# As Uber and Lyft lose billions, taxis are hanging on



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-lose-billions-seattles-taxis-are-hanging-on/
Like many longtime taxi drivers in Seattle, Tegegne Mersha thinks of his career in two distinct phases: before Uber and after.

When Mersha, an Ethiopian immigrant, started driving in 2010, a year before the first black Uber cars hit Seattle, business was so brisk he could park near the Westin Hotel at 6 a.m. and have $60 or $70 in fares by 8.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

It's good to see them surviving but...

When presented with a level playing field uber/lyft ignore the rules and keep doing whatever they want.

For a while Uber/lyft had a regulated rate in Orlando, and a permit system designed for the eccentricities of uber/lyft.

One company has 100 of these permits.










Not taxi, not cab... Ride...

The only company that ever got any of these permits was the cab company.

(PS the cars are still in existance and are pretty much taxis with the exceptions that they can only do dispatched fares in the City limits. No flag downs, no airport pickups, no sitting at Universal studios. They cost $10 less a day to rent.)


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> It's good to see them surviving but...
> 
> When presented with a level playing field uber/lyft ignore the rules and keep doing whatever they want.
> 
> ...


The taxi medallion system should be abolished, and permits should NEVER be transferable.

The transferability of medallions and permits caused the prices of both to skyrocket to over $1 million in NYC and hundreds of thousands of dollars in several other places.

The cost of the permits put taxi ownership out of reach of the vast majority of drivers.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Interesting that Uber and Lyft are losing billions and they still have to pay a percentage of every fare to the cab companies. Only in America.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> The taxi medallion system should be abolished, and permits should NEVER be transferable.
> 
> The transferability of medallions and permits caused the prices of both to skyrocket to over $1 million in NYC and hundreds of thousands of dollars in several other places.
> 
> The cost of the permits put taxi ownership out of reach of the vast majority of drivers.


In Orlandoish they are about $600 per car (for Both "Disney" counties) plus the city of Orlando and another $100 per driver.

Reality is I paid about $300 per year for both "Disney" counties but no airport or Orlando permit.

The permit cost i paid per year is less than _1 MONTH_ of commercial insurance.

$300 a YEAR in permits and almost $500 a month for insurance.

The meter/paint job was more than i ever paid for permits.

I also didn't have to _buy_ a permit from someone else, just pay for a permit.

When i was done with it, i had to peel it off the window and mail it back at the cost of 1 postage stamp. I didn't sell it to the next guy.

There are systems other than medallion systems that work just fine, NYC is just one of the biggest (and oldest) examples of why it was horrible.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> In Orlandoish they are about $600 per car (for Both "Disney" counties) plus the city of Orlando and another $100 per driver.
> 
> Reality is I paid about $300 per year for both "Disney" counties but no airport or Orlando permit.
> 
> ...


I don't know what types of barriers to entry Orlando has if any, but if Orlando doesn't have any, it would be rare, because the overwhelming majority of US locales (and Europe and Asia) have tight restrictions on the number of taxi permits/medallions.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

The cabs are still hanging on in the Capital of Your Nation because people are still using them. What rules the transportation choices of most people here is convenience. It is just too easy to put up your hand and get a ride.

The TNCs have taken the residential business away from us. Radio cabs were always less than ten per-cent, here. It is bad for me, because I preferred to work the residential neighbourhoods over Downtown, Capitol Hill and the other places where street hails are common.

I do drive UberX/Lyft as well, so I can go to the TNC when Congress goes out and the cab drivers are starving.

In this market, the cabs will hang on because of the convenience factor.

As more people become disgusted with the shortcomings associated with the TNCs, they are going back to the cabs or going to the cabs for the first time. The TNC barrackers, elitists, Uber Trolls, Uber Shills and Lyft Girl Scouts will preach that only old people or those who have no access to electronic payment use the cabs, but that is not the case in the Capital of Your Nation. Uber does offer taxis here, as well, so those who *absolutely, positively, must *use Uber do have that option. I get more and more Uber Taxi pings, as time passes, from people who are unhappy with UberX and do not want to pay the Uber Black premiums.

