The City Council’s Public Safety Subcommittee will meet Wednesday, 11 a.m. to receive a briefing from San Antonio Police Chief William McManus on car share programs, who said he asked for the meeting before following his counterparts in other Texas cities, including Austin, by sending a “cease and desist” letter to the San Francisco-based car share startup Lyft.
Mayor Julián Castro, however, sent out a supportive Tweet Friday morning that said car share programs would be welcome to operate in San Antonio, but a later Facebook posting by the Mayor made it clear they will have to meet certain city standards that will come under discussion next week.
“We can make Lyft, Uber and similar services work in San Antonio,” Castro wrote on Facebook. “They need to meet strong standards for safety and quality (insurance, driver background checks, etc.), but they should be part of the equation. Figuring that out will take some time, but we’ll get it done. San Antonio is moving forward, not standing still.”
Lyft executives say the car share startup already meets those standards in every city where it operates. Uber, another car share program that operates in 34 countries, posted on its own blog Thursday news that it, too, was opening for business in San Antonio.
The local taxi industry is expected to oppose new competitors coming into the market. Licensed taxi services have complained to city officials about the unregulated car share programs establishing operations in San Antonio, a scenario playing out in U.S. cities everywhere.
The Public Safety Subcommittee is chaired by District 7 Councilman Chris Medina. Other members include District 3 Councilwoman Rebecca Viagran, District 5 Councilwoman Shirley Gonzales, District 9 Councilman Joe Krier, and District 10 Councilman Mike Gallagher.
I spoke with Chief McManus late Friday after writing an open letter to him posted on the Rivard Report late Thursday night: “Dear Chief McManus, Let’s Welcome Lyft to San Antonio.” McManus wanted readers to know he had called for the subcommittee meeting before he sent the letter, and had consulted with counterparts in other Texas cities. McManus said he does not oppose car share services or other transportation innovations, but wants everyone to play by the same rules and regulations.
McManus said he would recommend to members on the public safety subcommittee that all stakeholders be invited to appear at an open hearing to consider the matter. The topic has been the subject of intense social media postings since last night, particularly among young professionals, who consider car share a more preferable option to local taxis, both for their use of consumer-friendly technology to connect riders and drivers, and because they eliminate the traditional “call a cab and wait” service. Many have cited the car share services as a means of reducing drunk driving in the city.
Related Stories:
Dear Chief McManus, Let’s Welcome Lyft to San Antonio
San Antonio and The Green Dividend
10 Steps to Hit the Reset Button on VIA’s Modern Streetcars
The High-Hanging Fruit: Broadway’s Complete Street Potential
I’m still not understanding why these car share companies balk at the safety regulations.
Yes and I am still awaiting a response from someone who can explain to me how these services are illegal.
I found this – To be valid, an ordinance must, at a minimum, serve a public purpose within the
scope of the local governing body’s authority; it must be consistent with applicable local, state and federal charters, laws, constitutions and public policies; and it must be precise and reasonable.
I have found nothing governing ride share companies in any new or current ordinances. Multiple cities have formed various regulatory frameworks as a response to ride share services. San Antonio has not.
Lyft already self regulates. Numerous new startups have begun to self regulate. I believe it is time for governments to step out of the conversation. Tesla is battling New Jersey and other states because of incumbent services and Lyft is here worrying about regulations that don’t exist. These are unnecessary battles because they are not legimate and the actions of governments in these cases do not serve a public purpose.
So if I open up my own business like a bar and don’t have a liquor lic. Or pay for any permits the city will be OK with that too ? It’s the same thing what’s going on here. We can’t do anything about people wanting to share rides I get that,but we can’t have 5,000 people on the road using their cabs and personal cars as vehicles for hire. The insurance companies already said they are not covered unless the driver purchase a commercial insurance coverage. It’s just a matter of time before something bad to happen again and then uber/lyft will say they are not to blame seems like the driver is getting caught in the middle.
People share rides. Ride-sharing is usually done one-on-one but can involve three or more people. To be knowledge, there is no ordinance regulation these one-on-one interactions and there has been no enforcement.
Ride-Share companies have made ride-sharing a service. The act of sharing your ride for a fee. This transaction is completed using an online application. The use of the application is what sets it apart from other services.
Cities (and some states) have either welcomed it or rejected it. Trade Associations have had their input and regulations have been put in place.
San Antonio (following in the footsteps of other cities) made a stand and they have called it illegal. That classification is dubious simply because other cities have had very different responses. This is naturally about money. If it is for profit then it should be regulated.
The point you are making is incorrect. Carma Carpooling in Austin is legal simply because they don’t make a profit. It isn’t about safety. It’s about money!
This is interesting –
“Ride-sharing activity” means transportation provided by a vehicle equipped with rubber tires that carries 10 to 15 passengers.” – Transportation code
That’s 10-15 people. I think two to three people for profit is within the law but they’ll make you get a license and add another layer of regulation to it. It’s a sad, sad greedy world……
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.456.htm
http://kxan.com/2014/02/25/ride-sharing-app-gets-green-light-from-city-of-austin/
If Uber and Lyft will replace my standard digital phone, at no cost to me, with an iphone, I will call them. In the real world there are people who see an iphone as a toy, and do not want the latest edition every year. My digital phone does exactly what, I want it to do, not what YOU WANT MY PHONE TO DO. ALL OF YOU ACTIVISTS BEING PAID TO PROMOTE RIDE SHARE NEED TO GET A GRIP AND A REAL JOB RATHER THAN USING THE NET TO SPREAD YOUR PROPAGANDA. THE IPHONE CROWD IS SELECT, AND DOES NOT REPRESENT EVERYONE. LOW INCOME,HANDICAPPED, ELDERLY,SOBER RIDERS ARE NOT REFLECTED IN YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, JUST BECAUSE ITS NEW DOES NOT MEAN IT IS BETTER!