Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

[lektrode]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

No, as I noted, the BART strike is being used to gain PR. Ride sharing as defined by Uber, SideCar, Lyft, etc has been around for quite some time - enough for Uber to have provoked a strike by some of its limo driver suppliers.

You can read about this in the a report to the CPUC:

http://sfcda.org/CPUC/Ridesharing_Ap...y2013-Daus.pdf

Uber started in 2009 and really started making noise when it raised $10 million in 2011. Uber has raised $57M in venture capital thus far.

Sidecar raised $10 million in late 2012, and Lyft has raised over $82 million, with $60 million coming in May this year.

ahh so!
sounds like an awful lot of (GS, kleiner-perkins et al) money for a 'volunteer colaboration' (since its the owners of the vehicles who are giving up the most, for peanuts in return??)

a pump n dump likely to end in lots of (the later stage) investor tears(?)

i'm with think tho, on his comment about stodgy/old etc industries gumming up the potential for something like this - just mistrusting of the motivation for that kind of money being thrown at the concept (esp since it does challenge the status quo, and the opposing players wont likely let go of their positions without a fight - as we saw the super ferry...)

[c1ue]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

ahh so!
sounds like an awful lot of (GS, kleiner-perkins et al) money for a 'volunteer colaboration' (since its the owners of the vehicles who are giving up the most, for peanuts in return??)

I can't speak to that, but let me put it this way: San Francisco alone generates something like $144M a year in taxi driver pay. Total fare revenue is likely some multiple of that - let's call it $300M for the sake of simplicity.

If all a 'ride sharing' company is able to do is cut out 5% of that revenue, then charge a 10% fee on that revenue, we're looking at $1.5M revenue for the 'ride sharing' company. Multiply this across the US, and you've got some serious dough potential.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

Large scale profitability of "ride sharing" in US cities highlights suburban sprawl, political corruption, poor urban planning, and as a few have mentioned here…a declining standard of living.

Imagine cities where local butchers and produce vendors have better and cheaper stuff than the chain grocery store miles away. Imagine not only cheap&frequent buses, but small shuttle vans and trolleys designed to run very local routes for shoppers. Imagine many fewer cabs, higher wages for the drivers, less pollution, and streets that are easier to cross. Imagine well-regulated capitalism.

Although Europeans startups like blablacar are monetizing online hitch-hiking, I suspect there's a lot of snickering about America's transportation dilemma.

[think365]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

I don't think so - I've actually looked at what the taxi companies are saying, and they only talk about a couple of the areas above.

I also don't think so - Read what I wrote: "You repeat and expand on..." (i.e., add to) the list of taxi driver arguments.

I am also fascinated that you think the CPUC is able to set insurance company policies for private drivers doing commercial business, is able to regulate driver licensing, state and federal taxation, legal liability, and so forth.

But anyway, time will tell.

I am flattered that you are "fascinated", and agree that time will tell. You will find that the CPUC can and does require that regulated drivers carry insurance, comply with safety standards, comply with laws (including tax laws and payment of fees), etc. Failure to do so results in losing your license to operate.

(Originally by think365): "Responsible citizens and their elected officials would like to explore ride-sharing further, but recognize the need to license, regulate and legitimize ride-sharing service first."

Reply by c1ue: "And more importantly, multi-million dollar venture back sharing economy startups."

Fascinating. Are you "more importantly" (i.e., prima facia) opposed to any start-up that is "multi-million dollar venture back[ed]"?

Would you have a different emotional response if it was financed via "crowd funding" or "micro loans" or a "government grant" (after deducting approx. 40% for government processing)? If so, why?

If you actually care about seeing the man behind the curtain, look into the high powered lobbying firm which has been enlisted to fight on the government side. The fight is very little about responsible citizens or elected officials, and very much about money, on both sides.

Capitalism, like the human dialectic, is adversarial in nature and each side of every argument needs to be parsed carefully by the observer (as we are doing now). Once parsed, we become part of the dialectic (conversation). Discarding one argument or another solely because you are emotionally offended that it is "very much about money" is a bit polyannish, no? Allocation of resources is always about money.

(Originally by think365): The California PUC has expressed an intrest in ride sharing as potentially being the the public interest and will propose regulatory, licensing and insurance requirements; including public hearings and open forums in accordance with the Brown Act.

Reply by c1ue: "I quite agree."

Really?? You contradict yourself. (see your clip #2, above)

I'm merely pointing out that ride sharing didn't occur commercially before now not because of a lack of technology. It is the potential for profit which is driving the 'sharing economy', not necessarily any particular interest in the public welfare.

Fair enough. So Capitalism doesn't have a conscious. Old news. It does, however, seek to find a need and deploy capital to it, for a price that the market will bear. Sometimes, at the right price of exchange, humanity simply takes what it needs from capital without judgement.

[c1ue]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

I also don't think so - Read what I wrote: "You repeat and expand on..." (i.e., add to) the list of taxi driver arguments.

For one thing, you assume that I am taking position from taxi drivers, when in reality I have my views based long before the various taxi lobbyists started doing their thing.

You can see many of the concerns - on both sides of the argument - in the CPUC filing I posted above.

I am flattered that you are "fascinated", and agree that time will tell. You will find that the CPUC can and does require that regulated drivers carry insurance, comply with safety standards, comply with laws (including tax laws and payment of fees), etc. Failure to do so results in losing your license to operate.

Uh, no. If you care to read the CPUC sponsored report posted above, you will find that your beliefs on what the CPUC can dictate are quite different than what the CPUC actually thinks it can do.

Fascinating. Are you "more importantly" (i.e., prima facia) opposed to any start-up that is "multi-million dollar venture back[ed]"?

Would you have a different emotional response if it was financed via "crowd funding" or "micro loans" or a "government grant" (after deducting approx. 40% for government processing)? If so, why?

Not at all. I merely point out that to position the ride-sharing debate vs. taxis as one of 'the people' vs. 'the taxi lobby' is false.

What it really is, is multi million dollar backed ventures on one side vs. multi million dollar existing operations on the other.

Capitalism, like the human dialectic, is adversarial in nature and each side of every argument needs to be parsed carefully by the observer (as we are doing now). Once parsed, we become part of the dialectic (conversation). Discarding one argument or another solely because you are emotionally offended that it is "very much about money" is a bit polyannish, no? Allocation of resources is always about money.

I'm confused by what you're trying to say here. I've never said anywhere that paid ride-sharing should be prohibited under all circumstances, merely that the way the paid ones operate now are transparently circumventing an existing regulatory framework.

Do you disagree with this statement?

I've also noted that it is very common to have unregulated paid 'ride-sharing' in other countries, and what some of the effects are, and furthermore noted why at least some of the existing regulatory apparatus was implemented to start with.

I have yet to see any acknowledgement that there are at least some positive reasons for the existing regulatory framework.

Really?? You contradict yourself. (see your clip #2, above)

Perhaps your English comprehension isn't the same as mine. The CPUC can express all the interest it desires, but interest does not equate with regulatory authority. As I noted previously, the CPUC cannot unilaterally force insurance companies to allow existing personal auto insurance policies to be used by 'ride share' drivers. Once again, I suggest reading the report above which clearly outlines the specific issues the CPUC is looking at.

These include, but are no limited to: What is the definition of personal vs. professional in the ride share context? What is the definition of a ride share driver in terms of employment - employee, contractor, or something else? What safety, operational skill, liability coverage, and other requirements which professional taxi drivers must fulfill - should be applied to 'ride share' drivers?

