# California’s first proposed per-ride city tax to raise Uber, Lyft prices



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

"They're using our streets&#8230; we don't currently have any revenue from it."
-Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan


OAKLAND, Calif.-A local city council member is beginning to float the idea of taxing ridehailing companies like Uber and Lyft as a possible way to raise millions of dollars and help pay for local public transportation and infrastructure improvements.

If the effort is successful, Oakland could become the first city in California-Uber and Lyft's home state-to impose such a tax. However, it's not clear whether Oakland or any other city in the Golden State has the authority to do so under current state rules.

Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan told the _East Bay Express_ that she wants the city council to put forward a ballot measure that would tax such rides.

"The power to tax is a separate power regardless of whether or not you can regulate something," said Kaplan in an interview with the alt-weekly. "They're using our streets to do business, and we don't currently have any revenue from it."

For now, no California city taxes on a per-ride basis-although airports are allowed to impose a pickup and drop-off fee. That fee at Oakland International Airport, for instance, is $3.70, paid by the passenger.

Other American cities, such as Seattle and Chicago, currently impose add-on fees ranging from 14 cents to 40 cents per trip. Since 2016, Massachusetts has imposed a five-cent fee to subsidize the state's taxi industry.

A similar proposal in nearby San Francisco, projecting a fee of $0.20 to $1 per ride, would allow the city to collect an estimated $12.5 to $62.5 million annually. However, an October 2017 city analysis noted that San Francisco "cannot initiate locally without state authorizing legislation" and that the fee "may disproportionately impact lower-income households."

Kaplan, who has a law degree from Stanford University, insisted to the _Express_ that Oakland and other cities do have such legal authority. She did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.

"We have not seen the ordinance, so it's too early for Uber to share an official statement," said Uber spokesman Davis White in an email, although he declined to speak further on the record.

Meanwhile, Chelsea Harrison, a Lyft spokeswoman, emailed: "In California, Lyft is regulated at the state level by the Public Utilities Commission and currently pays fees to the CPUC. A city specific tax does not exist anywhere across the state. At Lyft, we remain focused on working to make transportation more affordable and convenient for people across the Bay Area and urge local leaders to join us in these efforts."


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* currently pay a one per-cent tax to the District of Columbia for every trip that originates or ends in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Government has earmarked that money to provide grants to cab drivers to purchase wheelchair accessible taxicabs.

Uber does address the demand for accessible vehicles through its Uber Taxi level, here. There is Uber WAV and Uber Assist, here, but, currently Uber is having a hard time finding anyone willing to invest the funds in an accessible vehicle that is only going to pay 1979 cab rates.

Lyft does not offer taxis, so it pays the tax, but gets nothing out of it. Uber does get the use of the accessible taxis on its Uber Taxi level.

Uber and Lyft also pay a four dollar per-trip tax to the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority for each trip that starts or ends at Dulles or National Airports.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

California and more taxes? What a great state.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> "They're using our streets&#8230; we don't currently have any revenue from it."
> -Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan
> 
> OAKLAND, Calif.-A local city council member is beginning to float the idea of taxing ridehailing companies like Uber and Lyft as a possible way to raise millions of dollars and help pay for local public transportation and infrastructure improvements.
> ...


Oakland needs the extra income to support thier policy of harboring illegals, drug dealers & criminals.....including their Mayor.

I am amazed that any ride share drivers are left in Oakland.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan's reasoning that “They’re using our streets… we don’t currently have any revenue from it.” is not a valid reason. Uber will just say, "We are an app, we aren't using the streets". Besides, the streets are funded by the taxes on gas. So they ARE getting revenue, from the driver paying gas, but hey, this is California where double tax makes sense. Like buying car tires. They tax you ("environmental fee") for the new tires and tax you again ("disposal fee") when they are replaced. They get you coming and going.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Taxi2Uber said:


> "They're using our streets&#8230; we don't currently have any revenue from it."
> -Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan
> 
> OAKLAND, Calif.-A local city council member is beginning to float the idea of taxing ridehailing companies like Uber and Lyft as a possible way to raise millions of dollars and help pay for local public transportation and infrastructure improvements.
> ...


FUEL TAX IS SUDDENLY NOT REVENUE ?

