11 ms·

DC "Uber Amendment" would force sedans to charge 5x more than taxis

292 points by Shenglong 14y ago

jtchang 14y ago
These are the kinds of battles that break out when your business model is truly disruptive. The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer. We are left paying the higher prices for what should be a relatively free market.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Pushing the costs of maintenance, insurance, and safety onto the drivers and passengers is not disruptive. Taxi companies were doing that decades ago. Yes, safety regulation costs money. The reason we accept higher prices is to avoid the catastrophic costs that could result if there was no regulation forcing taxis to maintain their vehicles, carry insurance, accept all passengers, etc. Licensing forces a minimum level of insurance on taxi providers to guarantee that injured passengers are properly cared for in the event of an accident involving the taxi provider. The cost of the insurance and maintenance requirements are the primary drivers (pun intended) of taxi costs. Uber avoids these costs (i.e, the disruption of its business model) by maintaining smaller insurance policies and pushing the maintenance costs onto drivers.
  - MichaelGG 14y ago
    The issue is not with licensing and regulation. It's that only a limited number of taxis get authorized. That is most definitely an artificial limit, and does not help safety. And then there's proposed laws like this, where they force a higher cost _just to prevent competition_.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    I obviously can't speak for every city in the world, but typically the reason taxis are expensive is severely limited supply (e.g. medallions in NYC). In most cities in the developed world even the best insurance policies money can buy would not allow me to legally run a taxi service.
- ahelwer 14y ago
  There was an article on here a while back about how the medallion system in NYC is making both sides lose out... anyone remember it/have the link?
  - pavedwalden 14y ago
    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/taxi_medallions_how_new_york_s_terrible_taxi_system_makes_fares_higher_and_drivers_poorer_.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/taxi...
  - bigdubs 14y ago
    It wasn't so much that the medallion system is bad, as defined as limiting the total number of cabs on the road, it was the exemption that the medallion owner didn't have to drive. This leads to cartels of medallion owners that make huge profits off the backs of other drivers.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  > The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer. When does price fixing ever help the consumer? Honestly.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    An argument could be made for rent controlled apartments being a net positive. Not just for the people renting them but also for the businesses hiring those people and by extension their customers.
    - davidandgoliath 14y ago
      That may have been more of an argument prior to the internet -- e.g. now someone can find an alternative place to stay in fifteen minutes on craigslist at a cheaper rate. That is unless all of the landlords get together and price-fix, though I suspect that would correct itself rather quickly.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > An argument could be made for rent controlled apartments being a net positive. Only if you overvalue the benefits and ignore lots of costs. Rent-control discourages turnover and maintenance. It also discourages building new capacity. The various tweaks to try to get around these things have other problems. > the businesses hiring those people and by extension their customers. How many biz want fewer potential customers and employees? Whenever you hear a politician say "I remembered {group}", he's telling you that other people were "forgotten". (Actually, they weren't forgotten, they're paying the bills, and then some.)
      - leot 14y ago
        Are you referring to "rent control" or "rent stabilization" or both? It's not clear to me how/why rent stabilization (which merely limits how much rents can increase each year) would lead to less "building new capacity" -- an argument could be made that it forces new capacity to be created, because landlords can't make much more money off their existing units.
- wilfra 14y ago
  "The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer." Absolutely. In Bangkok there are more taxis on the streets than all other cars combined. You can find one anywhere, anytime and a ten minute ride costs about $1. No need to own a car, even if you can afford one. Our minimum wage wouldn't allow for that but there is no reason it needs to cost $60 to take a 15 minute ride from San Bruno into SF. The gas cost + labor cost of that ride should be 1/10th of that. Double that to account for profit, administration and the car and you have a $10-15 ride. Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars - and there would be a lot more taxis on the streets to account for the increased demand. And a lot of jobs.
  - mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
    Bad example. I've never seen a city in more need of stiffer regulation than Bangkok. The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers. They break traffic laws and block lanes looking for fares. The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public transport. It does not reduce the total number of cars on the road. It's useful from a consumer standpoint but the low cost means people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity. "Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars." Possibly in other cities -- though I doubt it -- but it certainly didn't help in Bangkok. People don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them. The number of news cars sold in the country per day is astounding (though the number escapes me) and that's despite the fact that they cost 50% - 350% more than the same cars in the US. Bangkok needs to regulate the shit out of the taxi industry and make it more expensive to drive in the city if it wants to sort out its remaining traffic issues. Uber can probably work in US cities that have the traffic capacity, but it's a horrible idea in congested areas.
    - wilfra 14y ago
      "The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers." That method of driving is not unique to taxi drivers - and those issues exist in several other Asian countries, regardless of the number of taxis on the road. I'll leave it at that. "people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity." That's not accurate. Taking the BTS from Thonglor to MBK is faster than driving or taking a taxi at nearly all times. Thats an extreme example but traffic is so bad that its faster in a lot of cases. That's why both the BTS and MRT are always packed, with people of all classes. You make some good points otherwise, some I disagree with like whether Bangkok is an example of an unregulated market failing or thriving, but I don't want to get too off into the weeds of a political discussion :)
- nirvana 14y ago
  It happens also when a business model isn't so disruptive. Regulation ends up favoring the politically connected. The more politically connected, generally, are bigger or more established interests. This benefits politicians as well, because the ability to change regulations is useful for raising donations. "You gotta mighty fine business here, it would be a shame if we lowered your tariff...."
  - alttab 14y ago
    Its called racketeering and it's illegal. Happens all the time and it perpetuates because those engaging in it are financially rewarded if successful, which in today's system simply makes success more probable the next time.
- jemfinch 14y ago
  But Uber's prices (at least, last I checked: $4.80/mi in SF, iirc) are higher than cabs' prices.
  - simonk 14y ago
    If you get UBERx its $3.25/mi now but still higher than cab pricing.
    - officemonkey 14y ago
      Have you ever taken a taxicab in DC? DC cabs are dumps. Getting one with air conditioning is a crapshoot. Another city that has really crap cab service is Detroit. Both cities have thriving private car services because for a little bit more money, you get a much better experience. Combine that better experience with app convenience and for most people the extra money doesn't matter.
      - goostavos 14y ago
        Totally agree. Getting a cab in sweltering mid-summer DC weather is freaking awful. I almost always shell out the few extra bucks for a town car on my way back to the airport. It cozy, air conditioned, and even smells nice. I also get really, really tired of the credit card dance that every cab driver does. Before I hop in a cab, "You take credit cards, right?" "Oh, sure! Of course!" Then we arrive at destination "Buddy, you don't have cash? C'mon? My machine doesn't work. There's an ATM inside, you could just run in and get some cash." "Not my problem, champ. You can take the card, or you call call your boss." Not to be stingy, but complaining at me for paying you the way I said I was going to pay you is not the best way to get a good tip. I'll definitely checkout the Uber service (If it is still around) next time I'm in DC.
        gte910h 14y ago
        They do that in Atlanta too. Also fuck with the "Business to residential" fare and try to not turn on the meter and instead charge you the much higher business to business zone fare
- Cogito 14y ago
