Rideshare is a subject of passionate debate in San Antonio. Many San Antonians have come to see ride-booking technology as an essential piece of a modern, multimodal transportation system, but concerns about public safety and strong lobbying efforts from the traditional vehicle-for-hire industry have brought the debate to a temporary compromise.
But the pilot agreement between the City and rideshare companies like Uber, Lyft, Get Me, and Bid my Ride will soon expire.
The City hosted the first of two “rideshare roundtable” discussions on Wednesday where more than 70 local residents – drivers and riders – and other stakeholders shared their perspectives on how rideshare companies should be regulated beyond the pilot agreement.
The sticking point is whether the same regulations used for the traditional vehicle for hire industry – including mandated fingerprint background checks on drivers – should also apply to rideshare, so-called transportation network companies (TNCs). The nine-month pilot agreement signed by four TNCs operating in San Antonio makes the fingerprint background checks optional. All drivers must take third-party, multi-district background check required by TNCs. Austin voters recently rejected a measure developed by rideshare companies Lyft and Uber that would eliminate fingerprint background checks. Those companies have ceased their operations in Austin until further notice.
(Read more: Uber, Lyft to ‘Pause’ Operations in Austin After Prop 1 Fails)
Some participants on Wednesday believed that imposing the same regulations onTNC drivers would make the transportation market fair. Some called for an overhaul of regulations across the board. Others said the pilot agreement should be continued indefinitely. Several rideshare drivers said they didn’t mind taking the fingerprint check but others said it was an unnecessary and cumbersome extra step.
The lively conversations that took place Wednesday night are similar to those taking place in living rooms, restaurants and offices public and private across the city. City Council will review the information gathered in June, when another lively conversation is sure to take place.
Drivers in the traditional vehicle for hire industry – which include taxicabs, limousines, tours, charters, horse-drawn carriages and pedicabs – are highly regulated under Chapter 33 of the City’s municipal code which includes a myriad of other mandates that several City Council members see as outdated given the demand for more options and introduction of new technology.
“Leveling the playing field” has been a topic of discussion since TNCs returned to San Antonio in summer of 2015.
“There should be some regulations for all the transportation providers (in San Antonio) because of public safety,” said Michael Khadem, president and CEO of limousine and charter company Enterprise Transportation, Inc. “It should be fair. I don’t believe there should be rules for taxi and limousine companies” while ridesharing companies have optional requirements.
Other participants in the taxi industry expressed frustration with Lyft and Uber, saying that their lack of security measures like fingerprint background checks and drug tests make them an unsafe transportation option.
“I’m not against you guys, I just want you to do what we do,” said cab driver Shawn Jordan. “And I don’t want my industry to be deregulated because I believe in what we do for safety.”
When someone requests an Uber ride, for example, the user is able to see whether or not the driver has completed the fingerprint check, and has the option to cancel the ride and order another.
Lyft and Uber, the most popular TNCs, do not provide a feature on their platforms for users to specifically request a driver that has taken that extra step. Drivers are typically assigned by proximity.
To date, around 170 San Antonio drivers have applied for the background checks, said San Antonio Police Department Assistant Director Steven Baum, and about 120 have completed the process.
Some rideshare drivers on Wednesday said the fingerprint check process was too cumbersome.The appeal of driving for a TNC for many drivers is that it’s quick and easy part-time work. Uber driver Alan Johnson said he went through a series of dead end phone calls and various office visits to fill out paperwork, only to complete the process more than two weeks later.
“This really is not a simple, streamlined process,” he said. “Anybody who has a full-time job or family that’s going to be going through this process would have to take multiple days off work to be able to get this done.”
Councilwoman Rebecca Viagran (D3), who chairs the Council’s Criminal Justice, Public Safety and Services Committee, is a staunch supporter of requiring fingerprint checks for TNCs and said the City will begin assessing ways to make the certification process easier.
“If it wasn’t (easy) for some people, then we have a lot of work to do on that, because if it’s going to be something that the community says they want to make mandatory or something that they want to make voluntary, whatever it is, we need to make sure that it is a smooth process for everybody,” she said.
The data and anecdotal feedback from the community gatherings and the City’s online survey will be presented to City Council, Viagran said, and from there they will figure out next steps in regards to the agreement and the future of rideshare in San Antonio. Council has been divided in support of the experimental rideshare agreement, and amending it is one of several possibilities that are “on the table,” Viagran added, as is codifying regulations within Chapter 33.
“There are a lot of different elements that we really need to take a look at when we’re dealing with this larger conversation as we move forward,” she said. “Our main points are the public safety, the regulations” and if citizens see a need for rideshare in the city.
Tracking the number of drivers and passengers who use services like Lyft and Uber is difficult since both companies have refused to release that data. Councilman Roberto Treviño (D1), who played a key role in the creation of the rideshare operating agreements, said Uber and Lyft representatives were present at Wednesday’s gathering, but they did not identify themselves to participants.
Treviño said gathering public feedback is important in crafting an operating agreement that could be seen as a “model” for other cities.
“We think that this is really important not only to our community, but someday we’re going to get to set the tone for the state and even the nation,” he said. “We feel like we’ve created a pilot program that has been very successful, it’s made a very positive impact … and I think it’s incredible how we can use this model for other issues that we might have.”
