I don't really like Uber's business practices but they do fill an essential niche in New York City.
A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New York.
I watched a very common event unfold the other day in Brooklyn Heights. A woman hailed a green cab. It pulled over and the driver opened the window, asking "where to?" The woman mentioned an address in Manhattan. The driver said, "sorry, green cabs can't go to Manhattan" and drove away.
That is 100% false. Like yellow cabs, green cabs have to take you anywhere in the five boros, but they're reluctant to take you to Manhattan because they aren't allowed to pick up fares there. They have to drive back to Brooklyn empty and not make any money, so they lie to customers to avoid that. The end result is that you still can't get a taxi in most of New York City, at least one that will pick you up near where you live and take you exactly where you want to go.
The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.
Even the yellow cabs within Manhattan would not take me places within Manhattan when hailed. They would stop and ask where to-- when I told them where (touristy areas) they'd just drive off.
The problem happens systematically and the system fails to correct it because it lacks the proper alignment of incentives that keep it from working against the public.
That's pretty much what corruption is.
Would you say the same of third world traffic enforcement because the system is trying to stop the practice of shaking down motorists?
This is the only way you can get to the airport during the "shift change" that's right around PM rush hour. Nobody will take you there if you tell them you want to go there.
That said the new Q70 bus from Jackson Heights (7/E/F/M/R) is quite efficient, and I don't bother with cabs anymore. Not worth paying someone $40 to bitch and moan about going to the airport when the MTA can get you there, from Brooklyn, in less than an hour for $2.50.
I remember I once needed to catch a cab to the airport at this time, and I was lugging a big ass suitcase. Knowing full well that standing on the side of the road with that suitcase, a cabby would never stop, I hit it behind a tree. I hailed the cab, open the passenger door, then said "one sec", ran and grabbed the bag and dragged it into the back seat with me. Oh man, was he pissed.
I personally always take the LIRR to Jamaica when going to JFK. It's a bit nicer than taking the E (from Manhattan), and a bit faster than taking the A (from Brooklyn, get the LIRR at Atlantic Terminal) because the Jamaica AirTrain seems to run more frequently than the Howard Beach AirTrain. The LIRR also runs on an actual schedule, so you will end up at the airport when you expect, which always makes things less stressful.
But don't think you're safe there. If you have the slightest hesitation at all in your tonality, the driver will all of the sudden get a case of "I don't know that location, can you give me directions". I experienced that when I first moved here back to back one night because I didn't understand the "process" of getting a cab in New York.
Point is, cabs are completely shady, and nearly all have horrible service.
Since I've been here in NY, I've been using Uber regularly and every single experience has been nothing short of great. 99% have been spotless vehicles that smell good, with A/C in summer, and drivers with an awesome attitude. I've had a few rides where the driver took a non-optimal route and Uber refunded credits each time.
It's unbelievable to me that people dislike Uber and think they're just some "scam" backed by venture capital.
> It's unbelievable to me that people dislike Uber and think they're just some "scam" backed by venture capital.
There is a flip side to that, as well. Uber has engaged in questionable tactics, and their drivers are from the same pool as Taxi drivers.
I've had uber drivers accept the fare, then immediately cancel when they figured surge pricing will kick in. I've also had drivers not pick me up from my location, one who would not turn down their christian music when asked 3x.
Uber's support staff is good, and any hint of poor performance results in a 1-star review.
When I first used Uber, the drivers were great. Now with more uber drivers on the road, there is more variance in the service you get.
"Uber's support staff is good, and any hint of poor performance results in a 1-star review"
This is roughly how the market "responded" (0) to Uber in Moscow - Yandex ("Russian Google") rolled out its Yandex Taxi service/app which provided Uber-like experience to user and integrated with taxi companies at the backend. Same experience same driver ratings etc - but on a legal platform. The prices are compatible with Uber too.
(0) I put "responded" in quotes here because Uber launched in Moscow a few years after Yandex Taxi.
Agreed. I'm native, born and raised, and learned about "gypsy cabs", "car service" and how to hail a yellow cab back when yellow cabs still had "jump seats". Uber has democratized what affluent people have always known, money can buy anything, including someone to drive you somewhere.
I think you need to reexamine the meaning of the word "monopolized".
