# More bad news for San Fran and Calif. ride share drivers



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

https://www.sierraclub.org/california/capitol-voice-march-2019#Lyft-----------------------------------

*Cleaning up Ride-Hailing Cars*

_By Katherine Garcia_










Uber, Lyft and other transportation network companies (TNCs) have become an ubiquitous element of urban transportation. The service makes it easier for households to own fewer cars, or eliminate car ownership altogether. For those living car-free, TNCs can serve as a good first/last-mile option on route to a public transportation stop.

But these options aren't necessarily helping cut pollution because they typically use gasoline vehicles. One way to address the pollution issue is to make sure TNCs use zero-emission cars.

Last year, Senator Nancy Skinner passed SB 1014, the Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program. The new law directs the California Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission to set new requirements for TNCs to cut climate pollution. This new program is critical for ensuring that ride-hailing companies are driving cleaner miles on our roads.

This aligns with Lyft's launch in Seattle of Green Mode, which allows users to request a ride in an EV or hybrid.

Recently cities across the country have proposed a TNC tax to raise revenue. Transportation experts recommend that rather than approaching these rates as a budgeting exercise, policymakers should be thoughtful about how the charges will affect behavior.

Assemblymember Ting took this to heart when he introduced Assembly Bill 1184 last year. That law allows San Francisco residents to vote on a new tax on TNCs that will help improve transportation operations and infrastructure within the city. The bill states that the city should charge a lower tax rate for shared rides to encourage carpooling. It also recommends a lower rate for zero-emission vehicles to incentivize their deployment.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is expected to develop an ordinance for the ballot tax measure within the next few months. A critical question is whether the supervisors include incentives to encourage zero-emission cars.

Sierra Club California supported AB 1184 because it could set an important precedent for other cities that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure their citizens breathe clean air. Now we're waiting to see if San Francisco will appropriately take up that challenge.

https://www.sierraclub.org/california/capitol-voice-march-2019#Lyft


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

This isn't ridesharing companies fault. When salesforce.com wanted to build a new headquarters, they built it in San Francisco, where they knew most of their employees wanted to live.

When Google, Facebook, Apple and the other "masters of the universe" built their new Headquarters, they built them 40+ miles away while the majority of their workforce lives in the city proper. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Now they employee entire fleets of private buses to get their employees from the city of San Francisco, to 40 miles away where they are actually located.

God forbid these entitled spoiled brats take public transportation, so many take uber and lyft now.

So basically, these so called "progressive" companies multiplied the existing problems like a parasite, now they are blaming rideshare drivers, desperately trying to earn a couple pennies to keep from getting evicted. WOW! THE NERVE!


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> This isn't ridesharing companies fault. When salesforce.com wanted to build a new headquarters, they built it in San Francisco, where they knew most of their employees wanted to live.
> 
> When Google, Facebook, Apple and the other "masters of the universe" built their new Headquarters, they built them 40+ miles away while the majority of their workforce lives in the city proper. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
> 
> ...


Mark Benioff- half the time i think he is a con artist and the other half I think he is great human ?


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

mbd said:


> Mark Benioff- half the time i think he is a con artist and the other half I think he is great human ?


The tallest and most beautiful building in San Francisco.










IMHO


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Looks like a expensive polished Dil **


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

mbd said:


> Looks like a expensive polished Dil **


I won't bother asking you what Apple's HQ looks like to you....


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

It is like a city inside the campus. AAPL employees have no reason to fail at anything.. it has everything any human will need.
If you get fired from aapl, you must be really bad.


----------



## KD_LA (Aug 16, 2017)

mbd said:


> Looks like a expensive polished Dil **


A Claussen dill pickle?



YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> I won't bother asking you what Apple's HQ looks like to you....


The gizmo on Ironman's chest?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> The tallest and most beautiful building in San Francisco.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's an obelisk which is simply a phallus that the Freemasons use in their structures around the world, all countries have them now


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

mbd said:


> It is like a city inside the campus. AAPL employees have no reason to fail at anything.. it has everything any human will need.
> If you get fired from aapl, you must be really bad.