Fair enough. So Capitalism doesn't have a conscious. Old news. It does, however, seek to find a need and deploy capital to it, for a price that the market will bear. Sometimes, at the right price of exchange, humanity simply takes what it needs from capital without judgement.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

From my view, a company which talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, is a duck. No one will question if Friend A helps Friend B out to get a ride and then buys him lunch or a beer in appreciation, but when Stranger A pays Stranger B to take him from a specified pickup to a specified destination, and Stranger B does this multiple times in a day, how exactly is this different than a taxi?

As I noted multiple times previously, if the belief is that there aren't enough taxis, then that is a different issue.

Performing taxi services under the guise of 'ride sharing', even though there is no personal relationship whatsoever, would seem to be the equivalent of undocumented labor: no FICA paid, no employee protections, no regulations over employee exploitation, etc etc.

I've further shown clear examples where innovation is being attempted, and described some of the actual problems which are why taxi service isn't perfect (and never will be). Conceptually I do think that the ability to ramp up/ramp down the taxi service population is a positive one - but the problem is that this still requires a large segment of the taxi population be permanently underemployed in his/her capacity as a taxi driver. This is precisely the problem which was to be solved by the medallion system.

If reform is the goal, then perhaps the correct target should be licensing by driver time vs. licensing by medallion ownership - which translates in reality to licensing by vehicle. The outcome of licensing by vehicle is that you tend to have oversupply of taxis in off-peak hours because the absolute number of taxis are governed by the number of medallions, but an undersupply of taxis during peak hours. The obvious corollary to this - which I've alluded to already - is a sufficient supply of taxis for peak hours guarantees an oversupply in off-peak hours.

Of course, the problem of licensing by driver time is that you still have to have the various insurance, liability, training, documentation, and what not - the less revenue a person gets from taxi services, the more burdensome the above becomes. This is why medallions effectively equal vehicles.

You can't fix this by just throwing away everything that's already there, though, nor is simply ignoring all the existing regulations a credible solution.

[lektrode]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

would also appear that the CPUC will attempt to fix what aint broken (in that it all sounds great, but for the still unknown unintended consequences, ala the homesharing horror story) and in the process really screw things up. (since we all know the .govs propensity for that, esp in CA)

and would there be all this sudden attention (and the big money) if not for the transit strike?
since that problem WILL get solved, one way or another...

[think365]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

I'm confused by what you're trying to say here.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Perhaps your English comprehension isn't the same as mine.

I will agree that you pretend not to understand English when it suits you.

It's clear that you are once again engaging in a monologue with yourself; setting up, then shooting down your own meritless, straw man arguments (something you've been called out on a number of times yet continue to do). Fascinating.

By all means, carry on... can't wait to see which one of your multiple arguments/personalities "wins" this time.

[c1ue]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

would also appear that the CPUC will attempt to fix what aint broken (in that it all sounds great, but for the still unknown unintended consequences, ala the homesharing horror story) and in the process really screw things up. (since we all know the .govs propensity for that, esp in CA)

Again, this has nothing to do with the transit strike.

The majority of people who rode BART to work and were affected by the strike - aren't about to take a one way $50+ cab or ride-share ride across the Bay Bridge to work.

The issue is really about those companies who perform taxi services as opposed to something like Zimride or the Beale/Folsom ride sharing station.

Zimride is the company that helps matchmake students driving long distances to/from college. Why drive alone if someone else is going the same town? Share gas money, etc etc.

The Beale/Folsom ride share station is where people line up to be picked up by cars to cross the Bay Bridge, because they can use the carpool onramps then.

It looks like this:



These are perfectly legitimate, the problem is that there are also a number of services which act exactly like taxis, but want to avoid the taxi regulatory radar (and cost).

[LorenS]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

Here's a thought for my friends on the right side of the spectrum. If the government was growing as fast as FIRE, I would be right there with you trying to shrink it. But it has a "right size" in my mind. As does FIRE. Only one is growing. And the other is standing pat. I think the Bureau of Economic Analysis understates both the size of government and the size of FIRE. But I think they get the proportion right. Check it out:

While the "taxed enough already" right may be who you're talking about, I still have to disagree with your premise.

