Uber and Lyft representatives are cautiously optimistic about what will come out of the small group of City officials that continue to work on a rideshare ordinance that softens the regulatory blow to rideshare companies and their drivers. The revised ordinance is expected to be discussed in a closed, executive session after Wednesday’s B Session. It could come before the council for a vote as early as Thursday, Feb. 26.
Councilmember Roberto Treviño (D1) also sounds optimistic that a regulatory compromise can be reached before the ordinance approved by City Council in December goes into effect on March 1.
“The conversation has been very positive,” Treviño said. “The tone is one of collaboration.”
Rideshare companies object to the insurance terms imposed on them versus levels paid by taxi company owners. Yet there are other less publicized issues with the ordinance, ranging from the requirement that drivers have fire-extinguisher to submitting to a drug test – as taxi drivers do. Secondary issues could lead both companies to pull out of San Antonio.
(Read more: City Crafting Alternative Rideshare Ordinance.)
“We’re certainly looking at this thing comprehensively,” Treviño said. “(Rideshare is) a new business model, we have to be aware of new mechanics of that business model and not create regulations that don’t fit or understand innovation.”
Click here to download a document outlining what language Lyft would like to see changed in the current ordinance.
“We are also deeply concerned about the entire driver on-boarding process that is created through this ordinance – the fingerprint, drug test, fire extinguisher, fees and ASE mechanic inspection requirements,” stated Lyft Public Policy Manager April Mims in an email. “Safety is Lyft’s top priority, but a taxi ordinance, which is what San Antonio passed, is not the way to regulate transportation network (rideshare) companies. Cities like Austin, Dallas, Cincinnati and Tulsa have demonstrated how to ensure public safety and welcome new transportation platforms.”
The approved ordinance requires transportation network companies (TNCs) like Lyft and Uber to have $1 million insurance policies per vehicle for passenger injury – an amount they were providing before the ordinance was passed. Traditional taxi companies like Yellow Cab only need $30,000 policies. The ordinance also requires TNCs to cover insurance even when drivers have not accepted a fare or picked up a driver, which TNCs cite as unnecessary.
NOWCastSA has produced a comparison charts for different vehicles for hire, providing a side-by-side look at insurance and other requirements:
Mayor Ivy Taylor has said she is open to review of the rideshare ordinance, including its insurance provisions. A group of local attorneys have been considering a legal challenge to the ordinance, citing tougher insurance demands on rideshare than taxis.
Treviño said the existing vehicle for hire ordinance in general and how it pertains to traditional taxi and limousine companies should get a fresh look, too.
“We need to obviously always revisit our regulations and make sure that they fit the time we live in,” he said.
The fees, redundant background and safety checks, and data privacy are among the issues concerning Uber Texas General Manager Chris Nakutis.
“We’re very strong on data privacy,” Nakutis said. “(And) the City is asking for all of our data, just for the sake of ‘we want it.’ ”
Uber isn’t opposed to sharing its data, but under limited terms, he said, pointing to its data partnership with the City of Boston, an arrangement that has been “helping that city to better understand transportation in their city.”
Uber recently announced it will give Boston dates and times of trips, zip codes for pickups and dropoffs, distance traveled and the trip’s duration. Boston will use the information to inform everything from traffic planning to zoning changes to available parking spots. This data will be anonymous in terms of who is driving and who is riding.
“(The City of) San Antonio is asking for (information) at a very scary level,” he said. “Pick up location, drivers’ and riders’ personal information … things we couldn’t protect form FOIA (Freedom of Information requests) once the City has it.”
This kind of data mining could be an unintended consequence of the wording of the ordinance, with Council members not necessarily understanding the implications.
Data requests aside, at the end of the day, Nakutis said, “The City is taking taxi-type regulations and pushing them onto a different type of industry.”
The move to soften the ordinance even before it takes effect comes after weeks of building public protest over the Council’s December vote and, in the preceding months, widespread disapproval among rideshare users of how Uber and Lyft and their drivers were treated by city government.
Recently retired Police Chief William McManus was the driving force behind the move last year to tightly regulate Uber and Lyft, branding the services and their independent drivers as lawbreakers. The public, on the other hand, embraced rideshare companies as a welcome transportation option, one that employs smart phone apps to put affordable ride service at the fingertips of customers. Many users cite it as the most effective tool available to combat drunk driving.
Taking this new mode of transportation away after months of use by riders and drivers would be a shock to the system.
“The City Council has kept an anti-innovation ordinance at the cost of thousands of part-time jobs across san Antonio,” Nakutis said, also citing the more than 40,000 Uber trips made in January alone. “It’s a small segment (of drivers), 8% , that are full-time … (for many part-time drivers) it means paying a mortgage on time, it’s an extra uniform for your daughter’s school.”
*Featured/top image: Rideshare advocates stand in support of Lyft and Uber during a City Council meeting that resulted in approval of strict rideshare regulation in December 2014 that will take effect March 1, 2015. Photo by Iris Dimmick.
Related Stories:
MADD: San Antonio is Safer With Rideshare
Not Okay With Just Okay: Rideshare and Innovation in San Antonio
City Crafting Alternative Rideshare Ordinance
In a brand-new survey sponsored and paid for by Uber, the corporate spokesperson reported that a majority of respondents said they would pay “slightly more” for a transportation vehicle that offered back seat, “craft” cocktails as long as surge pricing was not in effect.
The survey sample was small, however, and did not include those who could not afford a smart phone, had joined a union, didn’t have a credit card, or were handicapped.
“What can I say?” one respondent commented. “I love Uber. I love Ayn Rand. I love freedom of choice. Doubters need to get with the program. LOL.”
One look at the TNC demands and it’s clear that they expect special treatment and do not want to be held even near the same standard as taxi services. The NOWcastSA chart created by Clayton Price shows pretty clearly that TNCs and Taxis are regulated relatively the same. I’m in favor of regulations that are the same or at least similar, and that is what we have right now. If the city council wants to lower the “App on but no trip accepted” portion of insurance to the level required by taxi drivers when they are waiting for dispatch, that would bit a bit more fair, but the TNCs clearly would not accept that.
I’d also like to point out the disruptive language used by the TNCs in their list of demands. Your article a couple of days ago described a husband and wife working full time for Uber, yet Uber and Lyft want to pretend their drivers are only driving casually and just giving their friends and neighbors rids. I, for one, am not falling for it.
Well Robert Rivard, given your earlier statements in support of identical regulations for TNCs and Taxis, and the TNCs demand that they should not be held to the same or sometimes lower regulatory burden as taxis, I hope you can see why I have been such a vocal critic of Uber and Lyft these past few weeks and can join me in asking our city council to call their bluff.
The TNCs want to pretend they are a different industry simply because they use a different method for dispatching drivers. I ordered a pizza through a smartphone app rather than a voice call last night, according to Uber’s logic, that pizza restaurant shouldn’t be forced to follow the same health code regulations as all the others.
This is preposterous.
That’s a ridiculous arguement. How the city can claim any jurisdiction over Uber or Lyft is the real problem
Annual inspections, $1 million dollars in insurance, restricted to downtown, fingerprints and background screening, data retention requirements, and limited to just 15 permits. The pedicab industry needs better representation.
I wonder how Uber and Lyft are going to deal with SA’s law requiring hands-free driving. Everytime I’ve been in an Uber car, the driver has been constantly punching at their mobile phone.
Further, does anyone have anything to say on whether cabs have gotten any better in SA since the struggle began?
More govt. More govt.!