Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-17 OrdinanceG �-; P ?~P� G 65-17-16 Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (VAC15-00007) 6a ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE VACATING THE WATERFRONT DRIVE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (VAC15-00007) WHEREAS, the applicant, Equity Ventures, has requested that the City vacate and convey to the applicant Waterfront Drive public right-of-way running east and west between 1402 and 1411 Waterfront Drive; and WHERAS, the vacation is being requested to combine the surrounding parcels for uniform redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Waterfront Drive is not currently utilized for access or circulation by any entities besides the adjacent properties, which have voiced support for the vacation request; and WHEREAS, a suitable access easement will be established in lieu of the right-of-way; and WHERAS, the Waterfront Drive right-of-way does have public water and sanitary sewer utilities; and WHEREAS; these utilities must be relocated prior to development of structures where the Waterfront Drive right-of-way is located; and WHEREAS, easements for these utilities will be retained until the new utilities are constructed and accepted by the City; and WHEREAS, releasing the utility easements will require subsequent action by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed vacation of Waterfront Drive and has recommended approval of the application subject to City staff approval of a final plat application, which must include plans for utility relocation and a plan for temporary access to Car -X property during construction and a permanent access easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I VACATION. The City of Iowa City hereby vacates that portion of public right-of-way described as follows subject to the easements described above: LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SOUTHGATE ADDITION, PART 1, TO IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN AFFORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9 AT PAGE 54 OF THE RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S22°54'00"E, 50.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID SOUTHGATE ADDITION, PART 1; THENCE S67°06'00"W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 24.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, 75.16 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 125.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 74.03 FOOT CHORD BEARS 584019'30"W; THENCE N78027'00"W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, AND THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF SAID SOUTHDATE ADDITION, PART 1, A DISTANCE OF 181.93 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH GILBERT STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 90.52 FEET, ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A 914.55 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 90.48 FOOT CHORD BEARS N34033'42"E, TO ITS INTERSECTUION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WATERFRONT DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 22.90 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 20.74 FOOT CHORD BEARS S12000'13"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 72.94 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A 183.98 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 72.47 FOOT CHORD BEARS S67005'30"E, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 OF SOUTHGATE ADDITION, PART 1; THENCE S78°27'00"E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 67.22 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 45.09 FEET, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A 75.00 RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 44.42 FOOT CHORD BEARS N84019'30"E' THENCE N06706'00"E, 24.88 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID WATERFRONT DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PARCEL CONTAINS .31 Ordinance No. Page 2 ACRE (13,454 SQUARE FEET), AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this ATTEST: CITY CLERK day of 120. MAYOR: Approved by: d (o—I So City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Botchway Cole Dickens Mims Taylor Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 02/16/2016 Voteforpassage: AYES: Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 03/01/2016 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: NSne. Date published that the 00 Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, ENTITLED "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "TAXICABS," TO ELIMINATE A LOCAL OFFICE, 2417 SERVICE, AND INSPECTION OF NEWER MODEL VEHICLES AND TO ALLOW A SURCHARGE FEE ON CERTAIN DAYS AND NEMT SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Governor signed HF 2414 on May 9, 2016 that, in part, prohibits cities from requiring taxi businesses from having a physical office in the locality beginning January 1, 2017; WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 16-4663 on April 19, 2016 to allow "Transportation Network Companies" to operate; WHEREAS, in response to these enactments, the City's "traditional" taxicab Code provisions should be amended to allow for a limited "surcharge" fee, to eliminate a business