cabs in a brute force attempt to capture a higher proportion of the ridership (and incidentally ballooning road wear & travel times to the detriment of everyone else)? Same kind of problem as people anticipate with driverless cars (e.g. while I go in to shop at this store, my car circles the block for the next hour waiting for me). City streets are a "common good" that is largely unpriced. It's a brute force solution with obvious shortcomings, to be sure.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    > what in particular is to stop Cab Company X from saturating the roads with cabs in a brute force attempt to capture a higher proportion of the ridership They can, but so what? The sheer number of cabs it would take to 'saturate the roads' means enormous amount of upfront capital. But that also means cheap prices (essentially 0 profitability) - and isn't that what we want? Leaving that aside, if the roads get clogged to the extent that service is compromised, people will do what they do today, and that is, rely on mass public transit (LIKE THEY DO TODAY). If I'm in New York or Hong Kong, sometimes I'd rather take the subway than have my taxi or uber fight traffic. There are no issues here. >while I go in to shop at this store, my car circles the block for the next hour waiting for me) I heard that argued before, and I say this: never going to happen. That's a pipe dream of driverless car aficionados. Your car is never going to be able to compete with a fleet because the base operating cost of a driverless taxi is going to be fuel cost + maintenance and fleets will always be able to underprice you due to economies of scale. In essence, if you rent out your car, you will lose money because you will, at the very least, have to contend with the wear and tear. But even if you just want the car to 'wait' by circling the block (instead of 'working' while it waits for you) ... it's not cheap to have the car circle the block for an hour. 1 hour of driving is going to cost you in fuel. It's going to put wear and tear on your car. You'll risk collision and traffic tickets. It may not be worth it to do that all the time. HAVING SAID THAT, once in a while, maybe you want to take that hit, and isn't it nice to have the option to do that? Maybe you're running late for your flight, and you want to quickly run in to the store to pick something up - take the hit and the risk. There is no free lunch but options are good.
masterleep 8y ago
Medallions existed because of the opportunity for cronyism / corruption with a superficial veneer of public benefit.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
> Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Why do you think Uber and Lyft exist in the first place?
- gammateam 8y ago
  because there is a market inefficiency. now they cause a different inefficiency.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    But limited-supply medallions isn't the obvious solution in any case.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      correct its one of many solutions, some of which probably work in tandem but without reinventing the wheel, medallions can probably be reimplemented in a better way. instead of turning the drivers into debt serfs, Uber and Lyft can buy all the medallions until the municipality stops issuing them. it is an anti-spam prevention, anti congestion in this case. it'll also likely force the ride hailing companies to likely be even more discerning about their drivers the negative? well yes the egalitarian side job that "anybody" can do is probably going away now. fares may also go up. this was inevitable.
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        I don't think Uber/Lyft are ideal solutions by any means. But I still think their origin can be traced to numerous problems with taxi services, definitely including the false economy of medallions. But taxi companies in the US have been ridiculously poor providers of service. Prior to Uber/Lyft, I had numerous problems with taxis, e.g. even scheduling them 24 hours ahead, they would show up late, resulting in being late to work or (nearly) missed flights; the dispatchers would lie about drivers accepting credit cards; etc. etc.. > fares may also go up. this was inevitable. Right now Uber/Lyft are subsidising fares. Once they've achieved market dominance, they will surely raise rates.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

macspoofing 8y ago

>Why does it have to be an anti-car narrative, or something insidious Because there is an ideological (i.e. irrational) component to some objections. It's true. >Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place Taxi lobby pressuring municipal governments? I cannot imagine you using the past system as an example of a well-run program. There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. There were good reasons for some regulations, such as driver registration, transparent pricing, vehicle standards, but not regulations around limiting number of vehicles. >"I forgot why these regulations existed and now a 100 year old problem is being recreated" There is no new problem recreated. Your argument went away when EVERYONE could afford a car and clogged the streets anyway. In the present day, any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good.

