Lyft is suing San Francisco to prevent competing bikeshares from moving in(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Lyft is suing San Francisco to prevent competing bikeshares from moving in
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-lawsuit-san-francisco-dockless-docked-transportation
16 comments
[deleted]
How is such a contract legal in the first place? Shouldn't a city have to treat all businesses equally as a matter of law?
In short, no. The city gives public space for Lyft to install these docks. Forcing them to treat every company equally in that regard simply wouldn't work, not to mention that the cost of building the network in the first place requires some guarantees in return. A bike share system needs lots of docks in order to be successful, granting one company a monopoly isn't that crazy in that context.
The guarantees should then be limited to making available to Lyft enough space to build docks. Banning competition far exceeds that.
It doesn't matter in practice (and in fact there's some decent arguments that one is better than two or more: consider the current ford Go-Bikes in SF. Would it be better or worse if there were 2 or 3 mutually incompatible bike racks? You end up fragmenting your transit system). You can only offer so many rack locations, so if Lyft takes 2/3 of them, no other provider can be as effective anyway.
If we were looking at another kind of public transit, say, subway trains or busses that were subcontracted out to private companies, would you expect 2 competing subway providers? Or two competing bus systems in the same city? I wouldn't.
If we were looking at another kind of public transit, say, subway trains or busses that were subcontracted out to private companies, would you expect 2 competing subway providers? Or two competing bus systems in the same city? I wouldn't.
NYC used to have three separate subway systems. To put it mildly, it was not effective, and we're still contending with three effects of it today.
Which law are you referring to?
I suppose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause - the city is treating people very unequally if it allows one company, and forbids others.
Sadly that strong interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause never got held as precedent. It sounds like it would be great for anti-corruption purposes.
Regulatory capture is a wonderful thing isn't it? They cry "too much regulation!" when the city goes after them and then "not enough!" when the regulations are in their favor.
What you're describing is irony.
Regulatory capture is when a company gains control of their regulator through bribery or promise of jobs.
For example, if you look at Wall Street's regulators, the most powerful are former financiers. Which is why any effort to impose fiduciary rules on brokers (ie. salesmen) is doomed. aka "Where are the Customers' Yachts?"
Regulatory capture is when a company gains control of their regulator through bribery or promise of jobs.
For example, if you look at Wall Street's regulators, the most powerful are former financiers. Which is why any effort to impose fiduciary rules on brokers (ie. salesmen) is doomed. aka "Where are the Customers' Yachts?"
Hilarious. Lyft is behaving like cabbies used to. The cycle continues and disruption is shown to become inevitable.
It's exactly the same except the cabbie licenses/medallions were often shared among multiple independent businesses.
I'd be interested to know what the contract covered and the rules around placement and clearance rules, accessibility, lighting and safety around the docking stations - all things that the "fees" cabbies paid supposedly went towards.
I find non-docking (scooters from experience) to be a public nuisance - left anywhere and creating a tripping hazard especially for vision impaired people. They would be better off with council owning the docks (make them modular so you can expand/contract to match demand in an area) and selling licenses to cover the upkeep.
I'd be interested to know what the contract covered and the rules around placement and clearance rules, accessibility, lighting and safety around the docking stations - all things that the "fees" cabbies paid supposedly went towards.
I find non-docking (scooters from experience) to be a public nuisance - left anywhere and creating a tripping hazard especially for vision impaired people. They would be better off with council owning the docks (make them modular so you can expand/contract to match demand in an area) and selling licenses to cover the upkeep.
Given their tenuous financial positions, Uber and Lyft seem to be poised for disruption.
The actual complaint is worth a read: https://www.scribd.com/document/412705747/Lyft-Motivate-v-Th...
For example, I’ve wondered for some time why I’d see Lime Scooters in San Jose, but not bikes. The complaint contains the answer!
For example, I’ve wondered for some time why I’d see Lime Scooters in San Jose, but not bikes. The complaint contains the answer!
They're disagreeing on specifics of the contract Lyft signed with the city. This is exactly the kind of thing I would expect to be settled out of court with some kind of compromise agreement.