I do get the "right size of government" thing and I certainly am on board with your worry about the FIRE parasites.

Where myself and many of my "right wing friends" are calling foul is in the intrusiveness of government. My personal tax rate is not really where I get upset. It's the fact that the tax laws are 3,000,000 words in length and require that I report every minute detail of my finances to the IRS every year. It's also the fact that there are now so many laws and regulations that cover every aspect of my life, including the fact that I cannot even move small amounts of my own money without breaking some law.

If someone straps a ball and chain to your ankle do you celebrate that it didn't cost you anything?

GDP is an interesting number, but it is only a number. Measuring government only by the % of GDP it consumes is missing a really big point.

None of this is to take away from your point that FIRE is too big and growing at an alarming rate. I'm only trying to give you some "right side" perspective.

[vinoveri]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

I think so. A dear friend of mine who was an aide to Senator Pell (of Pell Grant Fame) called it "managing decline." Although rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic gets the same point across. I think America needs to move beyond managing decline. It is a mind-frame from which no good can come. Accepting defeat brings out the best in no-one. We can do better. But we must recognize what a resurgent America looks like. And I can't see a realistic version of it that looks like a plutonomy.

Some way, some how, we have to do better to stop taxing people three houses for every house they buy, two cars for every car they buy, two educations for every degree they buy, and an extra 30% on every ear of corn or gallon of gas they buy. This money all goes to speculators and rentiers. And capital availability is important. But should FIRE be 33% of our economy? Should it be quickly moving to 50%? How long before the parasite kills the host? It has a roll. My guess is 15% is about the sweet spot. 20% is not so bad. But as it grows, it will kill off all of the other life blood. Government has been pretty consistently at 18% for 70-80 years now. And yet people fear the growth of government. FIRE has more than doubled in size as a percent of the economy in that time in which government has stayed flat. What then is the real threat?

Here's a new proposal. Keep FIRE to the percent of GDP that government is at. So work to shrink its influence to 18%. Then if you want to grow or shrink them, do it simultaneously. But to complain about growing government and ignore growing FIRE is to cry about running out of ice for your G&T in a cabin that's on burning up. There is an egregious taxing, ever growing, bureaucratic monster afoot killing your good time. But it might not be the one you think it is.

Here's a thought for my friends on the right side of the spectrum. If the government was growing as fast as FIRE, I would be right there with you trying to shrink it. But it has a "right size" in my mind. As does FIRE. Only one is growing. And the other is standing pat. I think the Bureau of Economic Analysis understates both the size of government and the size of FIRE. But I think they get the proportion right. Check it out:

I agree with much of this, however are you not overlooking that the gov is in bed with FIRE? Sure, the feds could limit FIRE anytime they want to, but haven't we seen that they won't - they dramatically enabled FIRE with repeal Glass-Steagall and then overtly bailed it out over the last 5 years w/o substantive reform? The whole monetary system is designed now to serve FIRE - Fed Reserve - Treasury- Primary Dealer money for free game for example. I don't see democratic change coming until there is some sort of major crises or we happen to elect a slew of strong-willed philosopher kings for leaders. We are now an entitlement society, plutocrats entitled to their $billions and influence, bankers to their bonuses from trading paper, white shoe lawyers to their $1000/hr fees, middle class to their tax deductions and unlimited access to credit, poor to their welfare. The banking cartel controls the money/credit supply so they are in charge like it or not - unless and until the political class decided to revolt against their masters ... I'm not counting on it.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

would also appear that the CPUC will attempt to fix what aint broken (in that it all sounds great, but for the still unknown unintended consequences, ala the homesharing horror story) and in the process really screw things up. (since we all know the .govs propensity for that, esp in CA)

and would there be all this sudden attention (and the big money) if not for the transit strike?
since that problem WILL get solved, one way or another...