You get another phenomenon here, where the passenger will use UberX or Lyft to get from his home to his job, but uses a cab to get back home.



Nats121 said:


> The cost of the permits put taxi ownership out of reach of the vast majority of drivers.


This is the case in the suburbs in our market. The permits are either restricted in distribution (closed entry), are too high priced, or both. In the city, on paper, it is open-entry, still. The permit for the vehicle runs you two-hundred fifty the year; an extra one-hundred bananas if you live in the suburbs.

In practice, however, it has been conditional open entry, for lack of a better term for it. Since Y2K, there have been numerous freezes on the issuance of the vehicle permits (there were some even before that). In addition, they have had conditions for the issuance of the so-called DCTC Card or H-Plate, such as when you held one but let it go, how many times you have had one and let it go, how long you have had a hack licence and even if you lived in the District of Columbia or the suburbs. Currently, they will issue anyone a new H-plate who will use a hybrid, pure electric or accessible. The only H-plates for gasolene powered vehicles (non-accessible, that is) that the DFHV is currently issuing is renewals of long-held H-plates. I currently have an H-plate that I have had for quite some time. Currently, I have a hybrid. When it becomes superannuated (2023), and, runs out its extension, if it gets one (2024-2026, depending on the length of extension granted), I can go back to gasolene, as I have had the H-plate. Someone who gets an H-plate to-day, however, or got it under these new rules, can use only hybrid, electric or accessible. He can go from an electric to a gasolene powered accessible, but, he can not use a non-accessible gasolene powered..



Ssgcraig said:


> Interesting that Uber and Lyft are loosing billions and they still have to pay a percentage of every fare to the cab companies


The local government of the Capital of Your Nation has two taxes on TNC rides that begin or end in the District of Columbia. One is a seven per-cent tax that goes into the politicians' pockets. The other is one per-cent tax that goes to give grants to cab drivers to purchase accessible vehicles for taxicabs.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> I don't know what types of barriers to entry Orlando has if any, but if Orlando doesn't have any, it would be rare, because the overwhelming majority of US locales (and Europe and Asia) have tight restrictions on the number of taxi permits/medallions.


Well...
Orlando is a different animal from Orlando-ish. ( a term I use frequently)

If i wanted to get a taxi/airport permit for Orlando i would be SOL.

If i wanted to get permits to cruise hotels/restaurants near Disney I could make that happen.

There is however another barrier that DOES exist.

_It's the right of private property owners to determine if/when/who queues on their property and regulate them. (or charge money for a contract or by the load)_

This little detail defacto makes new companies _very difficult_ to get off the ground, however it leaves the door open for 1 man operations and small companies to flourish. When i was an owner operator I worked mainly the crack of dawn airport rush from small-mid sized hotel off-Disney property, And the dinner rush, and bar closing. I was 99% flag downs in the... uh... heart of the Not directly Disney owned tourist district...

It's possible for new companies to pop up but it's an uphill battle. On top of that once they max out saturation in the tourist areas it's very problematic to expand (as the airport and theme parks are so tightly regulated) on top of that... dispatch is entirely a "be the biggest or don't bother" game outside the tourist areas.

In the last 5 years (uber) 2 companies have came in, and one has dropped out of dispatch service outside the tourist area.

Went from 2 cab companies to 1 cab co and 2 ride-share companies.

Effectively thou, just two... as the overlap between uber/lyft is so massive.

PRIVATE PROPERTY....

2 brands of taxis lining up cabs (and being lined up by brand as well)

If a new company started operations they wouldn't be able to line up here. Because the property owner _says so!_


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> If a new company started operations they wouldn't be able to line up here. Because the property owner _says so!_


We used to have hotels that had closed stands on their property. They restricted their stands to the cabs from one company or another. The two then largest cab companies here got more than a few drivers solely because they had those closed stands. In 1982, the D.C. City Council barred closed stands.

Until the early 1960s, one cab company had a monopoly on Union Station. If you watch movies set in Washington before the early 1960s, you will see only one brand of cab lined up at the station. That was exposed as illegal in the 1960s, and, that company's monopoly ended.


