10 ms·

DC Taxi Commission Proposes New Rules to Shut Down Uber

176 points by japhyr 14y ago

sudonim 14y ago
As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well at night. Basically Uber goes into a city, hires drivers, outfits them with equipment and starts operations. And for what it's worth, the service is awesome. By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them. It's clever, but I can't help but think they'll end up with a situation soon that doesn't end up working out in their favor.
- jmvoodoo 14y ago
  Isn't that what a disruptive business is all about? You can't replace an old business model with entrenched interests by asking "please" as far as I know...
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Part of the problem is that the "disruptive" businesses (by design) often don't spend time thinking about or solving the difficult problems in an area, especially by coming up with working solutions to the problems that caused people to call for regulation in the first place. Many regulations can probably be replaced with something better, but they were often initiated by real problems, and it's important to understand what those problems were, and figure out how to avoid them or sidestep them. Many "disruptive" businesses don't have the historical knowledge or skills to do so, and are hoping they can just close their eyes and ignore the problems, which tends to lead to short-term success, but medium-term reoccurrence of similar problems. You can see that with AirBnB, which I think is based on a good idea, but also utterly fails to deal with many of the actually hard problems in the space—those that involve things other than operating a website. Real-world problems led to hotels being regulated in the first place, such as health/safety and noise problems, and so far AirBnB hasn't done much to convince me that they even understand the problems in that space, let alone how to address them.
    - jmvoodoo 14y ago
      I'm a big believer in the fallacy of Chesterton's fence, so I actually agree with what you're saying. My point is that disruptive businesses serve as the 'reset' button for these industries. The problems get ignored at first, then rediscovered, and finally re-solved in a (hopefully) better way. Eventually, the cycle comes full circle, and the disruptors become the disrupted. It may not be the most efficient system in the world, and there are definitely casualties along the way, but it does seem to work more often than other approaches (at least that I'm aware of... would love to know about other approaches that have a similar/higher success ratio).
- mathgladiator 14y ago
  > As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well at night. Isn't this what we want thou? Why ask for permission when asking for forgiveness is so much better? As long as the offering is neither unsafe and done with customer obsession in mind, it should be a win.
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    It's forced deregulation by circumventing the rules. One interesting argument is that deregulation increases the supply of drivers hence making them inefficient. As they are inefficient the prices increase. Interesting POV. However given that the American Medallion system doesn't seem to be working, there aren't enough drivers and a medallion is worth so much, screw that theory. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/ny-cab-medallions-worth-more-than-gold-chart-of-the-day.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/ny-cab-medallions-w... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab#Regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab#Regulation Uber have hit a nice niche in America where they're taking advantage of over regulation. And the really odd thing is the cities saying Uber is A-OK, they're just idiots. They should deregulate instead of making a special Uber clause, it's bad government. But that's the way it works I guess, the ludicrousness of local politics around the world always makes me sad. Note that their success isn't really anything about customer obsession, the only reason for their success is because of regulation. You wonder whether that's a happy accident or the entire private car thing is a cover and they're deviously cunning. All respect either way. Speaking from a country without these sort of onerous regulation where a taxi is a trivial and cheap thing to get in minutes, any city getting rid of the medallions will put uber out of business practically over night. The problem they'll face is that as grow they will probably put themselves out of business by encouraging mass deregulation, and then they'll be expensive with no value add. Their customer base will dwindle as new customers won't want to pay the premium for a chauffeured car and that'll be the end of it. Probably a good 5-10 years away yet though.
    - mathgladiator 14y ago
      > rid of the medallions will put uber out of business practically over night. Really? When I get Uber, I get a great car-ride and an experience. The driver is dressed for business. I don't get: * some cabbie's chatter * crappy radio * some odd smell that I can't describe * seats without holes This is what I think of when I get uber. There's nothing to stop taxi's now to compete on the above things. I love Uber because of the professionalism of the drivers. The App that powers it is a nice-have.
- alecdibble 14y ago
  So Uber should pass out flyers to all competitors before it moves into a town? As long as good ethics are used, it is called business competition and is generally a good thing. Do you think Uber is doing anything unethical? From the parent link, it appears not, and some of the rules Uber pointed out seem arbitrary and downright anti-competitive. What really pisses me off is when people try and use legislation as a competitive advantage. That is unethical and it does make them look like your description: "By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them."
  - sudonim 14y ago
    No, I think you're missing my point. Uber is doing this expecting the cities and existing players to get pissed off and try to stop them. And then they publicize the anti-competetive nature of it. That's their strategy. Get local news to write about how the city & cabbies are trying to shut them down. It's great marketing. And it benefits Uber not to talk to local government prior to launching as long as they follow the letter of the law. This is a genius strategy. But if I were the CEO, it would cause me stress that all of my drivers in a given city might be forced to not work indefinitely because I'm not getting the OK first. Maybe that won't happen.
