
Black Market Ride-Sharing Increases in Austin - ALee
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/black-market-ride-sharing-uber-lyft/
======
aero142
As an Austinite, the whole think looked more like a childish pissing match
rather than some real debate on regulation vs the free market. Austin City
Council took up a fight where there wasn't a problem, and Uber paid 9 million
to fight something that they are already doing 3 hours down the road.
[http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-
check...](http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check/)

The whole thing makes no sense to me. The City Council won a fight, but gained
nothing, Uber/Lyft lost a market but will happily move on to some other place.
Meanwhile, the only real losers are the people living in Austin who are stuck
in some of the worst traffic in the nation and now have a worse on demand ride
system. What a waste.

~~~
vkou
Taxis, traditional, or Uber-flavoured, actually make traffic worse. Unlike a
private automobile, they add to congestion because they need to travel to
their pickup point.

If you actually want to fix traffic, tax cars, and add some buses/trains.

~~~
aero142
Perhaps there are situations where this is true, and I'd be open to studies on
this, but my experience says otherwise.

I know people who did not own a car and instead mostly used buses and/or bikes
to get around Austin. They knew they always had a reliable Uber ride to fill
in the gaps. Taxis adjust to demand terribly in Austin so they are not
reliable or pleasant to use. So, now these people are using cars more often
because they don't have a reliable way to fill in the gaps.

2) Uber reduces the need for parking which means more parking lots and
garages, which pushes business further away from each other, making walking
between places more difficult. As far as I know, increasing density is a
reliable way of reducing traffic because it makes alternatives more
attractive.

3) I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin
has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in
government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing heavily
in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill in gaps
between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant distraction from
real traffic problems.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin
> has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in
> government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing
> heavily in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill
> in gaps between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant
> distraction from real traffic problems.

Looks like its time to get involved in your local government! Have you
considered campaigning and running for the next city council seat that goes to
election?

~~~
aero142
I definitely plan to be more involved in future elections. That doesn't change
my opinion that Austin is headed towards being a rather dysfunctional large
city instead of the unique interesting medium sized city I've lived in for
years. I'm not saying there isn't democracy or that there is some great
injustice going on. I'm just mostly sad that a nice place to live is being
slowly replaced by a poorly run place and it doesn't seem to be able to solve
it's own problems. This Uber/Lyft deal is just one small example of moving in
the wrong direction and fighting the wrong fights.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Consider that Austin citizens who have been there longer than tech workers
might have thought they had a nice place that is turning into a poorly run
place due to the tech scene influence. Not an insult, just a consideration.
Something to consider for anyone who decides to move to a new locale.

~~~
subway
Yes yes, we all hate the outsiders and the terrible ideas they bring. We must
protect ourselves from them!

~~~
toomuchtodo
I didn't say that, I said consider an idea.

Some people like the way things are where they live, and if those people make
up the majority, you're SOL. That's democracy.

------
keyanp
This article is inflammatory and slanted. It seems like the author cares less
about reporting than about driving an anti-regulatory agenda.

~~~
Loughla
Slanted is an understatement. The following words are from the article,
written by the author, and take the article out of the realm of actual
reporting, and into the realm of bullshit --opinion--

>hilariously

>The City Of Austin Is Embarrassing Itself

>ham-fisted

>absurd

>un-ironic cluelessness

>senior correspondent for The Federalist.

That last one was an insult.

~~~
deftnerd
This link was originally dead but I vouched for it as I was just a few
paragraphs into reading it. If I read all the way through, I would have left
it dead.

The content started just fine but progressively gets worse and worse with the
authors opinions and vitriolic anger coloring the work.

------
swang
So a tech company is "facilitating" a "BLACK MARKET" for ride-sharing... what?
Was Uber a "black market" too?

The Federalist view generally only has an inkling of the truth to whatever
fits their conservative narrative. So if there is a story here, I doubt it is
the full message

I find it hard to trust anything on the site when one of its founders, Ben
Domenech, plagiarized articles while working at WaPo and had to resign. This
was also on top of him lying and saying he had permission from one(?) of the
authors.

Not that I support the Austin's City Council about the Uber/Lyft situation.
But at the sign of anything happening they instantly write an article to
reflect how "bad" the city council's decision was. See also: anything about
Seattle's increased minimum wage.

------
peterwwillis
In Baltimore, the black market cabs are called "hacks". They exist mainly
because people don't have enough money to afford cabs and there aren't enough
bus routes.

"Hacking" involves driving along popular roads looking for people who use
their index and middle finger to claw at the air ("hawkin'") to indicate
they'd like a ride. Fares are hashed out before the ride begins, usually a
flat rate, and well under the price of a cab. These illegal cabs sometimes
take advantage of the riders because they can't complain to the police. Though
in many cases one might develop a relationship with a particular hack and call
them directly for rides.