  The biggest concern is maintaining a consistent and high quality service. For example, if the market was to become saturated with drivers undercutting the market, it is plausible that some drivers would be forced out of the market as they are unable to make enough to sustain themselves. If this happens to enough 'regular' drivers the service may become irregular and the goal of providing accessible, consistent public transport (or whatever the goal is) suffers. I guess what I am saying is that a completely free market _might_ actually harm the market in the end. We expect free markets to self-correct, but are we willing to accept sub-par services whilst waiting for that correction? I have seen this concern in the taxi market in Canberra Australia. Taxis there are tightly regulated, and the numbers are kept low to make sure it is profitable. Their numbers have recently been increased to try an accommodate the increased Monday morning and Friday evening rushes as more people are flying in and out every week. The traffic during the rest of the week has remained fairly constant. This means that profits are lower and so some taxi drivers are getting out of the business. In a free market it's possible that this inflation of service providers could happen unchecked for a time, before it is realised that there is not enough consistent work to support the new drivers. The possibility for extreme fluctuation in service provision is high, and this could have terrible consequences for anyone who happens to need a taxi home on a Wednesday evening after too many drinks at the pub. It is hard to say for sure if a free market would deal with the irregular nature of taxi business in that city better than a regulated market, but I think it is clear that the purpose of a taxi system could be at odds with the outcomes of a free market. A free market could fluctuate between too many and too few providers, removing the reliability that is essential in an effective taxi service, even though the regulated service might provision a greater than optimal service cost.
  - guynamedloren 14y ago
    > We expect free markets to self-correct, but are we willing to accept sub-par services whilst waiting for that correction? Yes. When the service goes to shit, a competitor comes in, steps up their game, and if demand for a superior service is high enough, they succeed.
  - mahyarm 14y ago
    Uber is a premium service that is more expensive than the typical overpriced cab. If service is undercut, something like uber can pop up to provide reliable and quick service. I've gotten an uber cab in 3 minutes at 1 am during pride weekend and 5 minutes in north beach during a sunday morning. Uber is near instant in SF.
- felipemnoa 14y ago
  Taxis seem over hyped. Why not just call a car service. Don't know if such things exist outside of NYC though. Basically you call them to pick you up and drop you off anywhere you want. They give you a fixed price depending on your destination rather than having a meter running. The only limitation they have is that you cannot wave them down. You have to call them. Overall I feel I get a better service from a car service than from a yellow cab. Also, as far as I'm aware there isn't a limitation on how many car service there can be (I have family members that work in such) which keeps competition high and prices low.
delinka 14y ago
If taxi services would keep up with technology and allow the market to make and break companies, Uber would not be able to eat their lunch. Same story, different industry.
dantheman 14y ago
Standard government corruption and central planning. Why do we need the government to manage taxis? Self driving cars are going to further destroy this industry.
- ry0ohki 14y ago
  Have you been somewhere that Taxi's are unregulated? After they refuse to give you your luggage until you pay $20 over what was agreed, rob you, leave you at the wrong destination, etc... is when you realize taxi regulation was setup to protect consumers. edit To clarify, I'm not saying there are no problems with the current cab systems, only that public safety and consistent fares are one of the main reasons cabs are regulated by the government
  - dantheman 14y ago
    I've been in places where taxis are regulated and I've been ripped off too, primarily boston and new york: 1. The taxi driver refused to turn on his meter and then just demanded a fee. 2. Taxis refusing to take you where you want to go, i.e. getting a cab to brooklyn. 3. Taxis not showing up when they've been reserved ahead of time, early morning airport runs. 4. Taxis taking long and wrong routes to drive up the fare. 5. Taxis not knowing the area, and not having a GPS, so they get lost and then just give up leaving you somewhere. 6. Being in a taxi where the license picture does match the driver. So, I've had lots of bad experiences of "regulated" taxis. I've had lots of good experiences too. As for unregulated, I've been in a few in south and central america, not sure if they were regulated or not.
    - ry0ohki 14y ago
      Did you complain to the authorities? Every regulated cab I've been in has a hotline you can call for these types of things.
    - tghw 14y ago
      Saying that you've had bad experiences with regulated taxis is not a counter argument. For all six of those, there is a number you can call to report them. And none of them are all that bad. Get into an unregulated taxi, and you're at their mercy.
untog 14y ago
I'm not surprised that this has happened- vested interests are hardly something new in government lobbying. But I am amazed at how brazen it is- even calling it the "Uber Amendment". I suspect that they will get a rude awakening of the new realities of open government soon enough.
- esonderegger 14y ago
  Those of us who live in and around the District have been waiting for that "rude awakening" for a very long time. It's worth pointing out that Marion Barry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry) is still sitting on the DC Council.
  - wiredfool 14y ago
    Somewhere in my parents house, I still have a picture from the Post of Barry flicking off the photographer. They printed it large, on page B1 in 89 or so. I can't believe he's still around.
rdl 14y ago
From my reading, this also makes Uber, Inc. non-regulated by the taxi commission itself. What I'd do as a special DC-specific hack is charge the 5x rates, but then have Uber rebate some percentage back to the user. So if the goal is to charge $15 for the ride, charge the $50 required under the law and then the taxi company pays Uber $35 in "Special fuck-DC licensing fee" and then Uber pays $35 to the user in "DC victim's compensation fund".
- cheez 14y ago
  This would be acceptable!
- shalmanese 14y ago
  Law is not computer code and judges are not robots. Any competent judge would clearly rule that such a fund is a blatant attempt to skirt regulation and come down like a hammer on anyone dumb enough to try it.
  - rdl 14y ago
    At which point you can challenge the legality of the law itself, and will have bought time to get enough happy users in town to make it a political issue and possibly replace the regulators. Some legal hacks work, others don't.
andrewpi 14y ago
DC's taxis are really the worst, so it's not surprising that they are fighting back so hard to kill a perceived threat to their monopoly. Still, I haven't used Uber much due to the high prices compared to taxis, but the new lower-priced UberX could be a real game-changer if it isn't squashed by the government.
ahelwer 14y ago
Is it wrong that I can't wait until taxi companies are pulverized into dust? From credit/debit machines that always seem to be "out of order" to being put in a caller queue in order to tell someone "come get me at this location", interaction with the industry somehow never seems to be the highlight of my night.
- spudlyo 14y ago
  Uber is amazing. It's one of my favorite pockets of the unevenly distributed future that I've come to rely on since moving to SF. Tracking the progress of my ride on my smartphone as it makes the usually less than 3 minute journey to me is still a thrill. Uber is maybe 10% more expensive, yet 500% more reliable. I don't know if you've ever tried to hail a cab in SF, but it's a huge exercise in frustration. Calling a dispatch service is equally vexing. I'm with you, the doom of the Taxi business can't come soon enough for me.
  - ryguytilidie 14y ago
    As much as I agree with you in loving Uber, your 10% more calculation is insanely low. I have done comparison drives twice. Once I took a cab from SOMA to Pac heights: $8.35, Uber back to the same spot: $15.95 SOMA to Dolores Park. Cab: 7.90. Uber: 15.25 Clearly not 10%. I guess the big thing for me is that I really don't care about bottles of water or the type of car the person shows up in. I just want an on demand service that gets everything done in a sensible way. If there was a cheaper version of Uber for regular cabs I would be all over it. The bigger picture though is how much people will fight to keep crappy businesses in business. We will hear the argument about how we cant lose jobs right now when unemployment is so high, but for the love of god, this is progress people. If some cab drivers lose their jobs in the name of progress is this really worth hurting society over?
    - olivercameron 14y ago
      There is a cheaper version of Uber, it's called UberX[1]. 1. http://allthingsd.com/20120702/a-status-symbol-moves-down-market-whats-behind-the-uberx-launch/ http://allthingsd.com/20120702/a-status-symbol-moves-down-ma...
robryan 14y ago
