davidf18

What I have said is logical and true: Uber Pool saves greenhouse greenhouse gas because instead of having separate vehicles people are sharing the same vehicle. What people seem to be arguing is that because taxi (or taxi equivalent rates) are more affordable for low-income people and are no longer taking inconvenient mass transit, then that is some sort of negative, which is terribly elitist.

Why not argue for doubling taxi fares and banning Uber, equivalents altogether and force anyone without a private vehicle (which is the majority of people in Manhattan and perhaps even NYC) to take mass transit? It is a silly argument. Because Uber is provider better customer service at a lower cost, that is a bad thing? Really?

With Uber Pool you can have both. People can choose to use Uber pool and in exchange for a bit of additional time for transit, save both money and save the environment. Win Win (lose as far as time).

"Most of the upsurge is occurring outside the city’s Central Business District (Manhattan below 60th Street), Schaller reports."

Also, the overall increase was 3 to 4% according to the report. In NYC we keep hearing how subway ridership has been increasing every year. At any rate, a decrease of 10 million trips per year out of 1.7 billion is hardly significant.

Also, this simply states that perhaps we should be regulating private vehicular traffic in these areas, not restrict traffic that helps the public (and provides employment for low-skilled people).

Uber Pool has 2 or more unrelated passengers using the same car for transit hence less greenhouse gas compared with using separate vehicles. Elementary!

iPhone hailing to me and many others at least, is effectively street hailing. Not certain what your beef is with Uber. Service and costs have dramatically improved since they and Uber/Via/Gett/Juno came, even in Manhattan.

Actually, the normal Yellow Cab rates are so high in NYC that Uber can still charge rates twice that of Chicago Uber and come out ahead (NYC $1.75 per mile, Chicago $0.90 -- twice the amount).

Cornelius Vanderbilt got his start by breaking a monopoly given to ??? to offer ferry service between New York and New Jersey underbidding holder of the monopoly. He broke the law to do it and was sued. It actually was judged by the Supreme Court and the monopoly was thrown out because of Interstate Commerce (I think it decided this entire area of law, IIRC).

There are many entrenched, incumbent interests that try to make money not through healthy wealth creation but by trying to appropriate wealth through politics (e.g., granted monopolies) which to some degree the taxi industry was.

Uber and its competitors did a great service to many people and ultimately really angered monopolistic incumbents.

Well, largest by revenue :-)

Interesting, thanks. It justifies Uber spending more money on marketing to expand market share.

> Rather than respond to the anecdotes, I'll point out that I was rebutting the original claim: that Uber was cheaper because it (unlike medallion cabs) does not have to pay for licensing fees.

It is not about licensing fees, it is about that because of the medallions, taxi drivers had to pay $125 / 12 hours for the lease. Before Uber/Lyft those medallions which were restricted to 13,000 for a city of 8.5 million (as well as many visiting tourists, business people, and in a city where many don't own cars), the price of a medallion was $1.2 million. After Uber/Lyft the price decreased to $700,000 and many Yellow Cabs are idle. Prices are lower, service is far better.

I would conclude that Uber is spending extra money to expand the market just as Amazon took losses to expand their market. They don't need to raise prices, but eventually reduce overhead per ride.

I looked into this issue awhile ago and may have even written about it in HN. The publishers are trying to take a larger share of the income from Amazon for eBooks over traditional publishing leaving the authors with less than before even though production costs for publishers are far lower for eBooks. Amazon was trying to work to get authors at least the same proportion of the money they get for eBooks as for hardcopy traditional books.

A lot of that money is going toward Uber/Lyft growing market share. But a lot of the overhead could disappear because so much of it is run by computers.

They made a big deal about an illegal app that was only necessary because unlike NYC, the other city(s) were trying to restrict the market competition. Uber never used that app in NYC because we welcome technology and competition and the special interests did not dominate the politicians.

I was referring to these smaller firms as was addressed in the comment.

Regarding the major book selling firms, Amazon are the good guys because a relatively few book firms control the market. Amazon is helping to improve the customer experience by lowering the price of books.

