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 They are against billing those passengers individually, for whatever reason that rule was originally enacted.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.
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.
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.
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.
Seems legit...
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.
The rate is the same for everyone in a given "zone" regardless of the specific route the driver must take.
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?