UPDATE: The city of Cambridge is hilariously backtracking on its effort to ban Uber, having apparently not realized that people actually like the service Uber provides, and having created a PR sh!tstorm that it surely did not see coming. We’ve now got Richard Rossi, the City Manager, swearing up and down that the city is absolutely “not trying to shut down Uber” – even though that is essentially what the proposed regulations would have done within Cambridge. No, no, Cambridge just wants to talk about liability insurance and background checks, says Rossi. That’s great, but that’s not what the regulations currently on the table are about. Not to worry, says Rossi – those draft regulations are just “to begin the conversation.” Well, they’ve certainly done that, though probably not the way Cambridge anticipated.
I have an idea, Cambridge. Instead of trying to make something that works pretty well work less well, why don’t you fix the godawful regulation of the taxi industry? That’s the correct way to ensure a level playing field among competing car services. Better yet, why doesn’t the state legislature step in and deal with this on a statewide basis? I cannot imagine the justification in this day and age for regulating car services city by city.
The City of Cambridge has a long-running battle with Uber, the “on demand” car service that has traditional taxi operators up in arms. If you’ve never used Uber, here’s basically how it works: you create an account and give it your credit card number; you download the app onto your smartphone; you summon a car via the app (as long as you are within Uber’s service area, which at this point in Boston extends as far south as Randolph and Avon, as far north as Andover, and as far west as Framingham); the car shows up maybe 10-15 minutes later (depending on where you are and how busy things are) and takes you where you want to go; the bill (which includes tip) is emailed to you and shows up on your credit card statement.
A couple of years ago, after the state Department of Public Safety allowed Uber to operate in Massachusetts (after initially refusing to do so), Cambridge sued to stop it, but lost in court.
Now, Cambridge is trying a new approach, namely, regulating Uber out of the city. According to Uber’s summary of Cambridge’s proposed new regulations (I can’t vouch for the summary’s accuracy), the city would
- Set a $50 minimum price for any non-taxi car ride, regardless of time or distance
- Prohibit you from requesting a ride on-demand from anyone other than a taxi
- Forbid any technological device from being part of fare calculation during a ride
What a ridiculous approach. If Cambridge wants to solve the problem (and I agree that in some respects it is a problem) of unfair competition between services like Uber and the traditional taxi industry, it needs to allow the taxi industry to come into the 21st century, not force other services back into the 20th.
I think most people would agree that it is reasonable to require car services to conduct background checks on their drivers, to require minimum levels of insurance, and to enforce other basic safety measures; I certainly do. But the taxi medallion system has proven itself a disastrous failure and should be scrapped; GPS-based fare calculations are perfectly reasonable and should be permitted; the city-by-city approach of the taxi business where a Boston-based cab can’t pick up a fare in Cambridge is stupid and should be eliminated; calling a car via a smartphone app is an excellent technological innovation that should be embraced across the industry; and so forth.
Cambridge is in danger of taking a big step down exactly the wrong path if it adopts these proposed regulations after its public meeting tonight (which is at 6 pm in the basement conference room of the Lombardi Building, 831 Mass. Ave. in Cambridge). Especially in a city that has recently seen a major tech boom in the Kendall Square area, effectively banning Uber (which is what these regulations would do) would be a huge mistake.
I will understand if, over time, regulations have to be imposed on Uber cars and drivers. But, it should be done in response to demonstrated need for regulation, not as a way to allow taxi service to compete with Uber by raising Uber’s costs. The taxi system is lacking in Boston and surrounding communities–the fleet is aging, the drivers often do not know their way around, the service stinks, and the prices are too high for what’s offered. I use Uber and taxis a lot and I’ve found that Uber’s cars and drivers are much better, it’s more consumer friendly, the prices are generally a bit lower, and the fleet is much better. Cambridge is home to tech start-ups and VCs and they should be embracing this type of consumer friendly, highly disruptive technology, not squelching it. I find it bizarre that when Boston Coach was crazy expensive, and viewed as a limo service, no one complained. Now that a fleet that is substantially similar to Boston Coach (same cars, drivers, service) is available to a much wider audience at roughly-taxi prices the taxi-drivers and government are concerned about it. Industries need to change in response to technology and consumer desire. That’s the case here. Cambridge is making a mistake.
This stinks to high heaven.