    - eridius 14y ago
      No other business has to ask the city if the city is planning on changing the laws to shut them down. Why do you expect Uber needs to do that? The fact that changes to laws are being proposed in order to shut Uber down proves that Uber is perfectly legal under the current laws, which means Uber is well within its rights to open up shop without asking permission. In fact, if Uber were public and I was a shareholder, I'd be pretty pissed-off if Uber actually asked for permission first, because that's just asking to be shut down. Any sort of disruptive business will get lots of pushback and anticompetitive pressures from the existing incumbents. There's no reason why Uber needs to make it easier for someone else to block them from operating.
      - 14y ago
- SatvikBeri 14y ago
  I might understand if the Taxi drivers were fighting back using better business practices-cheaper prices, better marketing, actually being able to guarantee taxis, an iphone app of their own, etc. In some places, such as Manhattan, taxis actually are better than Uber. Because the traffic in Manhattan is so high that it usually takes less time to hail a taxi than to wait for your Uber to arrive. But in DC they're not. They're fighting back purely by trying to pass legislation to prevent better companies from offering a superior service. In those cases, the old, unreliable, inconvenient taxi industry 100% deserves to fall.
  - eli 14y ago
    Taxi Magic lets you request a licensed cab from an app. But licensed cabs aren't allowed to charge cheaper prices.
    - sudonim 14y ago
      Uber actually lets you request a licensed cab from the app in NYC now too.
      - mayneack 14y ago
        Although every time I've attempted to use it in the last 48 hours, they've all been full. I think it's because they're offering $25 in taxi credit (presumably to encourage taxi drivers to join up).
        untog 14y ago
        They're actually not legally allowed to take payment, so giving customers free credit is the only method they have to make the system usable.
- netfire 14y ago
  It's not the fact that they are competing with Uber, it's how. If your way of dealing with a competing business is to pass laws that shut that business down to preserve a monopolistic system, instead of competing on price and quality of service, you are going to "look like the bad guys" no matter what. How would what the city and taxi drivers are doing look any better if they had done it a year ago? How could they have competed in a more reasonable way if they have started sooner?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
kmfrk 14y ago
It's sad that in order to stay in business, start-ups might have to instate a position as CPO: Chief Political Officer.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Well if you are disrupting old established markets then they will have already coated themselves with political armor, that the livery business goes back several centuries its not surprising that this is so. That said, it would behoove more companies that are attacking such markets (music distribution, and publishing come to mind) have a person who does exactly this, they look at public policy and the way it is being manipulated by the 'competition' and work to counteract that manipulation. John Gage at Sun had the title Chief Science Officer but his day to day duties involved understanding government processes, political movers and shakers, and how those processes worked for, against, or neutral with respect to Sun's goals. He was instrumental in getting me access to the NSA when we wanted to ship strong encryption in an interpreted language.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    I wonder if the necessary consequence of this is to get involved with lobbyists. Not necessarily to lobby, just to pay them for an understanding of how the local politics work. This would also be a big bonus to YC, if they managed to provide domain knowledge in this respect. Because what the hell are you supposed to do in a situation like that as a fledgling start-up?
- eli 14y ago
  Well, when you're doing things that violate the spirit of the law (if not the letter), I think it's probably wise to invest in some lawyers and lobbyists.
- mh- 14y ago
  That's already an industry, if you weren't aware.. https://www.google.com/search?q=government+relations+firm https://www.google.com/search?q=government+relations+firm
uvdiv 14y ago
It's like a criminal racket, except it's the city doing it.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  Some scenes from the inside: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-official-turned-fbi-informant-recalls-role-in-corruption-probe/2012/04/02/gIQAErYhrS_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-official-t... I like the imagery of the murderous taxi kingpin driving a gold-painted Mercedes. (page 3)
- ktizo 14y ago
  Reminds me of the gang theory of politics, that the definition of the government is whoever are the current most dominant gangsters. I find this is not necessarily a good general model, but for certain specific circumstances it can be pretty accurate.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
robomartin 14y ago
As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to improve quality of service or to allow competition to lower costs. It is simply repugnant. When will people realize that unions --and those in government who favor and feed them-- are helping destroy this country from the inside out?
- adestefan 14y ago
  You had me until you solely ripped on unions. If there was one or two taxi companies they would be doing the exact same thing.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    It's union politics which gets their legislation passed. No one would support price-raising taxi cartels if the question weren't coated with rhetoric about wages and welfare. Let a taxi union explain it: http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups
    - adestefan 14y ago