This is the danger of viewing every event in the history of mankind through a skewed political lens. Ride sharing and home sharing companies are popping up every major city across the country. Does the CPUC control things in Austin, Miami, Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Los Angeles etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?

[c1ue]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

I will agree that you pretend not to understand English when it suits you.

It's clear that you are once again engaging in a monologue with yourself; setting up, then shooting down your own meritless, straw man arguments (something you've been called out on a number of times yet continue to do). Fascinating.

By all means, carry on... can't wait to see which one of your multiple arguments/personalities "wins" this time.

I've put forward a large amount of data, as well as the reasoning behind it.

Thus far you've done nothing except call me a tool of the taxi interests.

You've provided no information, no acknowledgement of specific points, nor even a coherent narrative other than 'ride sharing is good'.

But hey, keep on truckin'

[DSpencer]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

While the "taxed enough already" right may be who you're talking about, I still have to disagree with your premise.

I do get the "right size of government" thing and I certainly am on board with your worry about the FIRE parasites.

Where myself and many of my "right wing friends" are calling foul is in the intrusiveness of government. My personal tax rate is not really where I get upset. It's the fact that the tax laws are 3,000,000 words in length and require that I report every minute detail of my finances to the IRS every year. It's also the fact that there are now so many laws and regulations that cover every aspect of my life, including the fact that I cannot even move small amounts of my own money without breaking some law.

If someone straps a ball and chain to your ankle do you celebrate that it didn't cost you anything?

GDP is an interesting number, but it is only a number. Measuring government only by the % of GDP it consumes is missing a really big point.

None of this is to take away from your point that FIRE is too big and growing at an alarming rate. I'm only trying to give you some "right side" perspective.

Excellent points.

[c1ue]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

CPUC has ruled.

The previous legislation was:

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/...sRev012811.pdf

Key points:

1) TCP and Taxicabs Distinguished
Based on the information above, it may seem that there is little or no difference between a charter-party carrier and a taxicab. In fact, the two are separate and distinct types of transportation. A charter-party carrier may not operate as a taxi or advertise as to indicate that it provides taxicab service. Taxis are licensed and regulated by cities and counties, while charter-party carriers operate under authority from the CPUC, subject to the Public Utilities Code and CPUC regulations. Taxis have meters and top lights; charter-party vehicles to not have either one. The most important operational difference is that TCP transportation must be prearranged. Taxis may provide transportation "at the curb" that is, a customer may "arrange" taxi transportation by simply hailing a cab from the sidewalk. All transportation performed by charter-party carriers must be arranged beforehand, and the driver must have a completed waybill in his or her possession at all times during the trip, showing, among other things, the name and address of the person requesting or arranging the transportation (the chartering party), the time and date when the charter was arranged, and whether it was arranged by telephone or written contract., the number of persons in the charter group, the name of at least one passenger, and the points of origin and destination.

2) Rideshare Registration

If you will provide transportation of persons between home and work locations, or of persons having a common work-related trip purpose, when the ridesharing is incidental to another purpose of the driver, read the exemption in Public Utilities Code 5353(h) immediately below. Note that one condition of the exemption is that your primary purpose can not be to make a profit (although you are allowed to recover actual costs incurred in owning and operating the vehicle). If you do not meet the exemption for that reason, or any other reason, then you must obtain PSC authority.

The just out ruling:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDoc...2/77122760.pdf

This decision adopts rules and regulations for New Online Enabled Transportation Services, referred to hereafter as a Transportation Network Company (TNC), to ensure that public safety is not compromised by the operation of this new transportation business model. TNCs are not just Lyft, SideCar, InstantCab, and UberX.

This Commission defines a TNC as an organization whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application (app) or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles.

Among other requirements established in this decision, we require each TNC (not the individual drivers) to obtain a permit from the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission), require criminal background checks for each driver, establish a driver training program, implement a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol, and require insurance coverage as detailed below.

...

