I met with Ed Domain just a few weeks back at a dinner. My company was hosting an event the next day and her was one of the panelist. This accident happened over 2 years ago and he still has issues related to it.
He has a very valid point when it comes to the MTC. The MTC seems primarily concerned with the safety of the good citizens of St. Louis. Ed simply pointed out that the current MTC background check and rules do little to make riding a cab any safer than the potential new competition. The MTC can grandstand as much as they want when it comes to safety but any organization made up of businesses owners in an industry and responsible for regulating that industry is suspect. when it comes to limiting any competition in the name of safety forgive me for not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'd love to believe the cab owners are looking out for my own good but I've been around long enough to know they are only looking out for themselves and trying to pull an emotional card to back up their crony business practices. Frankly the main take away I have had from this entire Uber/Lyft silliness in this city is that the MTC should be dissolved. Maybe a new commission is actually needed but the current one provides a lousy product across the region and is long overdue for some real competition to provide a real service to this city. Like smoking bans, it is not like St. Louis is on the bleeding edge of some crazy new idea. If other cities figured it out I am sure we can too.
FWIW, Uber and lyft were yet to even really be on the radar for STL in 2013 so I highly doubt Ed was planning that far in advance to build his argument against the MTC.
In case anyone is interested in some of the details of what happened to Ed, I think this writeup did a good job of talking about the accident: http://www.lab1500.com/blog-23/
He has a very valid point when it comes to the MTC. The MTC seems primarily concerned with the safety of the good citizens of St. Louis. Ed simply pointed out that the current MTC background check and rules do little to make riding a cab any safer than the potential new competition. The MTC can grandstand as much as they want when it comes to safety but any organization made up of businesses owners in an industry and responsible for regulating that industry is suspect. when it comes to limiting any competition in the name of safety forgive me for not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'd love to believe the cab owners are looking out for my own good but I've been around long enough to know they are only looking out for themselves and trying to pull an emotional card to back up their crony business practices. Frankly the main take away I have had from this entire Uber/Lyft silliness in this city is that the MTC should be dissolved. Maybe a new commission is actually needed but the current one provides a lousy product across the region and is long overdue for some real competition to provide a real service to this city. Like smoking bans, it is not like St. Louis is on the bleeding edge of some crazy new idea. If other cities figured it out I am sure we can too.
FWIW, Uber and lyft were yet to even really be on the radar for STL in 2013 so I highly doubt Ed was planning that far in advance to build his argument against the MTC.
In case anyone is interested in some of the details of what happened to Ed, I think this writeup did a good job of talking about the accident: http://www.lab1500.com/blog-23/
Its amazing how these topics can spiral into some crazy tangents....
Let's have a reality check. Just to reiterate some points I think are important...
-Uber is no panacea. Its business tactics certainly are flawed, but the taxicabs aren't a group of noble enterprises either. Both could be a lot better in regards to the treatment of their drivers.
-The MTC has to change. Its an example of over-regulation. Business owners in an industry have no place on a public commission that controls the fate of their companies. Also, some of the commissioners are clearly unbecoming of what public service entails. People like Lou Hamilton need to go.
-Look at history. We are the last to deal with this Uber issue, not the first. Clearly life with Uber in other cities has worked and is working all over the country. Allowing Uber into our area isn't a spiral to the bottom for taxi drivers.
-Last thing, we need to send the right message as a region. Are we going to be flexible with companies to meet certain standards or are we going to pigeon-hole them into a strict set of guidelines? Right now we are sending the later. Uber does the right safety checks, just not in the exact manner the MTC requires. Uber's safety protocol is certainly sufficient as it has been working in cities across the country.
Let's have a reality check. Just to reiterate some points I think are important...
-Uber is no panacea. Its business tactics certainly are flawed, but the taxicabs aren't a group of noble enterprises either. Both could be a lot better in regards to the treatment of their drivers.
-The MTC has to change. Its an example of over-regulation. Business owners in an industry have no place on a public commission that controls the fate of their companies. Also, some of the commissioners are clearly unbecoming of what public service entails. People like Lou Hamilton need to go.
-Look at history. We are the last to deal with this Uber issue, not the first. Clearly life with Uber in other cities has worked and is working all over the country. Allowing Uber into our area isn't a spiral to the bottom for taxi drivers.
-Last thing, we need to send the right message as a region. Are we going to be flexible with companies to meet certain standards or are we going to pigeon-hole them into a strict set of guidelines? Right now we are sending the later. Uber does the right safety checks, just not in the exact manner the MTC requires. Uber's safety protocol is certainly sufficient as it has been working in cities across the country.