      We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. Most of those are natural monopolies that require some degree of regulation for equitable service. Livery service is not a natural monopoly. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid. What does that have to do with the price of bread in Peoria?
AustinLin 14y ago
As long as Uber is proving a useful service in a lawful manner, not ripping people off, the the city should let the consumers decide whether they should stay in business. If they are such a threat to the DC cab industry the cab companies would do well to adopt some of the techniques that are making Uber so successful.
- adestefan 14y ago
  The problem is that the DC cab industry was so corrupt that they ended up heavily regulated. Now those regulations do not allow them to do things that Uber does. The fix isn't to outlaw Uber, but to allow the taxis to compete in the same way.
ghshephard 14y ago
Non-driver here, so I use taxis and private car services almost exclusively in northern California (My many thousands of trips over 10 years have probably moved from the class of "anecdote" into "data"). I've used Uber a couple times. It's pricey ($49 for a $33 taxi trip) but fantastic for those who can afford it. Uber is better than taxi's in many ways: o Taxi will frequently not take a trip if it doesn't like where it's coming from ("Bad neighborhood") - Uber doesn't tell the driver where you are until they accept the trip. o Taxi will ask where you are going, and decline the trip if they don't like how much they'll make. Uber driver asks you where you are going, after you are in the vehicle. o Taxi will sometimes take a trip, while they already have one - resulting in 30-45 minutes extra delay - hard to do with Uber when you can see where they are traveling. o Taxi on the peninsula is usually 30-45 minute wait. Uber is < 15 minutes on average o Drivers in Taxi's can be somewhat "eccentric" on the peninsula (As in, some of them scare me, they are so crazy). Uber Drivers are professional, rated. o Vehicles in Taxi's are pretty craptastic sometimes. I've had to have the driver open my door (god forbid we get in an accident) - ubers vehicles professional Sedans. o Airport Drivers will sometimes try and scam you for a 50% surcharge when they are still "in zone". They even try and pull that on someone like me who flys in and out of SFO on a monthly basis - I can imagine how many just accept it. Uber charges are identified before you book your trip. o Lots of taxis will not take credit cards, or (try to) charge you a 10% surcharge - some of them would even RETURN to SFO when they discover you don't have cash. Uber is 100% electronic. No cash/credit card required, just your Smart Phone. I love the electronic receipts, rating on the driver, certainty about when the vehicle is arriving. On the peninsula, you pay about a 50% premium (or more, depending on demand), which is represented in the much higher quality trip you get. I think if Uber was prepared to stick with that "premium" market, then the commissions wouldn't have a problem with them. Their concern is that, much like AirBNB was a trojan horse to get into the Renting Apartments/compete with hotels market, Uber is going to start competing with regular taxis - and for someone who has paid > $1mm for a medallion (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me...) they are going to demand some sort of recompense and/or action be taken. My guess is that there will be a strong correlation between cost of medallions and the resistance to Uber in any particular market. What I would love to see, is that TAXI services adopt the uber model of source blind/closest taxi gets the trip/rate your driver/GPS location of Taxi/electronic receipts. It would be good for the industry, good for the customers, and good for the reputable drivers/services. The only ones who would lose out would be the crappy services, with poorly maintained vehicles, and lousy drivers .
azarias 14y ago
I know about the DC taxi commission a little bit...they will go anywhere, and do anything to protect their bottom line.
- eli 14y ago
  The bottom line of the commission? Aren't they a government agency?
  - dmix 14y ago
    Taxi commissions make a significant amount of money from Taxi medallions. They can cost anywhere from $200k-$1 million dollars each in some cities.
    - eli 14y ago
      No, they don't. There are no medallions in DC. And any money they "make" goes to the city's general fund anyway.
      - dmix 14y ago
        Ah you're right. Only source I could find about revenue is how they added $9.9 million in revenue by increasing the surcharge by 50 cents and recently awarded a $35 million dollar contract to Verifone. So they must be generating some significant amount of money still. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/final-vote-on-dc-taxi-overhaul-set-for-today/2012/07/10/gJQAjQQUaW_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/final-...
  - jvm 14y ago
    In NYC the taxi commission is in the pocket of the medaillion holders. That's why the recent law to issue more mediallions (2,000 at ~800k each = $1.6b for the city) had to go through the state instead (Albany being less corrupt than anything is mind-boggling), until of course a judge knocked down the law and said only the city could do so.
tylermenezes 14y ago
pg on Twitter several months ago: "Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it."
EricDeb 14y ago
I'm all for more efficiency, but can these companies who add more efficiency to the economy really suggest they are "creating 1000s of jobs." By definition, if you are making an industry more efficient aren't you taking away people's jobs?
redm 14y ago
Taxi drivers are heavily regulated already, including rates, posted information, what they can and can’t do and in at least one case how they can bill/accept money. In Boston a taxi driver told me the city mandates they use a city provided credit card method that charges them 8% and holds the money for week. I'm not for regulation but anyone who's ever been scammed by a driver will appreciate it. If all the taxi drivers have to live under these regulations, why would a 'private' taxi service be able to skirt them all? Uber should be held to the same standard and we should work on reforming the overall regulations to allow for more innovation for all.

