Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 22 2016, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the taking-a-cut dept.

Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the nickel fee into law this month as part of a sweeping package of regulations for the industry.

Ride services are not enthusiastic about the fee. "I don't think we should be in the business of subsidizing potential competitors," said Kirill Evdakov, the chief executive of Fasten, a ride service that launched in Boston last year and also operates in Austin, Texas.

Some taxi owners wanted the law to go further, perhaps banning the start-up competitors unless they meet the requirements taxis do, such as regular vehicle inspection by the police.

"They've been breaking the laws that are on the books, that we've been following for many years," said Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association.

The law levies a 20-cent fee in all, with 5 cents for taxis, 10 cents going to cities and towns and the final 5 cents designated for a state transportation fund.

The fee may raise millions of dollars a year because Lyft and Uber alone have a combined 2.5 million rides per month in Massachusetts.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 22 2016, @09:45PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday August 22 2016, @09:45PM (#391888) Journal

    Taxis can pick up fares off the street. Uber cannot. This is the key distinction between a taxi service and a private car-for-hire service (which existed long before Uber). If you don't like Uber, either change that distinction (and deal with all the unintended consequences), or impose additional regulation on car-for-hire services.

    While that is true in most places, "car-for-hire" services (sometimes known as livery services) are generally regulated pretty strongly too, often requiring drivers to be specially licensed, to carry adequate insurance, etc. Uber and Lyft have historically fought to be exempt from these regulations in many municipalities too. (In fact, if you search for most major U.S. cities, you'll find that the regulations for taxis and livery services are part of one big set of mostly overlapping regulations.)

    In many cases the regulations to be licensed for "for-hire" and livery cars are more draconian than for taxicabs. Depending on the municipality, often the cars have to undergo the same sorts of inspections, registrations, driver background checks, etc. that taxicabs do PLUS agree to additional fee regulations (like a minimum charge per ride, which might be $40+), pre-booking, sometimes with a minimum booking time (often a few hours notice, sometimes 8 or more hours in advance is required), etc. Since "livery" regulations were traditionally aimed at limo services and other more elite driver services, the vehicle regulations for "for-hire" cars in some cities are even stricter, specifying things like greater legroom, etc.

    So, no, Uber and Lyft generally do NOT want to claim to be "private car-for-hire" services, since in many cities that would make the regulations even worse (or at least incompatible with their business model). This isn't true in every city, but it's true in a lot of places.

    (Note: I'm not arguing in favor of these regulations, only pointing out that claiming to be "car-for-hire" instead of "ride-sharing" doesn't magically make Uber or Lyft exempt from regulations either.)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3