from having to provide 24/7 service, to eliminate a physical office requirement within Iowa City/Coralville immediately and to eliminate the requirement for inspections on vehicles less than ten years old; WHEREAS, the federal government requires states to provide certain Medicare/Medicaid recipients transportation to and from medical appointments, which is known as Non -Emergency Medical Transportation, and taxicab companies nationally provide this service via written contracts with providers, and the City's taxicab requirements should not prevent a taxicab business from engaging in this service; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to amend the code accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," Section 1, entitled "Definitions," is amended by adding new definitions of Extra Passenger Fee and Surcharge as follows: Extra Passenger Fee: A flat per passenger fee a metered taxicab business may charge that is calculated by and shown on the taximeter. Surcharge: A flat per passenger fee a metered taxicab business may charge in addition to the rate shown on the taximeter on the following days: University of Iowa home football games (defined as the day prior to, the day of and the day following the game, which typically will be Friday, Saturday and Sunday), University of Iowa graduation weekends (defined as Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the December and May commencements), New Year's Eve (defined as 12:00 noon on December 31 to 12:00 noon on January 1), and a special event (defined as a notable event as solely determined by the City, notice of which will be provided to the taxicab businesses as set forth in the administrative rules). 2. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," Section 2, entitled "Business Licenses" is amended by deleting Subsections H and I and adding a new Subsection H as follows: Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter, taxicab businesses may provide Non -Emergency Medical Transportation services. 3. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," Section 3, entitled "Accessibility of Records" is amended by deleting Subsection B1 and adding a new Subsection B1 as follows: Taxicab businesses shall provide the following vehicle information and driver information on demand to the City of Iowa City and this information must be accessible to the City in at least one of the following ways: 1. a. A taxicab business shall have an accessible business office. An "accessible business office" means a telephone number available to the Iowa City Police Department twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. 1. b. Manifest logs must be maintained by the taxicab business and made available to the Iowa City Police Department within twelve (12) hours of a request. 4. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," Section 5, Ordinance No. Page 2 entitled "Vehicle Requirements," in amended by adding the following to the beginning of Subsection A: Except as provided herein. 5. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," Section 5, entitled "Vehicle Requirements," is amended by adding a new Subsection E as follows: Taxicabs that are ten (10) model years old or newer (by way of example, during the calendar year 2016, the model must be 2006 or newer) need only be inspected annually for color scheme, taximeter, lighted dome, and lettering. 6. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs," Section 8, entitled "Rates" is amended by deleting Subsection B2a and adding a new Subsection B2a as follows: A rate based on distance includes destination rates. Except for destination rates, all rates based on time and/or distance must utilize a taximeter. All other rates, charges, or fees, except for a surcharge, extra passenger fee and cleanup fee, are prohibited. Only one rate may be certified by the calibrator at one time, and said rate must match the rate card filed in the city clerk's office and verified by the city equipment superintendent or designee SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2016. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Botchway Cole Dickens Mims Taylor Thomas Throgmorton that the First Consideration Q5/17116 Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Marian Karr From: Dennis Doderer <hawkemedia@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 9:22 AM To: Council Subject: This Is How Uber's'Surge Pricing' Works I TIME Late Handouts Distributed This Is How Uber's `Surge Pricing' Works I (I b And why it was in effect during Australia's hostage crisis (Date) htto://time.com/3633469/uber-surge-pricing/?xid=etnailshare It is Painfully obvious to me that the Iowa city council has not explored the real and social costs of the uber invasion. If You had you wouldn't have created a separate and unequal system for traditional cabs. Uber technologies (let's not kid ourselves, this is a driving service for a fee on demand) has driven the traditional cabs to the point of near extinction in a matter of two weeks. They undercut our fixed pricing when business is slow and then they "profit gouge" during high demand times like bar close when we traditional taxis could charge more if we were allowed to. So to be fair, you should allow traditional taxis to "float' their