End of an Era for Didi, Uber? New Car-Hailing Service Regs May Cut Out Half of Drivers

http://finance.sina.com.cn/chanjing/2016-11-01/doc-ifxxfysn8387059.shtml

Just read this piece from the news which makes me feel completely pessimistic to China's rule of law.

Basically as this TBJ piece says, the new regulation made by the Department of Transportation requires taxi hailing apps' taxi drivers to have a local hukou and cars to have a local registration, and the Department of Transportation sets the inauguration date of the new regulation strictly on November 1. However, earlier today, the Beijing police told Huaxia Times that they have not received any notice to enforce this new law, so they JUST WONT ENFORCE IT, and they don't think this law will be good for long. A police department openly refuses to enforce the regulation made by the country's department of transportation. There's some losing face going on for the minister of transportation, I guess? It's understandable that politics is about money. But can't they finish the deal before promulgating the law? From now on I'm skipping the local news on new "policies," "regulations" and "laws," and and I'll only believe in things when I see them happening. Rule promulgation and enforcement in China is totally, utmost unpredictable and untrustworthy, totally a joke and a waste of time. 

买电动车吧！

Talking about city-wide congestion, if it's not for going through the express highway, the best way to travel as I think is on foot or to use this kind of toy（代步平衡车）

Weidalong wrote:

Perhaps more Didi drivers would make it so convenient for people to get around, on a moments notice, that many people would feel that they do not need to own a car. Thinking along those lines I think it is clear to see that more Didi drivers would mean less cars on the road overall since it could be one car servicing ten people a day vs. ten cars servicing ten people a day. It usually boils down to money and whoever is losing money over Didis probably has the ear of some power broker.
Also, the fact that Uber/Didi seem to have hit the ground running shows that there is a need/market for that kind of public service so why not just let it sort itself out with market supply and demand rules and see what happens after a few years then take it from there. As long as Didi drivers have 3rd party liability insurance are they any different from a taxi? Perhaps taxis as we know them are on the way out just the same as the interent will soon make TVs a thing of the past.

I'm not an expert on transportation but my commen sense understanding is that taking a taxi is not subtantially different from driving in terms of effeciency becasue driving means one car on the road and taking a taxi means one car on the road, too. Driving may be even more effecient than taking a taxi becasue taxis ride "empty" (not-in-service) from time to time when they try to attract customers or go to designated pickup locations. For example, if one drives to work, the ride starts from his home and ends in his office parking lot. However, if one takes a taxi to work, the taxi puts on a few additional miles because it needs to first reach the patron. I have personally driven Uber for a few times and my experience is for every hour of Uber driving, you spend about one third of the time en route to the pick up location. 

True -- the fact that Uber/Didi hits the ground running shows there is a need/market for the kind of service, but it is arguable whether the market desirable number of taxis is also desirable with respect to the general expectation of a city's transportation system. Taxi driving requires very low level of skills and may invoke a huge influx of cheap labor. Uber/Didi drivers will keep entering the market until they find there is no more profit -- this means the number of taxis will increase until the roads are congested to a point when the taxi drivers and passengers can't take it anymore. However, taxi drivers and passengers tend to have a very high tolerance of it. Think of an average Didi driver in Beijing --- many of them were unemployed until they started driving Didi, which means he would probably keep driving until it makes so little money that he'd rather stay at home. He doesn't have a 30 kuai/hour alternative job which will make him quit once the hourly profit drops below 30 kuai/hour; instead, he had a 0 kuai/hour alternative. 

But such a market balance is definitely not desirable for a city like Beijing because it will be dysfunctional for many other people. No business person wants to work in a city with a dysfunctional ground transportation system. No traveler wants to travel here. No international event wants to land here. No professional sports team wants to move here. No company wants to set its headquarters here. For many people, businessmen, doctors, students, technicians, their time is much more valuable than taxi drivers', so you don't want the level of road congestion falls to the taxi driver standard, which, I suspect, is why all major international cities require commercial taxis to register partly as a measure to limit their numbers. No city allows people to drive taxi as they want. 

Two different issues:

Whether Didi/Uber should be regulated, and their number be controlled?

Whether the regulation should be based on drivers' hukou?

My perspective to the first issue is yes, and to the second one is no.

I think Didi/Uber should definitely be subject to regulations and I even argue that they should be treated in a simialr or the same way as commercial taxis because it is so obvious that far from being "ride-sharing fora," Didi and Uber cars function exactly the same as commercial taxi cabs. The vast majortity of Beijng's Didi and Uber drivers are full-time taxi drivers. They don't drive Uber to share rides but to make a living as traditional commercial taxi drivers do. 

The number of taxis should be strictly controlled in metropolitan areas espcially in developing countries. Comparing with public transportation, taxis are the worst possible way to address metropolitan traffic congestion. Taxi cabs should never be regarded as a common way of commute (but a gret number of Beijingers do use taxis as their first choice of commute). 

I believe Beijing has one of the worst traffic among world metropoles but definitely the cheapest taxi fare. I have never seen another city where such a large percentage of people people take taxi as their daily commute to work. A single Uber ride starts 6.75 dollars in the US but it's only 10 kuai (about 1.5 dollars) in Beijing. 

The real solutions to Beijing's traffic congestion is public transportation and urban replanning, i.e. improving the quality of public transportation and reorganizing city zones to make people live nearer to where they work.

To the second issue, it is arguable, and to my mind it is not fair to regulate Didi/ Uber drivers based on their hukou. The best way I can think of is to impose higher taxes on taxi hailing apps and much more strict regulations on taxi driver's behaviors. With a much higher tax, the price of Didi and Uber will go up, demand will shrink (more people will take public transportation), and less skillful drivers will quit. 

In one word, Beijing taxis should be more expensive, but also more qualified. 

Porsche and RMB 10......?