It’s a convenience that many of us have gotten used to in a very short time. With nothing more than a smartphone app, you can request a ride, watch the car make its way to you in real-time, and within a few minutes, a driver shows up in their own car to take you where you need to go. Once the ride’s done, there’s no cash involved, and your payment (and tip, if you’re a Lyft user) is handled within the app. Still, for all the streamlined amenity, there’s a growing contention between the companies that provide this service and those who feel the drivers should be held to stricter guidelines in the interest of public safety.
The most public debate thus far between Uber and Lyft, the two main Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and local governments just took place in Austin, Texas — a city known for its active nightlife and tech-friendliness as well as its subpar public transportation, unreliable cab service, and some of the nation’s worst traffic. All considering, TNCs seemed like they’d be the perfect elixir. But there was one major point of contention: regulation.
The Austin City Council wanted TNCs to follow the same regulations that cab and limo drivers are subject to. Uber and Lyft preferred to operate under their own, and even formed the PAC Ridesharing Works For Austin in an effort to help sway public opinion. They even drafted their own regulations, intended to override any put in place by the city government, touting it as a quick and efficient alternative. These regulations became known as Prop 1.
The issue was put to a vote on Saturday, May 7 with 56 percent of voters siding against Prop 1, meaning TNC drivers would not be allowed to self-regulate, instead their drivers would remain subject to city-run background checks. Both companies ceased operations in Austin early the following Monday.
It brings to an end the contentious history these companies have had with the city of Austin, which started back when Uber and Lyft launched in the summer of 2014 without city approval. A short-term solution was put into effect in October of 2014 before permanent regulations were drafted in late 2015 and set to take effect on February of 2017. In spite of mounting assault accusations against drivers, TNCs argued that changing the process would make recruiting drivers too difficult on them, and too costly for taxpayers.
This is where things start to get messy. TNCs are still a relatively new concept, and government isn’t exactly synonymous with rapid adaptation, so there’s no set precedent on how they are — or should be — regulated in other cities. Right now, for example, Uber is threatening to leave Houston over a near-identical issue regarding background checks. Lyft, meanwhile, simply stopped operating in Houston when this became an issue back in November of 2014. Uber has also discontinued services in cities like Columbus, Ohio over similar issues, and returned only once those regulations were repealed. In New York City, however, Uber and Lyft drivers are required to get fingerprinted, as well as follow the same background check that is required of cab drivers.
With rules varying city by city, the TNCs have shown that they’re willing to protest any conditions they don’t view favorably and poured an estimated $10 million dollars in their pro-Prop 1 campaign — about 10 times what an Austin mayoral campaign would cost). Disputed claims and statistics flew back and forth about licensed Austin cab drivers failing Uber’s background check, and dramatic drops in DUI arrests, though the latter was later revised by the Austin Police Department.
Looking beyond the issue of regulation, ride-sharing has gotten a substantial amount of negative press almost since the beginning, with out-of-control surge pricing, inequality, privacy issues, and sexual assault all cited as major issues. Uber was even required to pay up to $25 million in fines to the people of California over misleading statistics over the safety of its service. Their public image hasn’t faired much better this year, particularly after Uber’s official response to the Kalamazoo driver who committed a series of shootings in-between driving around Uber passengers back in February.
On the other side, ride-sharing has fast become the preferred method of transportation for many, and taxi drivers have shown that they’re none-too-happy about it (just ask Hannibal Buress). In Austin, it was pointed out by TNCs that the taxi driver union donated thousands to the Austin City Council last year. This is nothing new, and it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what the TNCs had spent, but enough that it added to the narrative that cab companies have routinely tried to combat competition from TNCs. (Though Austin’s sudden consideration to deregulate its taxi industry in the wake of the Prop 1 election seems a little telling, as well.)
With the length that TNCs are willing to go to get their way, their end-game seems to be maintaining absolute control in each city that they operate in, almost without exception. Meanwhile, other ride-share services in Austin, such as Get Me and Z-Trip (which launched during SXSW last year) are already operating in compliance with the city’s regulations. This at least implies that other companies are looking to find their place in the market as an alternative to Uber and Lyft’s ‘all or nothing’ way of doing things.
Brian Gaar, host of the Austin late-night talk show ATX Uncensord(ish) might have the best summary of the whole ordeal.
So far, the only possible solution has been floated by Republican State Senator Charles Schwertner, who wants to create a set of state-wide regulations for all drivers. He calls the current system “a patchwork of inconsistent and anti-competitive regulations,” citing Texas’ “long tradition of supporting the free market,” and believes there’s a way to address public safety concerns that are also favorable to TNCs. Of course, consistent with the criticism that government involvement equals inefficiency, the Texas Legislature won’t reconvene until 2017, meaning it will take at least seven months before this conversation truly starts.
While both sides state they’re open to a resolution, neither seem willing to negotiate a compromise and the 10,000 ride-share drivers, along with those who’ve come to depend on their services, are left to wonder what comes next. If Austin’s Prop 1 election ends up setting a precedent for other cities, the future of ride-sharing as it exists now could be uncertain. Which means it could create a market full of potential ride-share alternatives, or it could leave more and more people simply looking for another safe, convenient way to get around.
Sources: KXAN, Texas Tribune, Austin American-Statesman, Austin Chronicle