Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

New York City Will Require Uber and Lyft To Go 100 Percent Electric by 2030 (theverge.com) 67

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
In his State of the City speech Thursday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that Uber and Lyft will be required to be zero emission by 2030. The decision by one of the world's largest markets for app-based ridehailing has the potential to affect an estimated 100,000 for-hire vehicles. From a report: Adams said the move will build on efforts his administration has made to electrify the city's fleet of vehicles while installing charging infrastructure to power those vehicles throughout the five boroughs. The mayor will likely implement his plan through the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission, which regulates the for-hire vehicle industry, including Uber and Lyft. Uber and Lyft, which normally chafe at new requirements and have been known to sue to block rules they don't like, sound largely positive toward the new development in New York.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York City Will Require Uber and Lyft To Go 100 Percent Electric by 2030 More

New York City Will Require Uber and Lyft To Go 100 Percent Electric by 2030

Comments Filter:

  • If I were Uber or Lyft (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday January 26, 2023 @05:25PM (#63243193) Homepage Journal

    I'd offer gig workers loans to buy new EVs with extremely predatory terms. Make lots of money and save the environment.

    • and maybe an good injury lawyer can get the bank / uber to pay after an driver on an 20 hour shift falls an sleep at the wheel.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      You're not thinking nearly evil enough. You rent the cars to them with the rent to own structure that makes them feel like they are buying something for a business when in fact they're just going further in debt. That's how the trucking industry does it.

      John Oliver has a bit about it. He had a guy on who got a check for 27 cents or so that was for like 100 hours of work.

      What I wish I could get people to understand is that when they finish screwing over low-level workers like drivers they're coming f

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SAU! ( 228983 )

      Don't they already do that? My last Uber driver, back to the airport leaving re:Invent, told me that Uber wanted drivers to lease Teslas for $500/week from them. There were _tons_ of Uber Teslas there, so it seems believable.

    • You think full-time gig workers earn enough to afford a brand new BEV? That's the best laugh I've had all day.

      • A 2020 Chevy Bolt is $22K A 60-month loan at 6% with $0 down comes out to around $425, bump it to 8% and it's $446. That's less than the cost of leasing it for a week from Uber, and would result in ~$1500 extra per month. It makes absolutely no sense to lease the car from them. If you want to stick to *brand new*: A 2023 Chevy Bolt is $25.6K A 2023 Nissan Leaf is $28K All of those options seem reasonably affordable. If those folks want to drive Uber/Lyft for a 40-hour work week, they can afford the vehic

        • But would someone with a ride-share driving job qualify for the loan on their own? It's harder to qualify for loans when your income is up and down. That's where the predatory stuff starts in.

        • $54K/yr in NYC is basically poverty level income. I guess if you planned on living in your new car, that budget could work.

  • How? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday January 26, 2023 @05:25PM (#63243195)
    Their entire business model is built on shifting those costs on the people who can't afford them. I once heard somebody call Uber a payday loan where the interest is the mileage on your car. Every driver I've had when I was using the service has been someone recently laid off or someone who took a huge pay cut and was desperately trying to scrape together rent money.

    I guess maybe New York has replaced large numbers of taxi cab drivers with Uber drivers and maybe they've got enough people doing it professionally. If that's the case they should be employees. You can't even make the pathetic excuse that they are gig workers at that point. Never mind the fact that even if it's gig work it's still a core business Uber requires to operate and fails the IRS test for a contractor. But it's not a law if it's not enforced right?

    What I see is these costs being shifted on the people who can't afford it and a lot more homelessness and people living out of their cars. That's a recipe for a whole shitload of social instability. The kind that causes mass shootings and increased crime rates. Of course the politicians can use that to their advantage too

    • Their entire business model is built on shifting those costs on the people who can't afford them. I once heard somebody call Uber a payday loan where the interest is the mileage on your car. Every driver I've had when I was using the service has been someone recently laid off or someone who took a huge pay cut and was desperately trying to scrape together rent money.

