What do you guys think of Uber's threat to leave Houston

Seems like a silly fight for legislators to pick, unless the taxi lobby (or some other transit group) is lining your pockets.

I think it was also really dumb of Uber to put this measure up for vote on a down ballot.

Save it for November. Higher turnout likely favors them immensely.

 

It's a different business model than taxis. Operationally they need to be constantly hiring new drivers because most drive part time and all can quit at any time.

If dumb, pointless regulations make it unprofitable, that doesn't make it a bad business model.

Bad business model is providing a garbage service at all levels like yellow cab does.

As far as your family members experience, I think that pretty much proves the point about how dumb the rules are. He's driving in the suburbs for two months before Houston approves him? That's ridiculous.

 

Good point, but my understanding was Austin counselors were going to pass it until Uber and Lyft got enough signatures on a petition. Then the counselors sent it to referendum.

 

I love Texas. Austin counselors created a hotline for displaced uber and lyft drivers so they can get jobs as pedicab drivers.

http://m.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-creates-hotline-for-displaced-uber-and-lyft/nrLxj/

Austin creates hotline for displaced Uber and Lyft drivers

4:28 p.m. May 12 by Ben Wear / American-Statesman Staff

Reacting to critics who said the defeat of Proposition 1 threw thousands of ride-hailing drivers out of work, the city of Austin and the United Way of Greater Austin have hastily put together a hotline that officials say would help former Uber and Lyft drivers find work.

Austin City Council Member Ann Kitchen, who has drawn the most heat for authoring a city law passed in December that requires fingerprinting of ride-hailing drivers, kicked off Thursday’s council meeting by announcing the creation of the hotline. The number is 512-687-7441, Kitchen said.

The departure of Uber and Lyft on Monday left thousands of drivers without that source of work.

Proposition 1, which voters defeated Saturday with 56 percent of the vote, would have replaced that law with one crafted by Lyft and Uber that would have eliminated the requirement for fingerprint-based background checks and other city rules for ride-hailing companies.

The phone hotline will be open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, said Heather Luecke, vice president of donor experience for the United Way. But the United Way called back later Thursday to say that because of heavy volume on the line — there were reports of callers getting busy signals — it would be open continuously into Friday or perhaps into the weekend if the volume remained heavy.
Luecke said that drivers who call United Way’s 211 number outside of working hours (once the hotline returned to an 8-5 regime) will be given the same “specialized information” about other driver opportunities.

That would include, she said, website and phone contact information about other ride-hailing companies such as GetMe and Wingz (which offers a somewhat more limited type of service), as well as information about driving opportunities with traditional cab companies, shuttle services, electric low-speed vehicles and even pedicabs.

The hotline, according to a press release from Kitchen’s office, will “serve drivers negatively impacted by Uber and Lyft’s decision to cease operating in Austin.” Uber and Lyft officials’ take on the result of Proposition 1 is that the city law it left in place creates untenable operating conditions for them.
Council Member Kathie Tovo also noted that the city and ride-hailing operators plan to host a “driver fair” early next week to help connect people to the companies. And the council next Thursday will consider a resolution that would direct the city manager to find ways to help “existing or new business to meet the demand for ride-hailing or other transportation options in our community.”
Council Member Don Zimmerman, who supported Proposition 1, said by text message that he had not been told about the hotline or that Kitchen would announce it Thursday. Other members of the council’s Mobility Committee who, like Kitchen, opposed Proposition 1, had been informed, Zimmerman said.
“Obviously, I don’t approve — and they would likely know that, which explains why I wasn’t informed, and not recognized (by the mayor) to object.”

 

Interesting you didn't list them.

They are gogetme, a second rate service, and wingz, which currently operates as an airport shuttle.

Austin is left with neither of the best companies in ride sharing.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

I haven't read him, I'm check his stuff out

 

Why do you discount a startup? Startups take time to get better and it still is an option. Options are great things to have. Competition breeds innovation.

After reading Prop 1 and reading what Uber has done in other cities it looks more like they are trying to avoid the 2% tax that Austin is trying to implement similar to what they are doing in Missouri where they are trying to be exempt from local taxes but framing it as a safety issue. This is about money as usual.

When people need money and the gig is as awesome as Uber is saying it is then they will work through the compliance issues. If the compliance issues are too difficult for the average person to understand or accomplish in an expedient manner, which it doesn't sound like it is, businesses will spring up to facilitate.

I remember reading about how Uber offers referral bonuses to people for getting drivers hired and how some guy made money off of the referral bonuses alone. Joseph Ziyaee Uber King

 

From what I'm reading Uber was able to get enough signatures on the petition by telling people that Austin city council was going to ban Uber and Lyft from Austin. Banning a company from the city and asking for compliance with safety laws are two different things.

 

Please let us know about these startups.

Unnecessary regulation does not help create more options and competition.

It's always about money. For both sides. Both sides will try to frame it as them looking out for the public. Only difference here is that the city's regulations don't actually improve safety, while Uber service is empirically shown to improve public safety.