Is this the same as New York where taxis are overpriced but the money is all flowing to the rich license holders?
justinsb 14y ago
However you feel about it, this is entirely expected. The government has chosen to regulate taxis; there's a whole bureaucracy around that; there are a bunch of providers operating within the system. Uber enters and claims the rules do not apply to it, and threatens to replace the regulated market entirely. The regulators are now faced with the choice between ending all taxi regulation, regulating Uber like a taxi, or simply excluding Uber from the market entirely. If they do nothing, they know that Uber will likely replace taxis, leaving an unregulated market. If they wanted an unregulated market, they wouldn't have regulated it in the first place. When your business is based around regulatory arbitrage, you have to know that you will only enjoy that advantage for a limited window.
- cheez 14y ago
  You're one removed from the actual decision makers. The real decision makers are the elite who own the licenses for the taxis. In my city, there are two families who have the bulk of the licenses and if I am not mistaken, 100% of the share of licenses for taxis allowed to operate at the airport. If you think this is about regulation, you are sorely mistaken. Or another way to think about it: regulation is about protecting profits, not consumers.
  - justinsb 14y ago
    Regulation is what starts the ball rolling. I won't dispute that the outcome is often sub-optimal in some ways (like the one you cited) But the point is that the result is a whole apparatus which acts to preserve the status quo: the regulators themselves (who like being employed), the operators that are profiting from the system, etc. I'm trying to stay away from the political hot potato of whether taxi regulation is a net positive thing or not! It's not really relevant to the point I'm making. Whether it's profit or bureaucracy that are the drivers now, I think we agree: Uber must have known this was coming. I look forward to seeing what Uber has planned; perhaps operating a dispatch service over regular taxis?
    - chefsurfing 14y ago
      I think your analysis is correct. It seems likely they will be forced to integrate and become a taxi service dispatch infrastructure provider. It seems a smarter move to accept how "sub-optimal" markets such as these have become and deal with unreality on it's terms than to resist the corruption outright on principal.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- repsilat 14y ago
  This only affects residents of the city of Washington D.C.
geekfactor 14y ago
The headline here is totally sensational and factually incorrect. Has anyone actually read the linked article? The proposed amendment sets the minimum for a sedan at 5x the flag pull rate on a taxi. So, in DC this would mean that the minimum rate for a sedan is $15 bucks. While I'm against government creating arbitrary and anti-competitive laws like this, it hardly seems as bad as forcing sedans to charge 5x more than taxis.
- geekfactor 14y ago
  Further, if Uber really wants widespread support on this, they should publish some data showing how many of their customers/rides would be affected under this law. How many times in the past year has a customer paid under $15 with Uber? (I'm suspecting not many, as a percentage of total fares, but that's total speculation.)
  - viscanti 14y ago
    The law puts a floor on non-taxi prices at Uber's current black car price. So 0% of their current black-car fares would be affected. What this does is prevent any future competition on price (like UberX in San Francisco). The law will literally prevent anyone (other than a taxi) from charging less than $15 for a ride, and for no obvious benefit to anyone other than Taxis. For me, the difference here is clear. When I order an Uber, I have a certain expectation of quality, and I have the option of never using their service if they totally blow it sometime (or I can give a driver a bad rating, and if he/she gets enough he gets booted from the service). If I get a lousy ride from a Taxi, I don't have many alternatives. If a law is passed that prevents anyone else from competing on price, I have even less options.
  - chuckharmston 14y ago
    DC Uber user here. A fact that's commonly lost on people: the District itself is actually very small, just 68 square miles. Before a recent fare hike, there was a maximum intra-district cab fare of $19, so a $15 minimum Uber fare is a big deal. Anecdote: I live on the far eastern side of downtown, near Penn Quarter, and am able to get from my apartment to damned near anywhere in town for Uber's minimum charge (the major exception being the far reaches of NW, in the Friendship Heights/Van Ness area). Looking back at my history, only 4 of my 23 fares have been more than $15—three to the airport (in Virginia) and one to Tenleytown. You can certainly blow this argument up if you want to leave the District, but let's be real...who would want to go to Virginia? ;)
wolframarnold 14y ago
Elected officials should be ashamed of themselves. What are they going to do when Side.cr or Lyft arrives in D.C. ? Ban private car ownership?
joshu 14y ago
Competition between brokers and reputation systems thereof replace the need for certification/regulation by the government. This behavior by the govt is pressure exerted by the desire for homeostasis of control. Shameful.
DigitalSea 14y ago
Wait, wait just a minute. I thought a free market meant you were free to charge what you wanted? /sarcasm. This is ridiculous on so many levels, sounds like Uber needs to fight back and do a little lobbying of their own. The real issue here is that Uber has proven to be both cheaper, faster and more reliable than any NYC taxi service let alone any taxi service anywhere in the world. Perhaps instead of lobbying maybe these taxi super-lobbyists should be lobbying their own companies to pick up their acts. Then perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to resort to dirty tactics as opposed to doing what they should be doing like most people in business do when they feel threatened by a competitor: undercut the competitors offering. Sounds like they've got plenty of cash to lobby that could be better spent improving NYC taxi services.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Uber is not a taxi service. It is a car service (i.e., a limousine service). Taxi service: picks up any passenger, off the street, anywhere, without any prior arrangement to do so. The passenger may not have any opportunity to investigate the taxi provider ahead of time, or to choose their taxi (i.e.,at airports or hotels), so regulation is placed on taxi providers for the protection of passengers. Car service: picks up a passenger by virtue of a prior arrangement. In some locations, that arrangement can be be minutes old; in others, the arrangement must be made hours in advance. The passenger has the opportunity to investigate and choose the car service provider, so regulation is significantly reduced.
  - DigitalSea 14y ago
    Uber is a taxi service in many ways. Picking someone up to take them to a destination is very much how taxi's work. Fair enough you can't flag down a limousine from a sidewalk, but you can also call and arrange for a taxi to pick you up at an arranged time like Uber and a limousine. Lets not get confused here, the taxi lobbyists wouldn't feel the need to resort to these kind of tactics if they felt like Uber wasn't competition.
nchuhoai 14y ago
First of all, I love Uber, Sidecar and Lyft. I really think that they are the future of transportation. That being said, it's not that easy to just blame the public officials for all the chaos. It is a reasonable danger to these services, there are so many unknowns. The reason why the cab business is regulated in the first place was for public safety, so that cab drivers wouldn't just ask for exorbitant prices, take your luggage hostage etc. Remember, you are still just jumping into a stranger's car. Regulation was introduced to remedy these concerns (I'm not saying they are effective) Airbnb shows how regulation is a reasonable concern. Once you go beyond the early adopters, there are so many things you have to deal with like insurance, liability, cleanliness etc. We can't just expect the world to change in an instant and naively believe everyone in the world does good.
- JPKab 14y ago
  As a DC resident who loves Uber and HATES HATES HATES the local taxicabs, you are wrong on this. This is not about regulation. This is about an established industry in a city with a one party government that has deep pockets for funding (or defunding) politicians whose election is decided in a primary, not a general election. The taxicab industry in DC is, like in many cities, corrupt down to a point where it hurts the drivers. The corruption starts at the dispatching offices, where the person taking the phone calls for pickups almost never sends a cab based on closest proximity to the pickup. Instead, they base it on who pays them the most kick backs, or perhaps a family member. In this scenario, the consumer and the driver lose due to a corrupt middleman. Talk to any cab driver who picks you up, and ask them about corrupt dispatchers. If they are honest they might tell you about their own dispatchers. Uber is good for the drivers and the consumers. It's bad for the middle men and the politicians. Sedans are already regulated, and Uber handles the "taxi" side of the equation by using GPS to determine distance/time for a fair rate.
  - akozak 14y ago
