This basically meant limiting the time that drivers usually take between rides, including the one where they get the flexibility to choose which rider to pick up.
In an attempt to regulate traffic in one of the most populated areas of the city, the law was designed to limit the time drivers could spend looking for new riders in Manhattan south of 96th street. Had it gone into effect, the law would have cut down the time to 31% from 41% of the total time of a journey. The law was introduced due to heavy congestion in one of the busiest routes of the city, where taxis from Uber and Lyft and other yellow cabs makeup for almost 50% of the whole traffic.
New York is considered more of a walking down, with only around 45% of the city’s inhabitants owning a car. And Manhattan is especially notorious, with almost 77% people being ‘car-free’. Public transport is the most go-to mode of transport in the Big Apple.
Uber decided to fight the law in September, claiming that it will threaten the livelihood and flexibility of its drivers.
The New York City Court’s judge Lyle Frank presided over this hearing and said that the rule had a “scant rationale”.
“The court’s decision confirms that the TLC took a rushed, arbitrary approach to developing this rule and created bad public policy. We look forward to working with state and city leaders to address New York City’s transportation challenges with the only true solution to congestion: comprehensive congestion pricing,” a spokesperson for Lyft told Engadget.
Read more here
Join us February 26-27 for the Property Portal Watch Conference Bangkok 2020.