( please give it back if its not " street payments")



Another Uber Driver said:


> F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* currently pay a one per-cent tax to the District of Columbia for every trip that originates or ends in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Government has earmarked that money to provide grants to cab drivers to purchase wheelchair accessible taxicabs.
> 
> Uber does address the demand for accessible vehicles through its Uber Taxi level, here. There is Uber WAV and Uber Assist, here, but, currently Uber is having a hard time finding anyone willing to invest the funds in an accessible vehicle that is only going to pay 1979 cab rates.
> 
> ...


Its a DOLLAR A RIDE IN NEW ORLEANS !

Was 50 cents a ride from day 1 !

$4.00 a ride
EVERY RIDE
TO AND FROM AIRPORT.

GOES NICELY WITH $20.00 a room hotel tax and $3.00 an hour parking meters. !

Also 8 years old is the oldest an Uber or Taxi Vehicle can be.

2 YEARS IS THE LIFE FOR BLACK CARS.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan's reasoning that "They're using our streets&#8230; we don't currently have any revenue from it." is not a valid reason. Uber will just say, "We are an app, we aren't using the streets". Besides, the streets are funded by the taxes on gas. So they ARE getting revenue, from the driver paying gas, but hey, this is California where double tax makes sense. Like buying car tires. They tax you ("environmental fee") for the new tires and tax you again ("disposal fee") when they are replaced. They get you coming and going.


Disposal Fee is and AGENDA 21 DEAL.

LIKE " CARBON TAX".
Ask Canada.

It only gets worse.

Elect another Liberal President to see the " NEXT STEP".



UBERPROcolorado said:


> Oakland needs the extra income to support thier policy of harboring illegals, drug dealers & criminals.....including their Mayor.
> 
> I am amazed that any ride share drivers are left in Oakland.


The mayor should be in FEDERAL PRISON!
After her last stunt.
Criminal.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Taxi2Uber said:


> Uber will just say, "We are an app, we aren't using the streets".


F*ub*a*r* has made that assertion to more than one legislative body and has "arranged" to see that said legislative bodies "bought" that OOM-WAH-WAH. "We are a 'technology' company, not a 'transportation' company." Gr*yft*, of course, waits for F*ub*a*r* to make the "arrangements", moves in to compete, and, when called on it, takes on the role of your bratty little brother, points at Uber and hollers "THEY'RE doing it, why can't we???!!?!?!?!????"

It would be no surprise if Uber did do exactly what you suggest. Oh, Uber will pay a "tax", allright, but it will not go into the General Fund................


----------



## baymatt (Feb 28, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan's reasoning that "They're using our streets&#8230; we don't currently have any revenue from it." is not a valid reason. Uber will just say, "We are an app, we aren't using the streets". Besides, the streets are funded by the taxes on gas. So they ARE getting revenue, from the driver paying gas, but hey, this is California where double tax makes sense. Like buying car tires. They tax you ("environmental fee") for the new tires and tax you again ("disposal fee") when they are replaced. They get you coming and going.


It's not a double tax it's a shift.

If you want the privilege of access to a system that depends on public roads being maintained, then you should pay a tax.

As a driver you pay, as a passenger you pay.

Get over it and keep driving


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

baymatt said:


> It's not a double tax it's a shift.
> 
> If you want the privilege of access to a system that depends on public roads being maintained, then you should pay a tax.
> 
> ...


Do they charge an additional tax to UPS or FedEx for the privilege of using public roads?
Do they charge Pizza Hut for delivering pizza?
Do they charge trucking companies, who really damage roads?
Do they charge Postal service?
Do they charge police, fire, emergency?
Do they charge taxi, limo, shuttles?
Rideshare is the target, and they hope, an easy one.
Call it what you want. Its a MoneyGrab.
If you're excited and happy to pay a "road tax", then move to Europe.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> California and more taxes? What a great state.


Hard to believe, right?

What's really funny about this, though, is that OAKLAND is one of the primary places in the Bay Area that Uber/Lyft drivers do NOT want to service. 
Oakland is the *main reason* Uber quickly switched from 6 DFs back to 2 during "180 Days of Strange."

SFO drivers were setting their DFs _south_ so they wouldn't get pings to Oakland for minimum-fare Pool rides for sub-4 star riders. Poof, gone!

So now...Oakland is going to charge the companies extra for the dubious honor of driving their ghetto pax around.

Good luck with that, Oakland! LMAO.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Taxi2Uber said:


> Do they charge an additional tax to UPS or FedEx for the privilege of using public roads?
> Do they charge Pizza Hut for delivering pizza?
> Do they charge trucking companies, who really damage roads?
> Do they charge Postal service?
> ...


great post !

roads are such a mess in CA ... we pay the hghest gas taxes already and the most in tolls and none if it goes to roads like it's supposed to


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Screw them.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

You pay a tax to register your car. Tax on income. Tax on fuel. Tax on auto parts. 
Once you begin to list the comprehensive taxes each of us pays, it's over 50% of what we earn in most cases.
Socialism is evil.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

The tax isn't going to raise as much money as the politicians promise.
Raise the price of ride share, you'll get less of it. Econ 101.

The politicians promised that huge cigarette taxes would be a panacea to fund health care and anything else. Turned out to be rubbish. 

After the increase in taxes, untaxed and bootlegged ciggies hit the market, and people just started smoking less, opting to have a sweet instead of a Lucky. 

The projected tax revenue never materialized and it won't here.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Bang on CA all you want, but the mild humidity, if any, no mosquitos, pacific ocean, gorgeous weather, it's worth it.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

I plan to move to California for free. All the tent cities beckon!


----------



## Lunger (Sep 13, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> Bang on CA all you want, but the mild humidity, if any, no mosquitos, pacific ocean, gorgeous weather, it's worth it.


No. No it isn't. This place has turned into a thirdworld-esque shithole. The sooner California's liberal politics take it down the better.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> Bang on CA all you want, but the mild humidity, if any, no mosquitos, pacific ocean, gorgeous weather, it's worth it.


You forgot to mention wildfires, mudslides, floods, rioting, mass shootings, bombings, astronomical fuel prices, high taxes, Hepatitis outbreaks, gang violence, horrible traffic, open border policy, sanctuary cities and a federal lawsuit against the state. But hey, you can still save 15% on your car insurance with Geico in California.


----------



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

Another Uber Driver said:


> F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* currently pay a one per-cent tax to the District of Columbia for every trip that originates or ends in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Government has earmarked that money to provide grants to cab drivers to purchase wheelchair accessible taxicabs.
> 
> Uber does address the demand for accessible vehicles through its Uber Taxi level, here. There is Uber WAV and Uber Assist, here, but, currently Uber is having a hard time finding anyone willing to invest the funds in an accessible vehicle that is only going to pay 1979 cab rates.
> 
> ...


Investing in an accessible vehicle for uber is financial stupidity..

1. You need to start with an XL vehicle
2. You lose seats making it accessable
3. you can no longer do XL rides
4. you can only charge X rates to wheelchair bound passenger
5. you have the expenses of an XL vehicle
6. No one is going to take the effort to convert a van to take wheelchair passengers for X rates (idea stolen below from Another Uber Driver)
7. Full timers don't uber, You're not going to invest in a wheelchair van for part time

That's my list of reasons doing an accessible vehicle is a bad idea... The only upside is you have more cargo room than your average X car. If i was going to invest in a wav i would paint it yellow and slap "Chitty Shmel E. Cab Co." on the side...Cause you know what that SOUNDS like right?


----------



## dkhosistraviskmadoffda2nd (Apr 7, 2018)

Anything that bleeds this Ponzi scheme more & more fine with me it's not like they will benefit the drivers I'm sure they'll find a way to take it out of the drivers end.

I've been ignoring or cancelling 90+% of the requests Uber sends me, ignore all their spam & do quite well, they want hundreds of "customers" per week getting a worse experience well they get one.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Investing in an accessible vehicle for uber is financial stupidity..
> 
> 1. You need to start with an XL vehicle
> 2. You lose seats making it accessable
> ...


............and most important:

8. No one is going to shell out all of that money to make a vehicle accessible and go through all of the time and work necessary to load and unload the wheelchair bound for the garbage rates that Uber pays.

This is why the only accessibles that Uber can supply to those needing them in this market are the taxis.


----------



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

Another Uber Driver said:


> ............and most important:
> 
> 8. No one is going to shell out all of that money to make a vehicle accessible and go through all of the time and work necessary to load and unload the wheelchair bound for the garbage rates that Uber pays.
> 
> This is why the only accessibles that Uber can supply to those needing them in this market are the taxis.


Technically you could make that #6,

For some reason I typoed and left out #6.

Interestng typo.. time to edit it with your reason and steal your idea...

