Uber's Project Luigi; Run somebody over, drive another day; Texas ain't so cheap; Two-day delivery at what cost
Weekly roundup of transportation (and related) stories
Sup, you made it. Welcome. My name is Steven Spinello. This is a newsletter about transportation. On a bi-weekly basis (or as school permits), I publish a collection of stories that grabbed my attention and which I think are worthy of yours as well. Sometimes I may encroach upon housing policy or public health (apologies in advance for the muddled messaging). Mainly, I'm interested in: despite 100-plus years of car-centric design, how do we move people safer, faster, and more efficiently?
🚇🚎🚕🚐🚛🚗🚲🛴
Don’t believe the hype: Ridesharing 🤳🏼
Uber is doing everything it can to avoid being ensnared by California’s new “AB5” law which went into effect on January 1. As a quick refresher, California’s legislature passed AB5 with the express intent to codify certain labor protections for workers in the “gig economy” and with the implicit intent to crack down on what many in that state viewed as unfair labor practices undertaken by not only ridesharing companies but also food delivery companies like Postmates and DoorDash. Under the new law, an individual is presumed to be an employee, unless the company can prove all of the following (what’s referred to as the “ABC test”):
a) that the worker is free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
b) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
c) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
For companies like Uber/Lyft, re-classifying its workers from independent contractors (current status) to “employees” would mean those companies would have to account for workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, state employment and social security taxes, and for some employees a host of wage-related issues, including overtime, meal and rest periods.
California is a non-trivial market as Uber has approximately 150,000 drivers in the state while Lyft accounts for another 80,000 with some presumable overlap. Some analysts have estimated that this change would result in Uber/Lyft incurring additional annual costs of $3,600/driver in that state. Not to mention, both companies clearly indicated in their S-1 filings how such a reclassification would adversely affect their business.
Now the Washington Post reports that Uber has been engaged in a stealthy effort to preempt the law’s key changes. Internally codified as “Project Luigi”, Uber rushed to design and release a bespoke version of its app before AB5 became the law of the land. Specifically, the new California-version of Uber’s app:
Provides drivers the ability to view trip time, distance, destination and fare estimates upfront before accepting riders (as well as the ability to reject ride requests if so desired);
Enables riders to “favorite” their drivers which would then enable expedited matchmaking for future trips; and
Prevents riders from seeing upfront pricing for all trips (other than Uber Pool); instead riders are presented with a range of fare estimates with the final price calculated at the end of trip.
In a corporate press release, Uber touts these changes as allowing drivers to “reap the full independence” of its platform, “earn on your own terms”, and “help you build your business”. However, it's not immediately clear that these changes are enough to warrant a different worker classification by California’s Department of Industrial Relations.
It seems rather obvious that this change in business model is directed specifically at one market and even more specifically in response to a change in policy in that market. How that holds water with California lawmakers remains to be seen. As WashPo reports, once having rolled out the new app in California the company reportedly wants to rationalize this approach across the country. Ostensibly, the company is anticipating future regulatory clashes in other states.