176 points by japhyr 14y ago

As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well at night. Basically Uber goes into a city, hires drivers, outfits them with equipment and starts operations. And for what it's worth, the service is awesome. By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them. It's clever, but I can't help but think they'll end up with a situation soon that doesn't end up working out in their favor.

jmvoodoo 14y ago
Isn't that what a disruptive business is all about? You can't replace an old business model with entrenched interests by asking "please" as far as I know...
- _delirium 14y ago
  Part of the problem is that the "disruptive" businesses (by design) often don't spend time thinking about or solving the difficult problems in an area, especially by coming up with working solutions to the problems that caused people to call for regulation in the first place. Many regulations can probably be replaced with something better, but they were often initiated by real problems, and it's important to understand what those problems were, and figure out how to avoid them or sidestep them. Many "disruptive" businesses don't have the historical knowledge or skills to do so, and are hoping they can just close their eyes and ignore the problems, which tends to lead to short-term success, but medium-term reoccurrence of similar problems. You can see that with AirBnB, which I think is based on a good idea, but also utterly fails to deal with many of the actually hard problems in the space—those that involve things other than operating a website. Real-world problems led to hotels being regulated in the first place, such as health/safety and noise problems, and so far AirBnB hasn't done much to convince me that they even understand the problems in that space, let alone how to address them.
  - jmvoodoo 14y ago
    I'm a big believer in the fallacy of Chesterton's fence, so I actually agree with what you're saying. My point is that disruptive businesses serve as the 'reset' button for these industries. The problems get ignored at first, then rediscovered, and finally re-solved in a (hopefully) better way. Eventually, the cycle comes full circle, and the disruptors become the disrupted. It may not be the most efficient system in the world, and there are definitely casualties along the way, but it does seem to work more often than other approaches (at least that I'm aware of... would love to know about other approaches that have a similar/higher success ratio).
mathgladiator 14y ago
> As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well at night. Isn't this what we want thou? Why ask for permission when asking for forgiveness is so much better? As long as the offering is neither unsafe and done with customer obsession in mind, it should be a win.
- mattmanser 14y ago
  It's forced deregulation by circumventing the rules. One interesting argument is that deregulation increases the supply of drivers hence making them inefficient. As they are inefficient the prices increase. Interesting POV. However given that the American Medallion system doesn't seem to be working, there aren't enough drivers and a medallion is worth so much, screw that theory. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/ny-cab-medallions-worth-more-than-gold-chart-of-the-day.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/ny-cab-medallions-w... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab#Regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab#Regulation Uber have hit a nice niche in America where they're taking advantage of over regulation. And the really odd thing is the cities saying Uber is A-OK, they're just idiots. They should deregulate instead of making a special Uber clause, it's bad government. But that's the way it works I guess, the ludicrousness of local politics around the world always makes me sad. Note that their success isn't really anything about customer obsession, the only reason for their success is because of regulation. You wonder whether that's a happy accident or the entire private car thing is a cover and they're deviously cunning. All respect either way. Speaking from a country without these sort of onerous regulation where a taxi is a trivial and cheap thing to get in minutes, any city getting rid of the medallions will put uber out of business practically over night. The problem they'll face is that as grow they will probably put themselves out of business by encouraging mass deregulation, and then they'll be expensive with no value add. Their customer base will dwindle as new customers won't want to pay the premium for a chauffeured car and that'll be the end of it. Probably a good 5-10 years away yet though.
