Seattle pops a cap in Uber and Lyft: Rideshare bizs get 150-driver limit

seems reasonable

I have read some things that indicate the folks that run Uber are pretty shady.....

Having lived in the Seattle area for 10 years (moved back to California almost 3 years ago), I don't recall noticing that many taxis outside of the airport at least. I did use taxi services probably 4-6 times in the time I was there(every time was to/from airport).

So I was curious how many there are, and looked it up, found a report on Komo news (local news station there) that says there are 700 taxis in the Seattle and surrounding county (included the city where I used to live), with plans to increase that to 900 over the next two years.

So 150 per company doesn't seem bad at all, with a quick search I see at least a half dozen what seem like taxi or taxi like services. Granting these new players 150 cars a piece seems very reasonable.

Uber's tactics just seem poor, so I for one won't be using them(never have used them).

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that Uber is based out of SFO, a city I personally hate and avoid at pretty much all costs even though I live only 20mins away from it. I'd rather drive 40 minutes to SJC to do something if it means avoiding anything SFO related(I haven't had to resort to doing that yet).

Seattle is almost as bad as the hipsters there try to copy SFO, so I avoid a good 90% of Seattle as well. I like the "east side"(as it's called) of Lake Washington though.

The same-old same-old

Restrictions on Uber and Lyft are no different than allowing unions to control who is allowed to practice trades. No different than New Jersey preventing Tesla from selling direct.

Yes, it is just terrible that hotels have to collect taxes that informal B&B's do not. The problem is not that the B&B doesn't collect taxes but that the hotel does. Its the same with b&m stores vs Amazon with sales tax. The problem is not that Amazon does not collect sales tax but that the local brick & mortar stores are handicapped with the obligation.

Just another case of follow the money..

At least once someone buys a Seattle politician, they stay bought.

If the business dealings of these two companies are shady, wouldn't that have come out as an argument against them...?? Or is this just a competition that the cab companies don't want?? I tend to think the latter.

Shocking!

"The question I have for the hotels is this: are you also OK with AirBnB operating in Seattle and providing the same service as hotels but without paying hotel taxes and fees? ... Are the restaurants OK if the City Council goes back and amends the food truck regulations to lift the restrictions we placed on how far food trucks can operate from existing restaurants? Are the tech companies OK if we allow companies to come in and pirate their software as long as the pirated products are popular and consumers enjoy it?"

Well, the last one's a bit disingenuous and doesn't really fit with the first two, and the first two are just examples of a free market. I'm shocked, shocked to find that anyone in the good old USA would agree to anything that restricts the operation of a free market.

hailo

There appears to be quite a contrast between uber and other companies like Hailo who actually engage with the existing taxi industry.

@Ian Michael Gumby

1. how does a 150 limit solve the tax issue ?

it doesn't

2.how does a 150 limit solve the safety issue ?

it doesn't.

3. how does a 150 limit solve the 'customer recourse' issue ?

it doesn't

Sorry, but it IS protectionism pure and simple.

IF they had issues with your 3 (very valid) points, they could have put proposals forward to solve them., They did not.

This is absolutely a case of union/group lobbying exactly like the NJ tesla case.

Pure protectionism, folks

"The question I have for the hotels is this: are you also OK with..." COMPETITION?

No, none of the existing business models want competition. They want to have their income stream nice and safe without pesky upstarts stealing their business and forcing their prices down. It's what they buy politicians for. Any mouthings about insurance and taxes are just "think of the children!" distraction. The cab companies want the disruptive startup crushed.

Here in Georgia, we only recently struck down laws against ordering wine online. That was some local protectionism for the alcohol distributors, took years to get rid of. They're all the same.

Never quite so black and white

Uber and Lyft were started in the Bay Area to address problems faced by wealthy tech workers - the taxis in that area are notoriously bad and unreliable. There are many bad things in the US with the existing taxi system and some equally bad things about these disruptive services.

In most cities in the US, taxis are used almost entirely by poor people who cannot afford cars or by people who have lost their driving licenses due to old age, DUI, etc. A small part of the business is taking business people to and from the the airport, but the cabs and their drivers are driven by the first and the level of their service reflects the "no other choice" ethos. A compounding issue is that in most cases the driver will never see the airport traveller again so there's no incentive for good service, clean cab, etc.

