Mayor Bloomberg Battles Fleet Owners Over NYC 'Taxi of Tomorrow' 278
An anonymous reader writes "In April, Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that the Nissan NV200 minivan had won a citywide competition to replace the current cab model, the Ford Crown Victoria, in a phased-in period of five years. Cab owners sued, pointing out that New York City law requires that hybrid electric models be available for immediate use for cab medallion owners; that excludes the current Nissan NV200, with its 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder engine rated at a combined 24 mpg. The NV200 also has poor accessibility for wheelchair users. After a state judge blocked the mayor's plan, Bloomberg allegedly told the CEO of Taxi Club Management at a private club, 'Come January 1st, when I am out of office, I am going to destroy your f--king industry.' Tim Fernholz of Quartz speculates that Bloomberg (a billionaire) may be planning to launch a cab-hailing service like Uber, which was just allowed back onto the streets of New York, with significant limitations."
Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi (Score:4, Interesting)
When I see the huge lines of cabs at taxi stands and the airports, I find myself wondering if a routing algorithm could better utilize these idle cabs. Any operator who can better utilize the cabs will beat out the others.
Re:Sure. OK... (Score:5, Interesting)
And once again, Slashdot lowers itself to the level of the Nationa Enquirer with titalating rumor and inuendo. And this is "News for Nerds"? Oh yes, Slashdot shit-canned that moniker. Probably because it is no longer factually true.
OH! Wait! There's a reference to an electric car! OK, I'm sorry, I'm totally wrong. Great "scoop", Mr. "Editor" Soulskill...
There is a big difference between an allegation and a rumor. A rumor generally arises without an attributed source. An allegation just means whoever is reporting it doesn't want to put their name in the ring as saying it is true (i.e. they don't want to get sued for defamation).
When the rumor is about a billionaire, many people ESPECIALLY don't want to get sued for defamation, because the billionaire can easily sue.
Re:Sure. OK... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's actually two stories here. One is Bloomberg vs. taxi owners and others unhappy over the choice of the Nissan as the new standard vehicle. The other is what Bloomberg might do after he leaves office - something tells me he's not planning to get a single digit handicap on the golf course. A digital technology-driven taxi service would fit directly into a lot of his strengths, so I think this story will have legs (er, or wheels).
Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi (Score:5, Interesting)
It was attempted. A system that automates the routing of taxicabs via voice calls and cell phone apps is available and works extremely well. The companies that control the taxi business in NYC made sure it couldn't get a foothold. One of the reasons it is disliked by the entrenched powers is it eliminates the dispatcher. Now you'd think that is a good thing since it reduces overhead while increasing efficiency. Except it also eliminates the bribes the taxi drivers need to pay to the dispatchers if they ever want to get work.
As much as I dislike Bloomberg, I hope he is successful in destroying the current taxi business status quo.
The mistake was to pander to environmentalists. (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing wrong from taking a page from the LEO sales and having Chrysler make a taxi (given they're the only manufacturer left that's willing to make American form factor cars these days).
Then again, had Ford decided to not listen to Al Gore by killing all their American lineup (including the Crown Vic) we wouldnt have this problem.
Mayor Bloomberg's latest FAIL... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure. OK... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's a rumor, but the thing is -- I'm pretty sure it's not. That's Bloomberg. Right there. That's how he is.
Do you forget this was the guy who headed up an illegal gun running operation under the guise of an undercover sting, despite having no jurisdiction or legal authority to run a sting, let alone a sting taking place across STATE lines? His little operation actually ruined the investigative work of REAL law enforcement.
He's King Asshat, that's why NYC seems to keep re-electing him.
You're confusing Livery & Taxi, and... wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
What he's talking about isnt a routing problem, it's drivers taking a break. The yellow cabs will sit at JFK for a bit (for example) then grab a $50-100 fare. Not a bad wage, considering. Routing is more of an issue with Livery. Livery (per-arranged, dispatched car service), is not allowed to pick up a street hail. And are often not "in line" at the airports. Yellow cabs can be hailed on the street and Uber offers little value over raising one's arm in the air.
Really though, Uber's problem was that they didn't want to play by the rules. There is special insurance and licenses for both Livery and yellow cab drivers in NYC, and it works pretty damn well. This is mandated by the TLC. Uber didn't want to have to bother with all that. That's why they got the boot. They also wanted to turn yellow cabs into Livery which would pretty much fuck the system and cause all prices to skyrocket as a lot of yellow cabs would sit on their asses for an hour then grab that $100 fair from midtown, rather than putting someone in the seat as soon as it becomes vacant (and actually spending that hour working).
Also Uber's contempt for regulation and public safety laws and even their own employees has been well documented:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/nyregion/as-ubers-taxi-hailing-app-comes-to-new-york-its-legality-is-questioned.html?_r=1& [nytimes.com]
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/ [pandodaily.com]
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/ [pandodaily.com]
Funny there are still Slashdotters (like you) making the same idiotic "screw those entrenched powers!" comments that are made fun of in one of the above links.
Incidentally I took 3 yellow cabs today, 2 subways, and a commuter rail. I have used them all countless times before (also Livery/car services). The NYC transportation systems work amazingly well. I have always paid a fair price and 98% of the time had nice drivers.
So what the fuck value does Uber bring to the table? Very little. For Livery and off-hours there is a use for them, and maybe for scheduling a ride, sure. But they need to play by the rules.
Finally, is the TLC a bunch of saints? Of course not -- they most certainly have some corrupt fat-cat bureaucratic interests, as do some of the Livery companies. But that's not *all* they are, they also have some good regulations.
People (especially on Slashdot) need to stop thinking in one-dimensional black and white. Government is neither good nor bad, but has elements of both. Uber wanted to cry "look at the entrenched bully!" while being just as big assholes themselves, with the added benefit of ignoring laws and charging a premium for it all.