  - mathgladiator 14y ago
    > rid of the medallions will put uber out of business practically over night. Really? When I get Uber, I get a great car-ride and an experience. The driver is dressed for business. I don't get: * some cabbie's chatter * crappy radio * some odd smell that I can't describe * seats without holes This is what I think of when I get uber. There's nothing to stop taxi's now to compete on the above things. I love Uber because of the professionalism of the drivers. The App that powers it is a nice-have.
alecdibble 14y ago
So Uber should pass out flyers to all competitors before it moves into a town? As long as good ethics are used, it is called business competition and is generally a good thing. Do you think Uber is doing anything unethical? From the parent link, it appears not, and some of the rules Uber pointed out seem arbitrary and downright anti-competitive. What really pisses me off is when people try and use legislation as a competitive advantage. That is unethical and it does make them look like your description: "By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them."
- sudonim 14y ago
  No, I think you're missing my point. Uber is doing this expecting the cities and existing players to get pissed off and try to stop them. And then they publicize the anti-competetive nature of it. That's their strategy. Get local news to write about how the city & cabbies are trying to shut them down. It's great marketing. And it benefits Uber not to talk to local government prior to launching as long as they follow the letter of the law. This is a genius strategy. But if I were the CEO, it would cause me stress that all of my drivers in a given city might be forced to not work indefinitely because I'm not getting the OK first. Maybe that won't happen.
  - eridius 14y ago
    No other business has to ask the city if the city is planning on changing the laws to shut them down. Why do you expect Uber needs to do that? The fact that changes to laws are being proposed in order to shut Uber down proves that Uber is perfectly legal under the current laws, which means Uber is well within its rights to open up shop without asking permission. In fact, if Uber were public and I was a shareholder, I'd be pretty pissed-off if Uber actually asked for permission first, because that's just asking to be shut down. Any sort of disruptive business will get lots of pushback and anticompetitive pressures from the existing incumbents. There's no reason why Uber needs to make it easier for someone else to block them from operating.
    - 14y ago
SatvikBeri 14y ago
I might understand if the Taxi drivers were fighting back using better business practices-cheaper prices, better marketing, actually being able to guarantee taxis, an iphone app of their own, etc. In some places, such as Manhattan, taxis actually are better than Uber. Because the traffic in Manhattan is so high that it usually takes less time to hail a taxi than to wait for your Uber to arrive. But in DC they're not. They're fighting back purely by trying to pass legislation to prevent better companies from offering a superior service. In those cases, the old, unreliable, inconvenient taxi industry 100% deserves to fall.
- eli 14y ago
  Taxi Magic lets you request a licensed cab from an app. But licensed cabs aren't allowed to charge cheaper prices.
  - sudonim 14y ago
    Uber actually lets you request a licensed cab from the app in NYC now too.
    - mayneack 14y ago
      Although every time I've attempted to use it in the last 48 hours, they've all been full. I think it's because they're offering $25 in taxi credit (presumably to encourage taxi drivers to join up).
      - untog 14y ago
        They're actually not legally allowed to take payment, so giving customers free credit is the only method they have to make the system usable.
netfire 14y ago
It's not the fact that they are competing with Uber, it's how. If your way of dealing with a competing business is to pass laws that shut that business down to preserve a monopolistic system, instead of competing on price and quality of service, you are going to "look like the bad guys" no matter what. How would what the city and taxi drivers are doing look any better if they had done it a year ago? How could they have competed in a more reasonable way if they have started sooner?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

kmfrk 14y ago

It's sad that in order to stay in business, start-ups might have to instate a position as CPO: Chief Political Officer.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Well if you are disrupting old established markets then they will have already coated themselves with political armor, that the livery business goes back several centuries its not surprising that this is so. That said, it would behoove more companies that are attacking such markets (music distribution, and publishing come to mind) have a person who does exactly this, they look at public policy and the way it is being manipulated by the 'competition' and work to counteract that manipulation. John Gage at Sun had the title Chief Science Officer but his day to day duties involved understanding government processes, political movers and shakers, and how those processes worked for, against, or neutral with respect to Sun's goals. He was instrumental in getting me access to the NSA when we wanted to ship strong encryption in an interpreted language.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  I wonder if the necessary consequence of this is to get involved with lobbyists. Not necessarily to lobby, just to pay them for an understanding of how the local politics work. This would also be a big bonus to YC, if they managed to provide domain knowledge in this respect. Because what the hell are you supposed to do in a situation like that as a fledgling start-up?
eli 14y ago
Well, when you're doing things that violate the spirit of the law (if not the letter), I think it's probably wise to invest in some lawyers and lobbyists.
mh- 14y ago
That's already an industry, if you weren't aware.. https://www.google.com/search?q=government+relations+firm https://www.google.com/search?q=government+relations+firm

uvdiv 14y ago

It's like a criminal racket, except it's the city doing it.

uvdiv 14y ago
Some scenes from the inside: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-official-turned-fbi-informant-recalls-role-in-corruption-probe/2012/04/02/gIQAErYhrS_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-official-t... I like the imagery of the murderous taxi kingpin driving a gold-painted Mercedes. (page 3)
ktizo 14y ago
Reminds me of the gang theory of politics, that the definition of the government is whoever are the current most dominant gangsters. I find this is not necessarily a good general model, but for certain specific circumstances it can be pretty accurate.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

robomartin 14y ago

As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to improve quality of service or to allow competition to lower costs. It is simply repugnant. When will people realize that unions --and those in government who favor and feed them-- are helping destroy this country from the inside out?

adestefan 14y ago
You had me until you solely ripped on unions. If there was one or two taxi companies they would be doing the exact same thing.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  It's union politics which gets their legislation passed. No one would support price-raising taxi cartels if the question weren't coated with rhetoric about wages and welfare. Let a taxi union explain it: http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups http://www.nytwa.org/campaigns/stopillegalpickups
  - adestefan 14y ago
    We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      We support price raising corporate cartels for electricity, natural gas, cell service, cable, water, and in most cases mass transit. Most of those are natural monopolies that require some degree of regulation for equitable service. Livery service is not a natural monopoly. There are already places that have banned internet delivery coops and places have tried to outlaw selling solar energy back to the grid. What does that have to do with the price of bread in Peoria?

AustinLin 14y ago

As long as Uber is proving a useful service in a lawful manner, not ripping people off, the the city should let the consumers decide whether they should stay in business. If they are such a threat to the DC cab industry the cab companies would do well to adopt some of the techniques that are making Uber so successful.

adestefan 14y ago
The problem is that the DC cab industry was so corrupt that they ended up heavily regulated. Now those regulations do not allow them to do things that Uber does. The fix isn't to outlaw Uber, but to allow the taxis to compete in the same way.