prices during high demands, or, more manageably, limit uber's search pricing to 1.5 Times their base price. Uber's "dynamic" surge pricing, were it for loan services would be called "shylocking" or usery and in the Old Testament or medeival Times would be dealt with severe punishment; perhaps death. To hoard food and vital services during emergencies is morally bankrupt, but Uber is not ruled by any morality or set of principles. They are ruled by a profit maximizing "algorithm". Uber's algorithm should be subject to constant public scrutiny.... Perhaps posted on the side of their cars electronically and on a webpage. We do that with gasoline prices, don't we? And the code writers who program Uber should be held accountable to the customer base and to the governing body in the same way traditional cabs have been for decades. the traditional cabs' un -equal regs don't allow us to cut our operating expenses enough to compete with Ubers artificially low prices. Uber practices "monopolistic- predatory pricing" in the same way that the Robber Barons", of yester-year eliminated competition and eventually drove their prices up creating ,just, one place to work and shop... for the monopoly, and, thus, fostering an under -class that was only rescued by the "New Deal", unions and other Progressive leaders who fought for the rights and dignity of the working class. If Iowa city is truly a progressive community, then it is in -explicable that the City council, could do the bidding for a $51 billion worldwide monopoly... a monopoly that got it start by stealing intellectual rights from creative people. A monopoly that pays no local fees or taxes and exports about 25% of the proceeds outside of our local economy. This, low pay, and depreciation of the driver's auto fail to create the "multiplier effect" a well compensated businesses creates in the community. This disruption can happen in other local industries, including College testing, shampoo making, education and then the "robot economy" will not have any consumers to buy the economies products. That's the "brave New World" that awaits us. I predicted two years ago that the stupid uniform color code, the dispatcher requirements and a "24-7" requirement would put taxi businesses in an early grave and it did. Five companies dead in the last year. An industry left week and crippled was ripe for takeover by the vulture capitalists. In comes Uber! So, LOW, the city offers to eat their latest mistakes.The amendments offered and to considered Tuesday are way too little and way too late. You have just disrupted our business and now you need to disrupt a little more to give us fair ground. You're not even close yet! You offer a smoldering cigarette to a dying patient just like in the old war movies. A patient that you shot! Have you even considered whether you should allow `driverless taxis".. I say, place an amendment that forbids them! But moreover, give this Business the consideration that it didn't get the lost time around. Uber, should also be required to have uniform color codes as do we. Do this or completely deregulate the traditional car Business. S set our own prices and terms. They should also compensate the city for the use of "our public" facilities and or for a chauffeurs license. Right now our mandated expenses and fees are three times those of Uber. And if Uber commits a crime or malfeasance or accident when they are not transporting,customers, the victims are not insured adequately and Uber by its phony "sub -contracting" system is trying to exempt itself from liability and the vulnerability to the drivers rights to organize. This is a violation of universal human rights. Iowa City should voluntarily reject the UNESCO designation as "a city of the novel", because central to UNESCO is a recognition of universal human rights and especially the rights of workers. What a joke! What "mendacity" as our native son Tennessee Williams would bark. The Iowa City Council is vomiting on UNESCO and on the workers that it fails to recognize in their struggle against the rapacious Uber. FYI: my cab has been vomited on probably 40 times in the last six years, and my person has been "ralphed on six times and the police offer us absolutely no protection. Change that, please! The city hands out in public in-tox and other liquor violations like candy, but if I a drunk spews their body fluids on us, we get zero police protection. Puke up predigested vomit from Ponchero's Burritos in their business in site of a cop and you might go to jail if the cops risk dirtying their uniforms and their squad cars. Puke in cabDennis or on cabDennis the police don't want to be in sniffing distance of vomit. "it's a civil matter Sir"! I'd probably feel the same if I were a cop. Hello, I would gladly sit on the study committee and represent taxi drivers who are an ignored constituentcy. In think in the interest of open government, all 270 cabdrivers should be informed of any pending legal changes. What do we have an "Iowa Open Meetings Law for, anyway? Cab drivers and owner operators like myself are "interested parties". the local press and the city clerk does a poor job of informing us of these matters. I have asked Marian Karr to include me on such a mailing list and she retorts that she is not required