    I think you can both be correct. It's the lifecycle of regulation: it usually comes about to protect people from real edge cases and bad behavior, but then as the market and norms mature becomes a tool for incumbents to resist disruption. It's very hard to remove regulation once it's in place, even when it's so clearly not needed given new circumstances. It's even harder when the rhetoric in support of it was so heavily moralistic, "protecting the little guy". e.g., Ask any payments startup about how they feel about payments regulation.
gpcz 14y ago
If the amendment is passed still titled as the "Uber Amendment," would the law be considered a Bill of Attainder against Uber? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder )
- rprasad 14y ago
  No. A bill of attainder refers to legislative bill declaring someone guilty of a crime. The Amemdment merely prohibits Uber X's planned business model. UberX would not be guilty of anything unless it went ahead with its planned business model. What is it with the armchair lawyers on HN today?
  - gpcz 14y ago
    I freely admit that I'm not a lawyer, which is why I asked a question instead of making a statement. I thank you for your insight, though, as I see you are a lawyer.
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Sorry about my statement about the armchair lawyer bit. On other threads today, commenters have been making assertions of the law that have no basis in reality, so my fuse was a little short and I misinterpreted your comment.
technotony 14y ago
"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win." M. Gandhi
- uptown 14y ago
  Don't hold your breath waiting for me to mock you.
- danielweber 14y ago
  And this is why Ron Paul is President.
malandrew 14y ago
What they can try to solve this if it passes is to give forward credit to future rides. e.g. if a ride costs $7 dollars, charge the user $15 and give them an $8 discount off the next ride. This gives users an incentive to use Uber again and again since they will always have credit with Uber. If a user consistently uses less than $15, do something where they get entire rides "comped". You can't charge less than $15, but I bet this law has a loophole for "free rides" because no charging is involved. Either way, some creative thinking with payments + loyalty benefits should help them get around this if this law eventually passes.
wallflower 14y ago
This great story "Why You Can't Get a Taxi" about Uber in the DC metro area got buried a while ago. > “I want to get a license to drive a limo,” I told him. “There’s a moratorium,” he said, and pointed to a memo posted on the wall. I’d like to tell you exactly what the memo said, but the commission wasn’t giving out copies—“We had some, but we ran out,” said the security guard, and no wonder, given that the “temporary” moratorium has been going on for years. The gist was that there would be no new limo licenses until the commission decided to hand them out. “Take a picture with your phone,” suggested a nice driver who was waiting for an appointment in front of the desk. “No pictures!” said the guard. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-can-8217-t-get-a-taxi/8942/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-...
saurik 14y ago
A ton of people in this conversation are making a ton of assumptions about the reasons for taxi medallions and the effects that they have on the ecosystem and marketplace. Given that I doubt any of us run cab companies, this seems silly: more homework is needed. ;P It seems like there is a a whitepaper that, in three parts, went into some detail on the situation in NYC, examining the causes and pulling apart the proposed solutions, for various of the complaints people have about the system. http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm "Factors of Production in a Regulated Industry: New York Taxi Drivers and the Price for Better Service" http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm "Villain or Bogeyman? New York's Taxi Medallion System" http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm "Fixing New York City Taxi Service"
guynamedloren 14y ago
Can someone please explain why government intervention is necessary here, or how any of this proposed legislature is even legal? When new competitors are forced to set prices to 5x the incumbents, who is winning? How does that benefit the customers? I thought the government was supposed to serve the people, not dying taxi companies that refuse to innovate...
paulsutter 14y ago
What can we do to help? Something concrete, I'm at a loss, ideas appreciated. Bitching about it here is just preaching to the converted. Maybe someone from über can make suggestions? I love using über. I like to be able to relax at the table finishing my coffee as I wait for the car to arrive. I hate standing on the side of the street in the rain with my hand in the air wondering when a cab will show up. I hate paying for a driver of a pre-ubercab car service to wait outside for four hours while I have a drink with friends. Uber eliminates all this crap. I'd like to help, love to hear a constructive suggestion on what I can do.
louischatriot 14y ago
We have the same kinds of problems in Paris, where it is impossible to try to increase the number of licences (hence making the price of the licenses held by current cab drivers go down) without a city-wide strike that paralizes the city.
greghinch 14y ago
When I lived in LA, I heard many times that the taxis there were run by the Russian mob. I wonder how Uber will fare against them. Russian gangsters arent really a group I'd want to be the one to "disrupt"
alan_cx 14y ago
Using law instead of tax dollars amounts to the exact same thing: State control and interference. Reminds me of the bad old days of socialism.
noarchy 14y ago
As we speak, Chicago taxi drivers are protesting the fact that fares haven't gone up in seven years, while their expenses have. http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_desperate_for_a_fare_increase_chicago_cabbies_continue_week/ http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_... That's right, they can't even set their own fares. Taxis are regulated to astonishing degrees. I don't know why they aren't simply brought on as full-fledged government employees in many of these cities. They'd almost certainly be getting paid better.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bjornsing 14y ago
Straight out of an Ayn Rand novel... :)
grumps 14y ago
So I've scanned the article... As a DC resident,and one who has a partner that's a social worker. The "corruption" that is blocking your business maybe partially fueled by the taxi drivers who don't want to become unemployed. Almost all drivers fall below the poverty line and rely on social services to support them and their families. I'm not really sure how the cab companies do with revenue and profit, but you'd probably be best off appealing to hiring the drivers to circumnavigate this issue.
peterwwillis 14y ago
I lived in DC for the past year and a half and never heard of Uber. Considering my tech-minded friends i'm surprised at the lack of advertisement. Look at this Washington Post article from 2006, before the fare system was changed from zones to meters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201428_2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06... On the old zone system: ""Last night, I had to go to a dinner, and the cab that brought me back charged me twice as much as the cab that took me there," he said as he waited for another taxi outside his downtown hotel. Well, maybe not quite twice as much, he amended, but $12 vs. $19.50." And on meters: "But opponents of the meter say it would bring unwanted changes to D.C. taxi service: Residents traveling from poorer outlying neighborhoods in Southeast or Northeast probably could not afford a meter ride, they say, because it could add up to much more than a zone fare. Another reason fares could rise is that the meter would not stop clicking when the cab is idling in one of the city's infamous traffic jams." and "If they get the meters, the only cab you'll see in this town will be at hotels, like the other major cities," Wright said. "You won't find them anyplace else. You won't find them in the neighborhoods." The regulation on fares forces taxicabs to pass up many people who want to go outside areas with heavy foot traffic or deep pockets because they aren't going to be able to find a return fare. As such, there are "taxi deserts" all over the city where you might see one taxi every 45 minutes, and they've already got a fare, or their meter is off. Slugging through a 1.5-hour bus ride is often the most reliable form of transportation for these areas. In order to maximize their payout, plenty of DC taxis will take zig-zagging routes, go slower than the speed limit, and ride their brakes. A 5.6-mile ride from the Atlas District up to Petworth may cost the same as an 8.5-mile ride from Columbia Heights up to Bethesda, using the meter system. Take a cab from outside the district and you'll find your trip takes significantly less time. There's probably still a market for an Uber service, even with this brazen attack on (what seems to me as fair) competition. But don't expect the taxi lobby to roll over in a town where it took 75 years just to introduce meters.
esonderegger 14y ago
Looks like the Council tabled the matter until november. https://twitter.com/SegravesWTOP/status/222696651620483072 https://twitter.com/SegravesWTOP/status/222696651620483072 Does anyone know if this means Uber gets to operate Uber X in the meantime?