----------



## Cassiopeia (Sep 2, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The cabs are still hanging on in the Capital of Your Nation because people are still using them. What rules the transportation choices of most people here is convenience. It is just too easy to put up your hand and get a ride.
> 
> The TNCs have taken the residential business away from us. Radio cabs were always less than ten per-cent, here. It is bad for me, because I preferred to work the residential neighbourhoods over Downtown, Capitol Hill and the other places where street hails are common.
> 
> ...


I had no idea Uber and Lyft were paying fees to governments. Is there a resource that lists these fees? It sounds like they are specific to the locale.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Cassiopeia said:


> It sounds like they are specific to the locale.


They seem to be specific to the locale. I am aware of them in this market only because I keep up with such things and always have. I am aware of them in other places because I have read about them on newsnets or here. You might have to Google them on specific markets to find your information. Even then, you might have to phrase the question that you ask Google in just the proper way to get it.

In some jurisdictions, neither Uber nor Lyft paid anything _officially_. In some, they pay various fees. In others, they were hit with fines, initially, because what they do is illegal. They went into those markets, violated the laws and dared the jurisdictions to do anything about it. Rather than duke it out, the jurisdictions "accommodated" them then assessed a fine for the activities prior to the legislation that "accommodated" Uber and Lyft. The Commonwealth of Virginia was one such jurisdiction.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> We used to have hotels that had closed stands on their property. They restricted their stands to the cabs from one company or another. The two then largest cab companies here got more than a few drivers solely because they had those closed stands. In 1982, the D.C. City Council barred closed stands.
> 
> Until the early 1960s, one cab company had a monopoly on Union Station. If you watch movies set in Washington before the early 1960s, you will see only one brand of cab lined up at the station. That was exposed as illegal in the 1960s, and, that company's monopoly ended.


The airport allows all the Orlando city companies to get permits,

About half the taxis total around her have airport permits/queuing rights, about half that's left *CAN* in theory pickup arranged calls from the airport (very rare)

The pic i posted isn't the airport, it's Universal Studios. The _number 3_ cab stand in Orlando-ish.

About the barring of closed stands?

Guess who likes having only one cab company queued up on their property?

Guess who likes having a contract where they can give a voucher to any of the drivers queued on their property to comp rides for people?

ALL the pickups in the Reedy Creek improvement district occur from cab stands, on walk ups.

Guess who runs that?

So no, orlando has no medallion system. It's suprisngly open to new one-man operations but a large company is difficult to get off the ground.

There's a lot of 1-man operations actually.

Kinda a weird rare situation. Only the biggest and only the smallest survive.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Some markets will perservere. Charlotte is devastated. The airport has contracts with four companies. The company can charge an owner operator anything they want for the use of it me of these airport permits.
To show exactly how bad this system is, I was in 3 of the 4 companies which had airport permits yet was never offered one.
Yellow charges $400 per week for an airport permit. THATS ONE EXPENSE OF MANY!

On the flip side, I could have a "free taxi" next week. Prestige sells you a meter, credit card machine and decals for about a grand. No weekly franchise fee. Zero dispatched calls. You are relegated to cabstands, private clients and cruising for drug addicts.

I moved down here in 2014 on Halloween. I brought 1000 business cards. I developed maybe 20 regular customers who all quickly fell through the cracks.
Until Uberlyft fail, no more taxi for me.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Cassiopeia said:


> I had no idea Uber and Lyft were paying fees to governments. Is there a resource that lists these fees? It sounds like they are specific to the locale.


I think in MA it's $.05 per trip for taxis. So in 2018, 81.3 million rides, that's over 4 million dollars to the MA taxi industry. Free money because the product they had was inferior and someone came along with a better product.

It's all together $.25 a trip, .05 to taxi's and the other .20 to MA.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

well the uber money going to subsidize wheelchair vehicle makes more sense than you know.

Will uber ever get any number of wheelchair accessible taxis on the road?

(capable of taking a power wheelchair without transfering)

LOL no...