Uber needs to back up the $50 claim; a quick search of the PDF (linked from your link) shows no 50, fifty, or minimum. So maybe that’s elsewhere?
I can see it quite clearly on page 14:
The PDF is pretty crappy and doesn’t allow for search it seems.
Another Cambridge technology fail.
I did a quick search, like I said. Apologies for the error.
Especially coming from a city that is home to both Zipcar and one of Bridj’s first two Beta routs.
I’m having a hard time imagining a reason for it beyond the very cynical theory that cabbies and/or taxi companies contributed a lot of money to City Councilors’ campaigns.
That is exactly the point.
n/t
As I understand it, this is a discussion regarding Uber, and not about taking any votes. I don’t consider discussing Uber to be harmful in nature, to no one, and there is nothing inherently wrong with discussing the topic either.
the city is obviously considering adopting these “proposed draft regulations,” otherwise they wouldn’t be posted. There’s nothing wrong with discussing the topic, but these proposed regulations would basically make it impossible for Uber or similar services to do business in Cambridge. Hard for me to see how that’s a helpful jumping-off point.
I don’t see any problem with requiring them to run a legal one.
Once the state (or city) gets into the licensing business, the game changes. Obviously Cambridge is overreaching in the regulation, but if we were talking about any another licensed group — doctors, therapists, hairdressers — the Board of Registration for that group would be all over the Uber equivalent.
There are lots of car services that aren’t taxicabs. It’s just that they tended to be very expensive, and not nearly as easy to call as Uber is.
If only there were a term for a cheap car service … give me a minute …
the rules are different for taxis and car services. As just one example, a taxi can pick up a street hail; a car service (including Uber) cannot.
But the point stands, no? Uber is the most directly competitive alternative. I still agree with the premise of the diary, but it’s not cut and dry. Uber is encroaching on a licensed business, so the city (probably) should have something to say about it.
…strikes me as closer to Zipcar than taxis. Is that accurate?
easy-to-call private cars.
Much closer to taxis than Zipcar. But also different than taxis. That said, the taxi industry is one of the most backward and corrupt industries around.
As far as Cambridge taxis – they’re still not required to take credit cards. GTFO, IMHO. I feel for the drivers, though. Smarter to take Uber’s generous car financing options and purchase a car and drive for Uber than to pay rent to a medallion owner.
Yes, it’s convenient for the consumer, but mandates should not be based on convenience. That could take care of itself if the taxis forego enough business. The businesses also have to pay the card companies if they accept them. The government only has the right it seems to if anything mandate the acceptance of cash, which is our official currency and “legal tender for ALL debts, public and private”.
It’s different than store or other business because of the situations in which people get taxis. Most importantly, when getting into a cab, you have no real idea of what the cost of the trip will be. There is no up-front price and there is also no way to limit a trip to a certain amount (“You wanted to stop at $20? Ok, get out here. Try to stay over to the right, people travel fast here on the Mass Pike.”).
The drivers often don’t explain upfront that they do not accept credit cards, or, even ones that take cards lie and claim the credit card machine is broken at the end of the trip (which is a violation). Once the person is in the cab and the meter is on, they are basically trapped and must pay, even if it requires bringing the person to an ATM. That’s one way they prevent losing too much business by not taking credit cards.
But, being anti-consumer is definitely hurting them, as it should. The taxis are losing plenty of business (to Uber) and they are using the regulatory system to protect an oligopoly, not change their business. That’s one of the big problems with this.
Uber is pointing out every single fault and absurdity of the system and the reaction is to put the brakes on things rather than change for the better and balance smart public safety policy (background checks, vehicle inspections, proper insurance levels) with competition and innovation.
As far as the processing fees – those suck. It’s another example of a bad oligopoly. They should be lower, but everyone is paying them and passing that on.
In Boston, cabbies are obligated to take credit cards. If you arrive at your destination and he won’t take your card, there’s no real way for him to make you pay in some other way. I’m not suggesting you jump fare just because you don’t feel like using your ATM card, but there it is.
If people know the rules, they can call out the driver. Drivers are not allowed to pick up fares if the machine is actually broken. If you protest, the machine usually starts working magically.
Most people don’t know that and will feel trapped and will get cash if taken to an ATM, though.