to do so. Please mandate that City Clerk, Marion Karr informs all interested parties including drivers of any pending changes in legislation... by mail. This is not the open government that my family taught me to covet and that they tirelessly struggled for for four decades. The last round of bad regulations was targeted at "stopping sex offenders". As one of my most loyal female customers griped to me. "There are police everywhere, and I still don't feel safe to walk home"! I cajoled the last victim of a sex offending cab driver to call 911 and she did. I dialed the phone for her. She was afraid to call the police after she had been drinking. I promised I would observe while the police came out and I did and I asked the police and ofc. Vicky Lala to call me with a progress report. I got no response. I've turned in at least five drunk drivers as a good cab -driving citizen. I have never gotten any merit more for thanks for such actions, but I got four tickets last year and put on driving probation by the city without the right to legal counsel, nor the ability to cross examine my accusatory witnesses, nor any notification from a judge. This is clearly unconstitutional. "I was denied life, Liberty, and property without due process of law.". I completed driving school at Kirkwood College and I have gone over a year without any tickets or regulation violations. I am formally asking the city attorney and the chief of police to issue me a certificate of "Probation Completion". My cousin who is on the State Board of the American Civil Liberties Union, Atty. Tom Frerichs has instructed me to do so. Please send me that written notification so I can breathe freely for a change. I will continue to play my role as a good citizen, but the city that I grew up in and so dearly love, doesn't make it easy for me.. In fact , sometimes, the process is de -humanizing. I have fighting for years for police and cab driver cooperation and mutual respect. This is is Essential to fostering "community policing". Because the process has not been transparent, most of the actions of city council are suspected, "on the street, " of involving "bribery", "corruption", and "cronyism" with this worldwide disruptive oligopoly. I fear that the anger in the cab community is so palpable that violence and real disruption might result as it is happening elsewhere. Please read the enclosed article, and explore more deeply. This is not a threat, this is inevitable. Read some real news sources. I beg the local Media to cover the real drama of Uber v..Cabs. I would expect to be marginalized by the Huffington Post where the publisher, Ms. Ariana Huffington, now, sits on the board of Uber technologies. By the way, I will debate, dual, or street fight Travis Kalanick Read your history. Read about the Haymarket Square labor riots, the sit-down strike at the Ford assembly pit plant in River rouge Michigan. What about the Pullman strike? Many local elites I know boycotted non-union table grapes,and other causes yet they would patronize or countenance a business whose predatory practices are just as injurious as those of Rockefeller, Jay Gould, and Andrew Carnegie. `Behind every great fortune is a great crime". Please don't be a co-conspirator in this one. "cab" Dennis Doderer, 319-331-2485, "Rescuing friendly drunks since 2010" Marian Karr From: Dennis Doderer <hawkemedia@gmail.com> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:15 AM To: Council Cc: info@citycabiowacity.com Subject: who did you miss the uber lies.? from "cab" Dennis Doderer (Date) Saturday, Apr 9, 2016 01:00 PM CDT This article explains how Uber is ripping off their drivers, the public, and the local municipalities with their proceeds. Time to make the playing field equal for cabdrivers .stop "the war on cabs"! Uber is a nightmare: They're selling a big lie — and the New York Times keeps buying it A new Uber launch has serious labor, environmental and consumer downsides. You'd never know from reading the Times Steven Hill Share 1 K Post 117 Topics: Editor's Picks, gig economy, innovation, lyft, Media Criticism, New York Times, public transit, technology, uber, Innovation News, Sustainability News, Business News N _ Credit: MikeDotta via Shutterstock/Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Photo montage by Salon) Uber has been slowly rolling out its latest "trust me, I'm saving the world" product, this one a service that allows its Uber-taxis to pick up multiple passengers in serial fashion. Much like a commercial airport shuttle, strangers share part of the same ride and pay a reduced fare for just their part of the ride. It's called UberPool, as in carpool, and CEO Travis Kalanick touted its alleged environmental and labor positives in a recent interview with the New York Times, saying that "reducing traffic was part of Uber's mission." If true, this is a welcome change from the CEO whose previously stated mission was to flood the streets with Uber cars to win his war for market share with Big Taxi and ridesharing competitor Lyft. Before going into the considerable labor, environmental, consumer and public transit downsides to this latest blitz of Uber hype, I can't help but say that it has been puzzling to see the New York Times consistently offer up its pages to Uber as a