- 1,868
I think that's a little misleading. For example, NYC had several requirements for Uber to operate there. You might say StL has to bend over and take whatever Uber is offering because we're no NYC. But let's not pretend that everyone else is just sooo progressive and tech-forward and St. Louis is being a backwoods luddite for requiring Uber to meet additional requirements.pat wrote: -Last thing, we need to send the right message as a region. Are we going to be flexible with companies to meet certain standards or are we going to pigeon-hole them into a strict set of guidelines? Right now we are sending the later. Uber does the right safety checks, just not in the exact manner the MTC requires. Uber's safety protocol is certainly sufficient as it has been working in cities across the country.
Edit: I also think it's too soon to tell whether Uber is good or bad for local economies.
Another MTC Commissioner speaks on KTRS. I've heard him make the redlining comment before. Does it hold water? Is it up to an individual driver whether they want to go to a certain area? I notice Pasta House seems to avoid vast areas. http://pastahouse.com/locations/
According to Lou Hamilton, the taxi commission is required by state statute to conduct background checks. So how does Kansas City get around that? I'm sure this question has been addressed, but I must've missed it.
- 8,155
^ I believe the Mo Legislature set up a special taxicab commission for the County/City and thus KC doesn't have this background check language. I'd like to know more about why the commission was set up and who lobbied for it; etc.... i.e. whether it was designed as the Taxicab Company Protection Scheme.
- 337
It is absolutely up to an individual driver whether they want to go to a certain area. In a region as racially and socioeconomically segregated as Greater St. Louis is, you can bet the introduction of Uber would be just another episode in St. Louis's long, storied history of redlining. Add in the fact that a large number of cab drivers are minority and immigrant persons who live in those economically depressed, higher crime areas, and...quincunx wrote:Another MTC Commissioner speaks on KTRS. I've heard him make the redlining comment before. Does it hold water? Is it up to an individual driver whether they want to go to a certain area? I notice Pasta House seems to avoid vast areas. http://pastahouse.com/locations/
Whether they mean it or not, those clamoring for Uber in St. Louis are essentially issuing a double-"F you" to St. Louis's least privileged citizens... but hey, at least we've got vague Reaganesque assurances that appeasing the technocrat class will be beneficial to all, even if you're a janitor!
Here's some reading. Take it for what it's worth:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/2 ... -and-Class#
I call BS on the redlining concerns - well, at least that Taxis do anything to help the situation. You can have all the regulations on the books that you want, that doesn't mean a Taxi will come get you. Anyone who's tried to get a cab to come get them somewhere off the beaten path (not even in a bad neighborhood) can attest to that. Repeated assurances that "we're sending someone", "someone is on the way", while the minutes tick by and no one shows up until finally you realize they aren't coming. It happens _all the time_. And hasn't every stand up comedian made a joke about how hard it is for a black guy to catch a taxi? At least with Uber, they can't lie to your face (or over the phone) about it. You see the car on the map in real time as it comes to you, or no one accepts your ride. Either way you have your answer.
Gimmie a break, Mound City. Based on your argument, it sounds like you'd oppose an Apple store because it *may* threaten a typewriter shop's business.
Have you ever even used Uber in another city? It's a basic service that is available in literally EVERY large city in America, and it works quite efficiently. And yet, somehow cabs manage to survive in those same cities regardless. To somehow conclude that St. Louis is wiser for resisting Uber is asinine. We as a city are the losers in this. As I said before, I can't even count the number of times travelers stop in our shop and criticize the fact that they can't summon Uber in this city. It's the way people get around spontaneously, without having to Google the number for a local cab company, sitting on hold, and waiting for cab to arrive. The conspiracy theories against Uber I'm hearing on this forum are ridiculous and baseless. The proof is in the pudding-- every other city has adapted to Uber, and they're not falling off the map. And I guarantee if Uber threatened to pull out from any city, those municipal governments would bend over backwards to keep them, because they know the value it has for urban mobility.
For the naysayers on this board-- try it out in another city. You will see that it's too easy and too convenient to deny its utility, especially in cities like St. Louis where public transit and cab service is spotty at best.
Have you ever even used Uber in another city? It's a basic service that is available in literally EVERY large city in America, and it works quite efficiently. And yet, somehow cabs manage to survive in those same cities regardless. To somehow conclude that St. Louis is wiser for resisting Uber is asinine. We as a city are the losers in this. As I said before, I can't even count the number of times travelers stop in our shop and criticize the fact that they can't summon Uber in this city. It's the way people get around spontaneously, without having to Google the number for a local cab company, sitting on hold, and waiting for cab to arrive. The conspiracy theories against Uber I'm hearing on this forum are ridiculous and baseless. The proof is in the pudding-- every other city has adapted to Uber, and they're not falling off the map. And I guarantee if Uber threatened to pull out from any city, those municipal governments would bend over backwards to keep them, because they know the value it has for urban mobility.
