7 ms·

How would this work? As far as I know neither of them owns the vehicles in their “fleet”. Do they just provide incentives for drivers to buy electric vehicles?

How would this work? As far as I know neither of them owns the vehicles in their “fleet”. Do they just provide incentives for drivers to buy electric vehicles? Or is the government actually expecting them to put company-owned electric vehicles on the streets?

Retric 7y ago
It would limit their fleet sizes to 2.5x the number of electric vehicles. Depending on electric vechile adoption they might not need to do much. Presumably they would pay x$/month to EV owners in their fleets, deduct some fees from IC car owners, and or simply require higher customer approval etc.
fooker 7y ago
> How would this work? As far as I know neither of them owns the vehicles in their “fleet”. They partner with companies owning fleets who rent them to drivers at a low-ish cost. It seems entirely reasonable to put restrictions on the 'fleet'.
- dmix 7y ago
  Uber doesn’t own any cars though. That’s a big part of their business model. Even a significant % of traditional taxis don’t own the cars. The taxi drivers are ‘brokers’ who buy and maintain the vehicles and make a deal with the taxi companies for business (branding, debit/credit card machines, running the phones, etc). Uber would have to require most new cars from drivers they hire to be electric in order to accomplish this. Otherwise they’ll be forced to get into the fleet buying/maintenance business.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    I'm sure Uber of all companies can create a system of incentives for this.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmix 7y ago
      The question is whether it will be economical for your standard Uber driver to own electric cars by 2026. Otherwise the number of people able to make money on the side p/t with their personal vehicle will be far smaller - therefore increasing the cost of fares if demand is higher than the supply of vehicles available. ‘Surge’ pricing already exists for this reason. Which will be good for electric car owners and Uber, bad for the average consumer rider who will pay higher fees and drivers who can’t afford an electric vehicle will be out of work.
      - geofft 7y ago
        The whole point of making laws is to get people to do things that aren't economical to do in the absence of laws, or not do things that are economical to do in the absence of laws. I don't see why it's so incomprehensible that the government would ask a private business to do something that's not economical.
        dmix 7y ago
        Yes no ones debating that. Particularly in India with their long history of gov intervening in every sort of business. But those same people who call for this type of policy were already outraged at the idea of surge pricing and the service being more exclusive to the middle class and wealthy. I wouldn’t be surprised if this amplifies that. Not only for riders but also for the poor drivers who get excluded because they can’t afford a new electric car. Of course this policy is a bit of a gamble that those 4dr electric cars will be feasible and economical for your average Uber driver to own. It’s possible costs will be similar in 5yrs and won’t add too much expenses which will roll down hill.
  - mtgx 7y ago
    I don't think Uber allows just about any car to enter its network. I believe they verify them for certain standards.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Yes they already have requirements about age, size, models, no-2dr cars etc. The difference is there are already tons of regular people with vehicles that fit this profile already.
      - fooker 7y ago
        >The difference is there are already tons of regular people with vehicles that fit this profile already. Not in India. The cars operated (usually now owned) by Uber/Ola drivers are considered high end cars and are loaned to the drivers by a cottage industry of agencies which take a cut of the fare (not sure if that cut comes from Uber's side or the driver's share).
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      There's a set of requirements. Basically it boils down to the car needing to be reasonably new and having four doors. They don't want people associating Uber with 90s shitboxes.
est31 7y ago
How they change their fleets is their business. They could give higher compensation to people with EV's. They could treat ICE as if they weren't around when the maximum number of ICE cars is on the road.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  >How they change their fleets is their business Why is this obvious? If the composition of their fleets is not their business why is it clear that the way they manage their fleets is? I would actually assume that there are probably loads of regulations that already govern the ways Uber can manage its fleet?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    If they are regulated, it should come as no surprise when additional regulation is imposed. And they are regulated.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  They don’t own their own fleets, do they can’t change what they don’t have. It will be up to whoever is working on their platforms to procure EVs, and with India’s lack of developed EV production capacity and super high tariffs on imports, this goal completely unworkable by the deadline put forth.
CydeWeys 7y ago