Yet, 

their navigation app was and still is a failure, notice that we use google and waze, not apple maps.
their 'autocorrect' is and has been garbage for 10+ years, and instead of fixing it, they added a bunch of app icons?

and...this crap?









and...these things:









without jobs, the company will fade into mediocrity, despite all the talent in the world.

Interestingly enough, from the posts I've read on Quora, when you put a bunch of entitled, spoiled, coddled little brats together in a campus where you have everything you could ever want, you still get ungrateful, bitter, political infighting, dead-end careers, and hugely inefficient workers.....just like in every other large corporation.

Most of the employees, brilliant or not, work on mundane menial tasks all day.

still, I do applaud these new companies for 1 thing, which is destroying the old business suit uniform, and making changes to a more casual workplace more of a common thing.


----------



## KD_LA (Aug 16, 2017)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> their 'autocorrect' is and has been garbage for 10+ years, and instead of fixing it, they added a bunch of app icons?


Otto Korrect!
I'm glad I don't do fruitPhones


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> The tallest and most beautiful building in San Francisco.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How many speeds does it have ?


----------



## The Texan (Mar 1, 2019)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> I won't bother asking you what Apple's HQ looks like to you....


Posterior Caudal Orifice?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

KK2929 said:


> https://www.sierraclub.org/california/capitol-voice-march-2019#Lyft-----------------------------------
> The bill states that the city should charge a lower tax rate for shared rides to encourage carpooling. It also recommends a lower rate for zero-emission vehicles to incentivize their deployment.
> [/URL]


Last time I checked the money a driver makes is not affected whatsoever by any taxes any city assesses on rides.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Last time I checked the money a driver makes is not affected whatsoever by any taxes any city assesses on rides.


Check again.










Taxes act as a brake on demand. They would mean fewer rides for drivers while earnings per ride remain the same. Net result = lower earnings.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Check again.
> 
> View attachment 303598
> 
> ...


the tax only applies to what Uber makes since what uber pays us is fixed and doesn't factor into our pay

you can claim the miniscule amount of the tax will cause less rides but there is no proof that Uber will charge any more for it than they otherwise would simply because the tax itself is being pushed by Uber to force riders to do pool


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the tax only applies to what Uber makes since what uber pays us is fixed and doesn't factor into our pay


That is not in dispute. As I stated above, driver earnings per ride remain the same. 


> you can claim the miniscule amount of the tax will cause less rides but there is no proof that Uber will charge any more for it than they otherwise would simply because the tax itself is being pushed by Uber to force riders to do pool


In other places where city councils have levied taxes on rideshare, Uber has not absorbed the cost but passed it on to its customers in the form of increased fares. Washington DC is an example - Uber passes on the 6% tax to its pax. A 6% price hike would indeed cause some pax to seek other transportation options. Maybe not many, but any decrease in pax volume or deterrents from using rideshare are not good news or even neutral to drivers. As the title of this thread says, this is bad news for drivers.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Check again.
> 
> View attachment 303598
> 
> ...


And every non-hybrid/non-ev driver is out of work.

We won't require employees to be legal but no problem screwing tax paying citizens to help offset huge losses from bad decision making in CA government.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> And every non-hybrid/eve driver is out of work.
> 
> We quire employees to be legal but no problema screwing citizens to help offset huge losses from bad decision making in CA government.


All aboard! Or... maybe not. ROFL, what a cock up.


----------



## YouEvenLyftBruh (Feb 10, 2018)

ANT 7 said:


> How many speeds does it have ?


I believe it goes up to 8.0...


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

This is good news.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> This isn't ridesharing companies fault. When salesforce.com wanted to build a new headquarters, they built it in San Francisco, where they knew most of their employees wanted to live.
> 
> When Google, Facebook, Apple and the other "masters of the universe" built their new Headquarters, they built them 40+ miles away while the majority of their workforce lives in the city proper. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
> 
> ...


