Taxis Struggle as Ubers Abound
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opinion/uber-taxis.html Version 0 of 1. To the Editor: Re “New York’s Uber Problem” (editorial, May 8): New York doesn’t have an Uber problem. What it does have is: A taxi problem. There have never been enough cabs, certainly not to handle the periods of peak demand and bad weather. The fleet is in terrible condition, horribly uncomfortable and technologically a generation behind. A car problem. It is simply incredible that in 2018 New York City does absolutely nothing to limit the number of single-occupant private vehicles on its streets, and that our state government has absolutely refused to allow us to do so. A mass transit problem. We have what must be the world’s worst-maintained subway system, and the recent improvements to city buses can’t overcome the traffic in which they are stuck. Blaming Uber for these woes is like blaming Apple for the plunging sales of rotary phones. Yes, the ride-hailing business should be regulated, but not to make it more like the disaster it is replacing. DAVID BERMAN, NEW YORK To the Editor: The editorial waxes nostalgic about the “bygone era” before green cabs, Uber and Lyft, when “each type of car service tended to stay in its lane.” What the editorial fails to acknowledge is that that era of for-hire transportation in New York City was defined by dreadful service, particularly for people of color and those seeking a ride to — gasp! — the outer boroughs. Moreover, the vast majority of city taxi drivers — who earn around $35,000 per year working punishing weeks on New York’s streets — rent their cabs from fleets that own hundreds of medallions (the licenses to operate a cab), a practice that fueled the era of Bitcoin-like speculation that drove medallion prices to stratospheric heights. Smart regulations can and must ensure that the technological revolution of for-hire-vehicles (and autonomous vehicles to come) provides efficient transportation for all users. But in tackling the challenges of the present, let’s not gloss over the failures of the past. ANDREW L. KALLOCHPORTLAND, ORE. To the Editor: As a driver of a yellow cab for six and a half years, I care about this issue with every fiber of my being. I have watched my income plummet by well over 30 percent over that span and have seen the city do nearly zip to alleviate the situation. It has been tough to pinpoint who exactly is at fault. Yes, the medallions were overpriced when they hit over $1 million a few years ago. The city was going to auction off 2,000 more as a way to generate revenue, only to watch that effort fail because there would be too many taxis on the streets. A few years later and there are well over 50,000 for-hire vehicles competing with us that didn’t exist when I started, with the numbers growing every month. Where were the traffic study, the environmental impact study and the admission that someone messed up by letting them loose? Sure, you may think that it’s a win-win for the consumer. But Uber loses $1 billion per quarter and can’t even treat its employees properly, and this is the behemoth that’s supposed to represent all that’s right with the gig economy. Yes, the Taxi & Limousine Commission failed to upgrade the taxis to the 21st century and reform outdated rules. But drivers like me who never had a say in this ended up taking the fall. We can only hope that the city gets it right this time around. PAT JOHNSON WEST CALDWELL, N.J. The writer muses about his job on his website gothamchronicles.net. To the Editor: Taxis and Uber are essentially in the same market, but Uber, and similar companies, slipped in because there is no street hailing. Taxis are a lesson in regulatory capture and failure. Regulations are initially adopted to protect consumers and the general public. Over time that breaks down as consumers are ignored, harassed, overcharged and forced into cabs that are filthy, or have drivers who are surly or cannot speak English. The taxi industry became a monopoly just waiting for something to break the cabal. Uber and its compatriots are just the disruptive force to do the trick. If taxis are highly, but poorly, regulated, Uber resists all regulation. It does not matter much whether Uber drivers are contractors or employees; Uber is a transportation company and must accept all that entails. Cities must reinvigorate taxi regulation so that it serves the public, and Uber must be under the same regulation. First and foremost, regulation should provide safety and customer service, but it should also encompass rate controls, congestion limits and pricing, insurance, driver licensing and much else. There is no reason that taxi hailing and app hailing should be regulated differently. WILLIAM N. HOKEMANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF. To the Editor: I’ve been taking taxis for almost 50 years. Contrary to what many people think and say, I have generally found the drivers to be incredibly hard-working family men (and some women) who are polite and love this city as much as I do. I don’t understand why the powers that be in the city let Uber and the rest take over our streets and decimate the taxi industry just like that. Shame on them! DONNA KENTON, NEW YORK To the Editor: This has become a crisis of unintended consequences, and New Yorkers, particularly taxi and livery drivers, do not have the luxury of letting elected officials take their time to find solutions as the situation grows increasingly dire. As a protectionist measure, there has always been a supply cap on the number of taxi medallions permitted in the city. This cap, rightly or wrongly, created a supply and demand system favoring medallion holders and the taxi drivers. Now livery providers like Uber have joined the city streets with no caps, and what we have is chaos. Livery companies should have cap barriers similar to taxi medallions to protect both the drivers and the people who use the services. Drivers can’t make a living, and people who use a livery service can’t get where they are going, because the city streets are so clogged with livery cars. Supply way exceeds the demand, and everyone suffers. Emergency services such as fire trucks and ambulances are also impeded by the increased congestion. SALLY GREENSPAN, NEW YORK To the Editor: The Times editorial fails to address one of the fundamental attractions of Uber over taxis, and that is the convenience of using an app to order an Uber car to your location when you need one. That the taxi industry still refuses to coordinate all taxis and permit people to call one to their location is its own failure of business enterprise. Let taxis be permitted to be the sole random street-hailing service for customers. But strongly urge them to include an app-hailing program. Their failure to modernize should not be supported by the city administration. STEPHEN SOMERSTEINSAN FRANCISCO To the Editor: The most important lesson of the New York City taxi mess is that government-granted monopolies disserve the public interest. The technology that makes Uber and Lyft possible was available to New York’s taxi medallion holders, but, protected by their taxi monopolies, they stuck with the status quo and let service deteriorate. Uber and Lyft succeeded only because New York visitors and residents were starved for good service made possible by new technologies. Like most monopolists throughout history, the medallion holders put monopoly profits ahead of service to the public. The last thing New York’s government should do is to reward their greed by bailing them out. HENRY H. PERRITT JR., CHICAGO The writer is a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. To the Editor: Uber is the solution, not the problem. DAVID SHULMAN, SANTA FE, N.M. |