San Jose unveils proposed scooter regulations(mercurynews.com)
mercurynews.com
San Jose unveils proposed scooter regulations
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/22/san-jose-unveils-proposed-scooter-regulations/
56 comments
> And like Ford GoBike — which currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike sharing program in the city — the city says scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls “communities of concern.”
Ironically, this is exactly what caused the current de facto local monopolies for broadband. Until Congress made the practice illegal in 1992, cities would grant legal monopolies in exchange for funding various community access channels, serving all neighborhoods, and offering a basic tier of service at very low, regulated prices. The legal monopolies are gone, but the effects of that municial-government idiocy persist to this day.
Cities love granting monopolies in exchange for various concessions, because it’s free money to them. The citizens are taxed indirectly through suppression of competition. It’s a practice that is well-intentioned but misguided. Cities do it because it hides the cost from residents. But it also hides the cost from the government—they have no idea how much extra their residents will pay to secure these social benefits.
Ironically, this is exactly what caused the current de facto local monopolies for broadband. Until Congress made the practice illegal in 1992, cities would grant legal monopolies in exchange for funding various community access channels, serving all neighborhoods, and offering a basic tier of service at very low, regulated prices. The legal monopolies are gone, but the effects of that municial-government idiocy persist to this day.
Cities love granting monopolies in exchange for various concessions, because it’s free money to them. The citizens are taxed indirectly through suppression of competition. It’s a practice that is well-intentioned but misguided. Cities do it because it hides the cost from residents. But it also hides the cost from the government—they have no idea how much extra their residents will pay to secure these social benefits.
A scooter isn’t a human right, it’s a luxury. Requiring discounts for low income people is ridiculous. Perhaps San Jose should focus on solving real problems, such as the housing shortages that plague the region.
Owning a scooter may not be a basic right, but having access to transport is a necessity for most people. Scooters solve that requirement cheaply and efficiently.
Particularly for low income people, hiring a scooter is often a better solution than buying, maintaining and storing a full size vehicle.
Public transport is another option, but it doesn't effectively solve the transport problem for most people. Scooters are significantly more practical.
Particularly for low income people, hiring a scooter is often a better solution than buying, maintaining and storing a full size vehicle.
Public transport is another option, but it doesn't effectively solve the transport problem for most people. Scooters are significantly more practical.
There's also the impact that new competitors will have on existing public transport.
As an extreme example, if every well-off bus user switched to using these scooters instead, the only bus passengers left would be the poorest. If the service offered discounted tickets for the poor it would be losing money for every customer.
I'm not claiming that the status quo should be propped up, but that these sorts of consequences need to be predicted and managed. It seems like this example has a ring of truth when talking about cars rather than scooters.
As an extreme example, if every well-off bus user switched to using these scooters instead, the only bus passengers left would be the poorest. If the service offered discounted tickets for the poor it would be losing money for every customer.
I'm not claiming that the status quo should be propped up, but that these sorts of consequences need to be predicted and managed. It seems like this example has a ring of truth when talking about cars rather than scooters.
How else do you handle natural monopolies? Obviously the best solution would be if the city does it, the only thing that kills it is the political opposition (inefficiency, corruptions, "communism", budget, etc.). The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all. When you consider the other options, government granted monopolies is the least bad option. Of course, you need to keep the monopoly in check, eg. regulating the price and/or forcing unbundling.
The fact that cities are doing the same thing with bike sharing belies the idea that they're thinking in economic terms (i.e. that they are actually designing and tailoring the policies based on the economics). In reality, they just want to get a bunch of concessions in a way where the cost residents are paying for those things is not readily apparent.
> The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all.
Which is fine. It takes very little competition to outperform a government built or regulated monopoly service in the U.S. Mobile devices are a dynamic market with really just two choices of operating systems, so is ride sharing, search engines, etc. If cities instead made it cheap and easy to hang wire on poles, most urban/suburban areas could probably have at least two choices.
