6 ms·

Frustrating to see another letter from CPUC trying to slow Uber and Lyft down. How can CPUC deem this a bad thing? Carpooling means less ubers/lyfts on the road

by tswartz 12y ago

Frustrating to see another letter from CPUC trying to slow Uber and Lyft down. How can CPUC deem this a bad thing? Carpooling means less ubers/lyfts on the road so less traffic and pollution. I've used Lyft Line numerous times and really enjoy it.

kevinkimball 12y ago
why does CPUC care about traffic or pollution?
- hack_edu 12y ago
  Most likely because they are the office of government in charge of administering the roads...
  - kevinkimball 12y ago
    no... that would be the California DOT
sliverstorm 12y ago
the CPUC says that under California law it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare when carrying multiple people in one vehicle. It seems pretty clear to me. CPUC isn't against multiple passengers in the same car. They are against billing those passengers individually, for whatever reason that rule was originally enacted. Perhaps to prevent cabbies from charging pairs of passengers $4 each when a single passenger would be charged $5.
- spindritf 12y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't really make the issue any clearer. Why? What's the rationale? And why is tswartz being downvoted?
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    And why is tswartz being downvoted? Don't know.. maybe because he thinks a law that is 20 years old was somehow written specifically to attack Uber/Lyft?
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      It's either that, or he feels the law should not apply to Uber/Lyft.
- tswartz 12y ago
  So if it is illegal to charge people individually to carpool, how do the airport shuttle vans operate? [serious question]. They charge everyone separately and everyone rides together.
  - zorpner 12y ago
    Airport shuttle vans typically operate under a passenger stage corporation permit and charge a flat-rate fee per-person for transport. Charter-party carriers (which is what Uber/Lyft/etc currently operate as in CA) charge based on mileage or time and are prohibited from individual charges for multi-person rides (with a bunch of exceptions, like if they're in Lake Tahoe or if they're going to or from a hot air balloon).
    - pkaye 12y ago
      Why the exception for Lake Tahoe?
      - zorpner 12y ago
        My assumption would be local ski bus operation? No idea if that's the actual justification though. Also, looks like I was wrong about the hot air balloons -- it's only back from the balloon landing, not to the balloon: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=05001-06000&file=5351-5363 http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=...
    - seanp2k2 12y ago
      >if they're going to or from a hot air balloon Seems legit...
    - mayanksinghal 12y ago
      > flat-rate fee per-person for transport That was not the case. I remember paying a different amount than the person I was sitting next to, because we were travelling different distances.
      - 12y ago
- conductr 12y ago
  Seems like they could just structure the "billing" of one person for full fare, then assist/force the other passengers to reimburse the paying party. Loophole?
- glenra 12y ago
  > for whatever reason that rule was originally enacted Most likely the law is simple protectionism for unionized bus drivers, to stop private jitneys from putting them out of business. The use case is: you commute every day from point A to B, so you go along El Camino following the bus route, picking up people FROM BUS STOPS to share your ride and charging them what the bus would have charged. This is great news for the bus riders - they don't have to wait for the next bus so they get to their destination quicker - but if it catches on the bus lines ride empty, lose more money, and eventually political support for the bus route goes away. > Perhaps to prevent cabbies from charging pairs of passengers $4 each when a single passenger would be charged $5. Nah, that's not it. Normal cabbies (that use a taxi meter) have no flexibility over rates - the whole point of the meter is to make sure they're paying the right amount of taxes and kickbacks; accepting any extra regular fare (other than tips) would be illegal.
  - thejdude 12y ago