292 points by Shenglong 14y ago

These are the kinds of battles that break out when your business model is truly disruptive. The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer. We are left paying the higher prices for what should be a relatively free market.

rprasad 14y ago
Pushing the costs of maintenance, insurance, and safety onto the drivers and passengers is not disruptive. Taxi companies were doing that decades ago. Yes, safety regulation costs money. The reason we accept higher prices is to avoid the catastrophic costs that could result if there was no regulation forcing taxis to maintain their vehicles, carry insurance, accept all passengers, etc. Licensing forces a minimum level of insurance on taxi providers to guarantee that injured passengers are properly cared for in the event of an accident involving the taxi provider. The cost of the insurance and maintenance requirements are the primary drivers (pun intended) of taxi costs. Uber avoids these costs (i.e, the disruption of its business model) by maintaining smaller insurance policies and pushing the maintenance costs onto drivers.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  The issue is not with licensing and regulation. It's that only a limited number of taxis get authorized. That is most definitely an artificial limit, and does not help safety. And then there's proposed laws like this, where they force a higher cost _just to prevent competition_.
- mseebach 14y ago
  I obviously can't speak for every city in the world, but typically the reason taxis are expensive is severely limited supply (e.g. medallions in NYC). In most cities in the developed world even the best insurance policies money can buy would not allow me to legally run a taxi service.
ahelwer 14y ago
There was an article on here a while back about how the medallion system in NYC is making both sides lose out... anyone remember it/have the link?
- pavedwalden 14y ago
  http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/taxi_medallions_how_new_york_s_terrible_taxi_system_makes_fares_higher_and_drivers_poorer_.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/taxi...
- bigdubs 14y ago
  It wasn't so much that the medallion system is bad, as defined as limiting the total number of cabs on the road, it was the exemption that the medallion owner didn't have to drive. This leads to cartels of medallion owners that make huge profits off the backs of other drivers.
smokeyj 14y ago
> The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer. When does price fixing ever help the consumer? Honestly.
- wilfra 14y ago
  An argument could be made for rent controlled apartments being a net positive. Not just for the people renting them but also for the businesses hiring those people and by extension their customers.
  - davidandgoliath 14y ago
    That may have been more of an argument prior to the internet -- e.g. now someone can find an alternative place to stay in fifteen minutes on craigslist at a cheaper rate. That is unless all of the landlords get together and price-fix, though I suspect that would correct itself rather quickly.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > An argument could be made for rent controlled apartments being a net positive. Only if you overvalue the benefits and ignore lots of costs. Rent-control discourages turnover and maintenance. It also discourages building new capacity. The various tweaks to try to get around these things have other problems. > the businesses hiring those people and by extension their customers. How many biz want fewer potential customers and employees? Whenever you hear a politician say "I remembered {group}", he's telling you that other people were "forgotten". (Actually, they weren't forgotten, they're paying the bills, and then some.)
    - leot 14y ago
      Are you referring to "rent control" or "rent stabilization" or both? It's not clear to me how/why rent stabilization (which merely limits how much rents can increase each year) would lead to less "building new capacity" -- an argument could be made that it forces new capacity to be created, because landlords can't make much more money off their existing units.
wilfra 14y ago
"The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the consumer." Absolutely. In Bangkok there are more taxis on the streets than all other cars combined. You can find one anywhere, anytime and a ten minute ride costs about $1. No need to own a car, even if you can afford one. Our minimum wage wouldn't allow for that but there is no reason it needs to cost $60 to take a 15 minute ride from San Bruno into SF. The gas cost + labor cost of that ride should be 1/10th of that. Double that to account for profit, administration and the car and you have a $10-15 ride. Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars - and there would be a lot more taxis on the streets to account for the increased demand. And a lot of jobs.
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  Bad example. I've never seen a city in more need of stiffer regulation than Bangkok. The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers. They break traffic laws and block lanes looking for fares. The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public transport. It does not reduce the total number of cars on the road. It's useful from a consumer standpoint but the low cost means people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity. "Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars." Possibly in other cities -- though I doubt it -- but it certainly didn't help in Bangkok. People don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them. The number of news cars sold in the country per day is astounding (though the number escapes me) and that's despite the fact that they cost 50% - 350% more than the same cars in the US. Bangkok needs to regulate the shit out of the taxi industry and make it more expensive to drive in the city if it wants to sort out its remaining traffic issues. Uber can probably work in US cities that have the traffic capacity, but it's a horrible idea in congested areas.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    "The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers." That method of driving is not unique to taxi drivers - and those issues exist in several other Asian countries, regardless of the number of taxis on the road. I'll leave it at that. "people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity." That's not accurate. Taking the BTS from Thonglor to MBK is faster than driving or taking a taxi at nearly all times. Thats an extreme example but traffic is so bad that its faster in a lot of cases. That's why both the BTS and MRT are always packed, with people of all classes. You make some good points otherwise, some I disagree with like whether Bangkok is an example of an unregulated market failing or thriving, but I don't want to get too off into the weeds of a political discussion :)
nirvana 14y ago
It happens also when a business model isn't so disruptive. Regulation ends up favoring the politically connected. The more politically connected, generally, are bigger or more established interests. This benefits politicians as well, because the ability to change regulations is useful for raising donations. "You gotta mighty fine business here, it would be a shame if we lowered your tariff...."
- alttab 14y ago
  Its called racketeering and it's illegal. Happens all the time and it perpetuates because those engaging in it are financially rewarded if successful, which in today's system simply makes success more probable the next time.
jemfinch 14y ago
But Uber's prices (at least, last I checked: $4.80/mi in SF, iirc) are higher than cabs' prices.
- simonk 14y ago
  If you get UBERx its $3.25/mi now but still higher than cab pricing.
  - officemonkey 14y ago
    Have you ever taken a taxicab in DC? DC cabs are dumps. Getting one with air conditioning is a crapshoot. Another city that has really crap cab service is Detroit. Both cities have thriving private car services because for a little bit more money, you get a much better experience. Combine that better experience with app convenience and for most people the extra money doesn't matter.
    - goostavos 14y ago
      Totally agree. Getting a cab in sweltering mid-summer DC weather is freaking awful. I almost always shell out the few extra bucks for a town car on my way back to the airport. It cozy, air conditioned, and even smells nice. I also get really, really tired of the credit card dance that every cab driver does. Before I hop in a cab, "You take credit cards, right?" "Oh, sure! Of course!" Then we arrive at destination "Buddy, you don't have cash? C'mon? My machine doesn't work. There's an ATM inside, you could just run in and get some cash." "Not my problem, champ. You can take the card, or you call call your boss." Not to be stingy, but complaining at me for paying you the way I said I was going to pay you is not the best way to get a good tip. I'll definitely checkout the Uber service (If it is still around) next time I'm in DC.
      - gte910h 14y ago
        They do that in Atlanta too. Also fuck with the "Business to residential" fare and try to not turn on the meter and instead charge you the much higher business to business zone fare
Cogito 14y ago
The biggest concern is maintaining a consistent and high quality service. For example, if the market was to become saturated with drivers undercutting the market, it is plausible that some drivers would be forced out of the market as they are unable to make enough to sustain themselves. If this happens to enough 'regular' drivers the service may become irregular and the goal of providing accessible, consistent public transport (or whatever the goal is) suffers. I guess what I am saying is that a completely free market _might_ actually harm the market in the end. We expect free markets to self-correct, but are we willing to accept sub-par services whilst waiting for that correction? I have seen this concern in the taxi market in Canberra Australia. Taxis there are tightly regulated, and the numbers are kept low to make sure it is profitable. Their numbers have recently been increased to try an accommodate the increased Monday morning and Friday evening rushes as more people are flying in and out every week. The traffic during the rest of the week has remained fairly constant. This means that profits are lower and so some taxi drivers are getting out of the business. In a free market it's possible that this inflation of service providers could happen unchecked for a time, before it is realised that there is not enough consistent work to support the new drivers. The possibility for extreme fluctuation in service provision is high, and this could have terrible consequences for anyone who happens to need a taxi home on a Wednesday evening after too many drinks at the pub. It is hard to say for sure if a free market would deal with the irregular nature of taxi business in that city better than a regulated market, but I think it is clear that the purpose of a taxi system could be at odds with the outcomes of a free market. A free market could fluctuate between too many and too few providers, removing the reliability that is essential in an effective taxi service, even though the regulated service might provision a greater than optimal service cost.
- guynamedloren 14y ago
  > We expect free markets to self-correct, but are we willing to accept sub-par services whilst waiting for that correction? Yes. When the service goes to shit, a competitor comes in, steps up their game, and if demand for a superior service is high enough, they succeed.
- mahyarm 14y ago
  Uber is a premium service that is more expensive than the typical overpriced cab. If service is undercut, something like uber can pop up to provide reliable and quick service. I've gotten an uber cab in 3 minutes at 1 am during pride weekend and 5 minutes in north beach during a sunday morning. Uber is near instant in SF.
felipemnoa 14y ago
Taxis seem over hyped. Why not just call a car service. Don't know if such things exist outside of NYC though. Basically you call them to pick you up and drop you off anywhere you want. They give you a fixed price depending on your destination rather than having a meter running. The only limitation they have is that you cannot wave them down. You have to call them. Overall I feel I get a better service from a car service than from a yellow cab. Also, as far as I'm aware there isn't a limitation on how many car service there can be (I have family members that work in such) which keeps competition high and prices low.