That leaves the taxis.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> well the uber money going to subsidize wheelchair vehicle makes more sense than you know.
> 
> Will uber ever get any number of wheelchair accessible taxis on the road?
> 
> ...


And why is Uber the only one being penalized to subsidize these wheelchair vehicles?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

what shoulda happened with medallions is if you aren't active or don't want to use it it gets shipped to the next guy waiting in line for one

no money involved whatsoever


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Ssgcraig said:


> someone came along with a better product.


Who is this "someone" and what is this "better product" along with which he came?


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> The taxi medallion system should be abolished, and permits should NEVER be transferable.
> 
> The transferability of medallions and permits caused the prices of both to skyrocket to over $1 million in NYC and hundreds of thousands of dollars in several other places.
> 
> The cost of the permits put taxi ownership out of reach of the vast majority of drivers.


Hey great idea. You should pitch that in the NYC section that there shouldn't be a limit on vehicles.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> Hey great idea. You should pitch that in the NYC section that there shouldn't be a limit on vehicles.


As far as limits are concerned, if uber and lyft had any ethics whatsoever they'd institute their own limits when their data shows driver idle time going above a certain point.

I'm opposed to govt imposing limits on taxis or rideshare vehicles unless they can make a compelling case that public safety and/or convenience is suffering due to too many taxis or rideshare vehicles on the roads.

In the event caps are needed, they should be temporary and reviewed on a frequent basis to see if they're still needed.

As I stated before, permits/medallions should never be transferable.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> As far as limits are concerned, if uber and lyft had any ethics whatsoever they'd institute their own limits when their data shows driver idle time going above a certain point.
> 
> I'm opposed to govt imposing limits on taxis or rideshare vehicles unless they can make a compelling case that public safety and/or convenience is suffering due to too many taxis or rideshare vehicles on the roads.
> 
> ...


Medallions were instituted due to a glut of traffic from taxis in Boston Philly and NY.

Noe Uber gluts those city streets.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> As far as limits are concerned, if uber and lyft had any ethics whatsoever they'd institute their own limits when their data shows driver idle time going above a certain point.
> 
> I'm opposed to govt imposing limits on taxis or rideshare vehicles unless they can make a compelling case that public safety and/or convenience is suffering due to too many taxis or rideshare vehicles on the roads.
> 
> ...


Oh so like 100,000+ cars on the road during rush hour?

All this talk about global warming but let's have no limits on cars?

You really should pitch to the NYC section that the government imposed cap is ridiculous. It's ground breaking and innovative. With more cars on the road in NYC that probably means there will be less traffic and even more money to be made.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Medallions were instituted due to a glut of traffic from taxis in Boston Philly and NY.


But they became permanent and were transferable, turning them into expensive commodities that effectively eliminated any hope of ownership for the vast majority of taxi drivers.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> But they became permanent and were transferable, turning them into expensive commodities that effectively eliminated any hope of ownership for the vast majority of taxi drivers.


Yes and one of the reasons is to avoid things like what Uber and Lyft did is over saturate the job
Another reason is to avoid traffic and avoid pollution.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> But they became permanent and were transferable, turning them into expensive commodities that effectively eliminated any hope of ownership for the vast majority of taxi drivers.


They were a market cap. The price is inconsequential.
Take San Francisco as an example.
You had to work 30 years to get an owner operator medallion. Because of market cap.
So whether you buy it or the city makes you wait 30 years, the market cap still meets the same objective.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> All this talk about global warming but let's have no limits on cars?


Global warming is a different topic.



Brooklyn said:


> You really should pitch to the NYC section that the government imposed cap is ridiculous.


I've posted anti-medallion posts at the NYC forum in the past and got little to no response, and anyway, this thread is about taxis all over the US, not just NYC.



Brooklyn said:


> money to be made.


That's what your REAL beef is about. Most likely you're an uber and/or taxi driver.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> They were a market cap. The price is inconsequential.
> Take San Francisco as an example.
> You had to work 30 years to get an owner operator medallion. Because of market cap.
> So whether you buy it or the city makes you wait 30 years, the market cap still meets the same objective.


I stated in my previous post that govt should make a compelling case for the need for caps and they should be should be temporary and frequently reviewed.

