Comments

1
I'm not sure what TNC stands for. Google results https://www.google.com/#q=tnc
2
People have probably forgotten this by now, but for a long time, UberX wasn't in Seattle. There was Uber, which everyone agrees operates entirely legally -- they only work with licensed town car drivers. And then there was Lyft, and later Sidecar. But there was no UberX, because Uber wasn't sure about the legality.

Uber finally decided to open UberX in Seattle after observing that the city made no attempt to shut down Lyft or Sidecar. This was in contrast to other cities, which *did* actively enforce regulations, and shut down other services (such as TAXI in NYC). Uber interpreted the lack of response as a signal that ridesharing was allowed here.

I find it hard to justify the outrage against Uber, in particular, for flouting the law. They didn't move into the market until it because clear that ridesharing was being tolerated, at the very least. That seems like a very reasonable and prudent thing to do. Why should Uber interpret the laws in one way, when it appears that the City Council is interpreting them in a different way?
3
"Bullied their way into the market" by offering excellent service at reasonable prices.
4
Here's Goldy's real motivation: He doesn't want people with the means to acquire smart phones and credit cards to be able to have access to a superior product while the less fortunate are stuck with shitty cabs. Solution: only shitty cabs for all.
5
@4 You simplify it. I'm just a bad, bad person.*

* (Unless you agree with me. In which case I'm great!)
7
Should we be outraged that marijuana dispensaries operate(d) outside the rule of law? There wasn't much outrage from you then. TNCs meet a need and the city failed to legitimize them in an expedient manner.
8
@3... totally agreed: excellent service, usually reasonable-prices (except during surge times), better dispatch & more reliable pickup times (I've had multiple cabs never show up to my house over the years), no hassle over using a credit / debit card, better & automatic record-keeping for rides, etc.
9
At this point I am convinced Goldy gets paid by the word. Same nonsense day in and day out.

" I DON'T KNOW HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS SO EVERYTHING I DON'T AGREE WITH IS ILLEGAL BY DEFAULT BECAUSE REASONS"

-goldy
10
@7: yep.
11
Please explain to me how UberX is any different than UberBlack, other than being a slightly bigger car that's more expensive?

They're both insured the same way, right? They're both called the same way, right? There's no difference other than the kind of car that shows up to your doorstep (which is generally more fuel efficient, not that it matters.)

I don't understand why one is "legal" and the other isn't. Please explain.
12
@11: The difference is that Uber Black drivers are regulated and licensed by the state, while UberX drivers are currently unregulated. More context here.
13
Yeah, how dare these for-profit companies spend money earned from customers to lobby for the ability to provide the service those customers want.

We have a longstanding tradition of incumbent providers using government as a tool to regulate artificial scarcity to avoid competition and maintain low quality service at high prices. Obviously that's the democratic way to do it.
14
@1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportat…

I also have not been clear in the past on what it meant, and agree that it should be spelled out at least once per post, since we're getting a lot of people hearing about these things now.
15
In Goldy's world, everything is by-default illegal until specifically legalized by a legislative body. (After extensive debate as to whether this new thing will "change the status quo").
16
@13 +1. Whether Seattle and many other cities' regulation of taxis violates anti-trust law has never been settled law, but the Supreme Court has basically stayed away from the issue.

The result is a de facto monopoly in most cities and everything that comes with that: shitty service, monopolistic pricing, anti-competitive lobbying, corruption.

Seattle taxies can't compete with these services so they did what the Taxi cartels have always done: go the political, legislative route. Grease some palms, use scare tactics... whatever must be done to protect the monopoly.
17
(I am currently a taxi driver, as I noted in a previous post. Just noting it again here in the interest of disclosure)

If the city creates a level playing field with regard to inspections, insurance requirements and driver standards and training (which I think should be more rigorous than it is currently) I think it might be reasonably just. One of the big issues I have with the status quo is that taxis and taxi drivers (and towncars/drivers) are subjected to a great deal of regulation, which is definitely enforced, while the TNCs are subject to none because they claim to be outside of the regulatory laws and the city and county have de facto allowed this by opting not to enforce the existing laws. Currently, there are no caps on TNC numbers AND they are not subject to any regulation at all because the city does not enforce any of the existing rules on them. Not only is this unjust to the drivers and companies who are operating within the law, it presents the potential for public harm (unsafe vehicles, unsafe drivers, insufficient insurance).

