Picking up on ubrayj02’s point, what legal/regulatory requirements are drivers for TNCs subject to, and how do those requirements differ from those that apply to conventional taxicabs (in terms of vehicle safety, background checks, insurance, etc.)? What additional requirements do the companies themselves impose on drivers? Have there been problems in other cities due to TNCs supposedly being subject to less strict regulation than taxicabs?

Another question: How do the cabbie smartphone apps compare to real-time ridesharing services like Lyft and Uber? Have you gotten any feedback concerning the user interfaces, the payment methods, and the amenities the cabbie apps provide? Do you foresee traditional cab companies investing in the information technology infrastructure in order to deliver higher levels of customer service and satisfaction? I believe that Lyft, in particular, has reset expectations amongst a large segment of their riders concerning this.

John and Logan really envisioned a future where impromptu carpooling was seamless and easy. The online ridematching website they built pioneered the use of APIs from social media sites in order to build some trust amongst prospective carpoolers, but it required considerable pre-arranging to set up a ride. Lyft currently allows me to pre-arrange a ride through my smartphone app. I don’t have to tell them where I am going. In contrast, in DC, the cabs are allowed to hail multiple passengers, assuming they’ll only take a 2nd, 3rd or fourth passenger if their destinations are all along the way. (This does not always work in practice.) Will real-time ridesharing apps ever allow us to get to that center — using the smartphone, to literally share the ride with someone headed in the same direction as you are?

Josef, the state is trying to regulate the safety of these services, especially the insurance requirement (http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/f?p=401:59:638605657211201::NO) The CPUC was not sympathetic to the argument that the services should have to jump through extra hoops just because Taxis have to. Taxi regulations are suboptimal from any perspective – the path-dependent result of decades of layering on new requirements. I personally feel like I have more recourse for a bad ride with a TNC company than with a taxi company.

If an experience in a cab is bad, people avoid cabs as a recourse. If an experience in a TNC is bad, people rate the driver low and are never matched with that person again. Taxis will likely have to re-focus on customer service and two-way communications with customers (e.g. twitter complaints) in order to capture the increase in demand for Taxi/TNC services that I would expect in the future.

Here’s a summary of the regulations that will apply to TNCs. I’ve heard that TNCs will kick drivers out of the system if they receive poor ratings (under 4.5 of 5) and if they fail to respond to too many ride requests).

Many state and local governments are considering injunctions or regulation. California & LA have not been unique, but the state has been the first to issue regulations. Look up DC and Uber for the most noteworthy battle between a city and Uber.

It’s interesting that you say all of this. In my experience (so sample size = 1), I have begun using cabs again, when I can’t arrange a TNC. I haven’t had a single decent cab experience (sample size 4) since Lyft began operating in LA. The idiocy on my part is that I keep using cabs despite the my dissatisfaction with them.

I was in the cab on one of those occasions. The driver chided us for taking a cab 14 blocks.

yes. UberX cars and Sidecar cars must have trade dress. Uber livery cars are not TNCs. They’re regulated separately and those regulations will be updated now that it’s possible to contract for one without the use of a telephone. Previously, shutting down a telephone line was the primary means of stopping non-conforming charter party carriers. The CPUC has jurisdiction over telecommunications in the state, so shutting of phone lines was easy. The CPUC does not have regulatory capabilities over the internet, app stores, or other parts of the process needed to download an app, enter personal and payment information, and contract for transportation services.

Some anecdotal evidence from San Francisco suggests that taxi drivers are becoming UberX or lyft drivers – and taking home more money than what they get after a medallion owner takes a cut. No research yet, but in a supply-constrained environment it’s the medallion owner rather than the driver who makes the bulk of the money. TNCs are required to have $1M in insurance that supersedes any personal insurance someone has on their vehicle.

Josef, do you think similarly about AirBNB versus hotels? That hotels should be compensated for the lower perceived/real risk associated with staying a night, and that AirBNB offerings should be made illegal?

All I am saying is that we have created a playing field that will leave cities & state less money from licensing. more risk to the general public, and less professional full-time employment for people seeking such that isn’t totally dependent on their customers carrying a state-monitored tracking device with attached financial details jut to hail a cab. We just barely instituted the innovative “hail a cab” zones in LA a few years ago. It is illegal to use your hand to hail a cab in most of LA but some iTrackMe handjob can skip the bed rental fees and overhead costs of a hotel or taxi company to go gypsy all the way? Well, why have laws at all, right? Let’s let Lyft take all the money. I am sure they will help us pay for the insurance claims, delousing, and police work required to monitor grey market cabs and hotels. I think these services are an intrusion that is crippling to people trying to follow the rules. You have an app and now your firm can play a turbo version of Monopoly while the rest of us are stuck with the old rule book? That isn’t fair and it isn’t in the best interest of our republic.

Hank, I don’t think Carma will achieve scale outside of Dublin to match a high proportion of requested trips. It’s a numbers game, and people need to perceive a high probability of match in order to return to the service (and keep increasing the numbers). The TNCs can guarantee a ride, and potentially in the future with dynamic pricing, charge less for incidental trip within the same platform where someone is guaranteed a passenger-serving trip so long as they’re willing to pay the price premium to have someone go out of their way.

Sidecar is the other one. The taxi operators are regulated by a government entity, while the TNCs are supposedly self regulating. I had a cabbie overcharge me going from Santa Monica to LA once – I filed a complaint with the City of Santa Monica, uploaded the receipt (he was charging a number higher than the meter, claiming it was prearranged, and I didn’t want to argue at such a late hour, instead paying and filing a complaint after the fact), and the City contacted the taxi operator and they provided a refund to my credit card. Now, in a TNC, arguably this wouldn’t have happened in the first place, but regardless if you fail to address it at the TNC level, who do you go to? The CPUC? Local regulation, especially in a case where regulators are responsive such as Santa Monica, can be helpful.

Understood that informal ridesharing is far easier when two of the following are fixed: origin, destination, departure time, and when the driver & passenger share social ties.

Of course, Lyft’s excess liability coverage in particular may cover the rider but in many insurance policies, by virtue of operation in a for hire business, the insurance policy may not cover the driver (as in liability to a third party due to a collision caused by the Lyft vehicle, collision coverage for the Lyft vehicle itself, or medical bills of the Lyft driver should the medical coverage be purchased, which I usually do not recommend). http://phantomcabdriverphites.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-cpucs-proposed-decision-good-bad.html