    This is what I think, as well. Car pooling/sharing is supposed to be sharing, i.e. split the cost. If you charge every pessenger individually you're trying to make a profit, not sharing or pooling. Since the government considers the existing public transport infrastructure worthwhile to keep (buses, taxis), it doesn't want non-dependable competition to undercut it. Non-dependable meaning that these services aren't guaranteed to have a schedule, or to even transport you, like a bus will.
anigbrowl 12y ago
It's not so much that they're deeming it a bad thing, as that nobody bothered to consult them before going live with the service, as they are legally required to do. If people have a problem with a service and don't get satisfaction, they (or their attorneys) typically call up the CPUC and say 'why are you letting company X get away with this?' which is why companies are supposed to apprise the CPUC of what services they're offering in advance. I'm not a big fan of CPUC (for example I think they have far too cosy of a relationship with PG&E), but they're not making it up as they go along.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> How can CPUC deem this a bad thing? CPUC isn't deeming it a bad thing, its deeming it an illegal thing. While part of what the CPUC does is adopt regulation, this isn't that kind of action -- this is the CPUC looking at the law adopted by the legislature that it is charged with enforcing, looking at the action going on, and saying "this action does not comply with the law; under the law as it stands, you must apply for a different permit to do this action. Or you can ask the legislature to change the law." This is not a judgement of good/bad. (You will find such judgement in regulatory actions where, given the law, the CPUC must choose what regulations to adopt to implement the law given the discretion it has within the law.)
andrewguenther 12y ago
They didn't get the permits they needed to run the service. I'm getting so sick of people whining every time "the man" steps in to enforce the rules which these "disruptive technologies" didn't even bother to read. Not every law is absurd and intended to block innovation. C'mon people, it's just a fucking permit.
- glenra 12y ago
  Maybe not every law is absurd and intended to block innovation but these laws most certainly are. It's a permit that the authorities don't have to grant and won't grant in exactly the cases where the new service is most needed. These laws are intended to preserve for existing bus drivers and cab drivers some monopoly power that they haven't earned via providing reliable superior service.
  - bodyfour 12y ago
    > won't grant Do we know that? In this case it seems that they just didn't bother to apply. Unfortunately, that seems to be the normal way these ridesharing companies operate: ignore the law knowing that when they're called on it the media will spin it as "Evil Government Bureaucrat Does Job" As others have pointed out, running the service inside of the regulation would probably require some changes on their part. In particular, I bet they won't be allowed to directly bill based on time or distance driven: if I'm on a bus that gets delayed in bad traffic or forced on a long detour I won't be asked for more money, but in a cab I would be. They should be able to still bill for distance-by-shortest-route though which should work well since it should be highly correlated, especially if they charge more during rush hour when travel is expected to be slower and thus costlier.
    - glenra 12y ago
      > I bet they won't be allowed to directly bill based on time or distance driven Before jitneys were generally outlawed in the US a popular billing method was based on zones. You take a map of the city, chop it into regions and there's a flat charge for travel anywhere within one zone, a different charge to travel between two or more zones. The zone map and payment schedule can then be printed on a business card the driver hands passengers or painted on the side of the vehicle. This is a LOT cheaper and simpler and more predictable than a taxi meter and removes any incentive to take a longer or slower route, but regulators tend to hate it because without metering it's too easy for the cab driver to take payment in cash and avoid paying any taxes on the income.
CodeWriter23 12y ago
The law exists so cabs don't charge per person. Pretty simple if you ask me.