Make Buses Sexy Again 🚌
In Chicago: CTA bus ridership has been declining over the last 10 years. Based on the first nine months of every year, bus ridership has dropped 26 percent since 2008. Even its most popular bus route - No. 79 79th Street - suffered a sizable drop in ridership. The No. 79 ridership dip coincides with a population exodus in that area of the city. The route along the No. 79 bus lost over 12,700 residents from 2000 to 2014. “This population loss in the South Side could very much have contributed to the decline in ridership,” Metropolitan Planning Council’s transportation director Audrey Wennink said. “This trend seems to match the city-wide decrease in ridership.” [Chicago Sun Times]
In Massachusetts: The fare-free transit trend continues to gain steam. In Lawrence, an old industrial outpost of Boston, the region’s transit authority in September stopped collecting money on three bus routes. Lawrence used $225,000 in reserves to waive fares for two years. One pro-transit group estimates the entire state of Massachusetts could go fare-free to the tune of $60 million a year. That would translate to a 2-cent increase in the state gasoline tax. [WSJ]
Nationwide: A little-noticed but very important federal letter directed at city and state transportation planners was published at the end of 2019. The Federal Highway Administration’s “Interim Approval 22 –Interim Approval for Optional Use of Red-Colored Pavement for Transit Lanes” will enable cities to obtain faster approval of dedicated bus lanes, specifically those red-paint ones we’re accustomed to seeing in cities like Chicago and New York City. A summary of research published by UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies suggests that bus-only lanes speed riders’ door-to-door travel times by 5 to 15 percent and that faster rides can increase bus ridership by 2 to 9 percent. And that’s not even accounting for automated camera enforcement. [Wired]
Today in: CARS ARE EATING THE WORLD 🧟♂️
Because owning a car is the American way: In a blow to cities’ efforts to reduce personal auto-dependence, the car-sharing service Car2go announced it will shut down entirely at the end of February 2020. In a statement, the company indicated that it didn't feel it was in a position to make the "level of investment necessary" to succeed in North America. Additionally, high costs and the "volatile state" of the global market were cited as key challenges. The company added that it was pulling Car2go out of all European cities other than Brussels, Florence and London. [Engadget]
SUVs are worse than eating beef: Between 2010 and 2018 the number of SUVs in the world increased from 35 million to 200 million. Today, 40 per cent of annual car sales are SUVs which is double what it was 10 years ago. According to the International Energy Agency, SUVs alone were the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018 – only behind the power industry. And while EVs are all the rage nowadays, this doesn’t necessarily apply across the board: “SUVs are bigger and they are heavier,” so they require more fuel to shift them the same distance as lighter cars says Florent Grelier, engineer at the Brussels-based Transport & Environment. And this extra weight comes with an added penalty: it makes SUVs much harder to electrify. [Wired]
Copenhagenize this. 🚲🚲🚲
Ride your bike anywhere but here: Florida, Texas and California are home to 13 of the 20 most dangerous US cities for cyclists, according to a new analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data. Collectively, the three states accounted for ~ 40 percent of all cyclist fatalities in the US between 2014 and 2017. The analysis found that cyclist deaths increased 25 percent between 2010 and 2017, with 783 cyclist fatalities nationwide in 2017 alone. According to a NHTSA report released in October, the number of cyclist fatalities rose to 857 in 2018. [SmartCitiesDive]
Urban ethnographist walks into a bar 🍺
You always seemed so sure, that one day we'd be fighting in a suburban war: As the 2020 presidential election nears, we still have no better sense of who will be the Democratic nominee than we did at the start of 2019. But at least we have a better understanding of who will ultimately decide that election: according to The Economist, more than half of votes in 2020 will probably be suburban ones. While there are several classifications for a “suburb” according to which economist you talk to, just as they did in the 2018 midterm elections the suburbs will play a pivotal role in determining who ultimately occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. While Dems increased their voter share in “mature” suburbs (75-95% of the land is already built upon) in 2018, Republicans held the line in the outer exurbs (less than 25% of the land developed). [The Economist]
Don’t mess with Texas: A new report finds that, when transportation costs are factored in, Texas’s largest metros aren’t necessarily “cheap places to live” anymore. In the last decade, Houston saw more than 1 million people move there. As Texas Monthly puts it, Houston’s suburbs served as “a Levittown on steroids for the new American South.” The suburban sprawl has increased commuting costs so much that the city’s combined transportation and living costs now place it on par with (wait for it)… New York City:
Median transportation costs were $1,152, a figure 38 percent higher than for New Yorkers. In total, the study found, living in Houston was only $79 cheaper each month than New York.
Just when you thought nothing could top the hyper-gentrification of Williamsburg, Brooklyn:
“Similar to other large U.S. metros, major Texas metros have experienced the greatest increases in college-educated residents in areas closest to the city center, with lesser changes occurring farther away,” the report notes, adding that a new generation of urban dwellers have been lured the promise of restaurants, nightlife, high-paying jobs and a distaste for commutes.
Living inside the MATRIX (or how law subsidizes driving at the expense of everything else) 💊
Before reading anything else, start here: “Should Law Subsidize Driving?"
Drive a car, get away with murder: On November 25, 2018, Nicole Vanderweit plowed her Honda Fit into a group of 15 cyclists on State Road 84 in Broward County, Florida. The scene of the incident is perhaps best described by this Bicycling magazine piece:
The Honda sat motionless, its roof, hood, and windshield caved in. Nearby, bikes and bodies were strewn across the road. People screamed in pain, and one rider performed CPR on another. Someone’s leg was broken and bent at a 90-degree angle. The youngest rider, a 14-year-old boy, was still clipped into his mangled bike. Two nurses who had joined the ride moved frantically from one injured person to another. A single tooth lay on the blacktop, and no one knew whom it came from.