Allowing that to stand is egregious beyond allowing potentially unlimited numbers of TNC cars. It is also even more likely to result in the implosion of the traditional taxi industry which, as Goldy pointed out in an earlier post, serves a lot of people who can't afford to use TNCs. Taxis provide services to the elderly and the disabled via Metro scrip and the Hopelink programs (senior citizens and others who qualify can purchase Metro scrip for 50% of the face value, Hopelink provides free rides to people with disabilities, severe health problems, etc), as well as people who don't have smartphones and bank accounts.

I think that requiring a universal standard for driver training (again, hopefully more stringent than it currently is), insurance, and vehicle inspections would serve the public interest and could potentially create a sort of organically reached limit on the numbers of vehicles. Also once established a regulatory structure for drivers could be used to enforce future policy changes in this area if they are found to be desirable. At the very least it would be better than what we have now, which is essentially arbitrary enforcement.
18
If this was such a grievous violation of black letter law, why didn't the Stranger's BFF McGinn do a damn thing to shut them down? Is he just lazy or did he maybe think there was a place for them in the law?

In any case, I get the distinction between UberX and UberBlack now. It comes down to licensure and insurance. It's pretty clear that, with the group policy, UberX folks are covered. So insurance: check. Licensing? Well, OK. I see nothing wrong with requiring UberX/Lyft/etc drivers to get an endorsement to drive their car for profit. I also don't see any issue with requiring car checks every year or so (whatever it is we require from Town Car drivers). Since Uber/Lyft already have standards well above the city's, this is just a matter of filling out some additional paperwork. If the TNCs are really just bitching about that, then fuck em.

Anything else I'm missing?

We all know the real issue here. Goldy doesn't like the slightly well off (read: anybody who can afford a smartphone) having more transport options than the less well off. Maybe also some kind solidarity thing with the cab drivers who are getting screwed. But guess what Goldy? The well off have always had more transportation options than the rest of us. If anything UberX/Lyft have made this luxury accessible to more income brackets. And while it sucks that some cab drivers are being displaced by an industry that's being dramatically improved by technology, there are better ways to help these people than denying that technology to everybody. Are you gonna stand up for the poor gas station workers when electric cars finally become practical and affordable?

So obfuscate all you want by citing decades old studies and arcane insurance regulations. The only thing you'll succeed at is holding back transportation in this city by a few years.
19
@16: You guys keep saying that taxis are a monopoly, I don't think that's really an applicable term here.

First off, there are 4 taxi companies operating in King County/Seattle that I know of (Yellow, Orange, Farwest and North End), and they compete with each other as much as is possible within the tight regulatory structure they have to operate under.
There are also the For-Hire companies (East End, CNG, United, Apple, and no doubt more, I can't keep track of all the ones I see), which compete directly with taxis.
Then there are all the black car services, which compete with taxis and For-Hires, and also have the advantage of dispatch via Uber. There has also never been a cap on their numbers, as the issuance of limo licenses is done by the state, which does not limit them.

All of those are competing, and all of them did so under the existing regulatory structure (aside from the For-Hire cars doing street pick ups illegally).
20
How are these cab companies competing, Deimos? Certainly not on price... that's set by law. Is there a difference in amenities I'm missing? Or reliability? What the hell is different between any of these cab companies?
21
Great, destroy a reasonable alternative to driving alone in order to protect the current shitty ass system.

Regulations for safety, service, etc are great, but capping a growing market is asinine.
22
@18: I don't think that Lyft/UberX have necessarily higher standards for their vehicles than anyone else. I'm not sure about UberX (they weren't in Seattle when I was first looking at this), but I went through the application process for Lyft just to see what it entailed. You basically just have to have a reasonably new (no more than 10 years old) car and send them a picture a of it. I think that rideshare cars tend to be in better shape because the services haven't been around for very long (so the vehicles have not been in service for very long), because they do tend to deal with better off customers (if you're driving a taxi and you get an account call to transport a homeless person who hasn't had a shower in 6 months from the hospital to a sober living house, you have to take them), and because they are not driven as constantly (taxis are usually driven in two 12 hour shifts, so while the car might have a little down time early in the morning it's probably being actively driven 18-20 hours a day, at least 200 miles a day). The latter two factors are unlikely to change, but the first one is just a matter of time. Currently the city/county already require taxis to be reasonably new (cannot be more than 7 years old at the time of license renewal) and inspected twice every year.