Having a single state-sanctioned business (and therefore backed by the threat of violence) is somehow less monopolistic than having a free market where the best service provider is rewarded by becoming the most popular and profitable one?
This is a false equivalence. There isn't one and only one State Taxi Company. There are hundreds if not thousands of successful private taxi companies in each state.
There's one Uber and maybe Lyft if you're lucky. In the grey-area taxi market, they might fit the definition of a monopoly. I wouldn't argue that though because I know nothing about that market and reading that sentence back makes me laugh.
Microsoft operated in a relatively free market and was the arguably the best software provider as they were the most popular and profitable one for quite some time. They were also deemed a monopoly.
In strong agreement with task_queue here. The taxi industry is legislated on the city level. Uber is poised to become an international actor, with larger gross revenues than the GDP of many small countries (projected $10bil in 2015).
> "I don't know that location, can you give me directions"
On the other hand, sometimes I've been pleasantly surprised at how knowledgeable some cabbies are. I've gotten in a cab at LGA, told them my home address in Brooklyn, and they went there with no directions. I never tip less than 20%, but this efficiency earns a much larger than usual tip.
I take cabs daily and my experience does not match yours. Most NYC cabbies are quite friendly. Most are also immigrants with interesting stories.
In Harlem, where I live, cabs will actively honk for any potential fare, especially to the airport. You'll have multiple cabs trying to get you if you have a suitcase. From my conversations with drivers, they prefer airport fares.
I don't doubt that they are friendly but honestly that's irrelevant to most people. The problem is, while they may be friendly, nearly all of them will want to pickup and drop off in the same location because they know it's harder to pickup outside of Manhattan.
This doesn't happen with Uber's model.
Also, I'm paying for a ride somewhere. The top priority for me is not sitting in hot, smelly, filth. I'll stick with Uber.
1. NYC taxi cabs are actually pretty clean. Most have AC. Most are only a few years old. You can pass on the hail if you don't like the vehicle.
2. Today Uber has clean, nice smelling cars because it is new. Let's talk after Uber matures a bit like the cabs. We'll be back to where we started, only under the influence of an international monopoly. That does not bode well for the consumer.
3. Uber cannot really solve the imbalance of demand between Manhattan and the peripheries. Uber forces drivers to have a certain acceptance rate threshold. NYC forces drivers not do discriminate based on destination. In either case, drivers will try to game the system to avoid the less profitable journeys.
4. Look to places like Russia and India for the future of Uber. Drivers have 4+ cell phones, subscribing to different services in parallel with holding a cab license.
In grad school I worked part time for the city's non-emergency 311 help-line and took several calls related to taxi complaints. The process may have changed since then (early 2000's), but it's not a very friendly process for the individual making the complaint.
The person making the complaint is required to show up for a hearing, in person, at a date and time determined by the TLC, to present her complaint to a panel of "judges." The driver is also required to show up and to present their side of the story. My understanding is that they almost always find in favor of the complainee, even when there's no evidence and it's the driver's word vs. the complainee's. After the third judgment the driver loses their license.
So on one hand making a complaint is far more difficult than poorly rating a driver on a phone, a process that takes almost no effort. But on the flip side the complaints that were processed were taken very seriously and had very real repercussions.
> The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.
This is because all hails on Uber are tracked, and enough refusals would be noticed, and the driver would be fired.
It's shitty that green (or yellow) cabs do this; there should be a way to hold them accountable, but for now there is a stop-gap solution: lie.
Get in before telling them your destination. If they don't let you, lie and say you're going to somewhere in Brooklyn, then change your mind. As soon as you hear them begin to complain, snap a photo of their cab number, and start dialing 311.
It's a portal provided by the government (through a contract). It's may be competitive for taxis (that's an empirical question, I think), but it's not competitive in terms of algorithms, ratings systems, predictive taxi distribution, etc.
Also, sometimes you're trying to get somewhere very reasonable in Manhattan, but you can't hail a cab because of your, say, skin color. Uber solved that.
> A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails.
Does anyone else see the absurdity in that? Compare to: "In 2014, the city allowed people to wear green socks"
If you want to transport people for a fee, what rational, moral justification is there for anyone to intervene in that? -To decide what colour your car should be, or where you can pick up customers?
> And you can. There is absolutely no law stopping your from picking up people in a car and taking them places. On land you own.