Simplest way to make this work would be to gate new driver signup by vehicle type (with verification). If they are under 40% EVs then they wouldn't allow new non-EV drivers to sign up for the service at all. Also, they'd likely want to pay EV drivers more, to create the correct incentives to get enough EV vehicles into their "fleet".
- nacs 7y ago
  This is not a solution at all. The churn rate on drivers is probably too high with Uber/Lyft services (most drivers aren't full time and do this when they feel like it). This means while the EV adoption is under the cutoff (40%) in your case, no new drivers would be joining while lots of drivers who are already active drivers become inactive. This means not only are Uber/Lyft not acquiring any drivers (or just signing up a tiny percentage that have EVs) while they lose a lot of their existing drivers.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    It sounds like it would work -- there'd be plenty of time when only EV drivers would be allowed to drive (since the quota isn't met at that moment). This would create a lot of incentive for people to get EVs, so that they could drive for Uber whenever they wanted, rather than only occasionally. These conditions would need to be imposed on taxis as well, for maximal effect. Grandfather in existing taxis, and then past a certain date, new taxis must be EVs.
    - Noos 7y ago
      You're asking low income workers to suddenly front the bill for an entirely new vehicle. This isn't going to happen. What will happen is the same thing that did to people with the affordable care act in the united states: it becomes a regressive tax they pay because the alternative is simply too expensive. Better to pay the tax penalty than an unaffordable insurance requirement per month.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
rubber_duck 7y ago
To be honest it would probably be better to add a progressively increasing tax on non-electric car fares - so first year it is announced, second year it's 5% of the fare, third it's 10%, fourth 15%, fifth 20%, etc. And use that tax pool to create programs for acquiring EVs (business or otherwise). You can even add an exemption to offset the start period by a year or two for cars bought within a year to avoid screwing over people who just invested in a new car for this purpose.
- benj111 7y ago
  Wouldn't you want a higher tax earlier to offset the higher EV cost? A 1% tax isn't going to help if EVs are twice as expensive, whereas in 20 years time where hopefully EVs are approaching cost parity a 20% tax shouldn't be needed. But on the other hand you want to broadcast to everyone that in the medium term your taxi will need to be electric, so plan accordingly. Taxes are hard!
  - rubber_duck 7y ago
    Well you need to give time for market to readjust so the ramp-up is a grade period - but instead of doing it 1% per year you do it in 5% per year or some similar significant increment - this way you're clearly signaling what's going to happen without completely screwing people who invested in ICU.
- Noos 7y ago
  The problem is it would just force people out of the market. Like in the USA the average car is getting up to the 25-35k range and is not something people can change to easily. You're asking someone working for Wal-mart wages (which tend to be what many Uber people essentially make) to incur a huge new debt load or progressively harsher taxes. You guys need to understand the impacts of the policies you recommend, because this is why people are against climate change efforts so vigorously.
  - rubber_duck 7y ago
    Well one option is to give subsidies for electric cars to offset this a bit, the other is hope that electric production ramps up and drives the cost down - that's why it would be increased gradually - from barely significant to unable to compete in 5 years. Around here we already have a law that any taxi drivers (Uber and others included) cannot use a car older than 5 years.
adrianmonk 7y ago
The simplest thing would be to change how the driver app assigns jobs. Under certain conditions, when they look at the Uber driver app, drivers of gasoline cars would just not see jobs available where drivers of electric cars (in the same location at the same time) would. Adjust conditions as necessary so that you hit your target (while also trying to minimize service disruption). Because Uber drivers can't make money if they can't accept jobs, this creates an incentive for drivers to have an electric vehicle. They can get jobs others can't. Eventually, the market should even work out the correct pricing. There's already a mechanism to pay more when drivers are in short supply. If the supply gets restricted because gasoline cars are sometimes ineligible, compensation has to go up (assuming Uber doesn't want to make customers wait forever for a ride).
shasts 7y ago
Well, how would this work is often an afterthought for Government in India. Last year they promised healthcare for bottom 40% of India, which in theory sounds nice for the elections and the masses, but fail to implement or allocate funds. Since this is primarily aimed at foreign companies operating in India, may be there could be some success, unless they bribe out of this. https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/09/27/indias-government-launches-a-vast-health-insurance-scheme https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/09/27/indias-government-...