For the driver side, they run a standard database background check (i.e. based off your social security number, which is fine for most people but if someone had malicious intent could be relatively easily circumvented compared to the fingerprinting that licensed for hire drivers have to do) and look at your driving record. For hire drivers have to complete about a week of training between the cab company and the city that includes safe driving courses, pass a written test given by the county, take a physical every 2 years (minimum, drivers with questionable health have to be checked more often), and be fingerprinted by the Sheriff's dept. for a background check against law enforcement databases.
23
@20: in theory the taxi companies are competing on levels of service etc. Whether or not they are doing a good job of differentiating themselves from their most direct competitors does not change the fact that they are different companies with different ownership and different policies vying for the same business, ergo not a monopoly.

As you noted prices are set by the city/county for the taxi companies, but the other services I mentioned are able to compete on price as their rates are not mandated by regulation, which I should think further undermines the argument that there is a monopolistic situation under the current regulatory structure.
24
Fine. If the city can defend all these requirements, then let's keep em. I don't disagree with them being held to the same standards as the town car folks.

Hailed cabs - that's something different. Stop comparing the two services.

25
@24: I agree with you for the most part. To my mind, holding them to essentially the same standards as town cars would solve the problem w/r/t the TNCs.

I would argue that the town cars and TNCs do compete to an extent with traditional cabs though. Obviously the non-cab services should not be competing for street hails, but all of these companies do compete for the same dispatch business and therefore added numbers of available vehicles will have an effect (I find that I usually end up with about a 50/50 split of hailed vs. dispatched fares). This is not to say that this competition is necessarily unlawful or bad, just that there is competition between the different services there and that this means the services do have an effect on one another.
26
Are you being serious? Equating UberX to the City pepper spraying people in the streets? You have lost what little credibility you had in your increasingly bizarro rants on this issue. Calling it an illegal street business that must be shut down just because there are a few antiquated, marginally related taxi monopoly regulations in place? Regulations, mind you, that are mostly in place to protect a small handful of taxi license owners / bundlers who are allowed to force drivers into quasi indentured service for 70 to 90 hours a week (the taxi industry's big dirty non-secret)

Please step back from your faux outrage and apply a teensy bit of perspective here... or did you throw a similar temper fit about the sanctity of antiquated marijuana regulations when new paradigms started to challenge those?

Maybe the TNC's should just roll yellow cab into their app's array of provider options and call it "Unter" with unpredictable arrival times, lack of direct driver contact, no live location tracking, old rattling cars, and no certainty that they will show up at all... it could be priced only at what that level of service is worth, however, somewhere far below Uberx so it could be a great option for the truly price conscious.

I am all for the TNC's and insurance providers working with the City to make sure that the personal vs commercial insurance issues are clarified but everything else is just corrupt, undemocratic monopoly protection, pure and simple.

Since only three Councilmembers are in bed with the taxi monopoly under the guise of a "Taxi Committee", there is still a chance that the Council will actually side with the overwhelming majority of transportation service consumers on this issue. Otherwise, sign me up for the citywide yellow cab boycott.
27
They do compete... much like a somebody armed with a semi automatic competes with somebody equipped with a blunderbuss. It's not fair, but that's where we get to the transformative technology part of the equation. Maybe we need to throw out a lifeline to the hailed cabs. Raise their minimum fares. Maybe even provide a subsidy or tax breaks of some sort to maintain minimum service levels. But we shouldn't be throwing arbitrary roadblocks at the TNCs. That's insanely short sighted.
28
@17: It sounds like you should be lobbying for a reduction of regulations on taxis so the business can compete with more modern offerings. Expecting new products to be equally hobbled is like a horse salesman in 1880 demanding a 20mph limit on cars in the name of fairness.

BTW, it's probably better for you long term if TNCs are allowed to compete. When regulation is used to prop up uncompetitive businesses, the eventual pain is usually much worse when the dam breaks. See: 1970's auto industry and 1980's airlines.
29
@3 For the most part, I agree with you. I've always gotten guff from cab drivers when I try to pay with a credit card, with many of them actually taking a lesser fare or no tip just to not have to run my card.

With that said, I'd say over half of the Uber drivers I've had seem to have no knowledge of Seattle whatsoever, usually opting to depend on me to direct them rather than use any GPS.
30
@28: I would be fine with that. My main concerns are that drivers are safe (both in terms of driving and in terms of having a clean background), competent, and able to make a decent living. I currently make a decent living, and as I said the TNCs and their drivers are totally unregulated at the moment, so I'm not too worried on that front. I think that requiring drivers to be properly licensed and their cars inspected occasionally will be good for everyone, and will keep the numbers of TNC cars to reasonable, sustainable levels. Hopefully this would allow us to have sustainable fleets without nasty market corrections brought on by an excessive numbers vehicles, followed by too few vehicles, rinsed and repeated until some sort of organically reached point of homeostasis. If not, the city can presumably revisit the issue of caps to address the problem (though the chances of the city council doing anything in a timely manner seem to be relatively slim).