The problem with your theory that the credit card thing will solve itself via the market is that the market doesn’t work in the taxi industry, because of the hideously wrong-headed way the industry is set up (the medallion system being Exhibit A). That is why companies like Uber exist – if taxis were plentiful and convenient to use, nobody would need Uber. But if places like Cambridge are successful in shutting down Uber (which they now say they don’t want to do – we will see), then taxis become essentially a monopoly supplier of car-for-hire service. And in a world where people often don’t carry large amounts of cash for a variety of reasons (including safety), it’s then appropriate IMHO for the government to step in and require that taxis accept credit cards.
Taxis are a commodity. For most common users, you don’t choose your driver — you don’t even choose your customer.
To that end, a standard customer interface makes a whole lot of sense. Standard fares. Standard comfort. Standard payment systems.
Because you want to be an international city! You. Can have a business person from any part of our country or any part of the world hop in a cab and go anywhere in the Greater boston area with the card in their wallet. Nobody on business trips carries cash anymore, and most credit cards mitigates for the exchange rate. Have you been outside of Boston lately?
Nearly every major city has credit cards in their cabs. If we want to go from Beta to alpha-and if you and others seriously want the 2024 Olympics-then we need cabs to have credit cards-among many other basic improvements. We need Uber-particularly if Cambridge is serious about becoming Silicon Valley East-and we need significantly later MBTA service and lax liquor laws.
…any more than it would be for other vendors and businesses. I’m not saying they shouldn’t take cards. In fact they should for these and other reasons. I have a problem with telling a business what they should offer.
Regarding knowing the fees, I am in the habit of asking as I get in, “How much will it cost to get me to…?” Maybe DC has a different system, using zones or something, but that is my experience.
Different rules do, and should, apply to businesses that are in effect monopoly suppliers, as opposed to “other vendors and businesses.” Taxis are the only players in the actual taxi market; Uber is horning in around the edges, but they still can’t accept street hails or line up in cab stands.
I guess I would prefer introducing competition. Safety regulations are appropriate, but regarding cards I would be more comfortable only requiring that cabs that choose not to have a big sign on them saying. “This cab is cash only; sorry for any inconvenience.” Otherwise, the city should simply run the cab service itself as a form of public transit, which I believe the MBTA does to some extent, right?
… which is exactly what I’m saying, both via services like Uber which compete in many (though not all) respects with cabs, and also via reforming the medallion system, the city-by-city rules, etc.
As for the MBTA, not sure what you’re referring to. They do run “The Ride,” which is essentially a livery service for people with disabilities that make using the T difficult, but it’s not available to everyone. Is that what you mean?
I have seen what look like MBTA taxis. I was not aware of the restriction. I agree with what you are saying and mea cupla for diverting the thread a bit. I do still think that publicly owned and operated taxi service where the city council just makes all the policies is something worth considering.
When you go up to a cab stand, you get the first cab in line. When you ask the doorman at your hotel for a cab, you get the first one. Likewise at the airport. *All* cabs need to provide the same basic services, and accepting credit cards should be on the list. You should not have to tell the doorman to get you a credit-card cab.
I guess I’ve never gotten a cab that way. I’ve hailed on my own on the street and ask how much and if they take cards before I get in. I have been known to say never mind based on the response.
Good thing the government can step in to make sure this doesn’t happen
The point of taxis is to provide a public transportation benefit. If accepting credit cards is considered important to that benefit, I see no reason why the city cannot require that as part of their licensing requirements.
I have no problem with reasonable safety regulations being applied to Uber as well as other transportation services. What I don’t understand is (a) why this is done at the local rather than state level; and (b) where crazy ideas like a $50 minimum fee come from.
Uber appears to be taking advantage of loopholes in the law to unfairly compete with cabs, primarily by following a different set of rules. Why are people so excited about that? Why aren’t people similarly excited to simply deregulate the cab industry so that anything goes?
That would mean things like:
* Cabs wouldn’t need to carry insurance. If you’re injured in an accident, you’d have to sue the driver. Good luck with that.
* Cabs wouldn’t need safety inspections.
* No regulations on how many hours cabbies can drive per day. It would be up to you to figure out if your cabbie was too tired to drive reasonably.
* No regulations on pricing, or how fares are computed. Everything is an individual negotiation between you and the driver.