If building service to sparse areas is a concern, the government could step in to do it. What we do now is force providers to build in economically unviable areas in order to get the right to build in economically viable areas. That destroys competition in the economically viable areas by dramatically raising the cost of entering the market. It would be better to just let competition happen where it can, and let the government step in where it needs to.
> The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all.
Which is fine. It takes very little competition to outperform a government built or regulated monopoly service in the U.S. Mobile devices are a dynamic market with really just two choices of operating systems, so is ride sharing, search engines, etc. If cities instead made it cheap and easy to hang wire on poles, most urban/suburban areas could probably have at least two choices.
If building service to sparse areas is a concern, the government could step in to do it. What we do now is force providers to build in economically unviable areas in order to get the right to build in economically viable areas. That destroys competition in the economically viable areas by dramatically raising the cost of entering the market. It would be better to just let competition happen where it can, and let the government step in where it needs to.
> If building service to sparse areas is a concern, the government could step in to do it.
This even happened in the past with wired phone service in some rural parts of Northern California. It worked just fine, with anecdotally better service and prices than the monopolies (AT&T or GTE).
This even happened in the past with wired phone service in some rural parts of Northern California. It worked just fine, with anecdotally better service and prices than the monopolies (AT&T or GTE).
Justifying the tax to provide a service with an existing private provider would be very difficult since the goal is building out service for the under serviced residences. If the city service tried to operate city wide, the private company would sue them claiming they can't compete. The company may sue even if the city is only trying to extend service to the underserved for the same reason.
Some of these success stories are more luck then repeatable solutions.
Some of these success stories are more luck then repeatable solutions.
> Justifying the tax to provide a service with an existing private provider
I think you misunderstood. The tax would be on the private provider (serving profitable areas) and for the benefit of the public provider (serving unprofitable areas).
> If the city service tried to operate city wide, the private company would sue them claiming they can't compete.
The idea of taxation instead of monopoly power is not having the city operate anywhere a private operator would, in the first place.
The argument is that using monopoly power distorts the market to such an extent that it leads to gross inefficiencies and that more overall value can be extracted through competition and taxaction.
> The company may sue even if the city is only trying to extend service to the underserved for the same reason.
That part I don't follow.
Firstly, the notion that lawsuit against an entity that could legislatively preclude one is possible, is questionable at best. We are, after all, discussing, their existing use of monopoly power.
Secondly, even considering suit as a metaphor for seeking any kind of recourse (other than lobbying for not getting taxed at all), why would they want to?
> Some of these success stories are more luck then repeatable solutions.
I assume by "luck" you mean that the eventual circumstances were unforeseen by the original architects of the solution. I admit that I can conceive of a situation where that's at least theoretically possible (unexpected growth "in town" creating enough profitable customers to support an otherwise failing teclo), but I'd say the burden is on you to show that "some" isn't vanishingly few or even zero.
I think you misunderstood. The tax would be on the private provider (serving profitable areas) and for the benefit of the public provider (serving unprofitable areas).
> If the city service tried to operate city wide, the private company would sue them claiming they can't compete.
The idea of taxation instead of monopoly power is not having the city operate anywhere a private operator would, in the first place.
The argument is that using monopoly power distorts the market to such an extent that it leads to gross inefficiencies and that more overall value can be extracted through competition and taxaction.
> The company may sue even if the city is only trying to extend service to the underserved for the same reason.
That part I don't follow.
Firstly, the notion that lawsuit against an entity that could legislatively preclude one is possible, is questionable at best. We are, after all, discussing, their existing use of monopoly power.
Secondly, even considering suit as a metaphor for seeking any kind of recourse (other than lobbying for not getting taxed at all), why would they want to?
> Some of these success stories are more luck then repeatable solutions.
I assume by "luck" you mean that the eventual circumstances were unforeseen by the original architects of the solution. I admit that I can conceive of a situation where that's at least theoretically possible (unexpected growth "in town" creating enough profitable customers to support an otherwise failing teclo), but I'd say the burden is on you to show that "some" isn't vanishingly few or even zero.