SF also required permit holders to DRIVE a minimum number of hours per week, and that law was ignored.

There was a news story about it and it turned out cops and other non-drivers obtained permits for the sole purpose of renting them out.

Again, permits should be non-transferable, meaning only the permit holder can use it. No buying, selling, giving away, renting, etc should be allowed.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

you have to have an eventual limit on vehicles or nobody would make any money

but you should not allow them to be privately transferred or only the wealthy would have them


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> Global warming is a different topic.
> 
> I've posted anti-medallion posts at the NYC forum in the past and got little to no response, and anyway, this thread is about taxis all over the US, not just NYC.
> 
> ...


I'm neither. I used to drive.

Please post a thread about how much more sense it makes to not have a cap on vehicles.

Well ok... change my quote.. do that to make your point valid. Whatever makes you sleep at night.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> Well ok... change my quote.. do that to make your point valid.


Didn't change your quote, I excerpted it for affect to demonstrate my belief that money is what it's all about, not global warming or anything else.



Brooklyn said:


> Please post a thread about how much more sense it makes to not have a cap on vehicles.


It's about economic liberty, and for me, the idea that the govt would lock people out of the occupation of their choice in order to benefit incumbents is something I'm opposed to.

Competition is fierce among restaurants and many fail, yet the govt doesn't step in and cap their numbers.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> Didn't change your quote, I excerpted it for affect to demonstrate my belief that money is what it's all about, not global warming or anything else.
> 
> It's about economic liberty, and for me, the idea that the govt would lock people out of the occupation of their choice in order to benefit incumbents is something I'm opposed to.
> 
> Competition is fierce among restaurants and many fail, yet the govt doesn't step in and cap their numbers.


So what you're saying is you clipped one piece to justify your point? Oh ok

You do realize that the difference between restaurants and cars is that restaurants are in a set location... when you flood the streets with cars you cause more accidents, more traffic, and etc...

but yea man... tell me more about how air pollution isn't a real thing. Anyway.. if you aren't willing to go to the NYC section with this BS please stop.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> So what you're saying is you clipped one piece to justify your point? Oh ok


C'mon man, people do it all the time on this website.

Ok, so more cars means more accidents and traffic jams. By that argument, in the name of safety and traffic flow, the numbers of cars should capped almost everywhere, both personal vehicles and for-hire vehicles.



Brooklyn said:


> but yea man... tell me more about how air pollution isn't a real thing.


I didn't say it wasn't real, I said the subject of global warming is a different topic.


Brooklyn said:


> Anyway.. if you aren't willing to go to the NYC section with this BS please stop.


I already addressed that point before.

This topic is about taxis EVERYWHERE in the US, not just in NYC.

It never occurred to me to go to the NYC forum because the topic is being discussed on THIS forum.

As I stated in my previous post, on occasion I've posted anti-medallion posts at the NYC forum, and my posts got little to no response from the readers over there.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> C'mon man, people do it all the time on this website.
> 
> Ok, so more cars means more accidents and traffic jams. By that argument, in the name of safety and traffic flow, the numbers of cars should capped almost everywhere, both personal vehicles and for-hire vehicles.
> 
> ...


Don't blame others for you trying to switch up my words.

NYC has over 120k FHV drivers. Especially since they're on the road longer periods of time it would only make sense to cap them. Especially since the number of FHV drivers kept growing, pollution and traffic keep rising, with Uber base vehicles accounting for around 50% of all traffic in Manhattans central district last I read.

Pollution isn't a separate topic... adding over 100k vehicles working in condensed areas will cause traffic and pollution.. it is the same topic. Don't shy away from facts.

It probably got no love because a lot of drivers understand the value of capping the amount of vehicles on the road now to protect their earnings and sanity with traffic and so on.

But medallion aside.. why don't you pitch NYC removing the cap they currently have to the NYC section? See how well that goes. Tell all those drivers it makes more sense to add more drivers.

NYC right now has a cap on vehicles being put in the road. They didn't cap the amount of licenses.