delinka 14y ago

If taxi services would keep up with technology and allow the market to make and break companies, Uber would not be able to eat their lunch. Same story, different industry.

dantheman 14y ago

Standard government corruption and central planning. Why do we need the government to manage taxis? Self driving cars are going to further destroy this industry.

ry0ohki 14y ago
Have you been somewhere that Taxi's are unregulated? After they refuse to give you your luggage until you pay $20 over what was agreed, rob you, leave you at the wrong destination, etc... is when you realize taxi regulation was setup to protect consumers. edit To clarify, I'm not saying there are no problems with the current cab systems, only that public safety and consistent fares are one of the main reasons cabs are regulated by the government
- dantheman 14y ago
  I've been in places where taxis are regulated and I've been ripped off too, primarily boston and new york: 1. The taxi driver refused to turn on his meter and then just demanded a fee. 2. Taxis refusing to take you where you want to go, i.e. getting a cab to brooklyn. 3. Taxis not showing up when they've been reserved ahead of time, early morning airport runs. 4. Taxis taking long and wrong routes to drive up the fare. 5. Taxis not knowing the area, and not having a GPS, so they get lost and then just give up leaving you somewhere. 6. Being in a taxi where the license picture does match the driver. So, I've had lots of bad experiences of "regulated" taxis. I've had lots of good experiences too. As for unregulated, I've been in a few in south and central america, not sure if they were regulated or not.
  - ry0ohki 14y ago
    Did you complain to the authorities? Every regulated cab I've been in has a hotline you can call for these types of things.
  - tghw 14y ago
    Saying that you've had bad experiences with regulated taxis is not a counter argument. For all six of those, there is a number you can call to report them. And none of them are all that bad. Get into an unregulated taxi, and you're at their mercy.

untog 14y ago

I'm not surprised that this has happened- vested interests are hardly something new in government lobbying. But I am amazed at how brazen it is- even calling it the "Uber Amendment". I suspect that they will get a rude awakening of the new realities of open government soon enough.

esonderegger 14y ago
Those of us who live in and around the District have been waiting for that "rude awakening" for a very long time. It's worth pointing out that Marion Barry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry) is still sitting on the DC Council.
- wiredfool 14y ago
  Somewhere in my parents house, I still have a picture from the Post of Barry flicking off the photographer. They printed it large, on page B1 in 89 or so. I can't believe he's still around.

rdl 14y ago

From my reading, this also makes Uber, Inc. non-regulated by the taxi commission itself. What I'd do as a special DC-specific hack is charge the 5x rates, but then have Uber rebate some percentage back to the user. So if the goal is to charge $15 for the ride, charge the $50 required under the law and then the taxi company pays Uber $35 in "Special fuck-DC licensing fee" and then Uber pays $35 to the user in "DC victim's compensation fund".

cheez 14y ago
This would be acceptable!
shalmanese 14y ago
Law is not computer code and judges are not robots. Any competent judge would clearly rule that such a fund is a blatant attempt to skirt regulation and come down like a hammer on anyone dumb enough to try it.
- rdl 14y ago
  At which point you can challenge the legality of the law itself, and will have bought time to get enough happy users in town to make it a political issue and possibly replace the regulators. Some legal hacks work, others don't.

andrewpi 14y ago

DC's taxis are really the worst, so it's not surprising that they are fighting back so hard to kill a perceived threat to their monopoly. Still, I haven't used Uber much due to the high prices compared to taxis, but the new lower-priced UberX could be a real game-changer if it isn't squashed by the government.

ahelwer 14y ago

Is it wrong that I can't wait until taxi companies are pulverized into dust? From credit/debit machines that always seem to be "out of order" to being put in a caller queue in order to tell someone "come get me at this location", interaction with the industry somehow never seems to be the highlight of my night.

spudlyo 14y ago
Uber is amazing. It's one of my favorite pockets of the unevenly distributed future that I've come to rely on since moving to SF. Tracking the progress of my ride on my smartphone as it makes the usually less than 3 minute journey to me is still a thrill. Uber is maybe 10% more expensive, yet 500% more reliable. I don't know if you've ever tried to hail a cab in SF, but it's a huge exercise in frustration. Calling a dispatch service is equally vexing. I'm with you, the doom of the Taxi business can't come soon enough for me.
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
  As much as I agree with you in loving Uber, your 10% more calculation is insanely low. I have done comparison drives twice. Once I took a cab from SOMA to Pac heights: $8.35, Uber back to the same spot: $15.95 SOMA to Dolores Park. Cab: 7.90. Uber: 15.25 Clearly not 10%. I guess the big thing for me is that I really don't care about bottles of water or the type of car the person shows up in. I just want an on demand service that gets everything done in a sensible way. If there was a cheaper version of Uber for regular cabs I would be all over it. The bigger picture though is how much people will fight to keep crappy businesses in business. We will hear the argument about how we cant lose jobs right now when unemployment is so high, but for the love of god, this is progress people. If some cab drivers lose their jobs in the name of progress is this really worth hurting society over?
  - olivercameron 14y ago
    There is a cheaper version of Uber, it's called UberX[1]. 1. http://allthingsd.com/20120702/a-status-symbol-moves-down-market-whats-behind-the-uberx-launch/ http://allthingsd.com/20120702/a-status-symbol-moves-down-ma...

robryan 14y ago

Is this the same as New York where taxis are overpriced but the money is all flowing to the rich license holders?

