Ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft continued to grapple with shifting regulatory proposals as public officials in Chicago, Las Vegas, San Francisco and Washington in the last few weeks have struggled to balance the upstarts’ growing popularity against allegations by traditional taxicab groups that they represent unfair competition.
San Francisco and Washington officials late last month adopted regulations that appeared to give Uber and Lyft a clearer way to operate legally and expand coverage, moves that drew criticism from taxicab representatives.
Washington’s city council voted in favor of what was termed the “Vehicle-for-hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014,” which legalizes the ride-hailing services for drivers who get proper insurance and submit to background checks of criminal histories and driving records.
Lyft, in an Oct. 28 blog post, wrote that the nation’s capital “has led the way in embracing innovative solutions to modern transportation challenges,” while Uber, in a post the following day, wrote that the vote “sets a precedent for ride-sharing regulations in the future.”
The vote also spurred a taxi driver protest in front of the offices of the mayor and city council. The District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, in an open letter published earlier last month, said the bill “deprives the Commission of the basic tools it needs to hold companies and drivers accountable in a timely manner for violations of the basic standards for safety and consumer protection, which the bill purports to protect.”
Meanwhile, in San Francisco — where Uber, Lyft and a smaller competitor, Sidecar, are based — airport officials on Oct. 20 said that Uber and Lyft could both legally operate at San Francisco Airport (Sidecar was granted that privilege on Oct. 14), making SFO the second U.S. airport to legalize ride-hailing operations (Nashville Airport was the first, in September).
“We are committed to be an industry leader, creating a road map for innovative business models like Lyft and UberX to operate legally in an airport,” SFO Airport Director John Martin said in an Oct. 20 statement.
In Chicago, a call for taxi app
Still, some other cities are looking to help traditional taxi drivers who say their income has been slashed by the growth of such private ride-hailing services. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in late September proposed a so-called “universal smartphone app” that would enable potential riders to contact the closest available taxi instead of having to contact individual companies.
Last week, Chicago’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection issued a notice seeking public feedback for what’s called the City of Chicago Taxicab Centralized Electronic Dispatch System.
“We want to hear directly from the residents who use public vehicles throughout the city and the people who work in the taxicab industry,” Commissioner Maria Guerra Lapacek of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection said in the Oct. 27 statement. “Receiving constructive feedback is another way to find solutions to integrate innovative industries in Chicago.”
Detroit officials last month proposed raising cab fares while making it illegal to employ so-called “surge pricing” that ride-sharing companies often practice during times of high demand. Both policies would help traditional cab drivers better compete with ride-hailing drivers.
Such government officials are attempting to address both the growing popularity of vehicle services that can be hailed via smartphone apps and concerns from longtime taxicab drivers who say the newer services are decimating their business.
Ride-hailing companies say they’re merely looking to legally meet increased demand for their services, while taxicab representatives allege unfair competition because, they say, Uber and Lyft drivers aren’t subject to the same regulations as cab drivers.
The issue’s push-pull nature is best reflected in Las Vegas, which is on target to beat its 2012 all-time record of 39.7 million visitors. Last week, a Clark County judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order that would have barred Uber and Lyft from operating in Las Vegas.
The previous week, Uber and Lyft had both announced their start of operations in three Nevada cities: Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City. But that deployment was put on hold when a Carson City district court judge ruled the same week that the companies couldn’t operate in the state until at least Nov. 6, when a hearing was scheduled to debate the ride-hailing issue.
“This was a victory for the tens of thousands of Nevadans who have already stood up and demanded access to reliable, safe transportation options in their own community,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend said in an email.
Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft continue to face some public opposition in San Francisco. The city’s cab drivers last month held a protest against what they termed “rogue taxis,” and some have estimated a 65% drop in income since the proliferation of ride-hailing services.
Conversely, some Uber drivers protested in front of the company’s San Francisco headquarters two weeks ago, saying that rate cuts and the company’s tipping and commission policies have denied them their fair share of the growing business.
Similar though smaller Uber protests were held in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle.