Roads
Illegal or not, on-demand car service Uber is good for DC
New car service Uber launched in DC in December, but has already run afoul of the Taxi Commission. Whether they're doing anything illegal is unclear, but the service is definitely good for transportation in DC.
Uber allows people to book a trip in a for-hire car, without an advance reservation, using a mobile app. It offers an alternative to current taxis, but doesn't compete directly for the vast majority of taxi rides because it costs significantly more than a cab, particularly for short trips.
To say that Uber competes with cabs is like saying McDonalds competes with Bourbon Steak because they both serve hamburgers.
The concept is a positive step for an urban DC. It offers yet another transportation option besides driving a personal car. Transit isn't for everyone all the time, and if Uber lets a transit skeptic leave the car at home or get rid of it altogether, it's a big win.
What's more, Uber can actually improve the efficiency of "black cars," the for-hire sedans which spend a large portion of the day idling. While the Uber founder says they discourage drivers from accepting Uber trips while they are on a job, it is distinctly feasible to do with their system.
I used to live in Foggy Bottom, and when major summits came to town, the neighborhood would be covered with Town Cars and Tahoes with Virginia "For Hire" license plates. With the IMF, World Bank, and numerous upscale hotels in the area, the vehicles would sit idling all over Foggy Bottom and the West End. The cars often took up parking spaces for hours, double parking at times.
Uber gives them the ability to provide some trips instead of blocking lanes of traffic and every conceivable parking space. This would be good for everyone.
Ironically, the limousine industry should be the one that is more concerned about Uber. Their business is likely to change as long is Uber is around. If someone can book a black car on-demand, pay a mileage-based rate, and then book another one for a return trip, without having to pay for time in between, why, except for the most demanding situations, would anyone bother to hire a car service?
What's more, the taxi industry actually stands to benefit from the presence of Uber. At peak times, such as New Years' Eve, there are not enough cabs to go around, period. Uber maintains their reliability by using "surge pricing" to price out many people and find those customers who are desperate, or well heeled, enough to pay for that reliability.
At high traffic times, Uber takes some people who would have otherwise tried to hail a cab, leaving fewer people to fight over the limited cab supply, and ultimately making traveling by taxi cab easier and more reliable.
Lawyers, Uber, cabbies, the Taxi Commission, and possibly DC councilmembers will debate the legality of Uber's operation in coming weeks. Residents should hope they come to a conclusion that lets the service, and others like it, keep running.
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Live chat with Matt Yglesias
- DC's divide need not be black and white








The "surge pricing" turned into a PR fiasco for Uber. As with all pricing, information matters. Even super-sophicated drunks with cell phone get screwed with that.
Given how often my GF begs me to take a cab, there is clearly a market for a more upscale transit option.
by charlie on Jan 12, 2012 1:24 pm
Surge pricing, good. Ineffectively communicating surge pricing at the moment of purchase, especially to first-time customers, not so good.
by worthing on Jan 12, 2012 1:27 pm
Huh? How? You certainly didn't explain any benefit to the taxi industry -- perhaps to taxi riders, but to drivers and fleet owners?
You may be correct in pointing out that Uber is more of a threat to the limo industry, than the taxi industry, but I see no way this benefits taxis.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jan 12, 2012 1:41 pm
Red Top is usually at my house within 510 minutes of calling, and it's half the price. They also have an iPhone app (in Taxi Magic)
by Joey on Jan 12, 2012 1:42 pm
by @SamuelMoore on Jan 12, 2012 1:44 pm
by bert on Jan 12, 2012 1:44 pm
by Tim on Jan 12, 2012 1:58 pm
by Tim on Jan 12, 2012 2:01 pm
I don't see the advantage Red Top in Arlington. DC maybe. The goal isn't taxi replacement, just car service replacement.
by charlie on Jan 12, 2012 2:11 pm
DC cab drivers don't follow rules - if they did, I wouldn't need Uber. I've been stranded around Dupont or Columbia Heights a number of times when a cab driver refused to take me to Ballston (which really isn't even that far away). I also don't want to deal with a half broken car, a driver that can barely speak English, or someone that tries to take advantage of me by going "his" way home.
Also - why should I carry around wads of 20s? This is the 21st century. When I go to NYC for work, I can hop in any cab knowing that it has a CC machine. That's simply not the case here.
