Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Do Texas Cities Need Rideshare Services Like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar?

By Comments

Getting around in Texas cities without driving your own car is a challenge. That part isn’t really in dispute: even in cities that have good public transportation infrastructure (i.e., trains, comprehensive bus routes) don’t meet all of the consumer needs. Trains only reach certain parts of the area, and buses don’t run 24 hours. 

In Texas cities, where transportation infrastructure is often a problem to begin with, Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, and others are particularly tantalizing prospects. These companies offer a solution that’s worked in other cities around the country. But that solution, in Texas as elsewhere, raises an issue: are these services taxis, limos, or something else entirely? And depending on the answer to that question, are they legal? 

The services are all fairly similar in how they operate, at least from a user’s perspective: You open the Uber/Lyft/Sidecar app on your phone, which sends your location to the service, and allows you to input your destination. The app then matches you with a driver in the area, who picks you up and takes you to your destination for a fee charged to your saved credit card via the app. Some of the awkwardness of the typical taxi transaction is spared—a passenger knows how much his or her ride will cost in advance, he doesn’t have to fumble for cash or swipe a credit card while he’s sitting in the backseat, and he doesn’t have to calculate a tip. Everything is resolved via the app—people who fear talking with strangers don’t even have to tell the driver their destination outloud. 

Lyft describes itself as “your friend with a car,” and encourages passengers to sit in the front seat and to “think of your driver as your friend,” and allows both passengers and drivers to rate one another at the end of the trip. Uber, with its German name and stark white-on-black display, feels a bit more foreboding and business-like. Sidecar, which purchased the similar Austin-based startup Heyride in early 2013, also falls on the more informal side of the spectrum. But regardless of how these services present themselves to users, the question of whether or not they require taxi permits is an important part of whether or not they’ll be able to survive in Texas.

At issue is the fact that many Texas cities cap the number of permits they allow for taxis. This makes sense, as too many cabs on the road makes it difficult for drivers to make a living. There are 2,020 taxi permits available in Dallas, for example, and every one of them is claimed. (Though, as the Dallas Observer reported last year, approximately 15% of them are claimed by cab companies that aren’t using them.) 

Regulating services like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar is important. Companies that profit off of public infrastructure (i.e., roads) need to pay taxes that help maintain that infrastructure, but that’s just the beginning of the question. Are the unlicensed, part-time, “your driver is your buddy” chaffeurs of Lyft and Sidecar safe behind the wheel, if there’s no regulation? Cities have a legitimate interest in regulating taxi franchises for multiple reasons: safety, tax purposes, and ensuring that there are enough cabs on the road—i.e., that the business model remains profitable enough that people continue becoming cab drivers—to provide travelers with the ability to, say, get to and from the airport in a reasonable manner. 

But over the past year, as these startups have attempted to move in to Texas, the regulations have disrupted their business models to the point that they don’t really function. Uber drivers in Houston have been banned from taking payment for their rides; Lyft and Uber have faced similar challenges in San Antonio. Lyft allows for passengers to make a “donation” to the driver, while Uber announced last week that it would allow drivers to charge for rides, and that it would support drivers who face citations as a result.

All of this has led to a showdown between the services that operate in the somewhat grey-area between “taxi franchise” and “innovative startup” that’s finding much of its resolution in City Halls, but also some of it in federal court. Houston and San Antonio cab companies sought a restraining order blocking those services from being used—but a federal judge yesterday denied the order. 

Houston-based U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore set a July 15 date for an injunction hearing, which could result in stopping the smartphone-based companies from operating or give city ordinances a chance to catch up with the technology.

The city of Houston’s Department of Administration and Regulatory Affairs has proposed revisions to the city’s ordinances related to vehicles-for-hire that would allow ride-sharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, to operate in Houston. A city council committee is expected to take up the issue Tuesday.