justinsb 14y ago

However you feel about it, this is entirely expected. The government has chosen to regulate taxis; there's a whole bureaucracy around that; there are a bunch of providers operating within the system. Uber enters and claims the rules do not apply to it, and threatens to replace the regulated market entirely. The regulators are now faced with the choice between ending all taxi regulation, regulating Uber like a taxi, or simply excluding Uber from the market entirely. If they do nothing, they know that Uber will likely replace taxis, leaving an unregulated market. If they wanted an unregulated market, they wouldn't have regulated it in the first place. When your business is based around regulatory arbitrage, you have to know that you will only enjoy that advantage for a limited window.

cheez 14y ago
You're one removed from the actual decision makers. The real decision makers are the elite who own the licenses for the taxis. In my city, there are two families who have the bulk of the licenses and if I am not mistaken, 100% of the share of licenses for taxis allowed to operate at the airport. If you think this is about regulation, you are sorely mistaken. Or another way to think about it: regulation is about protecting profits, not consumers.
- justinsb 14y ago
  Regulation is what starts the ball rolling. I won't dispute that the outcome is often sub-optimal in some ways (like the one you cited) But the point is that the result is a whole apparatus which acts to preserve the status quo: the regulators themselves (who like being employed), the operators that are profiting from the system, etc. I'm trying to stay away from the political hot potato of whether taxi regulation is a net positive thing or not! It's not really relevant to the point I'm making. Whether it's profit or bureaucracy that are the drivers now, I think we agree: Uber must have known this was coming. I look forward to seeing what Uber has planned; perhaps operating a dispatch service over regular taxis?
  - chefsurfing 14y ago
    I think your analysis is correct. It seems likely they will be forced to integrate and become a taxi service dispatch infrastructure provider. It seems a smarter move to accept how "sub-optimal" markets such as these have become and deal with unreality on it's terms than to resist the corruption outright on principal.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

repsilat 14y ago
This only affects residents of the city of Washington D.C.

geekfactor 14y ago

The headline here is totally sensational and factually incorrect. Has anyone actually read the linked article? The proposed amendment sets the minimum for a sedan at 5x the flag pull rate on a taxi. So, in DC this would mean that the minimum rate for a sedan is $15 bucks. While I'm against government creating arbitrary and anti-competitive laws like this, it hardly seems as bad as forcing sedans to charge 5x more than taxis.

geekfactor 14y ago
Further, if Uber really wants widespread support on this, they should publish some data showing how many of their customers/rides would be affected under this law. How many times in the past year has a customer paid under $15 with Uber? (I'm suspecting not many, as a percentage of total fares, but that's total speculation.)
- viscanti 14y ago
  The law puts a floor on non-taxi prices at Uber's current black car price. So 0% of their current black-car fares would be affected. What this does is prevent any future competition on price (like UberX in San Francisco). The law will literally prevent anyone (other than a taxi) from charging less than $15 for a ride, and for no obvious benefit to anyone other than Taxis. For me, the difference here is clear. When I order an Uber, I have a certain expectation of quality, and I have the option of never using their service if they totally blow it sometime (or I can give a driver a bad rating, and if he/she gets enough he gets booted from the service). If I get a lousy ride from a Taxi, I don't have many alternatives. If a law is passed that prevents anyone else from competing on price, I have even less options.
- chuckharmston 14y ago
  DC Uber user here. A fact that's commonly lost on people: the District itself is actually very small, just 68 square miles. Before a recent fare hike, there was a maximum intra-district cab fare of $19, so a $15 minimum Uber fare is a big deal. Anecdote: I live on the far eastern side of downtown, near Penn Quarter, and am able to get from my apartment to damned near anywhere in town for Uber's minimum charge (the major exception being the far reaches of NW, in the Friendship Heights/Van Ness area). Looking back at my history, only 4 of my 23 fares have been more than $15—three to the airport (in Virginia) and one to Tenleytown. You can certainly blow this argument up if you want to leave the District, but let's be real...who would want to go to Virginia? ;)

wolframarnold 14y ago

Elected officials should be ashamed of themselves. What are they going to do when Side.cr or Lyft arrives in D.C. ? Ban private car ownership?

joshu 14y ago

Competition between brokers and reputation systems thereof replace the need for certification/regulation by the government. This behavior by the govt is pressure exerted by the desire for homeostasis of control. Shameful.

DigitalSea 14y ago

Wait, wait just a minute. I thought a free market meant you were free to charge what you wanted? /sarcasm. This is ridiculous on so many levels, sounds like Uber needs to fight back and do a little lobbying of their own. The real issue here is that Uber has proven to be both cheaper, faster and more reliable than any NYC taxi service let alone any taxi service anywhere in the world. Perhaps instead of lobbying maybe these taxi super-lobbyists should be lobbying their own companies to pick up their acts. Then perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to resort to dirty tactics as opposed to doing what they should be doing like most people in business do when they feel threatened by a competitor: undercut the competitors offering. Sounds like they've got plenty of cash to lobby that could be better spent improving NYC taxi services.

rprasad 14y ago
Uber is not a taxi service. It is a car service (i.e., a limousine service). Taxi service: picks up any passenger, off the street, anywhere, without any prior arrangement to do so. The passenger may not have any opportunity to investigate the taxi provider ahead of time, or to choose their taxi (i.e.,at airports or hotels), so regulation is placed on taxi providers for the protection of passengers. Car service: picks up a passenger by virtue of a prior arrangement. In some locations, that arrangement can be be minutes old; in others, the arrangement must be made hours in advance. The passenger has the opportunity to investigate and choose the car service provider, so regulation is significantly reduced.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  Uber is a taxi service in many ways. Picking someone up to take them to a destination is very much how taxi's work. Fair enough you can't flag down a limousine from a sidewalk, but you can also call and arrange for a taxi to pick you up at an arranged time like Uber and a limousine. Lets not get confused here, the taxi lobbyists wouldn't feel the need to resort to these kind of tactics if they felt like Uber wasn't competition.

nchuhoai 14y ago

First of all, I love Uber, Sidecar and Lyft. I really think that they are the future of transportation. That being said, it's not that easy to just blame the public officials for all the chaos. It is a reasonable danger to these services, there are so many unknowns. The reason why the cab business is regulated in the first place was for public safety, so that cab drivers wouldn't just ask for exorbitant prices, take your luggage hostage etc. Remember, you are still just jumping into a stranger's car. Regulation was introduced to remedy these concerns (I'm not saying they are effective) Airbnb shows how regulation is a reasonable concern. Once you go beyond the early adopters, there are so many things you have to deal with like insurance, liability, cleanliness etc. We can't just expect the world to change in an instant and naively believe everyone in the world does good.