~~~
6stringmerc
Can genuinely say that back when I was in Austin for a couple years, partying
hard and occasionally linked up with some other go-getters, most of them had
business cards for Taxis or Town Cars that would cater to well-to-do
individuals, mostly college-aged party scene people. This was about a decade
ago and I thought it was quite useful at the time.

~~~
peterwwillis
That's traditionally called a "black car service", a sort of independent
contractor fancy taxi. Different from a limousine or executive car service.
[http://www.allstarlimo.com/All-Star-Limo-
Blog/2013/8/Executi...](http://www.allstarlimo.com/All-Star-Limo-
Blog/2013/8/Executive-Car-Service-Vs-Black-Car-Service)

------
vannevar
The decision by Uber and Lyft to temporarily abandon Austin (game theory
suggests that both will be back, I suspect within months) may backfire on
them, as the drivers discover that they _really don 't need them._ All the
drivers need is a dispatch service to coordinate the data from their phones.
What makes an Uber driver? A sticker and an app on your phone? That's precious
little value to deliver for the large bite Uber takes out of the driver's
earnings. My prediction is that dispatch services like Uber and Lyft will
become commodities, and the events in Austin will only accelerate that
process.

------
6stringmerc
Pardon my amusement at the observation this conflagration is eerily like the
City of Austin imported more California culture than it wanted - oh sure,
everybody likes tech start ups, but the whole wasteful socially progressive
government style that appartently tagged along isn't so loved. Hm, funny that.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Startup culture is more libertarian than socially progressive. Socially
progressive would be Austin providing a robust public transportation system,
thereby removing the need for ridesharing.

Wouldn't it be more efficient for public transportation to be provided via
taxes and user fees versus Uber and Lyft siphoning off of the flow of
transportation payments for their shareholders? _That_ seems inefficient to
me.

~~~
crispy2000
More efficient? By what measurement? Certainly not the consumer's time nor the
taxpayers' money!

Billion dollar light rail trains that roll empty are not a terribly efficient
use of money. Buses are more flexible, but waiting for a bus then having to
walk from the bus stop home is apparently an unsatisfactory use of time to
many passengers.

A system that connects a passenger with the nearest available driver and
doesn't take too much for their part in the transaction would seem to be
efficient in time and money for both the passenger and driver. In addition, it
provides a source of employment for people who are looking for work and meet
the criteria.

Not saying that Uber, Lyft, and other "ride sharing" services are all on the
side of the angels, but their success points to a need which they are meeting.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You're post makes a whole lot of assumptions about ridesharing.

1\. Uber drivers are compensated sufficiently for their time and expenses
(research has shown this isn't true, Uber drivers scrape by just like cabbies)

2\. That a consumer's time is more valuable than having public transportation
available to everyone (Ridesharing > Buses/bike shares/etc)

3\. That expensive rail is one of the only options.

The solution is a mix of buses, bicycle sharing, and electric self-driving
cars. How we get there is the tricky part.

~~~
crispy2000
Didn't assume either 1, 2, nor 3. 1\. Perhaps your definition of "compensated
sufficiently" doesn't jibe with those of the thousands of drivers who
voluntarily choose to drive for Uber and similar services. 2\. SOME consumers
consider their time too valuable to take public transportation as you have
defined it. 3\. I mentioned light rail AND buses in my decidedly non-
encyclopedic comment about efficiency of ridesharing. Those are two of the
main options currently available in Austin.

Definitely, "the solution is a mix", but the components and proportions of
that mix are best left to the consumers, not solely to central planners,
whether in governments or in large corporations. Indeed, since the vote, local
rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin, perhaps better suited to the
needs of Austinites.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Indeed, since the vote, local rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin,
> perhaps better suited to the needs of Austinites.

So what you're saying is a regulated free market is driving innovation. Go
figure.

------
beatpanda
Uh huh. Listen. I've been around the world doing "black market ride sharing",
where the ride is actually _shared_ , for years. There aren't any regulations
on it, other than "don't stand in the road asking for a ride". Government
regulation isn't preventing anyone from _sharing_ anything. It _may_ give you
some extra rules to follow if you're _running a business_ though.

------
vonklaus
I think this is great. However, if you are Austin and you're idea was to
strong arm Lyft & Uber into allowing background checks to make ride sharing
"safer", one would imagine spawning a comleteley unregulated black market
would be "suboptimal" to the desired outcome.

------
kybernetyk
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

The free market interprets regulation as damage and routes around it.

Wanting to control either of both is an exercise in futility.

~~~
bdcravens
Gun owners see gun control as damage and routes around it.