Personally, I'm a driver not an owner, so if it makes business sense for me I may switch over to driving for Uber or UberX once the rules are made clear. I find the idea of having rider reviews for me personally to be attractive, because I would like to be rewarded more for not being an asshole. I think it would also be grand if a large percentage of my customers did not get into my car with the assumption that I'm a huge toolbag because they've had negative experiences with other drivers in the past. I like the idea of being dispatched via GPS, and I like that there would be an incentive for people to wait for me to get to them (I would estimate that the customer has taken another vehicle on at least 30% of the trips I'm dispatched for, more on the weekends and at rush hour. I don't even take dispatch calls around bar closing time on the weekends because you invariably have to pass up a hail on the way to find that no one is waiting for you at the bar they called you to). I don't have any particular loyalty to driving a cab per se and will do whatever works out best for my particular situation. If the taxi companies and owners can adapt in a way that makes driving for them more attractive and/or lucrative I'll stick with them, and freeing them up a bit so that they're better able to adapt would be great.

@27: Lower lease rates for drivers would certainly help keep traditional taxis operating, but I'm not sure how that would work out for owners. Raising the meter rates would obviously be good for us as well, and it does happen from time to time anyway just to keep pace with inflation and fuel costs, but could easily backfire if they're raised too high. As I said above, my main concern at this point is to make sure that the TNCs drivers and vehicles are safe for everyone, which seems like it should be pretty easy to integrate into the existing regulatory structure without unduly screwing anyone. I would even welcome higher standards for all for hire drivers.
31
@29: W/R/T the credit card thing, most cab drivers are crappy about it because the default system for taking cards is horrible. You have to send the CC through the dispatch computer (which is not always real reliable, which can easily lead to accidental double charges to you even if the driver only gets paid once), you have to take an imprint using a shitty 1980s department store knucklebuster, and you have to keep track of that paper slip and turn it in to the cashier within a limited period of time (it varies from company to company, usually no more than 7 days) to get paid. If you lose the slip, or you don't get it to the cashier in time, you lose the money. Some companies pay the money from CC slips to the owner of the cab, so then you also have to try and get them to cough it up. I'm sure you can see what a hassle all of that is.

I use Square. It's faster and easier for everyone, and it charges a lower cut. Technically, Square is in kind of a legal gray area as far as the city/county regulations go. You're supposed to be able to provide a paper CC receipt. Arguably I can do this while still using Square by simply writing out a redundant CC slip and handing it to you, but it's not strictly speaking allowed by the current regulations because the process I'm using doesn't generate a paper CC receipt every time.
32
@29 My experiences with yellow/orange cabs were characterized by drivers who didn't know their way around. Uber has been really good.

One Uber driver took a circuitous route which I noted in the feedback on the app. A customer service rep read my feedback, reviewed the route, agreed it was indirect, and refunded my credit card for 1/3 of the fare. If the hail-cabs are competing on service, maybe they should ... really just copy everything uber has done.
33
Hey taxi companies! Use the money you're spending on lobbying to create an app! I'd use taxis if they had an app so I could hail them, pay them by card, and rely on them to actually show up when I hail them. As it stands now, you have to call, and if they find another fare before they get to you, you're fucked, without even a phone call to tell you they abandoned you... and don't get me started on the stink they raise if you try to pay by card. I actually had one drive out of my way 3 blocks and stop to make me use an ATM! Seeing as that it was the middle of the night and there was not another taxi in sight, I complied... but the next day I downloaded the Lyft app. Never again.)
34
@33: Yellow has an app. Orange can be dispatched through Taxi Magic. Also cab drivers are legally required to take cards. If they give you shit about it tell them you're paying by card or you're not paying. Then call the city to complain about them, the number is printed on a placard on the door of every taxi, because no one should have to put up with that kind of bullshit.
35
@34 or you could just use Uber and save yourself all that grief or UberX to save all that the grief and money.
36
Well, That was Fun!

Now can we get back to serious stuff?
37
The cab companies' service is generally shitty. Estimated time of pickup is all over the place, drivers usually need help figuring out how to get where I want to go, often take the long route, they drive shitty, and they talk on the phone while driving. The bus is preferable when available.