genteel and uncritical forum for promoting its private interest. Much of the latest article from its tech columnist Farhad Manjoo reads like a press release from Uber, without a single comment from a critic or transportation expert on the impact of UberPool. To be fair, Manjoo has written some excellent articles about technology — his series on the impact of robots and automation for Slate a few years ago was first- rate — but that's what makes his "Uber blind spot" all the more baffling. No question, taxi service in most U.S. cities has been sub -par for many years, and if Uber and Lyft have demonstrated nothing else, it's that there were not enough taxis on the road to service all the customers (in Berlin, where I am currently living for a few months, taxi service has always been pretty good and Uber has had a hard time gaining traction). Properly regulated, there could be room for app -driven ridesharing in the overall transportation matrix. Despite its considerable downsides, Uber has become popular in the U.S. because it's filling that "taxi gap," and that makes it harder for many well-meaning people to figure out what to make of a service like UberPool. So let's break it down, sector by sector: Labor issues. Uber drivers are complaining that with UberPool they are working a lot harder for no more, and possibly even less, income. A website called TheRideshareGuy, which is run by Uber driver Harry Campbell and is chock-full of insightful advice and discussion for fellow drivers, provides a helpful example of what's wrong with this picture. Imagine two Uber drivers each carrying a single passenger along the same route which results in a fare of $11. After Uber takes its brokerage cut as well as its "safety fee" (even though the company still has the poorest driver background checks in the taxi industry), each driver ends up with $8 each in her or his (usually his) pocket, while Uber ends up with $6, a 27% commission for Uber. Now along comes UberPool, and these same two serial riders get picked up by a single driver. Since UberPool offers passengers a substantial discount for sharing a ride, that means each passenger now pays $6 (in this example). After Uber takes its commission, including the safety fee, the payout to the driver is $4 for each passenger, or a total of $8. So the driver makes the same amount, but Uber's take of the overall $12 for this ride is also $4 — a 33% overall commission. So Uber makes a higher percent on UberPool rides, yet the driver makes about the same amount. But it turns out driving passenger after passenger, picking up and dropping off in a serial fashion, is a grind. Christian Perea, a longtime Uber and Lyft driver says, "Drivers end up doing a lot more work for the money." Experienced drivers, he says, know that pickups and drop-offs are the most stressful part of each ride, and adding in a second or third rider only compounds the difficulty. "As people get added into your ride or cancel along the way, it becomes frustrating having to change direction every few minutes while constantly checking your phone while in traffic," he says. "It's honestly kind of a safety hazard." Uber's response is that drivers will benefit because they will have less downtime waiting for the next fare. By picking up passenger after passenger, the driver won't have any idle time and the meter (so to speak) will keep rolling, resulting in steadier earnings. But another Uber driver, Frank, disputes that. ADVERTISEMENT "We are using more gas hauling more weight. More weight is a harder wear and tear on the vehicles and it increases the insurance risk if there is an accident... more distractions [from] more Pool pings in the middle of driving, now changing directions or U-turns making it more dangerous overall for everyone... the little money return is not a justifiable risk." Driver -support websites like UberPeople.net and various Facebook groups have lit up with complaints from drivers that UberPool is not worth the extra hassle and stress. It feels like a classic case of assembly -line "speed up," in which you are working harder but not getting any further ahead. Consequently, some drivers have begun declining the second or third passenger ping. If they truly are "independent contractors," and not Uber employees (soon to be settled by a federal lawsuit which begins in June), shouldn't they have the right to refuse? In theory, yes, drivers can refuse. But in practice, Uber has fired drivers whose "acceptance rate" of rides falls below acceptable levels. Consumer confusion. Passengers, of course, love having their fare cut in half, but they don't necessarily like having other passengers in "their" car. So they are deploying tactics like pinging for an UberPool and jumping into the car with another two or three buddies, so there's no room for other paying passengers. What a deal – their own private car pool at discounted rates! And the driver doesn't earn any extra money since this situation would be counted as a single ride. Other passengers, after pinging UberPool, have pressured drivers not to pick up too many additional passengers. Perea says "Some Uber drivers have complained that passengers have rated them poorly for actually accepting too many Pool requests." The situation becomes especially severe