I haven’t liked the signature collecting campaign with what seems to be 100’s of paid signature gatherers all over town misrepresenting the issues here. One approached me and asked if I would help to stop the city from kicking Uber out of town because that’s what the city is trying to do.
While I think the ride hailing companies are asking for special treatment (little regulation) compared to their competition I am particularly disappointed that they not only took fingerprinting out of the mix but also are eliminating other safety rules that other for hire vehicles have to follow (for example on street pickups only at the curb and not in the roadways). If the petition was to create a fair set of rules for the marketplace and not special treatment I’d be more sympathetic.
I find it perplexing that our city leaders should shape regulatory policy based on whether companies employ ad hominem attacks or make millions of dollars.
What matters are the experiences of the people in our neighborhoods and the city. What is the driver experience? What is the passenger experience? What is the impact on mobility for residents in our city?
Let’s focus on how regulations affect these experiences (in practice) and not on moralistic distractions.
Should Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) be regulated? Can citizens enjoy safety and the freedom of choice at the same time? What makes Austin special in this debate?
You are invited to attend:
Ridesharing: An Austin Town Hall on the Future of Transportation Networks Companies (Uber, Lyft, and others)
Karl Popham, moderator
Austin Energy
Jen Duthie
UT Center for Transportation Research
Joseph Kopser
RideScout
Ben Holland
Rocky Mountain Institute
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Stateside Theater
719 Congress Ave.
Downtown Austin
5:15 p.m. – Doors and Bar Open
6:00 p.m. – Presentation
7:00 p.m. – Reception
Free and open to the public
The explosive growth of Uber and Lyft has proven the demand for simple access to rides. Enabled and powered by technologies such as smartphones and GPS, these transportation networking companies (TNCs) have launched the ridesharing (or ridesourcing) industry rapidly and globally. In cities all over the world, people have access to a simpler, more predictable source of rides than the taxi industry has historically provided—and to a new source of income for drivers. This has other ancillary benefits as well, such as potentially reducing the number of people driving while intoxicated. However, the rapid emergence of ridesharing has occurred largely without regulation, unlike other established transportation options. Without any civic regulation, there are safety concerns for reasons such as lack of external validation of drivers, and of negative economic impacts to other transportation industries and even to drivers. In Austin—a city now almost as infamous for the hassle of driving in traffic as is it famous for its many entertainment options (and the consumption that goes along with them)—there have been recent attempts at regulation. There is a general desire for the City to have TNCs as a transportation option, but unfortunately, a compromise on regulations agreeable to both sides—the City and the major TNCs—has not been reached. So, there will be a special (and expensive) election on May 7 for the voters to decide.
We invite you to attend this special town hall meeting at which transpiration experts will objectively explain how TNCs work, the current laws and policies (in Austin, and in other cities), what the election means, and what is likely to happen next for either outcome. They will then answer as many questions from the audience as time allows. The goal is for the panel of speakers to not advocate one position, but to provide a “deeper dive” and informed debate about the issues.
We encourage everyone to vote, and this event will help you be an informed voter.
Light refreshments will be offered at the reception that follows the presentation. Cash bar only.
Street parking is available until 6:00pm for $1/hour. After 6:00pm, parking is free.
Seating is limited to 300 friends. Please RSVP now for priority seating. Walk-in guests will be admitted as space is available after registered guests have been seated. See you on Wednesday, April 13th!
I’m very frustrated by these questions as it implies to the reader that Ridesharing companies are unregulated. In addition to state laws and Lyft and Uber’s safety standards, we’ve had local regulations since October 2014 which have provided protections to consumers and drivers while allowing these vital services to grow and thrive. The 2014 regulations were written by a committee which included volunteer citizens, and representation from various stakeholders. Jeff Kirk, a member of that group, wrote an enlightening perspective on Medium, which outlines their process.
I will certainly be at the event, and I hope the discussion is less biased and misleading than the promotional description.
The coalition will deliver a sign to your home if you’re interested. Email hello@ridesharingworks.com with your address and a good time to drop one off (or any other questions).
You make reference to ‘the rapid emergence of ridesharing has occurred largely without regulation, unlike other established transportation options. Without any civic regulation, there are safety concerns for reasons such as lack of external validation of drivers, and of negative economic impacts to other transportation industries and even to drivers.’ This is not the case.
TNC’s aren’t seeking deregulation. Stakeholders met and came to a constructive agreement with Austin City Council in 2014.
The 2014 regulations allowed for TNC’s to operate in Austin. Since then over 2,000,000 rides have taken place in the metro area.
Over 10,000 Austinites have signed up as drivers.