Deimos made a good point @30 about people often not being there when he arrives based on a call, but really, that's a problem with the system, not with the customers. If you call Yellow Cab for a taxi, and a yellow taxi cab shows up, you're highly likely to simply get in, not try to magically figure out if this is *the* cab that was dispatched for you. How some company allocates drivers is their own business, and if they don't have a good way to determine who called for what cab (many times I've tried, knowing that this weird system is what it is, to ask if *this* cab has arrived for *me* only to have a confusing conversation end with me just hopping in), it's crazy to expect customers to take up the slack.

I would use the TNCs in a heartbeat if I could ride anonymously and pay with cash, either pre-paid or on-the-spot, and probably would use them even though they insist on us sharing 3% with the shitbags at Visa or Mastercard if they offered an iron-clad contract to treat information about my whereabouts as the private information it is. But they don't accept money in exchange for their service, and they offer not even an unenforceable guarantee that they'll keep my travels between them and me, so I stick with the cabs.

I am atypically privacy-conscious, and atypically insistent upon maintaining the ability to pay debts without the approval of third parties like the big banks and the U.S. government. If I wasn't, the traditional taxi companies probably would not get a dime of my business these days. I suspect that at this point, they're getting by based on many people's unfamiliarity with the alternatives.
38
Idiots on the council go on and on about needing more data. Just curious... if you really need more data, why not just pass a law saying "If you wanna operate in our city, you have to provide usage numbers."?

This whole "We need numbers so we're going to put in an arbitrary limit" makes absolutely no sense.
39
I don't buy the premise that Uber et al. are popular because of lobbying. They're popular because they're better.
40
Jesus, just take Yellow cab you whiners. It's obvious you want to live in a Delillo novel where you can spout your libertarian-via-Heinlein nonsense and never see poor people.

Yellow has an app. Get it. Try it. Quit lying about drivers not accepting your cards; I've lived in this city for over 20 years & that's rarely happened. To me or you or anyone.

What's obvious from the tone you take with Goldy or anyone else who thinks there's a need for regulation of these new businesses is your hatred of the poor. It would be so much easier if you'd say, 'We don't want to use the same services poor people use.'

It's amazing, simply amazing, anyone would complain that the drivers talk while they drive you. Holy Shit. You want a Driving Miss Daisy experience, please, move to SF and hook up with that imbecile who thinks he going to purchase an offshore platform and establish Freedonia. You know that guy and his cronies are going to rescind anything you think of as a 'right.'

It's pathetic having to listen to less than thought out arguments and lies masquerading as a form of sociopolitical thought. Please, move to the East Side and take a 500 bus in so you can sit with all the other, *ahem,* people.
41
@40 talking on the phone is a safety issue for myself and anyone unfortunate enough to suffer the inevitable consequences of the distraction derby.

Okay, I just got to your last paragraph. Fuck you, mulata.
42
@40: It's illegal for a cab driver to talk on the phone with a passenger in the car (at all, doesn't matter if it's handsfree). Call the city and report them.
43
Sorry, that last one was meant to be @41.
44
@40, the poor aren't taking yellow/orange cab. They're getting rides from friends or taking the bus. The idea that the poor can afford cabs is ridiculous. Cabs vs TNCs is squarely a middle-class problem.
45
I am surprised there hasn't been an article since the vote yesterday. stranger staffers lobbied for caps, and now that it is nearly guaranteed that each TNC will be limited to a measly 150 drivers at a time... Isn't this the time to gloat? Congrats, sidecar and lyft are dead men walking, and supply is going to be shot.
46
UberX/Lyft/Sidecar vehicles are not insured. Most of them are covered by non-commercial policies which are invalid for a taxi service.

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/01/20…
47
dang dude, that didnt work out for the appsters at all last night did it? wow, bummer fer dumb and dumber fer thinking they could bust off into running with out permits, eral background checks drug screens and oh? dare I say it? that silly lil thing like commercial for hire livery insurance? As well as not being ADA compliant?

DOH!
48
Hello readers! I'm one of the bad guys you all love to hate, an independent taxi owner-driver. I pay $600/month for insurance, $550/quarter for my other drivers Labor & Industries insurance, $170/week to be a part of a taxi association, and about $2000/year in licensing & inspection fees to the city, county and state. I'm not exaggerating by a single dime.
Uber & Lyft pay none of these costs, nor did they have to wait ten years and pay $100k to get a medallion. But you know what these companies do have? Billionaire investors! An App instead of a telephone to call for a taxi service!
(btw- now we have Apps too, they are called Yellow Cab Seattle or Taxi Magic)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.