when the first passenger picked up ends up being dropped off third or fourth, because the UberPool requests can keep flooding in all along the route, as long as there's room in the car. Drivers live in fear of the rating system because if their rating falls too low, the Uber algorithm automatically cuts them off the platform — it's a firing squad by computer, employment -wise. A Los Angeles Uber driver says, "Pool riders invariably want no interaction whatsoever with the other passengers and are expressly disappointed when there is another rider already in the car or will be picked up next. This fact kills me, because it was them that requested the Pool ride." Yet if the driver refuses a second or third passenger to keep the first customer happy, then their acceptance rate falls too low and they get in trouble with Uber. It's a classic Catch-22, caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of the rating system and acceptance rates. "Negative ratings are inevitable," says the L.A. driver. "UberPool is a lose -lose proposition for drivers and riders." Environmental issues. There is no question that Uber and Lyft are adding to traffic congestion, despite these companies implausible claims to the contrary. Ed Reiskin, director of transportation for San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency, says, "[Uber and Lyft] have put a lot more vehicles on the streets," an estimated 15,000 autos in San Francisco alone. Not all of those vehicles are on the street at any one time, but thousands typically are, many of which double-park in bike lanes and bus stops when dropping off passengers, further snarling traffic flow. "They're all contributing to the increased traffic," Reiskin says. In London, a study by the Department for Transport found that the rise of taxi apps such as Uber has played a part in worsening congestion. The number of private -hire vehicles has jumped 26 percent in the past few years, according to the city agency. In New York City, where there are now twice as many Uber and Lvft cars as yellow taxis, transportation analyst Charles Komanoff has crunched Uber's own numbers and estimated that Uber-caused congestion has reduced traffic speeds in the central business district by about 8 percent. Urban cores, which have already been operating at or near traffic capacity, cannot simply add thousands of additional cars to already -crowded streets and not expect dramatic knock-on effects. That's just common sense. Yet in Farhad Manjoo's glowing review of UberPool, he cites a new report from the American Public Transportation Association that suggests the opposite. Other media outlets also uncritically cited this report with puffball coverage, despite glaring methodological shortcomings. The APTA surveyed more than 4,500 people about their transit and travel habits. The average household income of survey respondents was $90,926, which is nearly twice the average household income of all Americans — hardly a representative sample. Among the respondents, only 10% used ridesharing, which was used far more for socializing than other needs like getting to work. Nevertheless, the report's grand conclusion was that those who use ridesharing are more likely "to use public transit, own fewer cars, and spend less on transportation overall." But is that a causal connection or mere coincidence? Perhaps those with brown hair or blue eyes are also more likely to use public transit, own fewer cars, etc. The researchers didn't even attempt to probe deeper and figure that out. And neither does Manjoo, who reports the results uncritically. Indeed, he doubles down and claims that "Uber's data bears this out," which points to one of the most glaring shortcomings of his article. Anyone who has been following Uber (as well as other "sharing" economy companies like Airbnb) knows that this is a company that plays fast and loose with the facts. Princeton economist Alan Krueger discovered this, much to his embarrassment, when he co-authored an Uber-funded study with an Uber executive that was panned by other economic experts and critics. Indeed, relying on Uber's data is like trusting the tobacco companies to do their own studies. We've already seen numerous examples of manipulation, such as CEO Kalanick at one point saying with a straight face that his full-time drivers make $100,000 per year, which if true would put them in the upper 10% of income earners in the United States. That was reported at face value by media outlets that should have known better, such as the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. But that claim bit the dust when some entemrising journalists took a ride with Uber drivers and asked to see their pay stubs, only to discover that most of them don't make much more than taxicab drivers. Some drivers claim they make less than minimum wage, once you subtract their considerable driving expenses. Now Uber's chief PR flack David Plouffe — yes, the same strategist who ran Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 — has changed the Uber hit tune, saying that the service is "saving the middle class" by mostly creating part-time jobs where people can make a few extra dollars. Their boasts about six figure incomes are gone. Despite Uber's data being thoroughly suspect, throughout his