      Their "model" is just making the most money they can in terms of price per ride and volume of rides. Contracting with people willing to work for cheap is necessary to be competitive with ride companies doing the same.

      But if the government comes in and says "cheap rides in gas powered cars are illegal" that is fantastic news for all the ride sharing companies. They don't have to worry about a competitor undercutting them because the competitor is beholden to the same law. And as prices get driven up 25% cut

      • > 25% cut of a $60 fare is much better than a 25% cut of $20 fare

        I know you were probably just picking a percentage at random, but these companies have been taking more than 50% from drivers for a while now-- in some cases, over 70%. Prices have gone up for riders while compensation has gone down for drivers. It's criminal. I keep expecting drivers to start abandoning this scam en masse, but there are apparently a lot of desperate people out there (not to mention math-challenged ones).

        Imagine
      • Uber is not even a profitable company yet, estimated losses from 2022 are -$4.87 per share. I don't think the government saying "cheap rides in gas powered cars are illegal" is what's really hurting the drivers. The problem is cheap rides period. Prices should be higher than they are, and keeping them artificially low to maintain volume and convenience for the customers while your company isn't even profitable seems like the real issue in my opinion. They're trying to walk a thin line between paying people

      • Wonder if the self driving cars will get cleaned between fares? If not, I would be pretty darn leery of wanting to use one. In fact, you would likely need to be really drunk to not car about the quality of the car.

    • Every driver I've had when I was using the service has been someone recently laid off or someone who took a huge pay cut and was desperately trying to scrape together rent money.

      Pretty much everyone I've ever met in an Uber was just doing it for a little side cash.

      It certainly wasn't their main job.

      • It certainly wasn't their main job.

        My partner did the gig economy thing full time for about a year, pre-pandemic. It was only slightly profitable after factoring in for gas and wear and tear on the car, which thankfully was a paid off economy hatchback.

        If I didn't do the maintenance and repairs on the car for him, gig work wouldn't have been profitable at all. Mechanics not be cheap, yo.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )

      Their entire business model is built on shifting those costs on the people who can't afford them. I once heard somebody call Uber a payday loan where the interest is the mileage on your car. Every driver I've had when I was using the service has been someone recently laid off or someone who took a huge pay cut and was desperately trying to scrape together rent money.

      Firstly, what's wrong with someone being able to pick up a gig right after they're laid off, or someone who can easily find a contracting job so scrape together rent money while they look for another job? Secondly, my conversations with every Uber and Lyft driver I've ever come in contact with (and I always ask) has led me to believe the exact opposite of what you're saying. They are very happy doing what they do. #1 reason? The freedom that comes with being their own boss and choosing their time and me

      • Nothing, but Uber and Lyft do neither. They generate negative value for the drivers who nearly always don't come out ahead when wear, fuel, and devaluation of their vehicles come into it.

        Both companies deserve to die, and "gig" companies should actually pay people actual money, not prey on the mathematically challenged.

  • and that won't happen. I got in with a 100,000+ mile car at the exact limit 4 years ago with a 2007 car. It's still grandfathered in. It is the ONLY way to make a profit and I barely do. Now that I'm back working in IT, I don't actually drive for them currently but my account is open. Everyone else with 2015 or so cars drives for a year, realizes what maintenance and depreciation did, and realizes they make a dollar an hour after tires, oil, etc.
    Now try that situation with $70,000+ electric cars, which ru

    • In order words, expect Uber and Lyft rates to double in order to convince people who can actually afford an EV to use them as a taxi.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
        No, no, no, self driving ones. Then you don't have to pay anyone other than the cops after a self driving taxi "accidentally" runs from them after being pulled over. Yes, that's a video clip. Yes, you should go watch it lol.