*Magic Asian Ninja powers ACTIVATE!*


----------



## dennis09 (Apr 4, 2017)

JimKE said:


> Oakland is the *main reason* Uber quickly switched from 6 DFs back to 2 during "180 Days of Strange."
> 
> SFO drivers were setting their DFs _south_ so they wouldn't get pings to Oakland for minimum-fare Pool rides for sub-4 star riders. Poof, gone!
> 
> ...


This shows how misinformed you are. The DF changes had absolutely nothing to do with Oakland. Nothing at all.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Interestng typo.. time to edit it with your reason and steal your idea...


Take it. Since you drive a cab, you know what rates should be and what kind of rates it takes to turn a decent profit. This, of course, makes you aware that Uber's base rates are not at that level. I do not know if you do drive, or, ever have driven, an accessible, but, if you have been out here long enough, you have had to haul someone who could get from a foldable into your seat. You would not be unaware of how much work and time that requires. While the accessible is _*usually*_ less work, the time factor is still there. You would be aware, of course, that time is money.

They do not have Uber Taxi in Florida, but they do have it here. There are more than a few accessible taxis on that platform. There is an organisation of do-gooder busybodies here that has nothing better to do than sue people. They are suing Uber because it did not have any accessibles on the X platform. Uber has begun offering UberWAV here.

Every time that I summon an Uber, I check, just for fun, the availability of an accessible taxi and an accessible X vehicle. The wait for the taxi has been more than thirty minutes just once. Usually it is ten to twenty. To-day was the first time that the wait for a WAV on the X platform was less than one hour; it was thirty nine minutes (and judging from where Uber's Jippy Yess showed it, the travel time to my address was more like fifty minutes-on a good day). More than once it has told me that none were available on the X platform.

You can do the accessible thing for cab rates. For Uber's base rates, I can not see it. Perhaps Uber is subsidising the accessibles on its X platform. Still, there would have to be substantial fare subsidies to get me interested, as it does take time and, here, at least, you must take the training to drive an accessible.


----------



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

Another Uber Driver said:


> Take it. Since you drive a cab, you know what rates should be and what kind of rates it takes to turn a decent profit. This, of course, makes you aware that Uber's base rates are not at that level. I do not know if you do drive, or, ever have driven, an accessible, but, if you have been out here long enough, you have had to haul someone who could get from a foldable into your seat. You would not be unaware of how much work and time that requires. While the accessible is _*usually*_ less work, the time factor is still there. You would be aware, of course, that time is money.
> 
> They do not have Uber Taxi in Florida, but they do have it here. There are more than a few accessible taxis on that platform. There is an organisation of do-gooder busybodies here that has nothing better to do than sue people. They are suing Uber because it did not have any accessibles on the X platform. Uber has begun offering UberWAV here.
> 
> ...


yeah i have done an accessible. The ONLY reason and I mean only reason it's worth it to take an accessible taxi is that the cab company makes it worth it for the drivers. They have to feed them fares to make up for the royal pain ones. (they also have epic cargo space). Additionally probably a good 1/2 or so of the van trips to the airport only need a van over cargo issues and the wheelchair vans can take them.

4 people plus 8 full sized suitcases? A wheelchair van has that covered...

Spending 40 minutes on a fare that is only gonna make you $4.80? Because your the only accessible cab, 20 minutes away, and we know for a fact it's a $4.80 ride with 5+ minutes of loading/unloading on each end?

Let's throw you a bone and give you a good trip to the airport or a good account fare after...

That's how they handle it here and it works.

And they usually aren't easier than transferring. In fact transferring is generally a lot faster LOL.

If they don't transfer out of the wheelchair you gotta roll them on and strap them down to the chair and to the floor. If they transfer you don't even have to drop the ramp you can just throw the wheelchair in the back and let it bounce around.

But around here a lot of the wheelchair fares end up being tourists with rascal scooters. Those are a BREEZE to haul in these taxis. Drop the ramp and push it in...


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Instead of adding yet another tax that will not address the problem, why not actually do something useful like not letting both Uber and Lyft flood your streets with as many cars as they can sign up. There are too many ants in the colony. This would proactively curtail the added wear and tear on the roads, traffic, pollution, etc. Dumbass politicians.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> yeah i have done an accessible. The ONLY reason and I mean only reason it's worth it to take an accessible taxi is that the cab company makes it worth it for the drivers. They have to feed them fares to make up for the royal pain ones.
> 
> Spending 40 minutes on a fare that is only gonna make you $4.80? Because your the only accessible cab, 20 minutes away
> 
> ...