> As long as no one is getting hurt, why can't a company choose its target demographic?
They can, as long as they're not using public resources or imposing significant negative externalities. On the other hand, if you want to be part of the municipal transportation infrastructure, the stated goal of these scooter companies, cities may want a quid pro quo for that.
They can, as long as they're not using public resources or imposing significant negative externalities. On the other hand, if you want to be part of the municipal transportation infrastructure, the stated goal of these scooter companies, cities may want a quid pro quo for that.
If that is the rationale (it isn’t), then the externalities should be priced in fairly for everyone, including those driving private cars. Otherwise you distort the market.
I would encourage you to propose that you your rep, of course, as I'm all for better pricing of externalities.
But there are a number of important differences between a person driving a private car for personal use and a company operating a business. An important one being that the business can possibly monetize the externalities, while individuals living their lives generally don't.
As an example, when I park my bike at a municipal rack, I don't make any money directly from that. I at most use one space, and on average use zero. But if I can make a profit from putting a rental bike at a municipal rack, I have an incentive to consume as many spaces as are profitable. On average I might use hundreds.
But there are a number of important differences between a person driving a private car for personal use and a company operating a business. An important one being that the business can possibly monetize the externalities, while individuals living their lives generally don't.
As an example, when I park my bike at a municipal rack, I don't make any money directly from that. I at most use one space, and on average use zero. But if I can make a profit from putting a rental bike at a municipal rack, I have an incentive to consume as many spaces as are profitable. On average I might use hundreds.
You bring up an important distinction. I'd like to coin a term: externality arbitrage.
Although an individual might be able to extract value, as you point out, the scale would be small.
A business, especially a VC-funded one, is much more likely to be able to scale this on a massive level, across many markets.
Although an individual might be able to extract value, as you point out, the scale would be small.
A business, especially a VC-funded one, is much more likely to be able to scale this on a massive level, across many markets.
Why? Because governments like to achieve social outcomes by mandating cross-subsidies from profitable customers to non-profitable customers instead of explicitly funding the outcomes themselves.
However, like the proverbial hole in the bucket, this then requires additional pieces of legislation added over time to keep it working. In this case, to stop newer entrants from cherry picking the profitable customers.
The biggest advantage of direct explicit funding (which can be provided through competitive tendering) is that it allows competition to work better. The other advantage is that the cost of achieving the desired social outcome is explicit as a budget line item, rather than hidden as indirect costs, allowing for a more informed debate about what social outcomes the community wants.
However, like the proverbial hole in the bucket, this then requires additional pieces of legislation added over time to keep it working. In this case, to stop newer entrants from cherry picking the profitable customers.
The biggest advantage of direct explicit funding (which can be provided through competitive tendering) is that it allows competition to work better. The other advantage is that the cost of achieving the desired social outcome is explicit as a budget line item, rather than hidden as indirect costs, allowing for a more informed debate about what social outcomes the community wants.
> As long as no one is getting hurt,
You seem to have missed this line
> San Jose resident Doug Smith said he fell and hurt his shoulder after being hit by a scooter speeding outside Martin Luther King Jr. Library in March.
You seem to have missed this line
> San Jose resident Doug Smith said he fell and hurt his shoulder after being hit by a scooter speeding outside Martin Luther King Jr. Library in March.
Wouldn't that be a bit like blaming Budget Rent a Car when one of their customers driving a rented car hits a pedestrian?
Multilingual customer support is a problem? According to California law, English is the official language. It seems onerous to require companies to support multiple languages. If they choose to do it for a competitive advantage, that should be their choice. This isn’t a government agency that has a vested interest in serving all citizens, this is a private company.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
[deleted]
This is what it means to oppose inequality. If we cannot all have something, no one can.
Sounds like moving was a good choice for you?
What a world we live in, where a company can operate however it would like. Using up public roads and sidewalks, relying on 911 when things go awry, and pushing all the responsibilities to the community.
Things sure sound funny either way.
Things sure sound funny either way.
This is OK as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.