axlprose 8y ago
> any transportation option that incentivizes people not to own a car is good. Are companies offering to pay you to drive people around, with little barrier to entry, in a tough economy where it's getting increasingly difficult to afford living in urban centers, not also an incentive to own a car? More so, since the problem isn't so much about car ownership, but rather about the number of cars actually on the road at any given time: are these companies not also creating additional incentive for many existing car owners to drive their cars more in the hopes of earning extra cash? Because even when they're not actively giving rides, many of these drivers are still going to be driving around waiting for their next client. Then we have to take into account the fact that the shifts these drivers can potentially work are much longer than the amount of time an average driver would normally stay on the road for. Incentives in a complex system are not an easy clear-cut thing to figure out, so it shouldn't be surprising that the incentives in one direction might actually outweigh and completely counteract the intended incentives of a plan in the opposite direction. Not saying that's actually the case here, but it's far from an impossibility, and it wouldn't require any malevolent bias to happen.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >Are companies offering to pay you to drive people around, with little barrier to entry, in a tough economy where it's getting increasingly difficult to afford living in urban centers, not also an incentive to own a car? You'd think so, but Uber drivers aren't exactly rolling in money. In fact, if they aren't smart about it (i.e. if they don't know how to pick their routes, their customers, and opportune times where 'surge pricing' is in effect), they'll lose money from fuel costs + wear and tear. Seriously, if you think it's easy to make money driving Uber, try it. My buddy is a truck mechanic and he sees it all the time. Lots of truckers now are independent contractors who own the truck. Some of those guys will spend as little as possible on a truck, get a couple gigs make some "decent" money. Inevitably they'll go in for maintenance and repairs and get hit with a $15,000 repair bill (or more, there is no upper bound) and watch all their profits evaporate. >More so, since the problem isn't so much about car ownership, but rather about the number of cars actually on the road at any given time That's a problem today in major urban centers. Do you know what people do? They take mass transit. I make that decision all the time, and sometimes it's just not worth to grab a cab or an uber because I know it's going to get stuck in traffic and a trip that should take 10 minutes, will take 50 minutes - even when work is willing to pay for my transit. In a world with unlimited taxi/ride-sharing licenses, an equilibrium will be established, and price will fall. There is no downside. The current medallion system is there to protect capital investment of medallion owners and (to a lesser extent) the income of operators (thought, if they are contractors they make no money anyway).
seandougall 8y ago
> Your argument went away when EVERYONE could afford a car and clogged the streets anyway. I'm not sure I agree. If I drive a car to work, it sits in a parking garage all the rest of the day. If I take a Lyft, it continues to roam the streets waiting for the next fare. Any rideshare (or taxi, for that matter) that is not actively hired is a car that would not otherwise have been out on the road. I don't think they're currently numerous enough to make a huge difference, at least where I live (outside L.A.), but the difference definitely isn't on the side of less traffic. I'm all for transportation options (and don't forget housing options!) that incentivize people not to own cars, but replacing my car with another car that has to drive a bit farther doesn't get cars off the road.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >If I drive a car to work, it sits in a parking garage all the rest of the day. If I take a Lyft, it continues to roam the streets waiting for the next fare. I argued this in another post, but this is a pipe dream of driverless car aficionados. Your car is never going to be able to compete with fleets. The base operating cost of a driverless car is fuel+maintenance and fleets will always be able to underprice you due to economies of scale. In essence, you will lose money every time you rent out your car. This is also a limiting factor for fleets as well. Too many cars will impact fleet revenues too because if they can't make up fuel and maintenance costs they will also have a operating loss. Even in the world where this somehow doesn't happen, what's wrong with deploying your capital? If the streets get clogged (like they are today in major municipal centers), people will opt to for mass public transit until some sort of equilibrium is reached (like it does today). When I'm in Hong Kong or New York, sometimes I opt for subways instead of taxis or uber because it may take uber forever to fight through traffic to my destination.
bobthepanda 8y ago
> Taxi lobby pressuring municipal governments? I cannot imagine you using the past system as an example of a well-run program. There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. There were good reasons for some regulations, such as driver registration, transparent pricing, vehicle standards, but not regulations around limiting number of vehicles. New York implemented a medallion system because Manhattan is a long, narrow island with high travel demand. Commuters, shoppers etc. do own cars and clog streets during the peak hours, but commuters and shoppers also park their cars while they're off doing their jobs and errands; taxis are constantly driving for fares. Were medallion prices high? Sure. But that doesn't mean a race to the bottom to provide a cornucopia of taxi services doesn't have negative externalities.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >New York implemented a medallion system because Manhattan is a long, narrow island with high travel demand. I'm sure it was well intentioned ... initially. And then it became a boondoggle that protected the invested capital of medallion owners. >Commuters, shoppers etc. do own cars and clog streets during the peak hours, but commuters and shoppers also park their cars while they're off doing their jobs and errands; taxis are constantly driving for fares. OK. But they aren't just driving around. They are moving people meaning there is a public good being served. I have no doubt there will be traffic LIKE THERE IS TODAY and customers will price that in. If traffic gets too terrible, more people will move to mass public transit LIKE THEY DO TODAY. When I'm in New York or Hong Kong, I'd love to be able to cab or uber it everywhere but I don't because many times a 10 minute trip will take an hour - so I opt for subway in many cases. An equilibrium which balances price, convenience, time, etc. will be established - so don't fight it, let it establish itself. I didn't even talk about costs. Low density transit options like Taxis/Ubers are pricey compared to high density transit options liks buses and subways - people will opt for those just for price alone. You see that with the daily commute to work where even affluent people will take the subway instead of cabbing it. I did that because Uber is great for going to a bar on a Friday night, but it sucks to pay $30/day on a round-trip to work ... and subways are faster during rush hour. >Were medallion prices high? Sure. Talk about an understatement.
gascan 8y ago
There was never a good reason to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets. Without some kind of limit/pricing on the public good that is city streets, what in particular is to stop Cab Company X from saturating the roads with cabs in a brute force attempt to capture a higher proportion of the ridership (and incidentally ballooning road wear & travel times to the detriment of everyone else)? Same kind of problem as people anticipate with driverless cars (e.g. while I go in to shop at this store, my car circles the block for the next hour waiting for me). City streets are a "common good" that is largely unpriced. It's a brute force solution with obvious shortcomings, to be sure.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  > what in particular is to stop Cab Company X from saturating the roads with cabs in a brute force attempt to capture a higher proportion of the ridership They can, but so what? The sheer number of cabs it would take to 'saturate the roads' means enormous amount of upfront capital. But that also means cheap prices (essentially 0 profitability) - and isn't that what we want? Leaving that aside, if the roads get clogged to the extent that service is compromised, people will do what they do today, and that is, rely on mass public transit (LIKE THEY DO TODAY). If I'm in New York or Hong Kong, sometimes I'd rather take the subway than have my taxi or uber fight traffic. There are no issues here. >while I go in to shop at this store, my car circles the block for the next hour waiting for me) I heard that argued before, and I say this: never going to happen. That's a pipe dream of driverless car aficionados. Your car is never going to be able to compete with a fleet because the base operating cost of a driverless taxi is going to be fuel cost + maintenance and fleets will always be able to underprice you due to economies of scale. In essence, if you rent out your car, you will lose money because you will, at the very least, have to contend with the wear and tear. But even if you just want the car to 'wait' by circling the block (instead of 'working' while it waits for you) ... it's not cheap to have the car circle the block for an hour. 1 hour of driving is going to cost you in fuel. It's going to put wear and tear on your car. You'll risk collision and traffic tickets. It may not be worth it to do that all the time. HAVING SAID THAT, once in a while, maybe you want to take that hit, and isn't it nice to have the option to do that? Maybe you're running late for your flight, and you want to quickly run in to the store to pick something up - take the hit and the risk. There is no free lunch but options are good.

