The public wins and business thrives when there is robust consumer choice. We have an opportunity to bring that kind of choice to San Antonio by embracing the emerging rideshare market. Our residents and visitors deserve safe, legal, competitive options in private transportation, so we should amend City Code Chapter 33 – the “Vehicle-for-Hire” Ordinance – in order to achieve it.
The City of San Antonio should adopt new transportation-for-hire policies that: 1) create a level playing field; 2) encourage competition; 3) ensure public safety and consumer protection; and 4) ensure access for all of our residents.
Competition, when everyone plays by the same rules, can increase quality of services rendered while decreasing costs. The Council can level the playing field using a variety of methods, including: eliminating caps on transportation-for-hire vehicles, removing or lowering barriers to entry into the marketplace, and eliminating or reducing the regulation of fares.
There have been legitimate public safety concerns cited in opposition to the transportation network companies (TNCs) that have complemented transportation options in cities throughout the world. While we cannot remove all public safety concerns associated with any service, including traditional taxis, we can fulfill our important responsibility to the public through insurance requirements and a permitting apparatus that applies to drivers and vehicles associated with any transportation-for-hire services. Driver background checks and drug tests and vehicle age and mileage requirements are among the good recommendations advanced by City staff and San Antonio Police Department.
In addition, access and nondiscrimination are values that this Council has embraced in a variety of contexts. Relatively simple code provisions can prohibit discrimination on the basis of geographic location and ensure Americans with Disabilities Act compliance.
Worldwide in the vehicle-for-hire industry, new TNCs – exemplified by Uber and Lyft – are changing the landscape, disrupting traditional ways of doing business and bringing unprecedented levels of service and consumer choice to the communities that embrace them. Local governments near and far are legislating good solutions for this new landscape (in Texas, count Houston and Dallas among them), creating a legal framework that protects consumers, ensures public safety, and improves service. In San Antonio, we can do the same, but not unless we are committed to making it happen.
Unfortunately, the prevailing position of representatives for the San Antonio taxi industry has been: “No changes to Chapter 33 to accommodate rideshares.”
In May, City staff notified the Public Safety Committee that Chapter 33 would need to be amended to ensure public safety, access, and legal compliance of TNC operators. At that time, staff noted that the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and taxi industry would not agree to revising Chapter 33, effectively prohibiting TNCs from operating legally in San Antonio. Nevertheless, a task force comprised of representatives from TAB, traditional transportation providers, and TNCs was convened to review policy alternatives.
In July, that task force disbanded without coming to a solution. City staff then proposed a series of options and recommendations, based on the success of other cities and public safety recommendations by SAPD, that would amend Chapter 33 and integrate TNCs into the City’s regulatory system. TAB unanimously rejected this proposal.
Meanwhile, San Antonio travelers have continued to seek and utilize these services at their own risk, in an unregulated, “gray market” environment. SAPD has enforced cease and desist orders, including fines and vehicle impoundments, as a policy solution continues to be delayed. SAPD is absolutely justified in their actions – they are charged with enforcing the law – but we are not excused from doing the work of policymakers to address changing market.
Earlier this month, the Public Safety Committee called for a second task force, similar to the first, to reconvene and recommend changes to Chapter 33. While it is important for the committee’s process to unfold, a high profile issue like this one also merits the full Council’s feedback in open session, especially when the debate reaches impasse as it has.
San Antonio residents and visitors deserve a competitive private transportation market with measures to ensure public safety, equal access, and consumer protection. The only way we can achieve this goal is to amend Chapter 33 promptly.
Related Stories:
Taxis Rejoice: Rideshare Regulation Kicked Back to Task Force
Rideshare Companies Unfazed by Unanimous Advisory Board Rejection
Lyft and Uber Still Illegal, Still Operating in San Antonio
Dear Chief McManus: Let’s Welcome Lyft to San Antonio
San Antonio’s Downtown Carshare Program Stalls
Online Petition Calls for Mayor Castro’s Support of Rideshare in San Antonio
Awesome ideas by Ron. Also, yet another example of government being part of the problem and requiring additional action in order to undo a problem it created. Hope we can always keep this in mind as future governmental “solutions” are proposed. Great posting Bob. Thanks!
I’m all in favor of Uber and Lyft entering the market. When taxis have been granted a monopoly, with artificial scarcity, it jacks up prices and leads to crappy service.
I’ve been in many unsafe taxi cabs around the country. Drivers falling asleep at red lights, swerving, driving the wrong way on streets… talking on TWO cell phones and dispatching while driving. Where is government “protecting” us from bad taxi drivers?
I’ve had nothing but good experiences with Uber. I know the driver’s name and license plate, automatically. If there were ever a problem, there is traceability about who was driving me. When drivers get too many complaints, they get pulled from Uber. Is the same really true with taxi drivers?
I strongly encourage the City Council and Mayor to find a way to allow Uber and Lyft to operate legally. The taxi companies need to compete rather than skating by on their preferential government treatment that they’ve always had.
Yes, it is time. Unfortunately, City Council appears quite willing to drag it out as long as possible before making necessary changes. Sad that they are only motivated to do what’s right for the people of San Antonio and alternative transportation when it doesn’t counter a union or other groups stuck in the past. And, it creates “criminals” out of people providing a great and beneficial service. Ah well, no reason to provide additional alternatives to DWI I suppose. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
Government usually works that way. Action usually requires some sort of committee. When I worked with COSA purchasing there was always red tape in everything we did and a conversation in the breakroom was like walking on eggshells.
Lets have an Uber and Taxi Industry Debate, yes I welcome that for a positive outcome
Okay, where do we start , Yellowcab Taxi Company Corruption opposing Uber to come into San Antonio , by bribing / paying yellowcab drivers the petty amount of $ 50 dollars to showup at SA City Safety Council and make it look like drivers are actually opposing TNC Company like Uber …. Wrong , how can a driver is going to oppose some thing that is going to benefit them, this is not true
Yes, I dont appreciate monopoly as well, here in San Antonio, Texas , Yellowcab Taxi Company controls about 75 % of all the taxi operating permits including Triple AAA Taxi Company that operates with this name but its also owned by Yellowcab Company too.
Here at Taxi One in Lexington, you can choose your driver. Some of the basic must needed requirements for a Taxi One Of Lexington driver are:
General knowledge of Lexington
Minimum 24 years of age
Excellent driving record
No DUI
Good customer service and people skills
Neat and Clean appearance a must
Pass a drug Test
A valid Kentucky Driver License