Save uberX in Seattle
action.uber.org
action.uber.org
The actual proposal may be found on the city's site [1]. It also would help to provide some context for the types of changes, which both an opinionated summary from the local newspaper [2] and somewhat impartial summary from a local tech site [3] do fairly well.
For the tl;dr who don't want to click away:
1. Seattle defines uberX, Lyft, etc as Transportation Network Companies (TNC) and declares all drivers as "for-hire" drivers, which is a legal distinction that means Seattle can regulate them.
2. TNCs are taxed at $50k for first year. Second year is the greater of $50k or .35% of gross revenue.
3. No more than 300 drivers may be associated with each TNC (it's a permit lottery regime, if you are curious), and each driver can work only 16 hours.
Yes, that means that each TNC is limited to 300 x 16 = 4800 hours of work per week. A previous proposal had a limit of 100 drivers [5]
4. Drivers can't double dip: They can't both drive for-hire cars and also do uberX on the side. They also can't work for both uberX and Lyft.
5. I can't find a cap on the number of TNCs that will be licensed, even though that seems to be one of the (perhaps past?) sticking points.
6. Rates may either be flat-rate between preset zones OR subject to RCW Chapter 19.94. RCW Chapter 19.94 [4] defines appropriate measurement devices that may be used with commerce, which I think precludes most cell phones... uberX would need to install meters it seems.
Details likely only I will find interesting:
1. TNCs have to have valid insurance for all vehicles, and this insurance looks like it is stricter than what uberX and Lyft currently have.
2. TNCs must have an office in Seattle that is open and personally staffed all business days between nine a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) with toll-free number
3. The TNC shall submit to the Director a report detailing all rides that were requested but not accepted by TNC drivers. The report shall include the location and zip code of each rejected ride. There are penalties for discriminating against underserved zip codes.
4. 30% increase in the total number of taxicabs, including an immediate increase of 8% "today. "
[1] http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/taxis.html
[2] http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/02/14/seattle-u...
[3] http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-delays-ride-sharing-vot...
[4] http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.94
[5] http://www.geekwire.com/2013/sidecar-uber-express-disappoint...
Edit: Formatting and spelling
edit: there might have been an argument that capping the number of drivers would de facto prevent new companies from starting because all the slots would be taken by existing ones?
On the other hand, I'm disgusted by Uber's bullshit legal argument that drivers are only employed by Uber during the time they have a passenger in the back, as a tactic to avoid liability in the case of an UberX driver that hit and killed a 6 year old child in SF last New Year's Eve. If they're logged into your app and checking for fares, then it's little different from being available for despatch in the same manner as a legacy cab (see http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-sued-over-girl-s-... for a summary).
Uber is trying to have its cake and eat it here. I'm not inclined to support them if they're going to build their business model around offloading externalities onto the public.
* Personal insurance does not cover commercial driving. UberX only requires personal insurance to be a driver.
* Uber's own insurance only covers when a passenger is in the car.
* Most insurance companies would consider being "online" as a commercial event. At the very least, Uber telling the driver to drive to a specific destination to pick someone up is definitely a commercial event.
* Therefore in my view of things, many UberX drivers are driving without proper insurance, a misdemeanor offense.
This can be solved by either making UberX/TNC drivers carry commercial insurance at the driver's own cost, or making Uber/TNC's blanket insurance cover the entire time a driver is on-duty as if the driver had full-coverage commercial insurance.
And if that is the case, then Uber's current business model requires that drivers do this. I wonder how much it would cost Uber to increase the insurance coverage such that there is no doubt that a driver is properly insured at all times, and why they have no done this so far.
uberx is cheaper, faster, more reliable. cars are nicer, drivers are very professional, all the time. uberx is always there for you, you don't need to wave at empty taxis that may or may not take you in, and wait 30min because you're not at the right place. uber is there in 5. always.
So yeah, fuck regular taxis. Sorry guys. You don't cut it anymore.
However uber fails for the early am scheduled ride for things like plane rides. I can't depend that uber is possibly going to get me a lift. Taxis DO show up on time super early am.
Last two times I've flow early I've tried to get a uber, and both times failed to see a single one on the app. Told uber about it, they said "we dunno we had plenty of cars"
Maybe that is just me.