Here, the Government provides a per-trip cash subsidy to the driver. The cab company actually collects it, but credits it to the driver's account. In addition, the fleet operators get a subsidy from the D.C. Government, part of which is supposed to go indirectly to the rental driver in the form of reduced weekly rent. Finally, there are grants available to those who want to be owner-operators of accessibles. There is a one per-cent tax on all TNC trips that either originate or terminate in the District of Columbia. That tax is earmarked for grants to those who want to become owner-operators of accessibles.

If you are an owner-operator of an accessible, you still get the per-trip subsidy.

There are, of course, conditions to receiving the grant, one of which is that the driver must sign up with one of the "approved" "dispatch" services. Uber Taxi is one such "approved" "dispatch" service. Uber is the only TNC that gets any use out of this tax that it pays, as neither Lyft nor VIA offer taxicabs. Most drivers who accept these grants actually sign up with more than one service, as another condition is a quota of trips. You can actually count street hails toward the quota, but you must document it. A photograph on the telephone is usually acceptable. I have had drivers tell me that once they explain everything to the customer, he usually is allright with it. Some of them do have ID's for METROaccess or the District Department of Disability, so sometimes they have the driver enter their ID into his terminal. Street hails for an accessible are far from the norm, here, though.

I believe you on the transferring's being more quickly accomplished, but I was using it more to illustrate that handling any wheelchair requires more time than a simple street hail or walk-up. Perhaps I did not make the best choice of words on "work". The accessible does require more time than does the transfer, but, the actual effort on the accessible is less. On the transfer, you must put out some physical effort to assist the passenger then load the wheelchair. On the accessible, you simply drop the ramp, the passenger rolls in, you secure then replace the ramp. The only lifting required is the ramp and it is designed to be lifted. We do have some "party bus" type accessibles, here, which have lifts. In addition, we have a few MV-1s here, which are a twenty-first century version of the old built-for-the-purpose Checker.

Is there some kind of securing for the scooters? ......or do the scooter people simply roll it in, transfer to a seat then you let the scooter sit in the way-back?

In this area, at least, there is pretty good money out there for those who want to operate an accessible transportation service (non-taxicab/limousine, that is). The Feds as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, the District of Columbia and several private organisations all have money available to pay people to haul the wheelchair bound to doctor's offices, clinics, government offices, shopping, museums, music halls, you name it. One problem, though, is the lack of periodic safety inspections for these things. There are some real hoopties out there.


----------



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

Another Uber Driver said:


> Here, the Government provides a per-trip cash subsidy to the driver. The cab company actually collects it, but credits it to the driver's account. In addition, the fleet operators get a subsidy from the D.C. Government, part of which is supposed to go indirectly to the rental driver in the form of reduced weekly rent. Finally, there are grants available to those who want to be owner-operators of accessibles. There is a one per-cent tax on all TNC trips that either originate or terminate in the District of Columbia. That tax is earmarked for grants to those who want to become owner-operators of accessibles.
> 
> If you are an owner-operator of an accessible, you still get the per-trip subsidy.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how it works here in regards to subsidies... I think the cab companies do get cash... but there's also permits that are given that MUST be applied to wheelchair taxis.

What i do know is that weekly rentals are less for wheelchairs than for the other types. Like $80+ a week less.

Also they HAVE to take wheelchair fares when asked by dispatch, as well as any walk up at the airport or hotel or whatever..

There's no quota, you just can't say no if you are close by and the cab company throws a lot of bones out to make it work. Most of it is scheduled out in advance with hours of the drivers time being scheduled in advance.

As far as securing the wheelchairs and scooters?

I prefer transferring even with the wheelchair van. Very rarely is it ever better not to transfer them. Think Timmy from South Park. It's safer for them to be buckled in a seat as well.

If they transfer out it's just luggage, if the customer stays on/in it, it has to be secured down with straps.

It's the difference between
1. Drop the ramp
2. roll them on
3. Strap them in
4. ramp up.

1 Get them into the car
2 Hastily throw wheelchair in back.

There's lots of money to drive people around with disabilities.. Most week day mornings (if I am running dispatch as apposed to sitting at hotels) I get $30-50 worth in a standard sedan. I get a lot of Dialysis/blind people.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> California and more taxes? What a great state.


For EVERYONE BUT AMERICANS.

" SANCTUARY"!


----------