----------------------------

May I suggest that you and mbd stay on topic, which is ---
governments requiring ride share companies to ONLY have zero-emission cars registered. In case that is not clear, it would mean, If someone wants to drive for Lyft/Uber, they will have to buy a car approved by the authorities. 
If you think that it cannot be done --- check the requirements for the Seattle airport.
It, also, looks at a current bill regarding the paying of taxes by Lyft/Uber where the funds will be used for road improvements and tax breaks for the use of recommended cars.
You two are talking about oranges when the issue concerns apples. Please try to keep up.


----------



## corniilius (Jan 27, 2017)

Rideshare actually cuts down on pollution because it means fewer vehicles on the road. What are these people smoking?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the tax only applies to what Uber makes since what uber pays us is fixed and doesn't factor into our pay
> 
> you can claim the miniscule amount of the tax will cause less rides but there is no proof that Uber will charge any more for it than they otherwise would simply because the tax itself is being pushed by Uber to force riders to do pool


You will never convince a San Franciscan that taxes are bad. 
Taxing is THE solution to all problems - and I'm sure that a tax will make the air better.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

YouEvenLyftBruh said:


> I won't bother asking you what Apple's HQ looks like to you....


It looks like the cover of a new ELO album.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

KK2929 said:


> https://www.sierraclub.org/california/capitol-voice-march-2019#Lyft-----------------------------------
> 
> *Cleaning up Ride-Hailing Cars*
> 
> ...


Pic looks old. 
Seems like they are targeting, why just TNC has to be zero emission?
Taxing TNC is just more government BS, again why target them? 
If you want your citizens the breath clean air, then shouldn't all cars be required to be zero emission? Clean air in San Fran? May help to stop people from pooping anywhere they feel like. I've never been there, read that in the news.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

corniilius said:


> Rideshare actually cuts down on pollution because it means fewer vehicles on the road. What are these people smoking?


No, it doesn't. The driver has to burn gas and emit pollution in order to get to the pax just to begin the ride, and afterwards will very likely have to drive more in order to get to a location where he or she can get another ride. It may mean fewer cars on the road, but it means _more total miles driven_ by the cars that are out there.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Taxes act as a brake on demand. They would mean fewer rides for drivers while earnings per ride remain the same. Net result = lower earnings.


Strictly speaking, whether the addition of a tax would reduce the number of rides taken is an empirical question. It might, but it's also very possible that it might not; for example, it might be that the price of the service right now is so artificially low that a small percentage increase in price would not affect ridership at all. That's certainly possible. Indeed, many at this site often argue that drivers are being paid too little, and that they should receive a raise, but no one appears to be very concerned that this will significantly reduce the number of rides.


----------



## corniilius (Jan 27, 2017)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> No, it doesn't. The driver has to burn gas and emit pollution in order to get to the pax just to begin the ride, and afterwards will very likely have to drive more in order to get to a location where he or she can get another ride. It may mean fewer cars on the road, but it means _more total miles driven_ by the cars that are out there.
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, whether the addition of a tax would reduce the number of rides taken is an empirical question. It might, but it's also very possible that it might not; for example, it might be that the price of the service right now is so artificially low that a small percentage increase in price would not affect ridership at all. That's certainly possible. Indeed, many at this site often argue that drivers are being paid too little, and that they should receive a raise, but no one appears to be very concerned that this will significantly reduce the number of rides. ?


One car is not going to emit 15 cars worth of pollution, but go ahead and believe what you want.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

corniilius said:


> One car is not going to emit 15 cars worth of pollution, but go ahead and believe what you want.


It will if it's driven for more miles than the other 15 cars.

Which trip uses more gas?

