Black Market ride sharing emerges in Austin, TX

Austin effectively regulated Uber and Lyft out of the city. So passengers and drivers are going underground to do peer to peer ride-sharing:

Quote:

---

AUSTIN — Almost as soon as Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin two weeks ago, a black market for unregulated ride-sharing emerged to meet the huge demand for transportation here.

Tens of thousands of riders and drivers are now connecting through Facebook and Craigslist, sidestepping onerous city regulations passed late last year aimed at traditional ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft that required drivers to be fingerprinted, among other things.

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. Getting around town has become almost impossible unless you own a car.

Riders And Drivers Connect On Their Own

So it’s no surprise that tech-savvy Austinites have taken matters into their own hands.

---

Continues

Funny....

Although most of Texas is very conservative, Austin is a rather large liberal haven for left-wing folks, and has been for a long time now.

I always wondered how UBER etc got by the government regulations that pertain to taxis and limos. I know that those industries are regulated and the local gov't set the fees that can be charged. Never been able to figure out how and why UBER etc can charge less and get away with it.

First time we used UBER was last year in Nashville for the SEC. My wife was 100% against it because she didn't want to ride in an unsafe care with somebody she didn't know. Would rather ride in a cab :533: Our first cab ride was in a smoke stenched piece of crap cab with some guy who spoke no english. So we tried UBER at the suggestion of Mick. Got a brand new car driven by a super polite college kid who took us right were we needed to go and made the trip enjoyable. Won't ever use a cab again unless I have to.

Doc, like you I dont' get it. Lexington and Louisville after years and years finally got the right to regulate their taxi market themselves, prior to that it all came from Frankfort and thanks to the corruption there was just one licensed company in all of Lexington (operating as 2-3 companies but it was really all one, with one dispatch and location).

Lexington liberalized the standards and got some competition going and things got a lot better, but how Uber is legal is beyond me and I haven't taken the time to look into it. I'd presume a Uber driver would have to get the same approvals as any taxi driver in the city, but apparently not.

I find it funny that Austin, a huge liberal haven (and don't fool yourself, Texas is nowhere near as conservative as they pretend to be) would be the one to crack down on what is largely a social media created application of pure free markets. They can't stand those free markets, no matter how socially hip apparently.

Personally I have a discomfort with uber, but I have one with all such services, licensed or otherwise. But I have no doubt that they are a shining example of how free markets and open competition are good for consumers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I always wondered how UBER etc got by the government regulations that pertain to taxis and limos. I know that those industries are regulated and the local gov't set the fees that can be charged. Never been able to figure out how and why UBER etc can charge less and get away with it.

First time we used UBER was last year in Nashville for the SEC. My wife was 100% against it because she didn't want to ride in an unsafe care with somebody she didn't know. Would rather ride in a cab :533: Our first cab ride was in a smoke stenched piece of crap cab with some guy who spoke no english. So we tried UBER at the suggestion of Mick. Got a brand new car driven by a super polite college kid who took us right were we needed to go and made the trip enjoyable. Won't ever use a cab again unless I have to.

---

Definitely pros and cons with Uber. I don't have a car, so I have to rely on public transportation, taxis, and uber for most of my travel. The downsides to Uber in Chicago is that most drivers don't know the roads like the cab drivers and are very extra careful(i.e. slow) because they're using their own vehicles. The cleanliness is a HUGE upside, though, plus most of the drivers are pretty cool people. You see a good balance between men and women too.

Surge pricing and ride sharing are the two big downsides to it, though. Ride sharing, of course is optional, but the app now(at least in Chicago), defaults to it, and if you're in a hurry, you might accidentally book one of those, and that really stinks.

The best part that I like about it is traveling to family or friends houses in the suburbs. Not only is a round trip significantly cheaper than taxis, it's actually cheaper than renting a car on most days too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

Although most of Texas is very conservative, Austin is a rather large liberal haven for left-wing folks, and has been for a long time now.