* No regulations involving children, animals, or anything else.
* Cabbies wouldn’t have to post their licenses or names.
* No minimum service levels for cab companies (some cities require 24-hour coverage).
* It would be legal for side deals to be struck between hotels and individual drivers (routinely not permitted now). In other words, if you wanted to pick up at the Marriott, you might have to pay Marriott a fee.
* No rules requiring background checks, drug testing, fingerprinting, etc.
* No penalties for failing to pick up called-in fares.
* No dress codes.
* No information need be communicated to any city from any cab company. Looking at Santa Monica’s regulations, taxi companies must notify the city about any “incidents” such as crimes, accidents, etc. They also require cab companies to provide financial statements, and names/addresses of their drivers.
* No dispatch records need to be kept. Again, no record-keeping would be required anymore, and the city could not request such information from cab companies anymore.
* No special licensing for taxi drivers.
* No prohibitions against cabbies who get into a lot of accidents or moving violations.
* No code of conduct for cab drivers.
* Poaching of fares would be allowed (i.e. one company could listen in to another company’s dispatch calls and try and send a cab there first).
* Drivers with licenses from other states would be allowed. No need for a Massachusetts license. In fact, you could drive your Wisconsin car (with no mandatory insurance) as a cab.
* No regulations whatsoever on customer service. It would be permissible for a driver to do things like “upsell” their customers for things, etc.
* Drivers could refuse fares for any reason – maybe because they don’t want to drive black people, or people with kids, or people in wheelchairs.
* No inspections of taxi meters.
* No regulations that would help blind people (Santa Monica requires Braile in the car)
* No more penalties because there are no more rules. Just customer reviews.
And of course, this would all work out because, well, “Libertarianism!” Get the government out of the way and surely the market will make things great!
Wow, we just got rid of 35 pages of taxi regulations in Santa Monica with this. Doesn’t it feel great?
The majority of reasons you mention are things that the taxi industry fails miserably at, despite regulations designed to prevent those things. Many of them involve internal company policies that provide better results than the existing taxi regulations.
The company itself and many of its techie supporters may like the no regulation approach, but I haven’t seen anyone here argue for no regulations. The regulations should just be targeted at public safety rather than protecting a backward and corrupt industry.
I’m no libertarian, and I don’t think many people on this site are, but I also want to see innovation while the government protects things that really matter. Requiring very old and expensive taximeters instead of using GPS technology is not included among those things that matter.
Have you ever used Uber? I have never met anyone who doesn’t find the experience leagues better than using taxis.
As I’ve said several times, I support background checks, insurance requirements, and other basic safety regulation of services like Uber – and, in fact, Uber already does all of that. As I’ve also said several times, a lot of the regulation of the taxi industry is wrongheaded and should be seriously overhauled or eliminated – that would benefit the taxi industry and the public. The only people opposing it, as far as I can tell, are the medallion owners, who unfortunately have a lot of money and therefore access to politicians. It’s not a good situation.
Because it’s consumer friendly and a high quality product (easy to use, technology based, priced fairly). Taxis aren’t. It isn’t libertarianism; “get the government out of the way”. Car services have always been allowed. Is it just because Uber is using technology, and is doing car service better than before that this is an issue?
I don’t see why allowing a business such as Uber to exist, even without additional regulation, implies that we are heading to anarchy.
For instance, Uber drivers are insured and must have a local driver’s license and pass a background check.
The reason people are excited about Uber is because there are a lot of things that suck pretty badly about our current taxi service and Uber addresses some of those issues.
but I’m pretty sure that Uber complies with most of your list. If you think that car services should be more closely regulated, I have no problem with that. But if you’re saying that car services should be run off the road because innovative technology has made them competitive with the crappy old cab system, well… nuts to you.
Uber isn’t a taxi, and comparing it to a taxi doesn’t make sense. Uber is a black car, a car service for hire, a livery. Let’s review the differences:
* Taxis can be hailed on the street, but only in the community in which they are licensed. Liveries cannot be heiled ever.
* Taxis can stand in taxi queues (again, in their own community). Liveries cannot.
* Taxis can be scheduled. So can liveries.
* Taxis have rates (prices) defined by the community — they are not free to change them. Liveries can set their own prices.
* Taxis have specific vehicular requirements. Liveries may as well, and these requirements can and do vary.
