Does anyone know if other towncar services in Portland are required to follow the same regulations that Uber is being asked to follow? Services of the sort that show up under "Portland towncar" or "Portland limo".

A quick search on the matter reveals that Portland seems to have imposed ridiculous requirements on them:

- a requirement that forces customers to arrange a trip with an executive sedan or limousine at least 60 minutes prior to pick-up. For example, if you request a town car and it comes in 10 minutes, you must wait 50 minutes before you are legally allowed to enter the vehicle.

- a requirement that forces executive sedans and limousines to charge a 35% fixed premium above current taxi rates established by the city.

This seems like serious and absurd intervention in the market for transportation. It's difficult for me to believe that rules like this are fair and justified. An article [1] suggests that these rules were put in place to "differentiate towncar service from taxicabs". The implication is that without these arbitrary limitations, taxicabs could not compete with towncars effectively. In other words, in an effort to protect the taxicab monopolies, the city is impairing other business.

It seems to me to be the behavior of people in power who believe they know best. Haven't we learned by now that central planning is usually not an efficient way of allocating resources? This kind of interference in the market sounds like authoritarianism of the sort that I'd prefer not to see in my country.

Strive to minimize regulation: limit it to matters of health and safety. Requiring insurance and an appropriate driver license seems reasonable.

It seems like Portland is imposing rule after arbitrary rule on the marketplace. If I lived in Portland I would be furious that the city is interfering in such a way with business, and my personal right to contract with others for transportation in the manner that I want to. I suspect the city could accomplish its goals (such as ensuring that a certain number of vehicles provide transportation for the disabled) in a more efficient and fair manner, such as establishing a subsidy for transportation vehicles meeting certain requirements. It seems unreasonable to me that the city requires taxis to provide that service, rather than providing a subsidy for vehicles to support the disabled, or providing its own transportation directly, or contracting with a privacy company to do so. The point is, those issues shouldn't be arbitrarily bundled together (the business facility that provides taxis and the business facility that provides transportation to the disabled). Allow them to be the same company or not as the market allows.

It also seems absurd to regulate the price charged for a fare. I have never understood the objection to surge pricing. When crazy things are happening (like snowstorms), drivers will not be out on the road working unless they're compensated more than usual. The rougher the circumstances, or the busier things are, the more the price needs to rise in order to provide adequate supply. Anyone objecting to the concept of surge pricing clearly does not understand basic economics. (Objecting to the implementation is a different matter.) A city trying to regulate maximum price is taking a thoughtless approach, and cannot be understood to genuinely have consumer interest at heart, since consumers will typically prefer to have transportation available at a high price than not at all.

[1] http://www.geekwire.com/2014/portland-ridesharing/