masterleep 8y ago

Medallions existed because of the opportunity for cronyism / corruption with a superficial veneer of public benefit.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago

> Why do you think limited-supply medallion systems existed in the first place? Why do you think Uber and Lyft exist in the first place?

gammateam 8y ago
because there is a market inefficiency. now they cause a different inefficiency.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  But limited-supply medallions isn't the obvious solution in any case.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    correct its one of many solutions, some of which probably work in tandem but without reinventing the wheel, medallions can probably be reimplemented in a better way. instead of turning the drivers into debt serfs, Uber and Lyft can buy all the medallions until the municipality stops issuing them. it is an anti-spam prevention, anti congestion in this case. it'll also likely force the ride hailing companies to likely be even more discerning about their drivers the negative? well yes the egalitarian side job that "anybody" can do is probably going away now. fares may also go up. this was inevitable.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      I don't think Uber/Lyft are ideal solutions by any means. But I still think their origin can be traced to numerous problems with taxi services, definitely including the false economy of medallions. But taxi companies in the US have been ridiculously poor providers of service. Prior to Uber/Lyft, I had numerous problems with taxis, e.g. even scheduling them 24 hours ahead, they would show up late, resulting in being late to work or (nearly) missed flights; the dispatchers would lie about drivers accepting credit cards; etc. etc.. > fares may also go up. this was inevitable. Right now Uber/Lyft are subsidising fares. Once they've achieved market dominance, they will surely raise rates.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]