* Taxis are limited in quantity in many communities, often but not always with a medallion system. I’m not aware of a community that limits the number of livery vehicles.
Uber is a livery system, not a taxi. Comparisons to taxis don’t make any sense. Both taxis and liveries are car transport for hire, and to the extent that all car transport for hire should be regulated, Uber should be too. That includes things like ensuring the driver is competent and not criminal, that the vehicle is safe, lost and found procedures, anti-discriminatory policies, and that the payment calculation system is fair and functioning correctly.
Now, is it possible that Uber and similar services, even once regulated properly, will continue to erode the taxi customer base? Yup. And, if the taxi owners are smart, they’ll lobby for tougher regulations or lower fares, because right now they’re losing to Uber on both quality and price.
If Cambridge truly wants to become Silicon Valley East, than it adopts this policy. If the Boston area wants to be business friendly, it needs to allow credit cards on all it’s cabs and significantly reform our outmoded medallion system. If we are serious about going from Beta to Alpha, and getting the 2024 Summer Games (lord knows we couldn’t handle them now), than these are the kinds of changes Boston needs to make to get from being a provincial to a world class city. Otherwise, this Onion article is still true.
I agree that this area should support innovative companies and entrepreneurship, but “Silicon Valley East” sounds scary. I hope that’s not really a goal. Becoming a center of innovation on the East Coast should be a goal, but being like what Silicon Valley has become should not. That area is being overrun with this “disruption” mindset that goes beyond Uber in being much more anti-government and fully libertarian. Also, the impact of the outrageously obvious tech bubble and very highly paid workers is having a huge impact on San Francisco. I hope that we can learn lessons of Silicon Valley and avoid some of the bad consequences. Unfortunately, we may be too far into this bubble to make it really sustainable.
That said, Uber is a great service demonstrating the flaws of a backward industry, and I think that is a good thing. Some other companies, like many of these for-profit education companies, haven’t demonstrated nearly as much value for the public.
As far as the 2024 Olympics – PLEASE GOD NO!
I have strong concerns that issues of affordability, livability, and the income gap are only going to get worse in Cambridge if we are attempting that. But it’s a term that is getting bandied about, and if people are serious about emulating some of the successes (and hopefully just as serious about avoiding the excesses) than Uber is a basic place to start. Particularly since we are home to disruptive start ups like Zipcar for instance.
And it is laughable that we are even making a bid, I did a lot of work during my Mayoral Fellowship in 2009 for Chicago 2016, and seeing all the proposed changes we were going to make to get up to IOC snuff, I doubt Boston is anywhere closer and could afford that kind of significant investment. When done well, it can be a catalyst for infrastructure creation and investment, and when done poorly, you end up like Greece. I’d rather we focus on the long term prizes we will get if we have a world class transit system, create jobs, decrease the income gap, and continue to have a great education system.
Yeah, SV is showing a lot of what not to do. I’m really worried about this bubble. Astronomical valuations, increasing IPOs with very mixed success, frothy supporting industries, and a culture where earning giant funding rounds are more important than sustainability and profitability. There’s some great companies and products but there’s also a ton of fluff.
It would be great if we could build a state-of-the-art transit system and maybe do other things like put Storrow underground, but it just seems like it would be a disaster. There’s also not a ton of developable space nearby to some basic support that already exists, which makes Boston a tough option. The Seaport could have been a great area for an Olympic Village and facilities, but that will be completely developed (probably very poorly) by then.
Has anyone done a Summer Games in relatively recent memory who had medium/long-term success?
It will be interesting to see how Leland Cheung plays this.
He’s running as being an effective leader for the innovation economy and has tweeted using #CambridgeneedsUber (although unclear if it was in support of the position or just use of the hashtag).
Presumably he should be strongly in favor of companies like Uber, and if they are harmed in his city, it really calls into question his campaign’s argument for him as LG.
On the other hand, his bumper sticker is the only one I ever see on Cambridge taxis, and it’s on a lot of them.
I rode my first Uber, on someone else’s dime. Pretty nice. More power to them!
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/2014/06/26/boston-lawyer-suing-uber-for-exploiting-drivers/xwYXZGmjYg0wsrdsuXKQJM/story.html?p1=Topopage:Test_B:sub_headline_2