I just hope they have improved over the last year as they are persistent assholes, that's for sure.
Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi (Score:4, Interesting)
This is basic game theory. Each company will act in their best interests by reducing costs which will generally mean more and more technological replacement of human employees. But this does not actually work out in the end if there is mass unemployment. Tax and spend just results in insane Soviet inefficiencies. Banning technology is also just stupid as it just drive up the cost of living. The only thing left is to insent companies to hire more humans. Taxes are an excellent way to do just that. Finding the right balance generally will be hard but a simple formula would be to base it somewhat on the unemployment rate. If you are running a fantastically profitable company in an area with 15% unemployment then whoosh, up go your taxes. If you in an area with 2% unemployment then the tax incentive can be somewhat withdrawn. You have to be careful that companies don't just all move somewhere expensive to live that has a low unemployment rate so much would just be based upon national rates combined with the range of their products. So a locally owned store would be more regional while Apple would be more national.
Any country that gets this right will flourish in the mid to late 21st century. Any country that doesn't will end up in a Game Theory Nash Equilibrium where a tiny number of heavily automated companies are fighting over the few employed customers remaining in their country while nearly non-stop civil unrest drives up their security costs. Plus they will end up paying high taxes as the few remaining taxpayers anyway.
Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. The new system is pretty damn good. The app is great. Here's a basic step through.
1. Press "taxi" icon
2. Press "Send cab"
3. Press "Now" (or enter a time)
4. It asks "at your currently location?" (uses your phones gps)
5. Press "Yes"
6. I think it asks for destination, but I don't remember the details.
7. Responds with "Cab in route. Approximate arrival time is 4 minutes 33 seconds"
8. A few minutes later your phone buzzes and a message shows, "Your cab has arrived".
It doesn't get any simpler than that. The taxi drivers love it (for the reasons you stated). The riders love it because it's faster and easier than the old phone system. The dispatchers hate it because they can no longer skim the drivers' fares. In NYC, I'm sure the cab companies skim from the dispatchers. The thing is, the cab companies probably see increased profits, except it will all be "on the books". The entire taxi infrastructure of NYC is rotten to the core (pun intended). A side note. The cab companies in NYC have hired lobbyists to get Washington, DC to implement a NYC medallion system. The tax drivers are fighting that tooth and nail.
My roommate could have gotten in on the ground floor of the company that makes this system, but he turned it down (he's still kicking himself over that).
Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi (Score:3, Interesting)
8. A few minutes later your phone buzzes and a message shows, "Your cab has arrived".
It doesn't get any simpler than that. The taxi drivers love it (for the reasons you stated). The riders love it because it's faster and easier than the old phone system. The dispatchers hate it because they can no longer skim the drivers' fares. In NYC, I'm sure the cab companies skim from the dispatchers. The thing is, the cab companies probably see increased profits, except it will all be "on the books".
Yes, but "on the books" works both ways. I would think that having the fares of your drivers logged on a server would probably stop some skimming that goes on at the driver level. Besides, from what I understand many drivers these days pay a base 'rental' rate for taking out a car (they rent the car from the company that owns the medallions), plus they pay for their own fuel any other incidentals. At the end of the day, driver brings the car back to company, and most don't make a whole lot after the costs of car rent and gas.
So, I don't know that the drivers would "love it", and I'm not sure the concept of dispatcher taking calls and sending drivers to locations like you'd see in smaller towns applies at all, atleast not as far as the medallion cars go. Overall, most of the resistance is about the extra logging of data across the board, as well as general reluctance to change
The cab companies in NYC have hired lobbyists to get Washington, DC to implement a NYC medallion system.
Hmmm.. the thing is, the New York system WORKED REALLY WELL for the consumer. New York cabs were metered, clearly displayed the fare information, and were pretty easily acquired just about anywhere at any hour you needed one. The laws were extremely pro-consumer, and the majority of the drivers new they were in a service industry where good service with a smile would usually net them a good tip. As a native New Yorker, I was in for a surprise when I moved to Washington, DC some 10 years ago.
If you were ever unfortunate enough to deal with the DC taxi system the way it USED to be until just a couple of years ago, now THAT was a complete cluster frak. Fares were based on convoluted zones drawn specifically in such a way that the lowest fares just so happened to coincide with travel between certain government building areas and the capitol hill area neighborhoods where the politicians lived. (..fancy that..) Then, add to that the absolutely insane allowance for drivers to pick up additional fares along the way, so you'd end up crammed in with other passengers half in your lap and snaking your way on detours to drop off these complete strangers before eventually getting to where YOU should have been 20 minutes ago. Then after all that having the driver try to swindle you because the zone system meant NO METERS.
Those drivers fought pretty hard and managed to keep meters out of the taxis for quite a long time. They were quite vigilante. At the same time, the addition of meters also came with elimination of picking up additional fares during someone elses trip. Naturally, the ones loudest in opposition were usually the most corrupt drivers on the take that equated the changes with financial loss and harder work. In the end, the drivers I've spoken to have all said how much they came to love the changes because people who would simply NOT deal with the previous taxi situation (including myself.. ) now started taking taxis because they knew they would be charged fairly, and wouldn't have to squeeze in so 6 more people going to three different locations could fit in the car. So there were MORE customers, who were getting better service and thus TIPPING for a change
HMMM... I read TFA, but having just gone back to it and then followed the linkage along to the ACTUAL story, I really want to kick myself now for having anything to do with discussion of something that originated in the NEW YORK F*CKING POST! UGH! I need a shower now... might as well have TMZ tag in for sloppy seconds while you're at it Slashdot... thanks!
Having wasted this amount of time already ranting on, guess I'll just click that Submit button and move on with my regularly scheduled life..