City Council moves to stop Uber, Lyft car services

[thelakelander]

The Jacksonville City Council says car services Lyft and Uber are running illegal operations and is threatening to hit the companies with penalties.

The companies allow smartphone app users to arrange car rides from other app users. The companies have been criticized because drivers are not screened and licensed by any government agency. Meanwhile, officials at Uber and Lyft have contended that the service is popular with residents and provides residents with an innovative solution to their needs.

Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2014/10/city-council-moves-to-stop-uber-lyft-car-services.html

[JFman00]

Uber is my 2nd preferred method to get around when travelling (after public transport, if convenient). I've never used it in Jax though since prices and availability seemed the same or even worse as cab companies ($30 for Riverside to the stadium? No thanks). Thanks City Council by tackling this problem by removing that choice. I've always wondered what living under Russian state capitalism is like.

[peestandingup]

It's all "free market is awesome!" until its something they don't like.

[Tacachale]

If cab companies have to be insured, it's reasonable that uberx and lyft should play by the same rules. The issue is unreasonable rules, or using rules as a bludgeon against a new competitor with substantially better service.

[marty904]

Personally I don't see how the city can go after another transportation entity for operating "questionably" when they (COJ) have not been held accountable for their own "illegal" activity in the transportation realm.  I mean, is the whole water taxi debacle being swept under the rug? The city's own attorney publicly stated "this was an illegal purchase". Is the city free from consequences of illegal acts just because they found someone to quickly buy the boats from them? Sounds like a lot of "glass house rock throwing" to me!

[johnnyliar]

Uber is my 2nd preferred method to get around when travelling (after public transport, if convenient). I've never used it in Jax though since prices and availability seemed the same or even worse as cab companies ($30 for Riverside to the stadium? No thanks). Thanks City Council by tackling this problem by removing that choice. I've always wondered what living under Russian state capitalism is like.

30 bucks? no way! I paid 9 bucks from Avondale to the stadium last game...

[JFman00]

From the artice: "The companies have been criticized because drivers are not screened and licensed by any government agency."

From The Economist:

Licensing rules are a headache. In theory, they protect the public from incompetence, which is useful if you are hiring a doctor. But increasingly they protect incumbents from competition—the requirement to have a licence raises an occupation's wages by 18%, according to Morris Kleiner and Alan Krueger, two economists. In the 1950s less than 5% of workers required state licences; now 35% do.

...

Lowering barriers to entry for new businesses gives consumers more choice and cheaper prices. A gourmet-food-truck fad began in Los Angeles with $2 Korean tacos in 2008, and has thrived because the city is flexible about where such trucks can park. By contrast, Chicago forbids food trucks from operating within 200 feet of a bricks-and-mortar restaurant, and requires them to have a GPS to ensure compliance, which makes life very hard for them in the downtown business district.

...

Clearing away old rules is hard. Their benefits tend to be concentrated (eg, when they protect incumbents); their costs dispersed (slightly higher prices affect all consumers, but only a little)... The difficulty is that many rules purport to protect the public: from shoddy services, dangerous products or even death. Even if the cost is high and the risk remote, no politician wants to be accused of compromising public safety. Last year Mike Pence, Indiana's Republican governor, vetoed the licensing of diabetes educators and anaesthesiologist assistants, on the grounds the new rules would raise barriers to business and require additional bureaucracy. But a year later, he signed into law a modified version of the measure, minus the extra bureaucracy but otherwise much the same.

Both Uber and Lyft already conduct background checks and supplement their driver's insurance policies up to 1 million when carrying passengers. I have no doubt that this is pushback is motivated for reasons tangentially related to safety at best.

I have no idea why it was $30, only thing going on was the Suns game I was trying to get to.

[Tacachale]

From the artice: "The companies have been criticized because drivers are not screened and licensed by any government agency."

From The Economist:

Licensing rules are a headache. In theory, they protect the public from incompetence, which is useful if you are hiring a doctor. But increasingly they protect incumbents from competition—the requirement to have a licence raises an occupation's wages by 18%, according to Morris Kleiner and Alan Krueger, two economists. In the 1950s less than 5% of workers required state licences; now 35% do.

...

Lowering barriers to entry for new businesses gives consumers more choice and cheaper prices. A gourmet-food-truck fad began in Los Angeles with $2 Korean tacos in 2008, and has thrived because the city is flexible about where such trucks can park. By contrast, Chicago forbids food trucks from operating within 200 feet of a bricks-and-mortar restaurant, and requires them to have a GPS to ensure compliance, which makes life very hard for them in the downtown business district.

...

Clearing away old rules is hard. Their benefits tend to be concentrated (eg, when they protect incumbents); their costs dispersed (slightly higher prices affect all consumers, but only a little)... The difficulty is that many rules purport to protect the public: from shoddy services, dangerous products or even death. Even if the cost is high and the risk remote, no politician wants to be accused of compromising public safety. Last year Mike Pence, Indiana's Republican governor, vetoed the licensing of diabetes educators and anaesthesiologist assistants, on the grounds the new rules would raise barriers to business and require additional bureaucracy. But a year later, he signed into law a modified version of the measure, minus the extra bureaucracy but otherwise much the same.

Both Uber and Lyft already conduct background checks and supplement their driver's insurance policies up to 1 million when carrying passengers. I have no doubt that this is pushback is motivated for reasons tangentially related to safety at best.

I have no idea why it was $30, only thing going on was the Suns game I was trying to get to.

^If the insurance requirement is unnecessary, the solution may be to let the cab companies off the hook for it too. Or come up with some reasonable regulation that can take care of the safety concern without bringing the hammer down on new concepts offering better service.

Uber is my 2nd preferred method to get around when travelling (after public transport, if convenient). I've never used it in Jax though since prices and availability seemed the same or even worse as cab companies ($30 for Riverside to the stadium? No thanks). Thanks City Council by tackling this problem by removing that choice. I've always wondered what living under Russian state capitalism is like.

30 bucks? no way! I paid 9 bucks from Avondale to the stadium last game...

Yeah, Jfman00, you should give it another shot, I've never heard of prices like that. I've gotten between San Marco and places as far as Neptune Beach, UNF, and the Airport for less than $30. And I've never had to wait more than 10 minutes at any time of day.

[Lunican]

http://www.thelocal.es/20141006/madrid-starts-fining-users-of-uber-taxi-app

[JFman00]

http://www.thelocal.es/20141006/madrid-starts-fining-users-of-uber-taxi-app

Just saw that on reddit :-P

[Tacachale]

Oh, Europe.

[tufsu1]

Personally I don't see how the city can go after another transportation entity for operating "questionably" when they (COJ) have not been held accountable for their own "illegal" activity in the transportation realm.  I mean, is the whole water taxi debacle being swept under the rug? The city's own attorney publicly stated "this was an illegal purchase". Is the city free from consequences of illegal acts just because they found someone to quickly buy the boats from them? Sounds like a lot of "glass house rock throwing" to me!

The city never bought the boats...the sale was stopped...Harry Frisch bought them and then leased them to the City....they are now operated by the new private provider.

[lsauls882]

Just a thought - if taxi drivers are so unhappy about the competition, why don't they become Uber/Lyft drivers with their own cars?

[ProjectMaximus]

I know of a couple that did just that.

[FSBA]

Just a thought - if taxi drivers are so unhappy about the competition, why don't they become Uber/Lyft drivers with their own cars?

Not sure how much it is the drivers themselves vs towing the company line.