Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
New York City is considering a congestion charge for drivers entering Manhattan below 60th street. It is part of Governor Cuomo’s Fix NYC plan. But we all know how difficult these things are to implement.
Last month, Felix Salmon wrote a piece in Wired where he argued that our cities are dying of traffic congestion and that the cause is ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. The solution: A tax on ride-hailing services.
The article elicited a few reactions, including this one by Charles Komanoff over at Streetblogs and this one by Joe Cortright over at City Observatory. Joe’s message: “The problem isn’t the ride-hailed vehicles, it’s the under-priced street.”
Precisely.
Felix later followed-up with a post on his blog where he clarified that the reason he loves this idea – of taxing ride-hailing companies, not riders – is that it’s far more politically palatable than a blanket tax on all cars. I don’t disagree.
Which is why I think my idea is something which is eminently politically possible, in contrast to congestion pricing, which has been implemented exactly nowhere in the USA.
Americans love their cars, and they love the freedom that cars represent, and they hate the idea that they should be taxed for driving their cars. Tolls on roads and bridges are bad enough, but a fee just to drive in to a city?
That said, I’m with Charles and Joe.
Last year, it was reported that roughly 25% of all Uber trips in New York City were UberPool trips. I’m not sure what the number is today, but these are people who are car pooling to get around. That’s generally considered to be a positive thing.
Are these really the trips we want to be discouraging (and singling out) with a charge simply because we don’t have the moxie to do what is right and makes rational sense?
Photo by Austin Scherbarth on Unsplash
Back in 2013, when this blog was in its infancy, I argued that Toronto needs a consistent taxi brand. Since nobody was reading the blog at the time, I am sure that most of you have never read this post. I even forgot about it, until last night when I posted this photo of Hong Kong to Instagram:
New York City is considering a congestion charge for drivers entering Manhattan below 60th street. It is part of Governor Cuomo’s Fix NYC plan. But we all know how difficult these things are to implement.
Last month, Felix Salmon wrote a piece in Wired where he argued that our cities are dying of traffic congestion and that the cause is ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. The solution: A tax on ride-hailing services.
The article elicited a few reactions, including this one by Charles Komanoff over at Streetblogs and this one by Joe Cortright over at City Observatory. Joe’s message: “The problem isn’t the ride-hailed vehicles, it’s the under-priced street.”
Precisely.
Felix later followed-up with a post on his blog where he clarified that the reason he loves this idea – of taxing ride-hailing companies, not riders – is that it’s far more politically palatable than a blanket tax on all cars. I don’t disagree.
Which is why I think my idea is something which is eminently politically possible, in contrast to congestion pricing, which has been implemented exactly nowhere in the USA.
Americans love their cars, and they love the freedom that cars represent, and they hate the idea that they should be taxed for driving their cars. Tolls on roads and bridges are bad enough, but a fee just to drive in to a city?
That said, I’m with Charles and Joe.
Last year, it was reported that roughly 25% of all Uber trips in New York City were UberPool trips. I’m not sure what the number is today, but these are people who are car pooling to get around. That’s generally considered to be a positive thing.
Are these really the trips we want to be discouraging (and singling out) with a charge simply because we don’t have the moxie to do what is right and makes rational sense?
Photo by Austin Scherbarth on Unsplash
Back in 2013, when this blog was in its infancy, I argued that Toronto needs a consistent taxi brand. Since nobody was reading the blog at the time, I am sure that most of you have never read this post. I even forgot about it, until last night when I posted this photo of Hong Kong to Instagram:
It reminded me of the role that taxis play in city branding. This photo is clearly of Hong Kong. But take away the taxis in the foreground and I would really have to think in order to identity it. I would then be searching for street signs and looking to see what side of the road the cars are driving on.
Now, a few things have changed since 2013. Back then I didn’t have the same appreciation for decentralized ride hailing (Uber and Lyft), though I did have the same distaste for the taxi cartel. And I recognize that there is a tension between centralized taxi branding and a decentralized approach to ride fulfillment.
I’m not exactly sure how to solve this problem, but maybe it gets easier with autonomous vehicles and probable changes to the way consumers own, or don’t own cars. I believe it’s important for places and cities to have specificity. If you have any thoughts, please leave a comment below.