ghshephard 14y ago

Non-driver here, so I use taxis and private car services almost exclusively in northern California (My many thousands of trips over 10 years have probably moved from the class of "anecdote" into "data"). I've used Uber a couple times. It's pricey ($49 for a $33 taxi trip) but fantastic for those who can afford it. Uber is better than taxi's in many ways: o Taxi will frequently not take a trip if it doesn't like where it's coming from ("Bad neighborhood") - Uber doesn't tell the driver where you are until they accept the trip. o Taxi will ask where you are going, and decline the trip if they don't like how much they'll make. Uber driver asks you where you are going, after you are in the vehicle. o Taxi will sometimes take a trip, while they already have one - resulting in 30-45 minutes extra delay - hard to do with Uber when you can see where they are traveling. o Taxi on the peninsula is usually 30-45 minute wait. Uber is < 15 minutes on average o Drivers in Taxi's can be somewhat "eccentric" on the peninsula (As in, some of them scare me, they are so crazy). Uber Drivers are professional, rated. o Vehicles in Taxi's are pretty craptastic sometimes. I've had to have the driver open my door (god forbid we get in an accident) - ubers vehicles professional Sedans. o Airport Drivers will sometimes try and scam you for a 50% surcharge when they are still "in zone". They even try and pull that on someone like me who flys in and out of SFO on a monthly basis - I can imagine how many just accept it. Uber charges are identified before you book your trip. o Lots of taxis will not take credit cards, or (try to) charge you a 10% surcharge - some of them would even RETURN to SFO when they discover you don't have cash. Uber is 100% electronic. No cash/credit card required, just your Smart Phone. I love the electronic receipts, rating on the driver, certainty about when the vehicle is arriving. On the peninsula, you pay about a 50% premium (or more, depending on demand), which is represented in the much higher quality trip you get. I think if Uber was prepared to stick with that "premium" market, then the commissions wouldn't have a problem with them. Their concern is that, much like AirBNB was a trojan horse to get into the Renting Apartments/compete with hotels market, Uber is going to start competing with regular taxis - and for someone who has paid > $1mm for a medallion (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me...) they are going to demand some sort of recompense and/or action be taken. My guess is that there will be a strong correlation between cost of medallions and the resistance to Uber in any particular market. What I would love to see, is that TAXI services adopt the uber model of source blind/closest taxi gets the trip/rate your driver/GPS location of Taxi/electronic receipts. It would be good for the industry, good for the customers, and good for the reputable drivers/services. The only ones who would lose out would be the crappy services, with poorly maintained vehicles, and lousy drivers .

azarias 14y ago

I know about the DC taxi commission a little bit...they will go anywhere, and do anything to protect their bottom line.

eli 14y ago
The bottom line of the commission? Aren't they a government agency?
- dmix 14y ago
  Taxi commissions make a significant amount of money from Taxi medallions. They can cost anywhere from $200k-$1 million dollars each in some cities.
  - eli 14y ago
    No, they don't. There are no medallions in DC. And any money they "make" goes to the city's general fund anyway.
    - dmix 14y ago
      Ah you're right. Only source I could find about revenue is how they added $9.9 million in revenue by increasing the surcharge by 50 cents and recently awarded a $35 million dollar contract to Verifone. So they must be generating some significant amount of money still. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/final-vote-on-dc-taxi-overhaul-set-for-today/2012/07/10/gJQAjQQUaW_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/final-...
- jvm 14y ago
  In NYC the taxi commission is in the pocket of the medaillion holders. That's why the recent law to issue more mediallions (2,000 at ~800k each = $1.6b for the city) had to go through the state instead (Albany being less corrupt than anything is mind-boggling), until of course a judge knocked down the law and said only the city could do so.

tylermenezes 14y ago

pg on Twitter several months ago: "Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it."

EricDeb 14y ago

I'm all for more efficiency, but can these companies who add more efficiency to the economy really suggest they are "creating 1000s of jobs." By definition, if you are making an industry more efficient aren't you taking away people's jobs?

redm 14y ago

Taxi drivers are heavily regulated already, including rates, posted information, what they can and can’t do and in at least one case how they can bill/accept money. In Boston a taxi driver told me the city mandates they use a city provided credit card method that charges them 8% and holds the money for week. I'm not for regulation but anyone who's ever been scammed by a driver will appreciate it. If all the taxi drivers have to live under these regulations, why would a 'private' taxi service be able to skirt them all? Uber should be held to the same standard and we should work on reforming the overall regulations to allow for more innovation for all.