Uber Drivers Forum banner

With Congestion Getting Worse, N.Y. City Wants to Stem Flood of Uber Licenses

18K views 219 replies 36 participants last post by  Txchick 
#1 ·
#4 ·
These congestion studies happen every several years.
Usually nothing significant enough is done to have any real impact.

The only things I can remember that had a positive impact was adding HOV lanes and reverse traffic at some of the bridges & tunnels during rush hours.
 
#9 ·
Uber accuses mayor, City Council of trying to 'break' it
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...uses-mayor-city-council-of-trying-to-break-it

Excerpts:

"It's going to hurt the system," Josh Mohrer, the company's New York City general manager, told Crain's. "It's going to break it."

Mr. Mohrer ticked off a list of possible repercussions if the council passes a bill proposed by the Taxi and Limousine Commission to limit new for-hire vehicle licenses issued by the city:

  1. Uber cars would take longer to respond to passengers,
  2. fares would increase,
  3. customers would flee the service
  4. surge pricing would become more common.
...
"It basically would make Uber unreliable," Mr. Mohrer said. "Clearly this is the taxi industry trying to stop us."

...
This new bill, introduced by Councilmen Ydanis Rodriguez and Stephen Levin, would limit Uber to 1% growth for at least a year while the city studies the effect of the for-hire vehicle industry on traffic congestion, pollution and quality of life.
...
A 1% cap would limit Uber's growth to 201 drivers for a year. In March, the company told Crain's it planned to add 10,000 drivers by the end of 2015. Uber's app is currently is used by 26,000 drivers in New York City, according to the company.

Asked if the bill would harm Uber's city revenues, which has been conservatively estimated to be $130 million a year, Mr. Mohrer said it would. "That's secondary to me right now, in terms of trips, in terms of economic opportunities for our driver-partners, in terms of reliability for consumers," he said. "It would be bad for the company economically, but it would also be bad for the city."
Mr. Mohrer claims that Uber's service, especially its car-pool option, takes cars off the road, not the opposite.
...
On Tuesday, the city forwarded a slideshow to reporters that suggested that explosive growth in the number of for-hire vehicles has led to a 9% decline in average speeds in Manhattan between 2010 and 2014. Mr. Mohrer said that data seemed "oddly selected," noting it used as its baseline 2010, a "uniquely fast year" by city standards with an average speed of 9.3 miles-per-hour, and compared it with 2014, when Mr. de Blasio's speed-reducing Vision Zero plan was launched.
 
#12 ·
Uber accuses mayor, City Council of trying to 'break' it
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...uses-mayor-city-council-of-trying-to-break-it

Excerpts:

"It's going to hurt the system," Josh Mohrer, the company's New York City general manager, told Crain's. "It's going to break it."

Mr. Mohrer ticked off a list of possible repercussions if the council passes a bill proposed by the Taxi and Limousine Commission to limit new for-hire vehicle licenses issued by the city:

  1. Uber cars would take longer to respond to passengers,
  2. fares would increase,
  3. customers would flee the service
  4. surge pricing would become more common.
...
"It basically would make Uber unreliable," Mr. Mohrer said. "Clearly this is the taxi industry trying to stop us."

...
This new bill, introduced by Councilmen Ydanis Rodriguez and Stephen Levin, would limit Uber to 1% growth for at least a year while the city studies the effect of the for-hire vehicle industry on traffic congestion, pollution and quality of life.
...
A 1% cap would limit Uber's growth to 201 drivers for a year. In March, the company told Crain's it planned to add 10,000 drivers by the end of 2015. Uber's app is currently is used by 26,000 drivers in New York City, according to the company.

Asked if the bill would harm Uber's city revenues, which has been conservatively estimated to be $130 million a year, Mr. Mohrer said it would. "That's secondary to me right now, in terms of trips, in terms of economic opportunities for our driver-partners, in terms of reliability for consumers," he said. "It would be bad for the company economically, but it would also be bad for the city."
Mr. Mohrer claims that Uber's service, especially its car-pool option, takes cars off the road, not the opposite.
...
On Tuesday, the city forwarded a slideshow to reporters that suggested that explosive growth in the number of for-hire vehicles has led to a 9% decline in average speeds in Manhattan between 2010 and 2014. Mr. Mohrer said that data seemed "oddly selected," noting it used as its baseline 2010, a "uniquely fast year" by city standards with an average speed of 9.3 miles-per-hour, and compared it with 2014, when Mr. de Blasio's speed-reducing Vision Zero plan was launched.
This sounds fantastic to my ears, all the things he mentioned would be a godsend to the drivers who make this operation possible, what a ****ing clown, and the pax will not go anywhere, they used the service just fine before the rate cuts, this guy is clueless how the Taxi and FHV industry works in NYC. I hope the TLC moves quickly on this matter.
 