Absolutely. It's sort of like "Lemon Socialism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism
Or exactly like modern capitalism!
Sorry, I’m reasonably libertarian but “operating in communities of concern” is fine by me for transit infrastructure providers. Taxis used to have laws that required them to go to any destination requested, and stop for any person hailing a ride. Now that Uber has largely replaced taxis, a vital piece of community infrastructure (point to point transportation) is only available to people with smartphones. I have no problem requiring that Uber take fares by phone, or that scooter companies service all areas, as transit infrastructure shifts from publicly owned to privately owned.
>Taxis used to have laws that required them to go to any destination requested, and stop for any person hailing a ride
Laws that in my experience the taxi drivers completely ignored with no consequences. At least with Uber they pick you up before they find out the destination.
Laws that in my experience the taxi drivers completely ignored with no consequences. At least with Uber they pick you up before they find out the destination.
Lol. I still remember when I drove a taxi back in the day a street in Houston called Coke Street. Nobody would pick up there. And me, being an idiot, picked up a trip there and was promptly robbed at gunpoint. I’m laying on the ground with a gun in the back of my head while thugs took everything from me.
You can make laws, but self-preservation always trumps some misguided attempts by government to legislate “equal access.” When certain areas of town are higher risk than others, it’s immoral to require someone to service that area. I bet a member of city council never once visited that street at 3am, yet those same jackasses are those trying to require a private business owner/employee to put their life at risk in order to assuage their social justic guilt.
The people that can afford private taxis and Uber generally would have a smartphone. The ultra poor aren’t riding in taxis, but taking the bus. We shouldn’t be designing society around the idea that every single person deserves every single product or service available to the general public. Some people won’t get to ride in taxis; that’s just life. Some people can’t eat in restaurants— that doesn’t mean restaurants ought to be required to have a “low income menu.” Access to a taxi or a scooter isn’t a human right, it’s a luxury.
You can make laws, but self-preservation always trumps some misguided attempts by government to legislate “equal access.” When certain areas of town are higher risk than others, it’s immoral to require someone to service that area. I bet a member of city council never once visited that street at 3am, yet those same jackasses are those trying to require a private business owner/employee to put their life at risk in order to assuage their social justic guilt.
The people that can afford private taxis and Uber generally would have a smartphone. The ultra poor aren’t riding in taxis, but taking the bus. We shouldn’t be designing society around the idea that every single person deserves every single product or service available to the general public. Some people won’t get to ride in taxis; that’s just life. Some people can’t eat in restaurants— that doesn’t mean restaurants ought to be required to have a “low income menu.” Access to a taxi or a scooter isn’t a human right, it’s a luxury.
That problem was caused by taci regulation as well. Governments forbade ride hailing services to be hailed off the street.
Can they crack down on rampant use of cars? Are car companies paying operating fees? (Not quite the same, I know, but still).
It has happened in some cities. Look at London's congestion charge, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
And in NYC, taxis and psuedo-taxis like Uber and Lyft are indeed paying fees: https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-...
It's politically much harder to impose fees like that when people are used to something being free. But there's no reason for them to repeat that mistake with novel things like scooters.
And in NYC, taxis and psuedo-taxis like Uber and Lyft are indeed paying fees: https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-...
It's politically much harder to impose fees like that when people are used to something being free. But there's no reason for them to repeat that mistake with novel things like scooters.
If cars start driving on sidewalks I’m sure they’ll crack down on it.
The irony of this statement is that cars created the modern, rigid distinction between street and sidewalk. The term "jaywalking" was around before cars, but its modern meaning was heavily promoted by pro-automobile interests in the 1920s:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defe...
Cars don't need to drive on the sidewalks, in other words, because they already took over everything else (and in doing so relegated all other transportation modes to what was left).
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defe...
Cars don't need to drive on the sidewalks, in other words, because they already took over everything else (and in doing so relegated all other transportation modes to what was left).
Kind of what I was getting at. Car culture isn’t going away any time soon. It’s a lot easier to regulate something new than something that’s been a part of American society for nearly a hundred years.