(I am trying to respond to all comments on this blog, because I’m finding it impossible to respond to all blog related emails. Sorry.)
Ever notice how whenever you’re taking an Uber the driver usually gets another fare just before he (Uber drivers are overwhelmingly male) is about to drop you off? That’s on purpose.
Earlier this month the New York Times published an interactive feature describing how Uber uses behavioral economics (or psychological tricks) to encourage its drivers to work longer, take more fares, and so on.
Here’s a quick sidebar note about behavioral economics from Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School:
According to the traditional view in economics, we are rational agents, well informed with stable preferences, self-controlled, self-interested, and optimizing. The behavioral perspective takes issue with this view and suggests that we are characterized by fallible judgment and malleable preferences and behaviors, can make mistakes calculating risks, can be impulsive or myopic, and are driven by social desires (e.g., looking good in the eyes of others). In other words, we are simply human.
And now back to Uber. One tactic they use is goal setting. People are drawn to goals. This translates into driver messages like this one: “You’re $10 away from making $330 in net earnings. Are you sure you want to go offline?”
But the experiment I found most interesting from the NY Times piece is the one that Lyft completed where it discovered that showing drivers lost/dropped fares was a far more powerful motivator than showing completed rides. In other words: Look at all this money you’re losing out on by not driving!
This finding is in line with something I’ve written about a few times before on this blog: prospect theory. One of the tenets of this theory is that “losses hurt more than gains feel good.” We, humans, tend to focus more on the former.
Of course, Uber is not alone in employing behavioral economics. Every app on your phone is being continuously optimized so that it gets as much of your attention as possible. But where is the line between encouragement and manipulation?
If you’re interested in this topic, check out this HBR article called, Uber Shows How Not to Apply Behavioral Economics.
It reminded me of the role that taxis play in city branding. This photo is clearly of Hong Kong. But take away the taxis in the foreground and I would really have to think in order to identity it. I would then be searching for street signs and looking to see what side of the road the cars are driving on.
Now, a few things have changed since 2013. Back then I didn’t have the same appreciation for decentralized ride hailing (Uber and Lyft), though I did have the same distaste for the taxi cartel. And I recognize that there is a tension between centralized taxi branding and a decentralized approach to ride fulfillment.
I’m not exactly sure how to solve this problem, but maybe it gets easier with autonomous vehicles and probable changes to the way consumers own, or don’t own cars. I believe it’s important for places and cities to have specificity. If you have any thoughts, please leave a comment below.
(I am trying to respond to all comments on this blog, because I’m finding it impossible to respond to all blog related emails. Sorry.)
Ever notice how whenever you’re taking an Uber the driver usually gets another fare just before he (Uber drivers are overwhelmingly male) is about to drop you off? That’s on purpose.
Earlier this month the New York Times published an interactive feature describing how Uber uses behavioral economics (or psychological tricks) to encourage its drivers to work longer, take more fares, and so on.
Here’s a quick sidebar note about behavioral economics from Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School:
According to the traditional view in economics, we are rational agents, well informed with stable preferences, self-controlled, self-interested, and optimizing. The behavioral perspective takes issue with this view and suggests that we are characterized by fallible judgment and malleable preferences and behaviors, can make mistakes calculating risks, can be impulsive or myopic, and are driven by social desires (e.g., looking good in the eyes of others). In other words, we are simply human.
And now back to Uber. One tactic they use is goal setting. People are drawn to goals. This translates into driver messages like this one: “You’re $10 away from making $330 in net earnings. Are you sure you want to go offline?”
But the experiment I found most interesting from the NY Times piece is the one that Lyft completed where it discovered that showing drivers lost/dropped fares was a far more powerful motivator than showing completed rides. In other words: Look at all this money you’re losing out on by not driving!
This finding is in line with something I’ve written about a few times before on this blog: prospect theory. One of the tenets of this theory is that “losses hurt more than gains feel good.” We, humans, tend to focus more on the former.
Of course, Uber is not alone in employing behavioral economics. Every app on your phone is being continuously optimized so that it gets as much of your attention as possible. But where is the line between encouragement and manipulation?
If you’re interested in this topic, check out this HBR article called, Uber Shows How Not to Apply Behavioral Economics.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