#14 ·
Uber needs to be controlled just like the yellow Taxis, there is a reason the medallions are caped at a certain number, and have someone please for the love of God put a stop to this Uber pool craziness, we drivers are not city busses. And the number of cars also needs to be caped do to traffic congestion which has become a complete nightmare for everyone involved, drivers and passengers.
 
#18 ·
Uber is worried that if the TLC caps the number of cars FHV issued licenses, they will run out of drivers, since the Uber driver turnover ratio is 3-6 months if that, but those same drivers that jump ship still operate and keep their license active, which means no new fresh off the boat new recruits for Uber to exploit and take advantage of. This has become a total nightmare for everyone involved, FHV operators, yellow Taxis, passengers the TLC, and the city as a whole.
 
#19 ·
Ubers five points are simply a scare tactic. I can think of five good reasons to cap driver numbers.

1. It will reduce congestion
2. Driver cap will guarantee earnings for current experienced drivers and reduce driver turnover
3. Guaranteed income will maintain car and driver quality by reducing "race to the bottom"
4. Better and happier drivers and cars driving on roads with less traffic will improve customer satisfaction.
5. A cap on Uber will also make for happier taxis and reduce hemorrhage of jobs by cab companies which is a good thing for the city.


This is just to prove ubers five points are BS scare tactics.
 
#20 ·
#22 ·
As an existing Uber driver (and -so called- partner) since almost 2 years, I support the cap on limiting Uber affiliated cars and cap on limiting Uber drivers.

Also, TLC should -immediately- stop issuing all types of new licenses.

I am so sick and tired of Uber's unreliable, unpredictable and unstable way of conducting business.

Because of the Uber's unreliability, I can't make any business plans for the near future.

I don't care what happens to Uber, I can find my around anyways.

We weren't living in caves before Uber.
 
#27 ·
You guys misunderstood it.

1) TLC will continue to issue new FHV licenses.

2) All Uber bases have much more than 500 cars affiliated with them.
So, Uber bases can add only few dozen of newly affiliated cars every year.

3) Drivers with FHV driver licenses who is affiliated with other Black car or Luxury Limo bases, can continue to work with Uber.

All these new rules won't limit the number of Uber drivers on the street, but, it will limit the newly affiliated cars with Uber bases.

Also, the weekly rent for "Uber ready" cars will increase.

It won't stop newbies on the street.


"A bill to be introduced in the council would limit the industry's rate of growth based on the fleet size of individual for-hire vehicle bases. The limit would be in place until the city completes an analysis or August 31, 2016, whichever comes first. A base with 500 or more vehicles would be limited to 1% growth, while one with 20 to 499 vehicles could grow 5%. Small bases, those with 19 or fewer vehicles, would be allowed to grow by 15%. Borough taxis--the green cabs that can't pick up street hails in most of Manhattan--would not be affected by the legislation."
 
#31 ·
Ultimately they are setting us up for a congestion tax.Bloomberg floated the idea years ago.its in effect in london and other cities and makes the city TONS of money.
It's been spoken about WAY before Bloomberg... Bloomberg is the only one who's ferociously pushing it.. I think it should be done. Would it suck the days I drive my personal car into the city? Yea... But it HAS to be done. It's crazy the amount of bullshit drivers there are... So many people who just come into the city just to shoot the shit and double park and stand outside of their car for no reason.

Also.. Something MUST be done about all the damn buses. **** the damn buses!!! City buses are whatever but I mean these tour buses.. They block intersections, park where ever.. And just chill around driving slowly around. I'm getting sick of turning behind one of them and they just brake and wait for traffic to clear or let people take pictures and I get stuck in the middle of the intersection with all these asshole cab and uber drivers flashing their high beams at me like I can go anywhere and honking... Like hey asshole I can't turn anymore now that you've wedged yourself in between me and the bus.
 
#36 · (Edited)
It could come to the point where vehicles cannot be driven on certain days.

In Mexico City, vehicles were allowed to drive only on certain days depending on the last number of their license plate.

This was done to limit amount of vehicles that in turn limited amount of traffic and smog.

Vehicles violating the law were fined.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoy_No_Circula
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top