For the naysayers on this board-- try it out in another city. You will see that it's too easy and too convenient to deny its utility, especially in cities like St. Louis where public transit and cab service is spotty at best.
- 337
Yeah, I used it most recently this past weekend on vacation because the group I was with refused to entertain the usage of cabs. I'm not denying that it is cheaper, faster, and more user-friendly than cabs any more than I would ever deny that shopping at Wal-Mart is cheaper, faster, and more user-friendly than Googling mom & pop stores, driving further out to them (if you can find them) and shopping there instead. The introduction of UberX into St. Louis would be a great convenience to me. I'm not advocating against it for my own sake. The "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" approach won't really work here, because I'm not against it for reasons that would directly affect me.
In my opinion, based on the simple economics behind its business model, UberX will exacerbate poverty and racism in St. Louis, or, at the very least, make it harder to alleviate those problems. This is not based on "conspiracy theories," and I don't think it's baseless. It's based on the fact that, again, much like so-called "Right-To-Work" legislation, UberX's business model is built upon the right-wing principles of deregulation, flooding a market with cheap labor, and incentivizing the working class to compete against itself in a race to the bottom... all for the benefit of consumers and (mostly foreign) investors. And, given that those two problems (racism and poverty) are arguably the two most serious issues our City faces, I think it's worth thinking hard about what we're doing here.
I appreciate the observation that every other American city has UberX and none of those cities has "fallen off," but I'd respond to that observation by reiterating Mark Haverham's suggestion that UberX hasn't been around long enough for us yet to fully appreciate the extent of its long-term impact on local economies.
In my opinion, based on the simple economics behind its business model, UberX will exacerbate poverty and racism in St. Louis, or, at the very least, make it harder to alleviate those problems. This is not based on "conspiracy theories," and I don't think it's baseless. It's based on the fact that, again, much like so-called "Right-To-Work" legislation, UberX's business model is built upon the right-wing principles of deregulation, flooding a market with cheap labor, and incentivizing the working class to compete against itself in a race to the bottom... all for the benefit of consumers and (mostly foreign) investors. And, given that those two problems (racism and poverty) are arguably the two most serious issues our City faces, I think it's worth thinking hard about what we're doing here.
I appreciate the observation that every other American city has UberX and none of those cities has "fallen off," but I'd respond to that observation by reiterating Mark Haverham's suggestion that UberX hasn't been around long enough for us yet to fully appreciate the extent of its long-term impact on local economies.
I agree Mound City. Uber has been criticized for being discriminatory practices on two fronts. 1) Uber drivers do not have to accept rides from low income areas, usually meaning predominately black or Latino areas. 2) The Uber rating system that fires drivers if they get below a "4" rating is heavily subjective and gives power to anybody that has a racist, classist, sexist, ageist viewpoint to determine your employment. Overall, Uber and ridersharing in general is meh to me. Doesn't really hurt me if they are here or not. I probably wouldn't patronize it. If I had to choose, I would be on the side of the cabbies because I support rights of working class people. Why should Uber not be held to the same standard.
- 337
Let's be clear: once UberX inevitably sets up shop in St. Louis, you will patronize it whether you like it or not, because even if you're not warm to it, your friends will be. Like Vines has been implying all thread, it's approaching the status of "basic utility" in most cities. It is crack cocaine in transportation form for the average Joe City-Dweller, just like Wal-Mart/Target/Costco/Sam's Club is crack cocaine in retail form.goat314 wrote:I agree Mound City. Uber has been criticized for being discriminatory practices on two fronts. 1) Uber drivers do not have to accept rides from low income areas, usually meaning predominately black or Latino areas. 2) The Uber rating system that fires drivers if they get below a "4" rating is heavily subjective and gives power to anybody that has a racist, classist, sexist, ageist viewpoint to determine your employment. Overall, Uber and ridersharing in general is meh to me. Doesn't really hurt me if they are here or not. I probably wouldn't patronize it.
I just think there are serious issues with its model that need to be addressed before we as a society should be embracing it unquestioningly. I also think there are serious issues with the MTC and taxi cab companies. But I think it's easier to address these issues within a regulatory framework.
"Letting the free market decide" pretty much always means the working stiff gets the shaft. And I ain't okay with it.