by tswartz 12y ago

kevinkimball 12y ago

why does CPUC care about traffic or pollution?

hack_edu 12y ago
Most likely because they are the office of government in charge of administering the roads...
- kevinkimball 12y ago
  no... that would be the California DOT

sliverstorm 12y ago

the CPUC says that under California law it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare when carrying multiple people in one vehicle. It seems pretty clear to me. CPUC isn't against multiple passengers in the same car. They are against billing those passengers individually, for whatever reason that rule was originally enacted. Perhaps to prevent cabbies from charging pairs of passengers $4 each when a single passenger would be charged $5.

spindritf 12y ago
Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't really make the issue any clearer. Why? What's the rationale? And why is tswartz being downvoted?
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  And why is tswartz being downvoted? Don't know.. maybe because he thinks a law that is 20 years old was somehow written specifically to attack Uber/Lyft?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    It's either that, or he feels the law should not apply to Uber/Lyft.
tswartz 12y ago
So if it is illegal to charge people individually to carpool, how do the airport shuttle vans operate? [serious question]. They charge everyone separately and everyone rides together.
- zorpner 12y ago
  Airport shuttle vans typically operate under a passenger stage corporation permit and charge a flat-rate fee per-person for transport. Charter-party carriers (which is what Uber/Lyft/etc currently operate as in CA) charge based on mileage or time and are prohibited from individual charges for multi-person rides (with a bunch of exceptions, like if they're in Lake Tahoe or if they're going to or from a hot air balloon).
  - pkaye 12y ago
    Why the exception for Lake Tahoe?
    - zorpner 12y ago
      My assumption would be local ski bus operation? No idea if that's the actual justification though. Also, looks like I was wrong about the hot air balloons -- it's only back from the balloon landing, not to the balloon: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=05001-06000&file=5351-5363 http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=...
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    >if they're going to or from a hot air balloon Seems legit...
  - mayanksinghal 12y ago
    > flat-rate fee per-person for transport That was not the case. I remember paying a different amount than the person I was sitting next to, because we were travelling different distances.
    - 12y ago
conductr 12y ago
Seems like they could just structure the "billing" of one person for full fare, then assist/force the other passengers to reimburse the paying party. Loophole?
glenra 12y ago
> for whatever reason that rule was originally enacted Most likely the law is simple protectionism for unionized bus drivers, to stop private jitneys from putting them out of business. The use case is: you commute every day from point A to B, so you go along El Camino following the bus route, picking up people FROM BUS STOPS to share your ride and charging them what the bus would have charged. This is great news for the bus riders - they don't have to wait for the next bus so they get to their destination quicker - but if it catches on the bus lines ride empty, lose more money, and eventually political support for the bus route goes away. > Perhaps to prevent cabbies from charging pairs of passengers $4 each when a single passenger would be charged $5. Nah, that's not it. Normal cabbies (that use a taxi meter) have no flexibility over rates - the whole point of the meter is to make sure they're paying the right amount of taxes and kickbacks; accepting any extra regular fare (other than tips) would be illegal.
- thejdude 12y ago
  This is what I think, as well. Car pooling/sharing is supposed to be sharing, i.e. split the cost. If you charge every pessenger individually you're trying to make a profit, not sharing or pooling. Since the government considers the existing public transport infrastructure worthwhile to keep (buses, taxis), it doesn't want non-dependable competition to undercut it. Non-dependable meaning that these services aren't guaranteed to have a schedule, or to even transport you, like a bus will.

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's not so much that they're deeming it a bad thing, as that nobody bothered to consult them before going live with the service, as they are legally required to do. If people have a problem with a service and don't get satisfaction, they (or their attorneys) typically call up the CPUC and say 'why are you letting company X get away with this?' which is why companies are supposed to apprise the CPUC of what services they're offering in advance. I'm not a big fan of CPUC (for example I think they have far too cosy of a relationship with PG&E), but they're not making it up as they go along.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> How can CPUC deem this a bad thing? CPUC isn't deeming it a bad thing, its deeming it an illegal thing. While part of what the CPUC does is adopt regulation, this isn't that kind of action -- this is the CPUC looking at the law adopted by the legislature that it is charged with enforcing, looking at the action going on, and saying "this action does not comply with the law; under the law as it stands, you must apply for a different permit to do this action. Or you can ask the legislature to change the law." This is not a judgement of good/bad. (You will find such judgement in regulatory actions where, given the law, the CPUC must choose what regulations to adopt to implement the law given the discretion it has within the law.)

andrewguenther 12y ago

They didn't get the permits they needed to run the service. I'm getting so sick of people whining every time "the man" steps in to enforce the rules which these "disruptive technologies" didn't even bother to read. Not every law is absurd and intended to block innovation. C'mon people, it's just a fucking permit.

glenra 12y ago
Maybe not every law is absurd and intended to block innovation but these laws most certainly are. It's a permit that the authorities don't have to grant and won't grant in exactly the cases where the new service is most needed. These laws are intended to preserve for existing bus drivers and cab drivers some monopoly power that they haven't earned via providing reliable superior service.
- bodyfour 12y ago
  > won't grant Do we know that? In this case it seems that they just didn't bother to apply. Unfortunately, that seems to be the normal way these ridesharing companies operate: ignore the law knowing that when they're called on it the media will spin it as "Evil Government Bureaucrat Does Job" As others have pointed out, running the service inside of the regulation would probably require some changes on their part. In particular, I bet they won't be allowed to directly bill based on time or distance driven: if I'm on a bus that gets delayed in bad traffic or forced on a long detour I won't be asked for more money, but in a cab I would be. They should be able to still bill for distance-by-shortest-route though which should work well since it should be highly correlated, especially if they charge more during rush hour when travel is expected to be slower and thus costlier.
  - glenra 12y ago
    > I bet they won't be allowed to directly bill based on time or distance driven Before jitneys were generally outlawed in the US a popular billing method was based on zones. You take a map of the city, chop it into regions and there's a flat charge for travel anywhere within one zone, a different charge to travel between two or more zones. The zone map and payment schedule can then be printed on a business card the driver hands passengers or painted on the side of the vehicle. This is a LOT cheaper and simpler and more predictable than a taxi meter and removes any incentive to take a longer or slower route, but regulators tend to hate it because without metering it's too easy for the cab driver to take payment in cash and avoid paying any taxes on the income.

CodeWriter23 12y ago

The law exists so cabs don't charge per person. Pretty simple if you ask me.