Retric 7y ago

It would limit their fleet sizes to 2.5x the number of electric vehicles. Depending on electric vechile adoption they might not need to do much. Presumably they would pay x$/month to EV owners in their fleets, deduct some fees from IC car owners, and or simply require higher customer approval etc.

fooker 7y ago

> How would this work? As far as I know neither of them owns the vehicles in their “fleet”. They partner with companies owning fleets who rent them to drivers at a low-ish cost. It seems entirely reasonable to put restrictions on the 'fleet'.

dmix 7y ago
Uber doesn’t own any cars though. That’s a big part of their business model. Even a significant % of traditional taxis don’t own the cars. The taxi drivers are ‘brokers’ who buy and maintain the vehicles and make a deal with the taxi companies for business (branding, debit/credit card machines, running the phones, etc). Uber would have to require most new cars from drivers they hire to be electric in order to accomplish this. Otherwise they’ll be forced to get into the fleet buying/maintenance business.
- damnyou 7y ago
  I'm sure Uber of all companies can create a system of incentives for this.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmix 7y ago
    The question is whether it will be economical for your standard Uber driver to own electric cars by 2026. Otherwise the number of people able to make money on the side p/t with their personal vehicle will be far smaller - therefore increasing the cost of fares if demand is higher than the supply of vehicles available. ‘Surge’ pricing already exists for this reason. Which will be good for electric car owners and Uber, bad for the average consumer rider who will pay higher fees and drivers who can’t afford an electric vehicle will be out of work.
    - geofft 7y ago
      The whole point of making laws is to get people to do things that aren't economical to do in the absence of laws, or not do things that are economical to do in the absence of laws. I don't see why it's so incomprehensible that the government would ask a private business to do something that's not economical.
      - dmix 7y ago
        Yes no ones debating that. Particularly in India with their long history of gov intervening in every sort of business. But those same people who call for this type of policy were already outraged at the idea of surge pricing and the service being more exclusive to the middle class and wealthy. I wouldn’t be surprised if this amplifies that. Not only for riders but also for the poor drivers who get excluded because they can’t afford a new electric car. Of course this policy is a bit of a gamble that those 4dr electric cars will be feasible and economical for your average Uber driver to own. It’s possible costs will be similar in 5yrs and won’t add too much expenses which will roll down hill.
- mtgx 7y ago
  I don't think Uber allows just about any car to enter its network. I believe they verify them for certain standards.
  - dmix 7y ago
    Yes they already have requirements about age, size, models, no-2dr cars etc. The difference is there are already tons of regular people with vehicles that fit this profile already.
    - fooker 7y ago
      >The difference is there are already tons of regular people with vehicles that fit this profile already. Not in India. The cars operated (usually now owned) by Uber/Ola drivers are considered high end cars and are loaned to the drivers by a cottage industry of agencies which take a cut of the fare (not sure if that cut comes from Uber's side or the driver's share).
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    There's a set of requirements. Basically it boils down to the car needing to be reasonably new and having four doors. They don't want people associating Uber with 90s shitboxes.

est31 7y ago

How they change their fleets is their business. They could give higher compensation to people with EV's. They could treat ICE as if they weren't around when the maximum number of ICE cars is on the road.

wuliwong 7y ago
>How they change their fleets is their business Why is this obvious? If the composition of their fleets is not their business why is it clear that the way they manage their fleets is? I would actually assume that there are probably loads of regulations that already govern the ways Uber can manage its fleet?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  If they are regulated, it should come as no surprise when additional regulation is imposed. And they are regulated.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
They don’t own their own fleets, do they can’t change what they don’t have. It will be up to whoever is working on their platforms to procure EVs, and with India’s lack of developed EV production capacity and super high tariffs on imports, this goal completely unworkable by the deadline put forth.