    • An EV will definitely save on energy expenses. Regardless of whether the electricity was made by noxious radioactive coal, you will save on money on fueling. Cost per mile will decrease a lot, the cost of financing the vehicle itself will be higher no doubt .. but the cost of operating it will definitely drop (unless you get unlucky on the repairs front).

      • And Uber/Lyft drivers will be losing money sidelined for 30-50+ minutes every time they have to stop and charge back up...if they can find a charger.

        Hopefully they'll have more by then for the public, but still, the length of time taken to charge takes those drivers offline and they're missing out on jobs.

        • And Uber/Lyft drivers will be losing money sidelined for 30-50+ minutes every time they have to stop and charge back up...if they can find a charger.

          Hopefully they'll have more by then for the public, but still, the length of time taken to charge takes those drivers offline and they're missing out on jobs.

          Charge up before you start your shift it should be enough to last to the end (or at least a lunch break if you're really pushing it).

          Aside from that fuel costs and maintenance costs are both way lower with an EV. By 2030 I doubt any serious cabbie is going to be driving a non-EV.

        • Uh, somebody told you wrong about Tesla's range. You can drive around the city for a full shift easily on a single charge.

    • I can see why you'd fall into the money trap -- you also failed on EVs.

      30% drop in grid delivery but your failure is that ICE cars are more heater than transportation and drop at least 60% of their power and there is nothing one can do to fix that unlike the power grid... where a simple regulation can improve your coal plant (depending on how unregulated and corrupt your state currently is) while other cleaner stuff comes online over time.

      There are also EVs in the $30-40k range and used ones are very cheap

  • Can I assume that all the taxis and limousines will also be electric by the same deadline and NYC isn't singling out individual companies for discriminatory treatment? They wouldn't do that, would they? That would be unethical and I can't imagine NYC doing anything unethical.

    That'll be cool. I'd expect the owners of all those beat up taxis and expensive limousines to object, but I'm sure NYC will prioritize climate over business interests.

    I wonder if NYC will become less filthy. Probably not, the tire dust

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The purpose of this legislation is to reduce the traffic from Uber and Lyft vehicles which are clogging streets and, as an added benefit, help reduce emissions...

      • Its still unfairly targeting 1 of a business while letting another keep doing things as always. Def gonna be challenged in court for unfair targeting of them while NY taxi company doesn't have to do the same.
      • So, the solution to there being too many cars on the road is to inhibit an industry that reduces the number of cars on the road?

        Even if that made sense and wasn't thus likely to cause more harm than good, is it healthy, rational, and ethical to mislead the public about the primary intent of the policy?

  • This is just awful journalism.
    It reads as if NYC is targetting a law at two companies by name.
    Whereas the last paragraph states it correctly - "ridehail vehicles" must be zero emission by 2030.

    FFS, Msmash, DO YOUR JOB.
  • A kind of greenwashing

  • My rule of thumb on political promises is that it won't happen if the person making the promise will not be in office at the time the promise is supposed to come to completion. The mayor took office in 2022, has a term of four years, and is allowed one re-election term.

    The thing is that it would be all too easy to blame any failure to fulfill the promise on legislative failures, state government intervention, or any of a number of things that could happen in the next eight years. The biggest problem, as p

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • None of your equivalences hold up. First, no, an EV using electricity from fossil fuel is not equivalent to an ICE car in emissions. And second, no, a bus is not equivalent to 20 ICE cars (or however many people a bus carries on average) even if the bus is ICE. Also, no, precluding an old ICE from Uber service doesn't mean it will be scrapped.

      You would have a point about NYC's own fleet of single-passenger cars, if only you hadn't said "public transportation fleet" instead.

  • What a clever way to try and kill the illegal taxi industry. I like it. Then again, I don't really use any of those services so I'm not the one affected.

    You think a "ride-sharing" driver is going to be able to afford an electric car or have a place to charge up without breaking the bank? I imagine they would have to go use fast chargers that likely charge a premium and of course this will likely be in the middle of the day or possibly even during "peak" energy use, which is precisely the opposite time they

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close