5 ms·

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 on

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 They are against billing those passengers individually, for whatever reason that rule was originally enacted.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.
    - brewdad 12y ago
      True. It's a flat rate for a given town or neighborhood. You won't be charged for traffic delays as you would in a cab however nor can the driver charge you more if he needs to detour around road construction or some other issue. The rate is the same for everyone in a given "zone" regardless of the specific route the driver must take.
- andrewfong 12y ago
  Not sure, but from the article: "If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC or petition the state legislature to modify the law." Presumably, the airport shuttle vans have a different type of permit than the ones Uber et al have. Seems more like a temporary paperwork issue than a genuine showstopper.
- untog 12y ago
  Presumably they are classified as buses, and not taxis.
- sjg007 12y ago
  Flat rate charge.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- NickNameNick 12y ago
  Presumably, the shuttle services have different permits, the statement "If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC" would seem to hint that its possible to have that permit, uber and lyft just haven't successfully applied for one yet.
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.

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.
  - brewdad 12y ago
    True. It's a flat rate for a given town or neighborhood. You won't be charged for traffic delays as you would in a cab however nor can the driver charge you more if he needs to detour around road construction or some other issue. The rate is the same for everyone in a given "zone" regardless of the specific route the driver must take.
andrewfong 12y ago
Not sure, but from the article: "If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC or petition the state legislature to modify the law." Presumably, the airport shuttle vans have a different type of permit than the ones Uber et al have. Seems more like a temporary paperwork issue than a genuine showstopper.
untog 12y ago
Presumably they are classified as buses, and not taxis.
sjg007 12y ago
Flat rate charge.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
NickNameNick 12y ago
Presumably, the shuttle services have different permits, the statement "If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC" would seem to hint that its possible to have that permit, uber and lyft just haven't successfully applied for one yet.

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.