CydeWeys 7y ago

Simplest way to make this work would be to gate new driver signup by vehicle type (with verification). If they are under 40% EVs then they wouldn't allow new non-EV drivers to sign up for the service at all. Also, they'd likely want to pay EV drivers more, to create the correct incentives to get enough EV vehicles into their "fleet".

nacs 7y ago
This is not a solution at all. The churn rate on drivers is probably too high with Uber/Lyft services (most drivers aren't full time and do this when they feel like it). This means while the EV adoption is under the cutoff (40%) in your case, no new drivers would be joining while lots of drivers who are already active drivers become inactive. This means not only are Uber/Lyft not acquiring any drivers (or just signing up a tiny percentage that have EVs) while they lose a lot of their existing drivers.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  It sounds like it would work -- there'd be plenty of time when only EV drivers would be allowed to drive (since the quota isn't met at that moment). This would create a lot of incentive for people to get EVs, so that they could drive for Uber whenever they wanted, rather than only occasionally. These conditions would need to be imposed on taxis as well, for maximal effect. Grandfather in existing taxis, and then past a certain date, new taxis must be EVs.
  - Noos 7y ago
    You're asking low income workers to suddenly front the bill for an entirely new vehicle. This isn't going to happen. What will happen is the same thing that did to people with the affordable care act in the united states: it becomes a regressive tax they pay because the alternative is simply too expensive. Better to pay the tax penalty than an unaffordable insurance requirement per month.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago

rubber_duck 7y ago

To be honest it would probably be better to add a progressively increasing tax on non-electric car fares - so first year it is announced, second year it's 5% of the fare, third it's 10%, fourth 15%, fifth 20%, etc. And use that tax pool to create programs for acquiring EVs (business or otherwise). You can even add an exemption to offset the start period by a year or two for cars bought within a year to avoid screwing over people who just invested in a new car for this purpose.

benj111 7y ago
Wouldn't you want a higher tax earlier to offset the higher EV cost? A 1% tax isn't going to help if EVs are twice as expensive, whereas in 20 years time where hopefully EVs are approaching cost parity a 20% tax shouldn't be needed. But on the other hand you want to broadcast to everyone that in the medium term your taxi will need to be electric, so plan accordingly. Taxes are hard!
- rubber_duck 7y ago
  Well you need to give time for market to readjust so the ramp-up is a grade period - but instead of doing it 1% per year you do it in 5% per year or some similar significant increment - this way you're clearly signaling what's going to happen without completely screwing people who invested in ICU.
Noos 7y ago
The problem is it would just force people out of the market. Like in the USA the average car is getting up to the 25-35k range and is not something people can change to easily. You're asking someone working for Wal-mart wages (which tend to be what many Uber people essentially make) to incur a huge new debt load or progressively harsher taxes. You guys need to understand the impacts of the policies you recommend, because this is why people are against climate change efforts so vigorously.
- rubber_duck 7y ago
  Well one option is to give subsidies for electric cars to offset this a bit, the other is hope that electric production ramps up and drives the cost down - that's why it would be increased gradually - from barely significant to unable to compete in 5 years. Around here we already have a law that any taxi drivers (Uber and others included) cannot use a car older than 5 years.

adrianmonk 7y ago

The simplest thing would be to change how the driver app assigns jobs. Under certain conditions, when they look at the Uber driver app, drivers of gasoline cars would just not see jobs available where drivers of electric cars (in the same location at the same time) would. Adjust conditions as necessary so that you hit your target (while also trying to minimize service disruption). Because Uber drivers can't make money if they can't accept jobs, this creates an incentive for drivers to have an electric vehicle. They can get jobs others can't. Eventually, the market should even work out the correct pricing. There's already a mechanism to pay more when drivers are in short supply. If the supply gets restricted because gasoline cars are sometimes ineligible, compensation has to go up (assuming Uber doesn't want to make customers wait forever for a ride).

shasts 7y ago

Well, how would this work is often an afterthought for Government in India. Last year they promised healthcare for bottom 40% of India, which in theory sounds nice for the elections and the masses, but fail to implement or allocate funds. Since this is primarily aimed at foreign companies operating in India, may be there could be some success, unless they bribe out of this. https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/09/27/indias-government-launches-a-vast-health-insurance-scheme https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/09/27/indias-government-...