^ I wish the focus was on expanding mass transit instead of ridesharing. Then the whole point of Uber would be mute, but yes I hear you. Uber will eventually infiltrate the St. Louis market, which is like the only market in America without it.
- 337
Agreed. Unfortunately, we live in a decidedly capitalist world, and that's not the way capitalism works. Benefiting the public welfare will always take a backseat to benefiting investors.
Yes, this is called a "market" and some of us think its a good thing. Uber provides better service at a better price than a Taxi company, if you have a moral objection to the way it operates, vote with your wallet. I'm not sure how you can argue with a straight face that providing worse service at a higher price is good for anyone but the MTC. Seems like maybe the drivers get the shaft either way, but at least with UberX they get to pick their own hours and they don't operate under the yoke of ridiculous regulations (or maybe the indentured servitude of the medallion system in big cities is preferable? you need this $250,000 permit to even operate your cab, but don't worry, I'll lease it to you...).UberX's business model is built upon the right-wing principles of deregulation, flooding a market with cheap labor, and incentivizing the working class to compete against itself in a race to the bottom... all for the benefit of consumers and (mostly foreign) investors.
As for background checks and so on, I couldn't possibly care less if my driver has had a background check or not. Frankly I'd prefer it if I knew that a company I was dealing with was not so invasive of their employees' private lives.
- 337
Letting the free market decide a given society's policy tends to have a way of benefiting everyone except society's least privileged. Thank you for your suggestion, but I'll advocate against UberX in any way I deem proper, be it "with my wallet" or other means.
Ah yes, "I can't win in the marketplace of ideas, so I'll force my ideas on others at the barrel of a government gun." Carry on.
- 337
Fun fact: John Stuart Mill, who coined the idea of the "free marketplace of ideas," ultimately settled on socialism. Which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense, given how concerned he was with societal egalitarianism.
- 488
I would hate to see the world if we all decided we should accept worse companies/services because someone may lose a job or make less money in the short run.
Looking like a bunch of obstructionist backwater hicks to the outside world that deprives the 19th largest metropolitan area of a service that every other city has embraced for years isn't helping our regional economy, I will tell you that much.
- 1,868
Let's not pretend following other cities is inarguably a good idea, as if every major failed public project (Pruitt-Igoe) wasn't aping some national model more often than not. Even so, I already pointed out that the myth of Uber operating in other cities unregulated is factually untrue. NYC forces them to use taxi-style dispatchers, which is a far more intrusive mandate on their business model than requiring background checks.stlgasm wrote:The proof is in the pudding-- every other city has adapted to Uber, and they're not falling off the map. And I guarantee if Uber threatened to pull out from any city, those municipal governments would bend over backwards to keep them, because they know the value it has for urban mobility.
Furthermore, there's some evidence that medallion prices are falling precipitously in some cities. So damage to the preexisting taxi industry is potentially becoming clear. If you think medallions are useless and taxi owners should be free to saturate the market and earn minimum wage, then maybe that's cool with you, but there are legitimate problems caused by the free-market system (which is why medallions were invented in the first place).
I mean, I'm a progressive, so I'm in favor of change more often than not. And I try not to begrudge millenials their enthusiasm when they get all "OMG Pizza Hut has an app and now I can order pizza with my phone!" But, for all its glamor, Uber seems like a new way to make some old mistakes.
Its very cool with me. Competition drives prices down. This is a good thing.If you think medallions are useless and taxi owners should be free to saturate the market and earn minimum wage, then maybe that's cool with you
- 337
I can't speak for Mark Haversham, but I'm reasonably confident in saying no one denies lower prices are a good thing. The worry is when wages fall along with them, especially in a City mired in poverty like St. Louis. This is even more troubling when that poverty is more-or-less drawn along racial lines into very neatly segregated swaths of the metro area thanks to decades of perverse, highly efficient socioeconomic engineering.audac1ty wrote:Its very cool with me. Competition drives prices down. This is a good thing.If you think medallions are useless and taxi owners should be free to saturate the market and earn minimum wage, then maybe that's cool with you
Based on all your other posts in this thread, I'm sure you're not troubled by this at all, and that those people negatively affected by this phenomenon "should just get better jobs or something," but the problem with that is it's not always so simple for that to happen, even if it seems straightforward to you.
- 1,868
Anyone who thinks the free market is a good thing (or even, a thing that exists) should always replace "prices" with "incomes" and see if their statement still makes complete sense to them.audac1ty wrote:Its very cool with me. Competition drives prices down. This is a good thing.If you think medallions are useless and taxi owners should be free to saturate the market and earn minimum wage, then maybe that's cool with you