---

While I agree Austin is liberal enough to make you sick, this sounds more like a libertarian response to me. Get the government out of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickintheHam

While I agree Austin is liberal enough to make you sick, this sounds more like a libertarian response to me. Get the government out of my life.

---

Most of the large cities in Texas are liberal. 20-30 years from now, it's going to be a blue state. Not sure what that means, though because every 50-75 years, the parties take major ideological shifts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Most of the large cities in Texas are liberal. 20-30 years from now, it's going to be a blue state. Not sure what that means, though because every 50-75 years, the parties take major ideological shifts.

---

we're in the midst of one right now. Both major parties are suffering massive schisms. I keep hoping a libertarian themed party rises from the ashes but so far what we're getting is a right of center national populist party and an even more left of center socialist party.

Things should have pivoted to combine Democrats who were middle of the road socially with fiscal conservatives and limited government Republicans and Independents. That's the largest core group and would be a strong majority party, but it's not slicing that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

we're in the midst of one right now. Both major parties are suffering massive schisms. I keep hoping a libertarian themed party rises from the ashes but so far what we're getting is a right of center national populist party and an even more left of center socialist party.

Things should have pivoted to combine Democrats who were middle of the road socially with fiscal conservatives and limited government Republicans and Independents. That's the largest core group and would be a strong majority party, but it's not slicing that way.

---

Totally agree.

This is almost deserving of it's own thread.

I think I find myself similar to many, even others on this board, as a person without a candidate for President, or maybe even a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

Totally agree.

This is almost deserving of it's own thread.

I think I find myself similar to many, even others on this board, as a person without a candidate for President, or maybe even a party.

---

The problem is those on the right feel they can't win without social conservatives, and without those credentials the national party won't support them, so they won't run and support that kind of candidate. On the left they have the same problem with so called "progressives" who are just as far from center on economic issues as social conservatives are on social issues and won't let a free market limited government candidate emerge from that side of things.

Yet the poll data keeps showing the largest consistent voting group in the US would be a part of limited government across the board. Out of my bedroom and my boardroom, with generally free market principles and fiscal conservatism combined with moderate social stances.

In many ways what we're seeing is a moderate version of 1930s Europe. One side founded in broad nationalistic tones, the other calling for massive wealth redistribution. The only difference is that in Europe there never was a libertarian or free market or even democratic party, just nationalism wrapped around socialism and outright communism. So it's not nearly so bad, but it is cutting across the same basic question of who to blame for one's "plight". It's either the fault of those besetting our nation with problems (immigration, unfair trade) or the rich elites who are keeping all the wealth to themselves.

It's all about who is to blame, and it's always someone else. None of it is about what we can do ourselves to change our own situation. If we had a candidate blaming government and bureaucracy that could work too, but none emerged in this cycle. Trump has some (in areas like the VA), but not a lot. Hillary has never met a government program she doesn't like.

not a pretty picture, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

The problem is those on the right feel they can't win without social conservatives, and without those credentials the national party won't support them, so they won't run and support that kind of candidate. On the left they have the same problem with so called "progressives" who are just as far from center on economic issues as social conservatives are on social issues and won't let a free market limited government candidate emerge from that side of things.

Yet the poll data keeps showing the largest consistent voting group in the US would be a part of limited government across the board. Out of my bedroom and my boardroom, with generally free market principles and fiscal conservatism combined with moderate social stances.

In many ways what we're seeing is a moderate version of 1930s Europe. One side founded in broad nationalistic tones, the other calling for massive wealth redistribution. The only difference is that in Europe there never was a libertarian or free market or even democratic party, just nationalism wrapped around socialism and outright communism. So it's not nearly so bad, but it is cutting across the same basic question of who to blame for one's "plight". It's either the fault of those besetting our nation with problems (immigration, unfair trade) or the rich elites who are keeping all the wealth to themselves.

It's all about who is to blame, and it's always someone else. None of it is about what we can do ourselves to change our own situation. If we had a candidate blaming government and bureaucracy that could work too, but none emerged in this cycle. Trump has some (in areas like the VA), but not a lot. Hillary has never met a government program she doesn't like.

not a pretty picture, is it?