 

are there or are there not multiple ridesharing options in austin right now?

its been all of 5 days since the two companies that dominated the market pulled up stakes. the smaller ones were not going to be able to instantly come in and fill the void, but given time they will bring in former uber and lyft drivers and continue to improve. uber and lyft leaving austin created a huge opportunity for companies who are willing to follow the rules.

uber and lyft banned themselves. nobody forced them out. they dont like that they cant make up the rules so they made the choice to not play.

fingerprinting should not take as long as it does. it seems like a week or two tops should be all it takes. i definitely think the process could be expedited. but $40 is not an unreasonable cost to do business. lots of different industries have similar requirements of potential employees. i have a friend who does landscaping and he had to pay for background check.

uber/lyft could have fingerprinted all their employees for less money than they spent on the election, which cost them $223.15 per vote...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Yeah, it's a bit arduous and moreso than it should be. As I've said before, I think the Houston regulations are unreasonable even while I support their imposition.

On the flipside, my relation who got approved is not the most businesslike of gentlemen (the primary reason, I suppose, he's driving for Uber in the first place). An average person could probably navigate regulation better than he can. So, not only do I think he could have done it faster, I'm just impressed he managed to make it through the gauntlet at all -- when it comes to work, he generally gets discouraged halfway through anything he attempts and then quits. So, I'm happy for him foremost, but I am also not terribly intimidated by the regulations as a result of the one anecdote I know.

I don't think anyone should be surprised that City Council is protecting the cab industry. Because they decided to regulate the crap out of it, they are now beholden to it. People and companies have made investments in doing business in Houston knowing that regulations will limit what they can do but can make the investment thesis viable because of the barriers to entry. If City Council and other government entities are going to serve their constituencies, they should protect business interests to the extent they are reasonably beholden. With the Uber threat now a few years old, I think taxis should expect less and less protection. But, they still deserve an equal playing field to compete. And as long as they're buried in regulations or have the regulations dictated to just favor the tech player, they don't have a level playing field. I don't think this is the result of some bribe money from a taxi lobby, this is public servants trying to fulfill their obligations to all stakeholders.

 

Nice post. You gave me something to think about.

 

I'm not against startups. Good luck to gogetme, but uber and lyft are far better companies. There's a reason people use them far more

 

I don't think an industry should be protected just because it's been there and donating to politicians.

What does level playing field mean? In most cities, uber and lyft background checks are sufficient. In Houston and austin, the cities at the behest of the taxis forced fingerprints on them.

Which one is a level playing field? Why is fingerprinting necessary for it to be level here but not anywhere else?

Politicians should do the right thing. If a new and better service comes along, that shouldn't kill it just because the old service doesn't like it

 

Well, I was saying it should be protected because its heavily regulated, not because it's been there nor because it donates to politicians.

Regarding level playing fields, the fingerprinting makes it level because that's the regulatory regime the government has put on the cab companies. The alternative, of course, is to relax the rules on cabs. Obviously, cabs don't want to do that now because they've already figured out how to meet the requirements efficiently while their ridesharing competitors have not. But, it'd be patently unfair to let Uber and Lyft not do fingerprinting but continue to require it of cabs on some academic logic of ridesharing not really being a taxi service.

Obviously, government shouldn't kill Uber, and I don't think they're trying to. Everyone wants Uber to operate. They've snuck into a bunch of markets despite taxi regulations on a thin excuse of being a 'ridesharing' service. And cities have allowed it because the value of the business model is obvious. I think cities have been very accommodating considering they've spent decades quashing gypsy cabs. We just need to align regulation with the realities of the market, which always takes time.

 

The new service should have to follow the exact same rules as the older system . . .. right?

Rocket River

 

Yes, background checks for all drivers, which is what Uber and lyft do.

Or do you propose that all Uber and lyft drivers also have to drive ugly ass yellow cars that smell like urine and have a driver who is rude and takes the long way to Jack up your fare? Then it would be a truly level playing field

Oh yeah, and takes at least 30 minutes to pick you up if dispatch even answers the phone

And good luck getting cab late at night, or in a "dangerous" part of town, or if the cab driver is waiting only on long riders.

Remember the stereotype of cabs being racist? Not a problem with uber

 

I don't see how it's unfair to require a background check but not a fingerprint background check that hasn't been proven to be safer and takes up to 4 months.

Cabs are fine with this not because their business model is awesome but because their drivers are full time. They don't have a lot of churn in their drivers. Ride sharing companies do, so the regs are not workable operationally.

 

Ubers biggest problem is they think theyre bigger than they are.

Gig work is a fickle industry. One day a company will come along who doesnt care about being worth 100 billion, focus on the suppliers happiness, while providing the same service to the customer, and all the drivers will switch and in turn so will the
Theyre an 800 pound gorilla in the room that may be dead within 5 years. Just because you have a burned in user base doesnt mean they cant become a burned out one.

They helped pioneer an industry, but some day some asshat like Elon Musk will swoop in and white knight the industry to a point where Uber has to choose, serve the people or serve the investors.

And we all know how much they care about the people.

 

Houston, don't let Uber/Lyft slip through your fingers, bros