In cities where people may not have cars (NYC) and use "car service" there is another layer of offerings altogether with clean, professional, reliable, more expensive offerings. Uber is trying to bring this latter service in line with standard taxi offerings (which are mostly dire) and Lyft and co are trying to improve the taxi experience by letting amateurs moonlight in the area.

Of course, the issue is that (as stated above) neither Uber, Lyft, or co have been completely honest about insurance coverage and licensing requirements and have tried to circumvent and ignore licensing requirements while leaving customers and drivers to bear the burden. The absurd libertarian talking points spouted above illustrate how this has become emblematic - but seriously, unions? Do you think taxi drivers are unionized anywhere in the US?

The taxi business needs a shake up in the US (especially as more and more people forego private cars in the larger cities) and maybe these companies can start that process but this extreme attitude on both sides misses most of the real challenges and potential benefits

@an

" but seriously, unions? Do you think taxi drivers are unionized anywhere in the US?"

er.. yes

http://www.taxi-library.org/history.htm

https://nytwa.org/

wtf made you possibly think they weren't ??

I'm shocked

Shocked that any city would think that permitting what are effectively unregistered taxi drivers to operate in their jurisdiction would be a good idea.

Consider this

Of all the examples quoted by the Seattle councilman (taxis, restaurants, etc.), which have to pay money to Seattle city council and which don't.

That and that alone is the basis for their decision.

Not an easy discussion

There are valid points for and against services like Uber and Lyft. In the Pro camp, Taxi services just don't cut it. In urban areas, you can wait hours for a taxi, that then costs an arm, leg, and your first born just to go a few miles, and there are problems with the drivers themselves (language issues, driving safety, vehicle safety, rudeness, smell and cleanliness, etc.). In the urban/suburban/rural interface areas, on the edge of town, you're lucky if you can get a cab at all. Mass transit in these areas especially sucks. An increase in competition certainly can do nothing but help address some of these deficiencies.

In the Con camp, there are serious legal considerations. Insurance, for one. Sure, both companies boast robust insurance, but it is still after all a private vehicle. Drivers are placing themselves at risk financially if they do not have commercial insurance on their own, plus a liability umbrella. There is also the lack of inspections, plus the same driver issues taxis face. Not to mention the massive legal gray area... they provide a public service (which is licensed and regulated in most areas), but operate on a false-share-economy principle. Then, finally, there is the issue of ADA requirements. Since it's a private vehicle, on one hand they can refuse service to someone traveling, say, with a service animal (unlike taxis, which cannot legally, but do... well, cabbies do, or they grumble and complain the entire time), but they are also offering a public service which could thrust them into that requirement without ever knowing it, causing the Service Provider and Driver into a lengthy court battle about the scope of the ADA requirements.

My overall point though is Lyft and Uber have the right idea, but terrible execution, one that places the risk on people who may not realize they're taking risks.

On a side note, though, I think most start-ups need to be drown in a bathtub. Too many of them seem to be centered around "Let's make an app that will do X! We can make money when user does Y! Lawyers? Are we operating legally? Laws? Bah! Who needs those things, we're on THE INTERNET!" Too many one-app companies out there trying to make a quick buck. It's like looking at a gold rush, watching all the miners head into the hills, and the only one's with fat pockets and any sense are the suppliers (in this case, app-stores and CC Clearinghouses).

The result of a limit of 150 will be higher prices charged to the consumers since

the intent, if not effect, is to limit it to 150 active drivers at a time.

Now, ironically, it may eventually lead to lower prices as the drivers bid for the right

to get the passenger. I imagine when it rains badly that it will still go up regardless.

I think that it would be reasonable for anyone who wishes to participate in the programs

have some kind of background check and insurance such that they are covered at all

times.

The city councilman's examples all have to deal with money.

Money flowing into the city's coffers and insuring that those businesses paying it get

protected to ensure the money continues to flow unabated.

The last example of piracy is pure garbage though since the other example have to do

with legal services, just not as profitable to the city, while piracy is straight out theft.

He should be ashamed, but as a politician I don't expect him to actually experience that

emotion.

There Is A Document To Consider

Thank God the U.S. of A. has a constitution that prohibits these actions.

Carry on good folks! The local commies are just grasping at straws.