I go out and get in my car and drive myself to the store and back.
I call an Uber, and the Uber driver drives to my house, and then drives me to the store -- and then he probably has to drive some place where he can get another ride. Meanwhile, when it's time for me to go home from the store, I have to call another Uber who then, etc., etc.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Which trip uses more gas?
> 
> I go out and get in my car and drive myself to the store and back.
> I call an Uber, and the Uber driver drives to my house, and then drives me to the store -- and then he probably has to drive some place where he can get another ride. Meanwhile, when it's time for me to go home from the store, I have to call another Uber who then, etc., etc.


I don't drive somewhere else after I drop off, that's waste 101. What's the difference if you go out in your car and drive a tank of gas versus and Uber driver dong the same thing? Answer, the Uber driver made $500 and you made $0, you wasted the gas. As it stands now, I am free to drive my vehicle as much as I want, we are still a free country for the moment.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Ssgcraig said:


> I don't drive somewhere else after I drop off, that's waste 101. What's the difference if you go out in your car and drive a tank of gas versus and Uber driver dong the same thing? Answer, the Uber driver made $500 and you made $0, you wasted the gas. As it stands now, I am free to drive my vehicle as much as I want, we are still a free country for the moment.


I don't believe that, after you drop a pax off, you always sit in your car in front of their house with the engine off until you receive another ping, no matter how long that might take.

If I take a line, and I add length to it, is it longer? Apparently, it's not obvious to you that it is. I can't help you if you're not able to see that.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> I don't believe that, after you drop a pax off, you sit in your car in front of their house with the engine off until you receive another ping, no matter how long that might take.
> 
> If I take a line, and I add length to it, is it longer? Apparently, it's not obvious to you that it is. I can't help you if you're not able to see that.


I don't care what you believe. I will amend my statement, I will drive 30-40 feet away from a house so it doesn't look creepy. I don't need your help, I didn't ask for it. Most drivers don't drive around a city empty, it's a waste of fuel. I am not going to make a statement that if you can't see that than I can't help you because you did not ask for help. Common sense would prevail about driving around without a PAX.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

corniilius said:


> Rideshare actually cuts down on pollution because it means fewer vehicles on the road. What are these people smoking?


---------------------------
I believe the final stats and opinions are still out on that theory.
TNC has taken many drunk drivers off the road, however.



JohnnyBravo836 said:


> I don't believe that, after you drop a pax off, you always sit in your car in front of their house with the engine off until you receive another ping, no matter how long that might take.
> 
> If I take a line, and I add length to it, is it longer? Apparently, it's not obvious to you that it is. I can't help you if you're not able to see that.


--------------------------
Not sure sitting in front of a paxs house after they leave the car is recommended. Nor sitting in a residential neighborhood for any reason. What you are doing is limiting yourself to only pings within a certain radius of your car. You have to move toward busier areas.
Your method will never work. The paxs does not live in heavy ping areas. You have to gravitate toward them. If you do not know where they are -- you will never make any money but you will save a lot of gasoline. Reminds me of the driver that admitted to sitting at home watching television while logged on. When he got a ping, he would get in the car and drive. Needless to say, he was not very productive BUT he saved a lot of gas.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

KK2929 said:


> Not sure sitting in front of a paxs house after they leave the car is recommended. Nor sitting in a residential neighborhood for any reason. What you are doing is limiting yourself to only pings within a certain radius of your car. You have to move toward busier areas.
> Your method will never work. The paxs does not live in heavy ping areas. You have to gravitate toward them. If you do not know where they are -- you will never make any money.


So, reading what I wrote, and the context in which I wrote it, this is what you get out of it? You took it to mean that this is what I do?


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

Ssgcraig said:


> Pic looks old.
> Seems like they are targeting, why just TNC has to be zero emission?
> Taxing TNC is just more government BS, again why target them?
> If you want your citizens the breath clean air, then shouldn't all cars be required to be zero emission? Clean air in San Fran? May help to stop people from pooping anywhere they feel like. I've never been there, read that in the news.


