Ask for permission or apologize afterwards? A few thoughts on urban transportation

Among the many examples of the wit and wisdom of Grace Hopper, popularly known as “Amazing Grace”, an admiral of the United States Navy and a software pioneer, was: “if it’s a good idea, go ahead and do it. It’s much easier to apologize than it is to get permission.” The maxim takes on new relevance in the case of companies like Uber and Lyft in their efforts to offer transportation services without a taxi license. Obviously, taxi drivers, who have often paid very large sums of money for their licenses at a time when this was a way to avoid the tragedy of the commons, want to keep these upstarts out, but are discovering that with a law of supply and demand governed by apps, such permits have little meaning anymore and that traditional taxies are increasingly part of the problem of urban transport, not the solution to it.

City Halls around the world have reacted differently to the challenge posed by Uber and its cohorts. In the United States, many took a wait-and-see approach, and once they saw that people were using these new services, gave them permission to operate or made some isolated attempts to regulate them, sometimes accompanied by a permit tug-of-war. In other countries, as in most of Latin America, where taxis were subject to lax or non-existent regulation that in some cases were associated with crime and violence, companies like Uber or Cabify were generally well received and seen both as a solution and as a possible source of income for many. In Europe, most cities opted for tougher regulation, sometimes requiring drivers to hold a chauffeur’s license, and sometimes banning these newcomers. London lifted its ban yesterday. More and more cities understand that their transport solutions involve a mix of public and private transport options aimed at discouraging the use of private automobiles and encouraging us to see cars as a service not a consumer product, although this will come up against resistance as the design of our cities changes.

What have the city halls learned from their experiences with Uber and Lyft? Plenty. In San Francisco, a new wave of companies, this time offering short-term rentals of electric scooters that have caused problems because users don’t park them properly. Overnight, sidewalks were filled with people using these devices, which can reach speeds of up to 25 km/h. One company “notified” City Hall of its launch via a message on LinkedIn. In response, some authorities reacted by impounding and towing away scooters blocking sidewalks, fining and banning the companies supplying them.

But in some cases, it hasn’t taken city councils long to award licenses to operate these types of service: in San Francisco, five licenses for a total of 1,250 scooters during a six-month trial period, saying they will announce next week which of the companies: Bird, Lime, Skip, Uber, Lyft and, will be authorized to operate. In the hope of currying favor with the authorities, some companies have announced initiatives such as employing low-income people or providing coverage in areas short on public transport, as well as building parking areas for their scooters and even donating a dollar per vehicle per day to contribute to the construction of bike lanes.

As the appeal of bicycles and scooters grows, more and more City Halls have realized that rather than banning their use, it makes more sense to try to integrate them as constructively as possible, and in the process either raise taxes or improve transport infrastructure.

The act first and then ask permission principle has been shown to work, although not without problems, but could have been decisive in pushing city authorities into taking action in the face of a rapidly changing transportation situation.

(En español, aquí)