We reject Uber’s assertion that TNCs are nothing more than an application on smart phones, rather than part of the transportation industry.

...

Uber argues that the taxi cabs and limousines that arrange rides on the Uber platform are already regulated and insured, and that no additional regulation of Uber itself is necessary to protect the public interest. Perversely, however, the fact that regulated forms of transportation arrange rides through the Uber platform injects a considerable degree of uncertainty into the question of whether a taxi cab or limousine’s insurance coverage would cover a claim. For example, if a limousine driver uses Uber’s method of fare calculation and billing rather than the method otherwise required by TCP rules or limousine company policy, in the event of an incident the limousine’s existing insurance policy may deny a claim on the grounds that the limousine had stopped operating, strictly speaking, and for insurance purposes, as a covered vehicle. In this same hypothetical incident, based on Uber’s comments in this proceeding, we anticipate that Uber would deny that it has any obligation to insure the parties injured in the accident, on the grounds that Uber is an app and the limousine driver was already insured.

Until this Decision becomes effective, there is a real possibility that parties suffering losses in an incident would find that there is no insurance available to cover their potential claim.

...

We require Uber to demonstrate to the Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this decision that it maintains commercial liability insurance policies providing not less than $1,000,000 (one million dollars) per-incident coverage for incidents involving vehicles and drivers in transit to or during trips arranged through the Uber app, the Commission reserves the right to require Uber to obtain a TCP permit through Commission resolution while they are providing Uber services.

...

We reject the arguments made by Lyft and SideCar that any payment for rides arranged through their apps is voluntary and find that current TNCs are engaged in the transportation of persons for compensation.

...

For the reasons discussed supra, we find that TNCs are charter-party passenger carriers, and therefore we will exercise our existing jurisdiction pursuant to Article XII of the California Constitution and the Passenger Charter-party Carriers’Act, PU Code §§ 5351, et seq. (the Act).

Seems quite clear cut for me - and not a victory for Uber et al.

Note that Lyft operates differently than Uber and SideCar - its drivers are employed by Lyft.

Assuming I read the above correctly, the CPUC has ruled that ride sharing services for pay are not outside CPUC or other transport authority regulation. Ride sharing services can operate, but must perform at least these functions: driver training/testing/supervision, passenger/liability insurance coverage, and TCP equivalent documentation.

The creation of the TNC is simply the updating of existing charter party carrier regulations towards a new documentation/communication channel, but does not over-ride any of the existing restrictions upon operation nor does it permit the replication of on-call taxi services using TCP vehicles.

The question that still remains unanswered is how Uber and SideCar will be able to operate in California moving forward given the commentary and regulations above. There is also the open question of the taxi vs. TCP regulation; the CPUC has jurisdiction only over TCPs, but the various cities are the ones responsible for taxi regulation.

[reggie]

Re: Will Tech Finally Push the "Sharing Economy" Mainstream?

Quite frankly, when I hear terms like "asset light" and "sharing economy," I think poverty. There's plenty asset light lifestyles and sharing economies in the third world. And they work fine without iPhones. It's not technology driving this. It's the downslide of the middle class.

Well, the trajectory we are on is simply not possible without a networked society, which creates multidimension fusions between all objects within society. What this does is increase societal complexity (I'm talking about complexity theory type complexity here) which sends all of us off a cliff toward Critical Complexity, a phenomenom where the system enters massive phase shifts into chaotic conditions which are ungovernable. Say goodbye at that point to any form of humanity that we're familiar with.

But this crash point has been known for at least 100 years. Yet, we've been hurdling towards it with total disregard. In fact, with all the effort and energy that has gone into pushing society in tihs direction, all the evidence points to this being a deliberate move. Now, we're in a trap..... we have to continue to build technology at a pace faster than the slope of the critical complexity curve, or tilt, game over. And while we are beholden to a technolgical society, we're beholden to an advanced science of social control. '


So yeah, the "sharing economy" will move forward at the fastest pace possible.