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.