---

You hit on your head with the first paragraph, well most of it, but the first struck me more.

What I really feel that people really want, though, is a limited government that can "limit" our freedoms. Unfettered freedom is dangerous, and most people can realize that. I think we struggle as a society as to who and how those lines should be drawn.

Before people cry that's unconstitutional, it's not. The Constitution basic premise was to build a more perfect union.

The more that we drift away from both of those principles, the uglier it does get.

Some issues with UBER in the DC area have come up. One some of the uber drivers have robbed passengers. Others do not want accept guide dogs.

A good friend who has a guide dog had a real problem with uber because of that.

Redtop cab in Arington is good but they have lost quite a few drivers to uber. The DC cabs are not as good but red top is reliable.

I like an established business model. Uber makes me nervous and have not used it yet.

Redtop is my go to service in DC, though my family there has a couple of guys they can call direct who do a great job. I have them in my phone as a contact even though I'm only there a couple of times a year.

Uber is very libertarian, unregulated. It will generally be positive but is bound to have some downsides as well.

The thing is, if the market were less regulated then we would get improvements that would fix a lot of the downsides. For example what I see arising is a service like Uber but where drivers are far more thoroughly vetted. The reason that can't happen easily is b/c of all the local regulations on taxi companies. If an Uber competitor started acting more and more like a taxi company they'd be even more exposed to local regulatory issues. Uber gets away with it more b/c they DON'T regulate.

Much how Ebay or craigslist isn't itself an auction house or retailer, they are just a posting site where buyers and sellers conduct their own transactions. That's how Uber operates in order to get around regulations, but IMO the ideal business model for that industry is to have more security in place by having more background checks and procedures for drivers, but then they run up against government.

Personally I don't care for Uber, but that's largely b/c I don't care for any public transportation outside of trains. I rely on cabs in certain circumstances but I've never liked them, I just don't like being out of control of getting from A to B but in many cases where parking and logistics are too problematic I use them.

For me it's just a control thing for my environment. Now if I find someone I like and I'm in town I get their direct number and use them and that's fine, I'm very happy once I've established some trust in someone that they're reliable and honest and know how to get around town. I'm betting for regular Uber users they do the same thing, find someone they like and try to get them each time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Redtop is my go to service in DC, though my family there has a couple of guys they can call direct who do a great job. I have them in my phone as a contact even though I'm only there a couple of times a year.

Uber is very libertarian, unregulated. It will generally be positive but is bound to have some downsides as well.

The thing is, if the market were less regulated then we would get improvements that would fix a lot of the downsides. For example what I see arising is a service like Uber but where drivers are far more thoroughly vetted. The reason that can't happen easily is b/c of all the local regulations on taxi companies. If an Uber competitor started acting more and more like a taxi company they'd be even more exposed to local regulatory issues. Uber gets away with it more b/c they DON'T regulate.

Much how Ebay or craigslist isn't itself an auction house or retailer, they are just a posting site where buyers and sellers conduct their own transactions. That's how Uber operates in order to get around regulations, but IMO the ideal business model for that industry is to have more security in place by having more background checks and procedures for drivers, but then they run up against government.

Personally I don't care for Uber, but that's largely b/c I don't care for any public transportation outside of trains. I rely on cabs in certain circumstances but I've never liked them, I just don't like being out of control of getting from A to B but in many cases where parking and logistics are too problematic I use them.

For me it's just a control thing for my environment. Now if I find someone I like and I'm in town I get their direct number and use them and that's fine, I'm very happy once I've established some trust in someone that they're reliable and honest and know how to get around town. I'm betting for regular Uber users they do the same thing, find someone they like and try to get them each time.

---

See I LOVE uber and it frustrates me to NO end that I don't have one in this podunk little town. Before uber rolled out in San Diego, getting a taxi to take you to any area not named downtown was HUGELY frustrating and often required an excessive "tip". I spent two hours one night trying to get a taxi to take me the 20 minutes out of downtown to my place. They all wanted the short quick drops. With uber, yeah I might pay more but even on new years eve , I had an uber in 5 minutes happily taking me to my home. Though truth be told, the fee was still less if you include the "required" tip that is almost 2x the cab fare.