------------------------
Picture look old ?? Why do they have to have a current pic when the subject is heavy traffic leading to air pollution ?
They are targeting TNC traffic because it is the new kid in the game adding to traffic and air pollution. If a man takes his car to work and back home OR he calls a Lyft/Uber to take him to work and back home, there is still one car on the road using gas and polluting. The big difference is the TNC car stays on the road while if he drove, his car would be sitting.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

How to make TNC Greener and support Drivers.

Have standards that all TNCs must meet to improve their Driver Software to maximize giving Drivers more decision making tools. 

Like Directional Filters that work at a higher efficiently so Driver Deadmile are reduced. 

Yes, give.more Conroll to Drivers. Make TNCs transparent re Utilization Rate of Riders.Vehicle (show me the Data). Reduce deadmile.

Mandating EVs is just one side of the problem and puts the burdeon on Druvers

Manadate TNCs improving their Network Efficiencies so TNCs pay not the Drivers.


----------



## JaredJ (Aug 7, 2015)

California can blow a billion dollars on a high speed train from North to South, but when it comes to ferrying 200k salaried employees from SF to Mountain View the responsibility is on us

No wonder people are moving in droves to income tax free states like Texas. at some point, it's all just bullshit


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

JaredJ said:


> California can blow a billion dollars on a high speed train from North to South, but when it comes to ferrying 200k salaried employees from SF to Mountain View the responsibility is on us
> 
> No wonder people are moving in droves to income tax free states like Texas. at some point, it's all just bullshit


... and now that the money has already been spent -- the project is cancelled.
Wasted millions and tens of millions on 'feasibility studies' and chit.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Strictly speaking, whether the addition of a tax would reduce the number of rides taken is an empirical question.


Correct, if we knew how much the tax was going to be and we had access to Uber's empirical data on price vs. demand then we could more accurately predict the decrease in ride volume likely due to said tax.


> It might, but it's also very possible that it might not; for example, it might be that the price of the service right now is so artificially low that a small percentage increase in price would not affect ridership at all.


If the authorities were to levy a rideshare tax of, say, 0.1% ($.01 on each $10.00 of fare) then it's fair to say that would have no effect on demand. However, this is California and it's not going to be a tax rate of 0.1%, or anything like it. The authorities are going to want their pound of flesh; it's why they want to levy the tax in the first place.

Taking a 6% tax as an example, a $20 fare would become $21.20. If downtown parking for a commuter costs $20, the commuter may previously justify the $20 Uber spend as it costs the same as parking. But an extra $1.20 per day, $6 per week, $25 per month may be enough to no longer justify using Uber. Every pax has their own unique sensitivity to price changes; their own personal demand curve, but some volume decrease is likely due to new taxes.

Even if the decrease were small, it's still negative for drivers. Imagine your wife sits down next to you and tells you that you're going to play a game. She is going to roll a dice and every time she rolls a 6, she will slap you upside the head. You ask her how this is a good game for you to play. She responds that if she rolls between 1 and 5 nothing will happen to you. Any way you look at it, it would still be a bad game for you to play.



> Indeed, many at this site often argue that drivers are being paid too little, and that they should receive a raise, but no one appears to be very concerned that this will significantly reduce the number of rides. ?


Of course; there is the understanding that in the case of a pay raise funded by pax price hikes, the decrease in ride volume is compensated for by the increase in revenue per ride and the corresponding decrease in the ratio of costs:revenue.



UberBastid said:


> ... and now that the money has already been spent -- the project is cancelled.
> Wasted millions and tens of millions on 'feasibility studies' and chit.


Plus rail lines, bridges etc partially built. I wonder if they'll leave all the structures standing as a monument to stupidity. What a fuster cluck.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Imagine your wife sits down next to you and tells you that you're going to play a game. She is going to roll a dice and every time she rolls a 6, she will slap you upside the head. You ask her how this is a good game for you to play. She responds that if she rolls between 1 and 5 nothing will happen to you. Any way you look at it, it would still be a bad game for you to play.


Hey, have you been talkin' to my wife???


----------