Imagine you could only wear blue socks on land you own, but anywhere else you'd need to pay $250k for permission to wear them. Would that be alright?
> When it is communal land, communal rules are made (sadly they far too often benefit a well connected minority, but the concept itself isn't bad).
You're kind of seeing a problem, but not really wanting to.
But for starters, the word "communal" doesn't work when you have a small group of "community leaders" imposing their will on ~330 million "community members" they've never met.
The major part of that was being able to pick up street hails not he color of the car.
Cabbies themselves have been the biggest reason for all the regulation from the city. Picking up tourists and aimlessly driving around for half an hour to run up the meter, refusing to take people where they want to go and not picking up black people are just some of the shenanigans they pull on a regular basis.
> Picking up tourists and aimlessly driving around for half an hour to run up the meter, refusing to take people where they want to go and not picking up black people are just some of the shenanigans they pull on a regular basis
Well, if you need a X-hundred-thousand-dollar taxi "medallion" to be allowed to transport people for a fee, that cuts down on your competition quite nicely, and then you're not really motivated to provide a good service.
Uber has shown that there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind transporting people for a fee, but they haven't been able (or motivated to) get permission to do so, which means the licensing system has been highly effective in keeping competition low and prices high, just the way the state-maintained monopoly/cartel wants it.
Can an Uber driver pull nasty shit on people and keep getting gigs? No, but taxi drivers can, and there's a reason for that. Well there you go.
The road is a limited common resource, and it's difficult to directly charge drivers per their usage of it, so the local government uses other forms of regulation.
As electric cars become more common, we can lower gas taxes to the point that they only cover environmental externalities and switch to a weight x mileage tax for roads.
(Mileage to be measured at vehicle inspection time and incorporated in registration fees.)
Roads could be private too, and payments could be collected for (and only for) using them, even without setting up a state-maintained taxi monopoly/cartel.
So I'm not sure what you think is currently handled well.
Uber drivers can see where you are as part of evaluating your ride request. Consequently, though your ride request might be offered to several drivers before being accepted, you are not likely to be assigned a driver who cancels later because of your location. Furthermore, Uber drivers are not allowed to refuse more than a certain small percentage of rides, so drivers who do this more than rarely will be kicked out.
It's more likely that a driver will be reluctant to go where you want to go. Though this can happen, Uber passengers will rate the driver poorly, and they'll be kicked out.
Uber's star rating system and insistence on keeping drivers only with good ratings is part of why people enjoy using the service. Drivers can't pull shit like that and get away with it.
> Uber's star rating system and insistence on keeping drivers only with good ratings is part of why people enjoy using the service. Drivers can't pull shit like that and get away with it.
The star rating system works well, but given the number of drivers Uber churns through, you're still likely to poor service.
I have had a case of an Uber driver not really wanting to drive me to Marina del Ray from downtown LA. He gave me a low review (this was back when there was the bug that let you see your rating).
The biggest problem I have with Uber is that some of the drivers are so pleasant and professional that I hate not being able to give them an extra tip. Maybe I should figure out how to do that.
That doesn't stop Lyft from accepting tips. I think Uber is just pushing back against tipping culture out of a desire to hypersimplify their user experience. It's a noble goal, but there's still a huge amount of pro-tipping social inertia in places like the US, which ends up making the process more complicated as people just tip in cash instead.
It's less of a problem for uber though because (1) it only applies when there's no good uber driver match, not when the uber driver doesn't want to go where you're going (because then they'd get a bad review, or worse) (2) I'm not sure, but I believe there are penalties for drivers who cancel too much.
A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New York.
I watched a very common event unfold the other day in Brooklyn Heights. A woman hailed a green cab. It pulled over and the driver opened the window, asking "where to?" The woman mentioned an address in Manhattan. The driver said, "sorry, green cabs can't go to Manhattan" and drove away.
That is 100% false. Like yellow cabs, green cabs have to take you anywhere in the five boros, but they're reluctant to take you to Manhattan because they aren't allowed to pick up fares there. They have to drive back to Brooklyn empty and not make any money, so they lie to customers to avoid that. The end result is that you still can't get a taxi in most of New York City, at least one that will pick you up near where you live and take you exactly where you want to go.
The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.
Anyway, this Forbes article about green cabs tells the exact same story: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiuffo/2013/09/30/nycs-new-g...