View all Articles
Commentary By Jared Meyer

Bill de Blasio’s Anti-Uber Scheme is Based on Misinformation

Economics Regulatory Policy

This article originally appeared in the New York Post.

Mayor de Blasio argues that it is necessary to artificially limit the impressive growth of ridesharing while the city evaluates the industry’s effect on the city.

It’s hard to take de Blasio’s many flawed claims seriously, especially when he received $550,000 from the taxi industry for his election campaign.

Instead of helping the city, limiting ridesharing’s growth would harm consumers, workers and New York’s economy.

Although his comments this week were directed at Uber, other ridesharing and livery competitors could be affected as well.

During the study period that is planned to extend until September 2016, companies with more than 500 for-hire vehicles would only be allowed to increase their number of vehicles by 1 percent.

The limit wouldn’t harm the taxi industry: It supports caps on the number of medallions, since such caps increase their value. This is why there are only 13,437 yellow cab medallions in New York City even though the original limit in 1937 was 16,900.

Uber has been using its vast public support to pressure the City Council into reconsidering its limits.

In addition to TV commercials, the company has its default car request option set to “DE BLASIO” in the city, instead of UberX or UberBLACK.

When a user tries to request a ride under DE BLASIO, the wait time is either 25 minutes or the app says no cars are available. This shows Uber users what may come if the proposed limits are instituted.

Thankfully, Uber’s other options still work and offer timely, convenient rides — for now. But, if the supply of ridesharing cars is capped while demand continues to grow, wait times and trip prices will increase. This is exactly what the taxi industry and its political supporters want.

De Blasio blames Manhattan traffic congestion on the growth in ridesharing cars.

However, the increasing number of bike lanes and pedestrian walkways, along with the city’s population and economic growth (subway ridership is at a 65-year high), are the main reasons why last year’s speed average on Manhattan roads was 8.5 mph — the lowest on record.

Ridesharing vehicles account for less than 1 percent of the cars coming into Manhattan each day. Blaming ridesharing for traffic congestion, as de Blasio and those in the taxi industry do, is disingenuous to say the least.

When de Blasio cites the number of increased cars on the street from ridesharing’s growth, he’s ignoring the hours worked by Uber driver-partners.

According to an analysis of Uber’s data by Princeton University professor Alan Krueger, less than 10 percent of New York City Uber driver-partners drive for more than 50 hours a week.

Alternatively, about four in 10 driver-partners work less than 15 hours a week.

Nearly half of new Uber driver-partners stop actively working with the company within a year of signing up.

Ridesharing not only provides an option for full-time employment, but it offers an attractive option for those who want to supplement their incomes or pay the bills while between jobs.

Even if Uber’s claim that the bill would destroy 10,000 jobs is inflated, it’s not debatable that the bill would lower employment opportunities for New Yorkers.

Many New York City elected officials fail to realize the positive effects on the outer boroughs from the transportation and employment options that Uber provides. Only 6 percent of yellow-cab pick-ups were outside Manhattan, compared with over a quarter of Uber pick-ups.

Many neighborhoods lack the number of transportation options that Midtown and downtown Manhattan provide, and less than half of households in Brooklyn and The Bronx own a vehicle.

Counterintuitively, placing a limit on ridesharing companies’ growth could actually help Uber by killing off its competition. Uber has 90-percent market share in New York, and de Blasio’s plan would solidify the company’s dominant position.

Uber’s opposition to the limitation shows that it would rather compete against Lyft on Main Street, not in City Hall. If only taxi companies would follow Uber’s example.

De Blasio’s study period is not about helping New Yorkers — it’s about protecting taxi companies from increased competition. The influence of the established, politically connected taxi industry is strong, but the public’s support of ridesharing is stronger.

New Yorkers cannot remain silent as their mayor wages his war on innovation.


Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the coauthor with Diana Furchtgott-Roth of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America's Young. Follow Jared on Twitter here.

Original Source

Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning eBrief.