Because of political restrictions of the number of taxi medallions to only 13,000 for a city of 8.5 million, taxi rates in NYC were extremely high compared with the rest of the nation. Taxi medallions were worth $1.2 million benefiting owners of medallions and credit unions that offered mortgages on them.

For example, Uber is 90 cents per mile in Chicago, but twice that at $1.75 mile in New York.

When Uber/Lyft came along to relieve the politically induced shortage while easily able to improve customer value by offering more vehicles and at lower prices, the value of medallions went to $700,000 or less and drivers stopped driving Yellow Cabs choosing Uber/Lyft instead.

Apparently, people are not required to tip, nor can they receive a bad score if they don't.

But Uber sold customers a bill of goods which said that tips were automatically included in the fare, not that there are no tips.

But Amazon doesn't do this to their vendors.

Uber has better quality service from my experience. I still remember, Sat AM in NYC, and Lyft wanted to charge surge pricing when the city is far quieter than during a weekday. Uber did not charge surge pricing on a Saturday morning!

Ummm...are you arguing against better customer value? Because taxi-like services are now more affordable for more people that is a bad thing?

I completely agree and as things are, Uber's prices are far higher in NYC than say, compared with Chicago because the Yellow Cabs here are so expensive compared with those from Chicago.

Uber pool takes two or more unrelated passengers and puts them in the same vehicle. This is clearly less greenhouse gas generated than if all passengers take independent cars. Therefore, Uber pool reduces greenhouse gasses.

By your argument, because Uber/Lyft provides better customer service overall compared with Taxi service which is why they are commanding such a large market share, that is a bad thing because people are taking more cars over mass transit as a result.

But because of stupid laws protecting Yellow Cab monopoly, it is against the law to street hail them, having to call instead. Also, not a reliable single brand, also they don't take credit cards, unlike Yellow Cabs.

Uber under TK was criticized for breaking laws, but those laws were in place to protect incumbents from market entry. In NYC, were AirBnB does break NYC and NY State laws, Uber does not. It follows the rules of the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission. Except for the Mayor that tried to restrict Uber/Lyft for political reasons to help the incumbents, we New Yorkers welcome Uber/Lyft.

> This idea that there "were no taxis" in the boroughs and now there are is ridiculous.

The few times I tried to take those services the service was horrible, horrible.

Now, thankfully, Uber is available and they have much better service and they have a single identifiable reliable brand and they take credit cards.

Uber pool where unrelated riders ride in the same car are going to have less greenhouse gas than riders taking separate cars. This is logical.

The law enforcement cited was mostly to keep Uber out of the market to protect incumbents from competition.

Unlike AirBnB which breaks NY City and NY State regulations, Uber does follow NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission rules imposed on them and Lyft and other services. But in NYC, the Mayor's unsuccessful efforts withstanding, we aren't trying to restrict market entry and basically asking that Uber drivers undergo the same screening as Yellow Taxi drivers.

In NYC, there is one app called Arro that responded to the competition of Uber/Lyft, but was not available beforehand. I believe there is a 2nd app now as well.

Uber is the largest player by far, so they are an easy target for frustrations and for incumbents. "Uber" is almost a generic term for a iPhone hailable vehicle. Generally, there is market competition for drivers. For example, Lyft for those drivers who are unhappy with Uber. You have stated that in your city, São Paulo, there are 3 good companies. If one company mistreats drivers, they would go to a competing firm and the firm would lose revenue.

Have you ever used Uber pool? Two different customers sharing the same vehicle, lowering greenhouse gas.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, that people sharing a vehicle increases greenhouse gas. Citation is required that it would.

Have you ever used Uber pool? Two different customers sharing the same vehicle, lowering greenhouse gas.

The regulations by and large were simply there to protect incumbents that wanted to keep out competition which offered higher customer value (by offering lower cost, more responsive, less greenhouse gas) service.

Unlike AirBnB which does break NY City and NY State laws, Uber has been following regulations that are imposed by the NYC Taxi & Limousine commission (e.g., screening drivers, etc.).