Uber is far more convenient and pleasant - if DC cabs can't handle the "competition" they should focus on making their service better.
by Ruben on Jan 12, 2012 2:14 pm
Except for the fact that you didn't know what your price was going to be, even approximately. "This trip will cost $100" is how you decide whether to book plane tickets, not, "plane tickets are 5x their normal price, and we'll charge you after you deplane."
Their algorithms also had no backstop, unlike the rest of the travel industry, where one accepts that at ultra-peak periods, there will be a shortage and even the expensive services will be doled out by the luck of the draw.
by JustMe on Jan 12, 2012 2:22 pm
But, to their credit, it does sound like Uber was going through their audit logs and refunding customers who did get hosed. So perhaps we're just looking at some code problems rather than a devious "tricked you, drunky" scheme.
by worthing on Jan 12, 2012 2:26 pm
How is it a compelling government interest to protect the jobs of these guys, 90% of whom aren't even DC citizens?
by oboe on Jan 12, 2012 3:45 pm
On demand car service is good for those in DC who can afford it. Or we'll get in a taxi.
BTW, I do believe that a number of these sedans we see are actually on the clock and not riding around looking for passengers.
by HogWash on Jan 12, 2012 3:56 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550X5OZVk7Y
by thm on Jan 12, 2012 4:12 pm
by Doug on Jan 12, 2012 4:32 pm
by Doug on Jan 12, 2012 4:34 pm
Uber cars are still licensed and regulated by the commission, they are just regulated as for-hire cars rather than taxis. This means they can't pick up street hails but can pick you up if you call them.
You still can't just call yourself a taxi and start picking up street hails and calls.
by MLD on Jan 12, 2012 4:49 pm
The cars and drivers are not unregulated, they're all regulated already as for-hire livery drivers in this region.
by Alex B. on Jan 12, 2012 4:50 pm
by Jacques on Jan 12, 2012 4:58 pm
The adjective "DC" before "citizens" is probably superfluous.
by Bob on Jan 12, 2012 5:48 pm
by Steve on Jan 12, 2012 9:11 pm
The city isn't even really obligated to regulate cabs. Residents would be better off if they did less regulation of cabs. Buses, Metro, personal driving, Amtrak, MARC, and even walking are actually regulated, too (stop signs, anyone?)
Where exactly does the author of this article propose drawing the line? I really don't see how this could be legit without opening you up to scenario like I just explained.
This starts from the premise that existing regulation is good and anything that undermines it is not "legit."
by WRD on Jan 12, 2012 10:28 pm
by Gedle on Jan 13, 2012 12:26 am
by Joseph Cambell on Jan 13, 2012 12:51 am
In 20 years, I've had one bad experience -- a cabbie that refused to take me back to Virginia.
Strikes me as a oversupply problem. Too many cabbies in a few corridors, and not enough elsewhere.
by charlie on Jan 13, 2012 8:08 am
However, cracking down on Uber just sounds like a bunch of rent-seeking on the part of cab drivers.
by JustMe on Jan 13, 2012 9:37 am
All of the arguments that "DC cab drivers will be driven out of business" or that "DC cab drivers have families" or that "many immigrants get a start driving cabs" is irrelevant.
The only question that is relevant is "If we impose regulation X, will a DC resident be able to get a cab cheaper/more frequently/etc..." DC cab service is the shittiest of the three regional jurisdictions, and MD/VA cab drivers actually *live* in MD/VA.
DC cab service is so shitty because of regulatory capture: the DC government is small enough that a well-organized special interest like the cab driver lobby can buy it off. Not so in MD/VA.
by oboe on Jan 13, 2012 11:03 am
by oboe on Jan 13, 2012 11:04 am
by Mark on Jan 13, 2012 5:13 pm
I do want to go out of my way to be callous.
I don't have a clue what your problems are and I don't care.
I care about service and price.
Owners of restaurants, liquor stores, meter maids, and other professions all face difficulties. They aren't my problem. This is all irrelevant when considering the question of whether or not allowing Uber is good public policy.
None of the problems of taxi drivers change the fact that DC's regulatory scheme is bad for taxi cab riders.
by WRD on Jan 13, 2012 10:28 pm
by Dan Rogers on Jan 27, 2012 11:36 am
I would use this service if I hadn't learned to call friends or just lug my luggage onto the bus and trains. As long as they are guaranteed to actually show up to ALL areas of DC I would have no problem forking over the money to make it to a red eye on time and let my friends stay warm and cozy in their beds.
by Tracey on Apr 11, 2012 10:13 am
by Kromeklia on Apr 26, 2012 2:11 pm
Add a Comment