Every time I see these absurd city government efforts to strangle human-sized personal vehicles, I think of "Wow. Look at These Astounding Photos of Abandoned Dockless Vehicles in America." https://slate.com/business/2018/04/astounding-photos-capture...
Which other businesses will be forced to operate multilingually? Will mine?
If you provide what amounts to a utility, possibly.
Is a scooter rental a utility? Is a jet-ski rental a utility? Is a luxury car rental a utility? Is a cheap car rental a utility? I'm just having trouble codifying it.
I would prefer that dense cities allow the scooters and instead prohibit cars. Granted, we would need to solve some issues with accommodating those with disabilities in a way that is more effective than using a car, but I think it could be done.
In the meantime, levy huge fines on anyone who uses the scooters irresponsibly so we can quickly set the precedent of socially acceptable scooter usage.
In the meantime, levy huge fines on anyone who uses the scooters irresponsibly so we can quickly set the precedent of socially acceptable scooter usage.
Austin, TX has forced all dockless scooter companies to have up to 500 scooters total in the city.
Things are are left on the street should be re-cycled into other things
This shows the benefits of local government. I think this is a bad policy. Fortunately, I also don’t live in San Jose. If I did, I’d try to elect new local politicians.
This doesn't surprise me, from the same stupid state that shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road
the story isn't as simple as "shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road". it's that the local transit authority has a monopoly on public transport, so no other companies can compete. the logic for that is that otherwise, for-profit entities would only operate profitable routes, leaving distant/poor/low density areas unserved. by operating as a monopoly, the transit authority can subsidize the less profitable routes with the more profitable routes, ensuring everybody has service, not just the people who live near the profitable routes. a similar logic exists applies to the USPS, which has a monopoly on letter mail (except for express services).
Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more.
Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed.
Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed.
Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
>Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more.
Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes.
>Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is trying to ensure is that everybody can ride the bus, regardless if they live in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the logic for why the laws were enacted.
Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes.
>Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is trying to ensure is that everybody can ride the bus, regardless if they live in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the logic for why the laws were enacted.
> they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes.
As pointed out in a different sub-thread, using monopoly power to effect this transfer can be detrimental to consumers.
The more traditional wealth transfer power of governments is taxation, which seems like a more straightforward method.
As pointed out in a different sub-thread, using monopoly power to effect this transfer can be detrimental to consumers.
The more traditional wealth transfer power of governments is taxation, which seems like a more straightforward method.
I don't think the city representing all of it's citizens expressing their power to try and have services provided equitably to all it's citizens throughout the city is stupid.
Sure they are not market driven and screw up the economics for the company. But if you look at what tools the city has available then most of that stupid becomes an understandable compromise.
I was in San Jose today and noticed they hadn’t gotten rid of scooters. I guess this is why we can’t have nice things.
You can, there are many free scooters and Ebikes on the streets of San Jose.
> requiring the companies to pay a deposit to cover potential scooter-involved damage to city property
so I guess if they damage non-city property, tough shit?
so I guess if they damage non-city property, tough shit?
I guess it is the same for when cars damage non-city property, and that happens 1000s of times every day. I bet you are ok with that?
It doesn't make any sense at all. It's not like we are living in Vienna or Paris. It's freaking California with Stucco walls and cheaply made buildings.
"City property" encompasses much more than "some of the city's buildings".
[deleted]
What a world we live in, where a company cannot operate as it would like to. As long as no one is getting hurt, why can't a company choose its target demographic? Where does it end? Do all movie theaters have to show films in all languages? Are Whole Foods and starbucks required to open discount price stores for the same goods in "communities of concern"?
I lived in San Jose for 5 years. I was flat broke, and living in a rundown 12-people-in-a-5-bedroom apartment, in the most violent and dangerous part of town. San Jose still has an immense amount of issues with drugs, violence, gangs, and a lack of pedestrian friendly streets. The city's priorities, much like San Francisco's, are laughably backwards.