That’s a small win for the embattled startups, and the fact that the process is being allowed to continue politically—at city council meetings and with the formation of new committees—is probably better news for them than if it plays out exclusively in the courts, where the laws as-written seem to make it pretty clear that the functional difference between a taxi franchise and an informal ride with your “buddy” who is also a stranger who is being paid to give you a ride via a third-party that takes a cut is minimal. A similar process is playing out in Dallas right now, as well.

Ultimately, transportation issues in Texas cities need to be resolved one way or another, and services like the ridesharing startups allow for some flexibility with supply-and-demand that, say, capped taxi permits do not. What the resolution looks like—and whether anybody is happy with it—remains to be seen. 

Related Content

  • Texifornian

    Maybe it’s not that these companies are trying to operate in an unregulated manner but that governments need to evaluate their regulations to keep up with the times, no? Otherwise sensible regulation from yesterday can quickly become protectionist (benefiting the cab companies) and retrograde in regards to improving city transportation and benefitting citizens.

    • wessexmom

      Do you think it’s no longer sensible for car services to check the fingerprints of their applicants? If you want less regulation, then you need to inform consumers upfront about what differs a cab driver from an Uber driver, so they can assess the risks and make an informed decision.

  • Gritsforbreakfast

    “This makes sense, as too many cabs on the road makes it difficult for drivers to make a living.”

    It only makes sense if you assume the regulations are there to benefit taxi businesses and not the general public, which needs more and cheaper transportation options.

  • pitbullstew

    the market place might detrmine whether Texas cities or anywhere else needs ride services, but one thing is for certain, and that is that Uber Lyft and Sidecar are not free to determine that they are exempted from the very same regs rules and laws as exisitng fully compliant operators are compelled to conduct their operations under including ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) as Uber and Lyft openly defy cease and desist orders in every market place who’s regulating authorities have issued them at the city county and state levels.

    To say nothing of the injunction issued by a St Louis Judge that ordered Lyft to shut the App off entirely within the city as Lyft defied the courts order, this mind you as NBC affiliates in a handful of markets run a stunning expose on the very flawed background checks that both Uber and lyft say they run on their drivers?

    Is Uber Keeping Riders Safe?
    NBC Bay Area – 2 days ago
    Now, the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit has found that Uber’s policies can leave drivers and passengers in the lurch if there are accidents.

    Risky Ride: Who’s Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars? | NBC …
    http://www.nbclosangeles.com › … › Risky Ride: Ride Share Investigation
    to …

    In Arizona this past Thursday the governor there vetoed a bill passed by the republican majority that would have exempted both Uber and Lyft from having commerical for hire livery insurance the way every one else carries who do #playbytherules.

  • Here are some links pertaining to the issue of Ride-sharing. Caveat emptor.

    A Must Watch NBC UberX Expose
    http://t.co/JL9ZpgHuYj
    http://t.co/nb8iv34khR
    http://t.co/uhY79xAM4F

    This ONE screenshot says ALL that needs to be said about the #Ride-sharing #Insurance charade!
    http://t.co/4Edsw5xlCI

    A Peek Inside the UberWONDERFUL World of #Ride-sharing http://t.co/Y7TZDcOxZo
    Twitter @chi1cabby

  • David Alves

    Those ride sharing applications such as Uber, sidecar and lyft are more essential for taxi hailing in this emerging world. Its a time for texas to enter into new technology for cab bookings. Taxi dispatch software makes easy booking as well as safer than traditional taxis.

  • None of these apps actually take cars off the road and help reducing our traffic. If anything, these apps contribute to more traffic by putting more drivers on the road to service the potential passengers. Carma (app on iOS & Android) matches people together to carpool (true ridesharing) together and gets some cars off the road. A huge need in Austin!

  • Frustrated

    We need more rideshares! And services like zip car. Dart does not run in my area and I do not have a car yet so I am forced to take GoTaps which is okay, but with the new policy I am waiting 2 hrs in the morning for a pick up. Its ludicrous.

  • ramgo7

    All Uber and Lyft drivers have gone through extensive background and credit report checks.