JPKab 14y ago
As a DC resident who loves Uber and HATES HATES HATES the local taxicabs, you are wrong on this. This is not about regulation. This is about an established industry in a city with a one party government that has deep pockets for funding (or defunding) politicians whose election is decided in a primary, not a general election. The taxicab industry in DC is, like in many cities, corrupt down to a point where it hurts the drivers. The corruption starts at the dispatching offices, where the person taking the phone calls for pickups almost never sends a cab based on closest proximity to the pickup. Instead, they base it on who pays them the most kick backs, or perhaps a family member. In this scenario, the consumer and the driver lose due to a corrupt middleman. Talk to any cab driver who picks you up, and ask them about corrupt dispatchers. If they are honest they might tell you about their own dispatchers. Uber is good for the drivers and the consumers. It's bad for the middle men and the politicians. Sedans are already regulated, and Uber handles the "taxi" side of the equation by using GPS to determine distance/time for a fair rate.
- akozak 14y ago
  I think you can both be correct. It's the lifecycle of regulation: it usually comes about to protect people from real edge cases and bad behavior, but then as the market and norms mature becomes a tool for incumbents to resist disruption. It's very hard to remove regulation once it's in place, even when it's so clearly not needed given new circumstances. It's even harder when the rhetoric in support of it was so heavily moralistic, "protecting the little guy". e.g., Ask any payments startup about how they feel about payments regulation.

gpcz 14y ago

If the amendment is passed still titled as the "Uber Amendment," would the law be considered a Bill of Attainder against Uber? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder )

rprasad 14y ago
No. A bill of attainder refers to legislative bill declaring someone guilty of a crime. The Amemdment merely prohibits Uber X's planned business model. UberX would not be guilty of anything unless it went ahead with its planned business model. What is it with the armchair lawyers on HN today?
- gpcz 14y ago
  I freely admit that I'm not a lawyer, which is why I asked a question instead of making a statement. I thank you for your insight, though, as I see you are a lawyer.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Sorry about my statement about the armchair lawyer bit. On other threads today, commenters have been making assertions of the law that have no basis in reality, so my fuse was a little short and I misinterpreted your comment.

technotony 14y ago

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win." M. Gandhi

uptown 14y ago
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to mock you.
danielweber 14y ago
And this is why Ron Paul is President.

malandrew 14y ago

What they can try to solve this if it passes is to give forward credit to future rides. e.g. if a ride costs $7 dollars, charge the user $15 and give them an $8 discount off the next ride. This gives users an incentive to use Uber again and again since they will always have credit with Uber. If a user consistently uses less than $15, do something where they get entire rides "comped". You can't charge less than $15, but I bet this law has a loophole for "free rides" because no charging is involved. Either way, some creative thinking with payments + loyalty benefits should help them get around this if this law eventually passes.

wallflower 14y ago

This great story "Why You Can't Get a Taxi" about Uber in the DC metro area got buried a while ago. > “I want to get a license to drive a limo,” I told him. “There’s a moratorium,” he said, and pointed to a memo posted on the wall. I’d like to tell you exactly what the memo said, but the commission wasn’t giving out copies—“We had some, but we ran out,” said the security guard, and no wonder, given that the “temporary” moratorium has been going on for years. The gist was that there would be no new limo licenses until the commission decided to hand them out. “Take a picture with your phone,” suggested a nice driver who was waiting for an appointment in front of the desk. “No pictures!” said the guard. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-can-8217-t-get-a-taxi/8942/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-...

saurik 14y ago

A ton of people in this conversation are making a ton of assumptions about the reasons for taxi medallions and the effects that they have on the ecosystem and marketplace. Given that I doubt any of us run cab companies, this seems silly: more homework is needed. ;P It seems like there is a a whitepaper that, in three parts, went into some detail on the situation in NYC, examining the causes and pulling apart the proposed solutions, for various of the complaints people have about the system. http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm "Factors of Production in a Regulated Industry: New York Taxi Drivers and the Price for Better Service" http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm "Villain or Bogeyman? New York's Taxi Medallion System" http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm "Fixing New York City Taxi Service"

guynamedloren 14y ago

Can someone please explain why government intervention is necessary here, or how any of this proposed legislature is even legal? When new competitors are forced to set prices to 5x the incumbents, who is winning? How does that benefit the customers? I thought the government was supposed to serve the people, not dying taxi companies that refuse to innovate...

paulsutter 14y ago

What can we do to help? Something concrete, I'm at a loss, ideas appreciated. Bitching about it here is just preaching to the converted. Maybe someone from über can make suggestions? I love using über. I like to be able to relax at the table finishing my coffee as I wait for the car to arrive. I hate standing on the side of the street in the rain with my hand in the air wondering when a cab will show up. I hate paying for a driver of a pre-ubercab car service to wait outside for four hours while I have a drink with friends. Uber eliminates all this crap. I'd like to help, love to hear a constructive suggestion on what I can do.

louischatriot 14y ago

We have the same kinds of problems in Paris, where it is impossible to try to increase the number of licences (hence making the price of the licenses held by current cab drivers go down) without a city-wide strike that paralizes the city.

greghinch 14y ago

When I lived in LA, I heard many times that the taxis there were run by the Russian mob. I wonder how Uber will fare against them. Russian gangsters arent really a group I'd want to be the one to "disrupt"

alan_cx 14y ago

Using law instead of tax dollars amounts to the exact same thing: State control and interference. Reminds me of the bad old days of socialism.

noarchy 14y ago

As we speak, Chicago taxi drivers are protesting the fact that fares haven't gone up in seven years, while their expenses have. http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_desperate_for_a_fare_increase_chicago_cabbies_continue_week/ http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_... That's right, they can't even set their own fares. Taxis are regulated to astonishing degrees. I don't know why they aren't simply brought on as full-fledged government employees in many of these cities. They'd almost certainly be getting paid better.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bjornsing 14y ago

Straight out of an Ayn Rand novel... :)

grumps 14y ago

So I've scanned the article... As a DC resident,and one who has a partner that's a social worker. The "corruption" that is blocking your business maybe partially fueled by the taxi drivers who don't want to become unemployed. Almost all drivers fall below the poverty line and rely on social services to support them and their families. I'm not really sure how the cab companies do with revenue and profit, but you'd probably be best off appealing to hiring the drivers to circumnavigate this issue.

peterwwillis 14y ago

I lived in DC for the past year and a half and never heard of Uber. Considering my tech-minded friends i'm surprised at the lack of advertisement. Look at this Washington Post article from 2006, before the fare system was changed from zones to meters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201428_2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06... On the old zone system: ""Last night, I had to go to a dinner, and the cab that brought me back charged me twice as much as the cab that took me there," he said as he waited for another taxi outside his downtown hotel. Well, maybe not quite twice as much, he amended, but $12 vs. $19.50." And on meters: "But opponents of the meter say it would bring unwanted changes to D.C. taxi service: Residents traveling from poorer outlying neighborhoods in Southeast or Northeast probably could not afford a meter ride, they say, because it could add up to much more than a zone fare. Another reason fares could rise is that the meter would not stop clicking when the cab is idling in one of the city's infamous traffic jams." and "If they get the meters, the only cab you'll see in this town will be at hotels, like the other major cities," Wright said. "You won't find them anyplace else. You won't find them in the neighborhoods." The regulation on fares forces taxicabs to pass up many people who want to go outside areas with heavy foot traffic or deep pockets because they aren't going to be able to find a return fare. As such, there are "taxi deserts" all over the city where you might see one taxi every 45 minutes, and they've already got a fare, or their meter is off. Slugging through a 1.5-hour bus ride is often the most reliable form of transportation for these areas. In order to maximize their payout, plenty of DC taxis will take zig-zagging routes, go slower than the speed limit, and ride their brakes. A 5.6-mile ride from the Atlas District up to Petworth may cost the same as an 8.5-mile ride from Columbia Heights up to Bethesda, using the meter system. Take a cab from outside the district and you'll find your trip takes significantly less time. There's probably still a market for an Uber service, even with this brazen attack on (what seems to me as fair) competition. But don't expect the taxi lobby to roll over in a town where it took 75 years just to introduce meters.

esonderegger 14y ago

Looks like the Council tabled the matter until november. https://twitter.com/SegravesWTOP/status/222696651620483072 https://twitter.com/SegravesWTOP/status/222696651620483072 Does anyone know if this means Uber gets to operate Uber X in the meantime?