article Manjoo cites it as a credible source. He includes information about the number of "pooled trips" taken so far (allegedly 100 million, an enormous number since this service is still fairly new), the percentage of overall Uber trips that now occur via UberPool (allegedly 50%, a figure that has skyrocketed in an unbelievably short time) and the number of automobile miles (21 million), gallons of gas (400,000) and metric tons of carbon dioxide (3,800) allegedly eliminated by UberPool —just in the first three months of 2016, claims Uber via Manjoo. Meanwhile, another study from the University of California Transportation Center of ride -sharing customers in the San Francisco area found that nearly half of respondents said that if they had not had the option of using a ride -sharing service, they would have instead used a public bus, train, bike or simply walked, reports the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell. This study indicates that ride -sharing is taking away business, not just from traditional taxis, but also from more low -carbon modes of travel. Undermining public transit. Not only is ride -sharing flooding the streets with cars and increasing traffic congestion, but it also may turn out to be a direct threat to public transportation, particularly in its latest UberPool incarnation. The economics of public transit systems are built around the busiest bus or train lines, which are heavily used and profitable, subsidizing other routes which are not so full. That equation is crucial in allowing a public transit system to be citywide and serve less -populated neighborhoods. If Uber and Lyft begin offering a service that sprints up and down the busiest and most profitable routes, such passenger poaching could destroy revenue for public transit. advertisement Indeed, the Eno Center wrote a report that examined the impact of new technologies on transportation, and warned about the transit tragedy that will result if Uber and Lyft end up forcing traditional modes like public transit and taxis out of business. "Lower income travelers that do not have access to a smartphone or cannot afford the new services might be left worse off as the traditional transit services they rely upon lose market share," concluded the report. So it's alarming that Kalanick has described UberPool as "a private bus -type service." Can UberVAN be far behind, in which Uber provides loans to Pool drivers to buy their own 15 passenger vans? Kalanick has always said his "enemy" is Big Taxi, but having won that battle, now it appears that he has set his bull's-eye on his real competition in this transit space: public transportation. It's unfortunate that the New York Times can't bring a more critical and healthy skepticism to its reportage — is it really that hard to say to Travis Kalanick, "OK, prove your claims?" The Times does publish some solid "new economy" reporting from several of its writers, such as "Your Money" columnist Ron Lieber about Airbnb, with Lieber writing several exposes about the considerable liability issues, data manipulation and lack of corporate accountability associated with that home -renting service. So this is not an issue of some general infatuation with the so-called "sharing economy" at the Times. No, for some reason, Uber gets the kid gloves treatment. But lest I sound too overly carping, I will end this by praising a new service announced from Lyft called Lift Carpool. Despite Lyft recently revealing (unintentionally) that it is, in fact, a taxi company, not a "technology" company, with the launch of yet another service in which it will rent cars to drivers who don't have their own vehicles, Lyft Carpool shows real potential. It uses app technology to connect a person who is already commuting to work with a passenger traveling along the same route. The driver gets to make a little extra money (up to $10) while driving her or his regular course. The service could help fill up some of the scandalous number of empty seats in cars driving back and forth to work, and that would be a good thing. It could help revive the practice of carpooling to work, which has been slowly dwindling in the U.S. to levels that are less than half those in 1980. Lyft Carpool charges a service fee, though in its Terms of Service, the specific amount is left oddly unspecified. Regardless, it seems like a worthy undertaking — and also one bound to not be a moneymaker for Lyft. Not only are other companies such as Carma already inhabiting this space more responsibly, but once a driver and passenger are connected and have begun regularly carpooling together, why would they need to continue to use the Lyft app? Cut out the middleman, cut out the service fee. What this points to is that this app -based technology has great potential and opportunity, once the for-profit incentives and greed of venture capitalists are removed from the equation. I can think of no good reason why nonprofit organizations, as well as the government, shouldn't create its own versions of transportation apps that would be offered to the public for minimal cost. Where are the techies out there looking to make a difference, rather than gobs of money? Public service awaits your talented contributions. Don't make us hold our breaths too much longer.