Business owners see labor laws as damage and route around it.

~~~
vonklaus
correct. I agree with you as well as parent to some degree. However, chiefly,
it shoud be noted that

Business Owners and Gun Owners operate _in the free market_ and presumably
_use the internet_. Wherease everyone who is operating within a freemarket or
active on the internet may not be a _gun owner or business owner_.

The parent is talking about at a system level. You are talking, at least my
charrachterization of it, about a layer of abstraction within a system.

------
Yhippa
> Arcade City, the “Uber killer” ride-sharing company, as it’s known, says
> it’s developing a peer-to-peer ride-sharing app that will connect people who
> need a ride with people who have a car, and eliminate “concern about red
> tape or corporate BS—just people providing people a needed service.”

I like water, meat, and medical services, but prefer some amount of regulation
on them. I'm sure there's a fine line between reasonable regulation and
protectionism or irrationality when it comes to these things.

> Here’s the big idea: We can cut out the corporate middlemen — and make
> government regulations obsolete — by transparently providing rider and
> driver with clear information about the other party to each transaction,
> including a strong reputation and ratings system where riders and drivers
> ‘level up’ after community-vetted good behavior on the platform.

Who's going to take a chance on the drivers and riders with no reputation?

~~~
forrestthewoods
Regulation is necessary for health and safety reasons. Need for regulation
beyond health and safety is quite small. Not zero, but on a relative scale
quite small.

Uber and Lyft's track record for safety in the US is quite strong. As is the
willingness of riders and drivers to participate in the system from no
reputation.

The need for regulation has not been justified. Regulations shouldn't be
passed unless there is a clear reason to do so and measurable way to declare
that regulation a success or failure.

------
hackbinary
Didn't Austin get rid of Uber and Lyft because of the entrenched/encumband
'taxi' industry and the big finance industry owning and financing taxi
'licenses'?

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/cab-medallion-
own...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/cab-medallion-owners-sue-
nyc-blame-uber-for-ruining-business/)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/09/08/wish-
yo...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/09/08/wish-you-could-
invest-in-uber-and-lyft-heres-a-clever-way-to-get-rich-off-
rides/#146ff825772a)

------
tzs
The author can't seem to keep his story straight. In paragraph 3 he makes this
claim:

> When a ballot proposal that would have replaced the city ordinance failed,
> Uber and Lyft left town as promised. Since May 9, there have been no ride-
> sharing services available in this city of almost a million people.

and then a few paragraphs later makes this claim, directly contradicting the
above claim:

> The city’s response is only making things worse. Last week it held a job
> fair for out-of-work Uber and Lyft drivers, at which it encouraged drivers
> to get fingerprinted and sign up for the only remaining ridesharing company
> in town, a local app called Get Me.

------
illumen
“My sense is we were innovating too quickly for Uber and Lyft. You get to be a
big company, you’re less nimble. But these companies have to expect
disruption.”

Gold. Reminds me of how Slowgle is getting disrupted by Paris.

------
Aelinsaar
"The City Of Austin Is Embarrassing Itself."

I wouldn't go that far. They're not handling this very well, but this article
is a bit of demagoguery in the skin of "news".

~~~
exelius
How so, by requiring background checks for Uber drivers? When I lived there,
they required the same livery license for pedicab drivers as well -- which was
basically getting fingerprinted and paying a $25 fee.

Uber and Lyft were the ones who pulled out. The regulation that Austin passed
was in no way overbearing; it just required fingerprints. They claim this
"destroys the ridesharing economy" but in my experience, Uber is basically a
part-time job for most drivers. Most people will go get fingerprinted for a
part-time job. Very few people are ridesharing; but maybe this undercuts the
argument that Lyft and Uber use for the drivers not being employees...

~~~
alistairSH
Were Uber and Lyft being required to perform a level of background check
beyond what was required of existing taxi cab drivers? Or, were the new set of
regulations simply bringing Uber/Lyft drivers in line with other professional
drivers?

The whole thing is weird to me. I've used Uber a few times and the car that
showed up has always been a licensed limo (just dumb luck, I suppose). Pretty
sure I'd turn down a ride in some clapped-out Civic, should that be the car
that showed up (but, perhaps that's why I usually use car services and not
Uber).

~~~
exelius
They weren't even bringing them up to the same level as taxi drivers; they
were just requiring a livery license -- which is a rubber-stamp process in
Austin and again, is required even of bicycle-taxi drivers who are only
allowed to work for tips.

Uber and Lyft threw a hissy fit because it undermines their complete control
over the driver ecosystem. Best I can tell, they're afraid that licensing
drivers would cause them to expect to be treated like employees, while making
it ever-so-slightly harder for Uber/Lyft to recruit drivers. IMO it's more
about labor relations than regulation.

------
clemensley
I'd predict some decentralized service will fill that market need. Anything
that works better than craigslist and is hard to take down.

~~~
ajford
Problem is, Craigslist is full of spam/scams. It's hard to filter through, and
takes time and effort. Not something I want to do via mobile at
$arbitrary_time when I may or may not be in a hurry.

And decentralizing eliminates one of the best things going for Uber/Lyft, the
background checks and tracking.

------
aluhut
Since Uber was not allowed here (Black was I guess) in Germany, I wonder how
does insurance work on Uber or those black market ride sharers in the US?

~~~
crispy2000
Not sure about Germany, but in Austin, Uber wanted their drivers to carry auto
insurance, although the company also has its own policy to cover drivers--many
personal auto insurance policies explicitly do not cover accidents while the
insured party is driving for hire.