You're either ignorant, naive, or a straight up bot/Uber employee. I've probably only called one other person on here an Uber employee before but when someone is debating that it's better to lower earnings with more vehicles, increase traffic, and pollution.... I gotta say it has to be one of those three.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Who is this "someone" and what is this "better product" along with which he came?


That all remains to be seen, grasshopper!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

ABC123DEF said:


> grasshopper!


I will, however, take exception to this appellation.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Who is this "someone" and what is this "better product" along with which he came?


What forum is this? I think I'll go with:

A. Uber, final answer

Ask your PAX, not one has told me they prefer a taxi over Uber. In fact, I ask them if they would still take Uber if it cost just as much or more than a taxi and they all say yes.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Ssgcraig said:


> A. Uber, final answer









Ssgcraig said:


> Ask your PAX, not one has told me they prefer a taxi over Uber.


I have asked them. I have asked my street hails, customers who called my company, Curb users, Uber Taxi users. They take a cab because they can get one and do not have to deal with the shortcomings of GPS-hugging TNC drivers.

I have asked my UberX/Lyft customers the same question. most of them use the TNCs because they can not get a cab. The exception would be the Pool/Shared user, of course.

As one who drives both, I am more than qualified to state that from the view behind the wheel, Uber and Lyft are clearly inferior products. In fact, they are so inferior........................

*How*_ inferior are they?_

They are _s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o inferior_ that I am going to award this contestant a second buzzer for his "final answer".








Ssgcraig said:


> In fact, I ask them if they would still take Uber if it cost just as much or more than a taxi and they all say yes.


...........your market, perhaps.............in mine, they pick the one that will show up first. I do not know where you are in Massachusetts, but, in Boston, Uber offers taxis as it does in the Capital of Your Nation. Lyft, does not, but, then, Lyft only offers one downgrade option, Shared, and, one upgrade option, Lux (or whatever it calls that "elveated" level). Lyft does not have those in all markets.


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

Ssgcraig said:


> In fact, I ask them if they would still take Uber if it cost just as much or more than a taxi and they all say yes.


Okay, then I say let's try that theory.

There must be a reason that Uber is terrified to raise their prices. ( and it isn't Lyft!)


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

UberProphet? said:


> Okay, then I say let's try that theory.
> There must be a reason that Uber is terrified to raise their prices. ( and it isn't Lyft!)


In my market, on the short and mediocre trips, at base rates, the cab is less expensive or about the same as a TNC. Keep in mind that what the driver receives is far too often far less than what the customer pays to Uber or Lyft. At base rates, the TNC is still less than the cab. It is sixty to eighty per-cent of what the cab is. When a mild surge comes, on the short and mediocre trips, the cab is decidedly less expensive. A "mild" surge is when you see some discoloration on the map but no dollar amount. This means that the customer is paying a small multiplier but the driver still gets base rates. When the surge hits 1,7-1,9, even the long trips are about the same as a cab. At anything two or higher, the cab is less expensive.

To read what others have posted on these boards, this does obtain in some other markets, but not all of them.

Lyft is raising its rates in some markets substantially, while it is handing the drivers another substantial pay cut. If this succeeds, Lyft will implement it nationwide and Uber will copycat it shortly afterward. Look for the Uber Shills, Lyft Barrackers and Uber Trolls to come out in force. I do wonder if these substantial pay cuts will keep the Uber Boy Scouts and Lyft Girl Scouts putting out their cant.


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Lyft is raising its rates in some markets substantially, while it is handing the drivers another pay cut.


SHOW ME !

I have seen the reports of pay cuts, and I believe them, but I have not seen any published reports of rate increases. (Rates, not increased upfront prices)


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

I don't need to test it. Why does Uber have to pay extortion to taxi industries? In MA it's to the tune of $4M a year. Taxi's are not convenient, the dispatcher is almost always rude and there is no guarantee you get the cab to yourself. Uber will raise the price. Uber is by far a better product than a taxi, at least in my market.


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

Ssgcraig said:


> I don't need to test it.
> Uber will raise the price.
> Uber is by far a better product than a taxi, at least in my market.


You are not supposed to quote directly from the Uber daily talking points.


----------