The City will host another “rideshare roundtable” on Wednesday, June 1 from 5:30-7 p.m. at TriPoint YMCA Grantham Hall, 3233 N. St Mary’s. Residents are also encouraged to participate in the online survey at www.sanantonio.gov/rideshare.
Top image:Drivers sit and discuss matters during the city hosted round table discussion. Photo by Scott Ball.
Related Stories:
Public Input Needed to Determine Future of Rideshare in San Antonio
Uber, Lyft to ‘Pause’ Operations in Austin After Prop 1 Fails
I do volunteer work where I had to be fingerprinted at first and where I have to go through a background check every year. It isn’t cumbersome anymore. Fingerprinting is now electronic–no ink mess and much more accurate so that it goes faster. (I know, because ink was used when I first volunteered, and I had to be fingerprinted again when they switched to digital fingerprinting.)
The city could easily provide fingerprinting services at 2-3 public libraries scattered around town to get this off the ground with drivers and then have 2-hours a month at the same libraries (taking up only one day for coverage for all three libraries) for new drivers. I say keep the current plan of optional fingerprinting, but make fingerprinting more accessible so that there are plenty of drivers who take advantage of it.
A few points:
First, making the process harder does not automatically make the process better. If we assume that fingerprinting actually makes ride-hailing safer, then the process of getting the fingerprinting should be brought into modern times. This means having multiple facilities throughout the city, open at truly convenient hours, available at nominal cost, and with results that take minutes instead of days. When the point of being a driver for Uber/Lyft is to drive when it is most convenient–often in between day jobs and other obligations–getting downtown for this requirement is no simple task. I have talked to many drivers over the last 6 months since I started using rideshare, and these folks are regular citizens like you and me–college students trying to get cash to buy meals, young professionals trying to get college loans paid off, older adults looking to boost their retirement account, and even a pastor of a church too small to pay him a living wage.
Second, there is all this talk about how much regulation is required of the taxi/limousine/pedicab industry. Perhaps leveling the playing field means making it easier to work in those industries, not harder for those who need rideshare to stick around.
Lastly, are we actually getting the feedback from those who understand and use Uber/Lyft in San Antonio? My worry is that all the folks showing up at these meetings are angry taxi and limo drivers, and others who basically fear that any new change will automatically render the apocalypse. As someone who relies on public transportation in San Antonio for my daily commute, there have been many situations where Uber and Lyft have been exactly the right tool to fill the gap when VIA can’t get me to my destination quickly enough (or at all). To think that someone trying to prop up a failing industry would be the sole reason that I would need to own a car–exactly the opposite of what we’re trying to encourage–is insane.
Rideshare is a much-needed service that moves us toward the kind of city we need to be. Following in Austin’s footsteps is not the right direction for San Antonio (at least not this time).
I attended this meeting. The amount of misinformation on both sides was intense. There’s a lot of confusion.
There was also a healthy amount of disagreement of course, but much more agreement than I expected. The general consensus of the room (with a few yells of dissent): (1) we like having choice, (2) we’d like Uber and Lyft to stay in San Antonio, (3) we believe the playing field should be level for all transportation providers, and (4) generally fingerprinting makes things safer… so why not require it? What’s the harm?
Here’s what seemed lost on the room: Whatever side you take, if we vote to impose mandatory fingerprinting, both Uber and Lyft have made it clear they will vacate San Antonio. (That requirement was at the center of why they voluntarily left Austin, a market you’d think any TNC would salivate over. Likewise, making fingerprinting optional was a condition for them to resume operations here.)
Also lost in the discussion, was the complexity of the service they provide. I heard two people cite Geekdom as a reason we don’t need these “California” companies—we’d be best served building our own competitors. (For now, let’s set aside the idea that you aren’t competing once the competition leaves.)
While the Uber and Lyft apps have deceptively simple interfaces, both companies balance rider / driver demand with increasingly complex algorithms; both companies are aggressively spending on research into autonomous driving. To compete and survive, a San Antonio company would have to be prepared to operate and be funded at 2 billion dollar+ scale. (Personally, I would love to see more competition in TNC services, and I’d love to see a local company competing globally. But I don’t think encouraging local startups is a reason to driving Uber and Lyft out of town, and I think it would do a disservice to both our city and to the startups.)
The ONLY people who were pissed off were the cab drivers, and I don’t think their opinion should be valued, as it is RIDDLED with conflicts of interest. People like me, who use Uber regularly, do not think it is “unsafe” by any means and think it’s quite the opposite, compared with taking a cab. Cabs are a dying industry clinging to relevance. Cabs are unreliable, unprofessional, rude and will kick you out if you don’t have cash. Let’s not buy into this “public safety issue myth” when Uber actually allows you to know who exactly you rode with, where you went and at what time. Someone would REALLY have to WANT to get caught if they committed a crime while driving for Uber. Everything is documented! While a cab can enjoy the anonymity of being a jerk and cussing you out for not taking a “long enough trip”… when I called the cab’s number to report him, it just rang and rang with no answer. The one time I needed to reach out to Uber customer service, I was answered immediately.
San Antonio, please be forward thinking and realize that if we make the wrong decision on this (meaning, require fingerprints, causing TNCs to leave), we send a message to the rest of the country that SA is just as backwards as they thought. Austin’s image is now suffering immensely in the tech world because of this legislation.