TNC’s use background checks that are faster, more efficient, and are nationwide. Current finger print based background checks other ground transportation companies use only cover the state of Texas.
When an incident is reported, it subject to an investigation and mediation process. TNC’s have live staff on hand 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assess and escalate complaints and incidents as they happen. Once it is clear that an incident is serious and legitimate, TNC’s cooperate with law enforcement in a constructive way.
Both the Chief of Police and Sheriff have submitted testimony that TNC’s have reduced DWI’s and road fatalities. In fact, DWI’s have been reduced by almost 20% in Austin since TNCs have begun operating in Travis county, despite a population increase of over 115 residents per day.
Mobility impaired individuals have limited and often overstretched options to commute with a private vehicle.
More than 30% of TNC rides start or end east of I35.
40% of Uber Drivers in Austin are women. Few other ground transportation companies are comparable. In many cities less than 2% of drivers on traditional platforms are women.
Roger, I gotta disagree with the idea of no background checks at all. I can see equalizing the background checks (fingerprints for all or no fingerprints or even optional fingerprints, whatever). But, to eliminate background checks entirely is a bridge too far I think.
You have a lot of vulnerable people that use taxis and TNCs – drunks, disabled, mentally challenged, new visitors to the city, elderly, even kids sometimes. Taxis and TNCs are private companies, but they are in many ways performing a public service that can put them in close and isolated contact with a member of the public. While background checks don’t stop all crime by drivers, they are a low-cost way to at least provide some level of checking. Many jobs where people enter homes (plumbers, cable installers, etc) require background checks. In general, the public expects at least some basic due diligence without having to go and check reviews online every time they want to hire a taxi or get a cable guy out to the house. It won’t eliminate theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. but attempting to filter out people convicted of those things seems prudent and should be a function of government itself or a regulation on companies, to the extent possible.
@Dylan_Tynan, I understand your perspective. One of the reasons I’m so comfortable riding with Lyft as a passenger is because of their extensive background checks, interviews, and other safety policies. I wouldn’t take a ride with a random driver that didn’t get a background check.
What’s interesting to note is that we have multiple options for folks to get a ride with a stranger in Austin without any background check at all. From the often-vilified Cragslist rideshare listings to the City-applauded Carma carpooling app,
The system Lyft and Uber are using in Austin is working very well as evidenced by the rate of incidents for taxi drivers vs TNC drivers in Austin. By my estimate, you’re 6 times more likely to file a complaint with the APD about an Austin taxi driver than a Lyft or Uber driver.
The City Council’s attempts to hamper ridesharing in Austin have nothing to do with safety because there’s no safety concern. I think it’s also telling that the Mobility Committee didn’t even consult their own Public Safety Commission before bringing their changes to a full vote of the Council.
And lets not forget that there’s a lot more in the Council’s revisions than the fingerprint requirement. However, that’s where politicians continue to take the conversation because it’s the easiest talking point to mislead people. Prop 1 puts in place the original ridesharing rules that became law in October 2014. I’m for Prop 1 because let’s not fix what isn’t broken.
Don’t forget hitch-hiking - yet another non-background-check method.
I don’t know that the politicians are taking the conversation to the fingerprint-background talking point because that’s the easiest way to mislead the people. I think it’s more likely that that is the point of conversation because that is the item that Uber & Lyft have decided is something that will cause them to stop service in cities now. While it’s possible 9 of the 11 city council members we just elected have decided they want to mislead the public by making U/L do the same background checks that the other transportation companies are required to do, and many city employees are required to do, and all city contractors are required to do, it just doesn’t seem very logical to me.
While there is some limited evidence that shows taxis have a higher rate of crime by drivers than TNC drivers, the sample size is pretty small. I have yet to see any actual data beyond an article or two that counts the number of alleged crime in one city over a year timeframe. That said, it may very well be true. However, I’m not comfortable taking that information and then backtracking to assume that that means that one background check type is superior or inferior to the other. There are too many other factors involved when you look at the crime data and backtrack to the background check data, as opposed to evaluating the background check data itself. For example, the population of cab drivers is nearly entirely male. I don’t have stats on TNC drivers, since the TNCs tend to not release data to the public, but anecdotally it looks like there is a much higher percentage of female TNC drivers than taxi drivers. Given that males commit crimes at a far higher rate than females, that could explain some difference in crime level that isn’t necessarily related to the quality of background checks. That is but one factor - there could be others like income level of cab vs TNC driver. Given many TNC drivers are using it to supplement their income, perhaps they tend to be higher income - or even lower income - than cab drivers and that might explain some difference in propensity for crime. Perhaps the fact that taxi drivers handle cash and are more likely to be robbed than TNC drivers tends to attract a more aggressive personality to the job of driver. You see what I mean? Those factors and the very small sample size make me extremely reluctant to make assumptions about which checks are “better”. In fact, I think if anyone is claiming they know for sure that one is better than the other then they are basically just guessing. In some ways one is more comprehensive than the other, and vice versa, but determining which is better overall is not possible without data.