Two cyclists were badly hurt. Denise Marsh died about an hour after the crash, and Carlos Rodriguez died later after undergoing surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital. Five others were injured.
Last week, Nicole Vanderweit, pleaded no contest to careless driving in Broward County court. She claimed that the sun was in her eyes and she was distracted by “something in the passenger seat”. In addition to having her license suspended for six months, she must pay court costs, attend a four-hour driving improvement class and serve 120 hours of community service. Prosecutors said her carelessness didn’t rise to the level of a criminal charge of vehicular homicide. To charge her with a crime, they’d have to prove reckless driving, where the driver shows a “willful or wanton disregard for safety.”
Delivery on demand 📦🥡🛒
This past weekend I watched two vehicles pull up to the curb outside my apartment in Chicago. One was a UPS truck, the other a Honda sedan. The guy in the Honda was delivering someone’s groceries (ostensibly via Amazon Prime Now) while the UPS guy carried three packages (two of which bore the signature Amazon blue tape). A perfect juxtaposition of the on-demand economy. The scene unfolded: the UPS driver, having looked both ways, crossed the street from the rear of his truck while the Amazon grocery delivery person rushed across the street in front of his parked sedan.
It may not seem like much at first, but the physical movements of each worker says a lot about the two companies. UPS is unionized and subjects its workers to rigorous safety training standards including proper lifting techniques, internalizing proper sight lines, and minimizing (potentially dangerous) left-turns. In contrast, Amazon’s delivery drivers are non-unionized and what safety training they receive is limited to a two-day workshop (UPS notes its workers receive 3.8 million hours of training per year).
In its quest to be the “everything store”, Amazon has emphasized speed and cost over safety as documented in a report published by Propublica/Buzzfeed. Even when Amazon lost one of its own top executives to a reckless Amazon delivery driver, the company doubled down on Hayek-like efficiency, “supporting rapid expansion - never blocking it.” Today, Amazon’s army of independent contractors rove city streets and neighborhood blocks rushing to meet seemingly unreachable performance benchmarks (i.e., 999 out of 1,000 packages be delivered on time):
“There was a maniacal focus on increasing shipments per route,” recalled [Will] Gordon, who left Amazon in 2016 and is now the founder of a Seattle startup called Latchel, which coordinates rental-property maintenance. “Everything was about getting more shipments per truck. It was the one metric that drove the organization.”
Additionally, by offloading key responsibilities to the contractor companies, Amazon’s army of vans and trucks avoid federal safety mandates including the number of hours a driver may work behind the wheel. As the report notes, drivers were so pressed for time that they often skipped meals or urinated in water bottles. Something to ponder the next time you need toothpaste delivered.
The future of mobility 🔮
SimCity for AVs: Cities around the globe in countries like China and Japan are developing “living laboratories” for testing autonomous vehicles (AVs), in addition to robotics and AI. For example, China is pouring billions of dollars into its Xiongan New Area (just outside of Beijing) project where it expects every car to be self-driving by 2035. In Japan, the “Woven City” will incorporate AVs, pedestrians and supporting infrastructure which is being led by auto giant Toyota Motor Corp. Meanwhile, the US seems content with letting the invisible hand figure things out. [Axios]
Sacramento goes all in on micro-transit: The City of Sacramento has selected Via to operate its new micro-transit service, which will update the region's existing “SmaRT Ride” system and bring new functionality to riders. Using the Via app, customers will be able to summon a public transit vehicle to pick them up at “virtual bus stops”. The Sacramento system will be the largest on-demand micro-transit system in the US, according to Via, with 42 vehicles picking up passengers. [FutureCar]
Quoted.
It’s astonishingly difficult in [New York City] to be truly close to someone who is not in your same socioeconomic group. For me, it’s the single most striking fact about living here. Meaningful interactions are difficult to engineer. The divide is deep. And it is largely between those who sit in front of the Uber and those who sit in the back of it.
— Tara Westover, author of Educated
Yours truly,
The Metropolitican