One other minor point. If I start a restaurant and I hire a 3rd party restaurant inspection firm and I have them inspect my restaurant randomly 4 times a month every month, I can legitimately argue that my inspection regime is stronger than the city’s. Does that mean that the city should then stop inspecting me?
Taxis and ride-hailing companies perform the same service; it’s reasonable that they be subject to the same rules. Those rules are determined by our elected representatives, with input from stakeholders, with adjustment over time as needed.
But this debate is no longer about which regulations are appropriate. It’s about whether we as voters control the legislative process, or leave it open to the highest bidder.
Having more transportation options is important to Austin’s future, but I don’t agree that Uber & Lyft are entitled to leverage the petition process to get the legislation they want. They’re the ones who funded the petition drive and the “Yes on Prop 1” campaign, spending over $2 million (so far) to finance Ridesharing Works for Austin. And that’s only through March; the final tally will be much higher. Those of us who live & vote in Austin can’t even come close to matching this degree of corporate electioneering.
I don’t really understand that argument either. It seems like a way to change the topic to something other than the merits of the actual issue because facts and evidence aren’t on the side of the anti-prop 1 advocates. In fact, the voters are directly deciding this issue - there’s a vote on May 7th, so to say that a corporation is somehow deciding anything doesn’t really seem to make sense to me. That’s the exact reason why there is a legal petition process for voters - for when the city council goes against what the majority of their constituents want. I see the same types of arguments made by the ANC on almost every other issue to distract from the actual issue itself.
The petition process is supposed to be a remedy for voters, not for companies seeking to overturn legislation.
This ballot initiative was paid for by Uber/Lyft; they falsely framed the vote as one for or against “Ridesharing in Austin”, and they’re spending millions on PR to market their preferred legislation to Austin voters.
We’re paying for an election supposedly because council wasn’t acting in the interests of voters, but it turns out the companies standing to gain have been driving this process from the start. IMO that’s not a side issue or a distraction.
A meaningless subjective distinction. Uber and lyft did not sign the petition; it took tens of thousands of registered voters to do so. And you know the people in favor of the resolution do not consider that framing to be false.
Please no judgmental statements. This is such a great discussion / debate for those not already committed!
Spending this much $ for a special election is unfortunate, but inspiring that the “people” ultimately have control with their vote.
Mayor Leffingwell joined the campaign, sure $ is involved, but his position that he was there when it was done & stands by it has credibility, even though I did not agree with other positions he took. The fact that he has a union background (pilot) and supports it is interesting.
I asked a 20 something clerk what her view was, she had driven for both companies, did not anymore, had her background checked and felt perfectly comfortable using either service. That is a pretty informed, & unbiased source - as she no longer has skin in the game.
I’m leaning enough to offer that students can make or break this - & don’t read too much into the last election turnout, as the line was so long at both U.T. & Rio Grande ACC we had to drive students to other polling stations where the SF3 people vote, & I’m sure many just chose not to bear the wait. Long lines should not be an issue on a single issue election, so in a way, it may be $ well spent if that is what it takes to achieve democracy.
I thought the vote was closer, or was there more than one vote? At one point we talked about capturing who voted on what issues that were of interest - if we do that without scoring it or even referencing the FAN position it is hard to see anything controversial about it. Can someone remind us who voted what on both sharing issues, even better if there was more than one vote taken for each to show who moved where when?
This tnc/taxi/petition/regulation/election thing is a surprisingly tricky topic/discussion/debate.
If I may, let me make a silly analogy. A few minutes ago, while reading comments on this thread, I noticed that I had a little blue circle with a ‘1’ on it over my little login emblem in the top right area of the screen [indicating new notification(s)]. I clicked on it and the notification was “Earned ‘first like’”. Awesome. Someone liked one of my comments, thought I. Nope, that’s not what it meant. Instead, it meant I had earned a badge for clicking the little heart icon on someone’s comment a few minutes ago. When I read it, I thought it was notifying me of what someone else did, but it was really the gamification rewarding me for something I did.
So, that was a really long and stupid way of saying that the tnc/taxi/etc debate is damn interesting because so many people can read the same thing and end up reading it in completely different ways from each other. I keep seeing it happening on various little subthreads of the debate too. If I were one of the conspiracy buffs in this city I would assume it was all created by some psychological mind control department of the government in order to see how the fluoride control was working