The drivers WITHOUT fail have been super courteous and polite, if not going beyond the call of duty. I have had everything from the immigrant community college student (from the Sudan) who drove weekend nights to pay for school (he said that it allowed him to pay for all of his classes while still being able to study during the week) to the older semi-retired guy with the huge truck who used it to supplement his income, to everything in between. Some talk more, some talk less but every single one came right to my place, grabbed my bags and loaded them, took me to where I wanted to go and unloaded them. Incredibly efficient. Every single car was clean, well stocked (even in Vietnam, where I used an uber, the cars had at least bottles of water for thirsty customers and some even have snacks), the driver was professional and knowledgeable. Some drivers even kept lists of stuff to do, places to eat, etc. in the downtown of the city I was visiting. Most seemed to take pride in doing a good job (of course they want that good rating because it makes them more likely to get future fares on uber). Every single time, I was left thinking this is damn easy and worth every penny.

Quite simply, uber doesn't succeed because of price alone, more than anything they succeed because of convenience. They saw how messed up and complacent the taxi monopolies had become. You could call for a taxi four times and never get one. With uber, you get an uber every single time, on time, to the EXACT location you want. Taxi companies COULD have done this easily and cut uber off at the knees. If all they were doing was competing on price, uber loses and HARD. The fact is, uber took the limo (aka livery model) and applied it to taxis and combined it with an app on your phone for ease of use. Note, the livery model is important for uber because it gets them around a lot of the taxi regulations. An ordered car is treated very differently than a hailed cab. Why? Who the hell knows but that is the loophole that uber uses.

Pedro I'm not criticizing Uber at all. As a Libertarian I'm a big fan. I'm just not a fan of public transport, so it impacts my use of all of it.

there's no doubt the taxi monopolies are horrible. Lexington and Louisville finally got the right to even regulate their own markets just some years ago, prior to that due to very well done lobbying it was all done in Frankfort and there was just one carrier for the entire city. Guess how bad it was? Duh, it was a joke, horrible.

So I'm all for competition, and Lexington liberalized quite a bit so we have more smaller companies and even individuals, now plus Uber.

I do think they could probably do more to check on drivers, and I'm absolutely not a fan of their new rules banning carry weapons for drivers or passengers (like I'd leave my gun at home for a stupid Uber rule lol), but overall I'm very supportive. It's the free market getting around decades of local regulation and corruption.

Having run Uber and Lyft out of Austin, their council now turns their eyes upon residence-sharing business like AirBnB and HomeAway:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...-in-austin.ece

They're nothing if not consistent.

Austin is typical of liberalism: they know best how you should live and by golly you're going to live that way even if it requires force.

..and the Austin police is cracking down on the black-market ride sharing, using sting operations:

http://blueberrytown.com/index.php/2...-working-folk/

The seizure of the vehicles involved is a nice touch.

Austin must be a great place to live--they obviously have so little actual crime that police have time to plan and implement sting operations on people daring to give other people rides.

Guess it never occurs to them that the government has no right to even be involved when two people freely contract between themselves to provide a service that is otherwise perfectly legal and not a risk to anyone else in the public.

The loss of that principle, that the government is LIMITED in its authority to regulate the lives of people born with inalienable rights, is what has doomed the country. Sure there are some good regulations that all sound good and positive, but once you open that floodgate you will eventually get totalitarianism. It may be friendly, tree-hugger flavored, but it's still totalitarianism. The fact that the endless rules seem more palatable than those issued by Mao in China or Stalin in Russia is in the end missing the point.

Ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

..and the Austin police is cracking down on the black-market ride sharing, using sting operations:

http://blueberrytown.com/index.php/2...-working-folk/

The seizure of the vehicles involved is a nice touch.

Austin must be a great place to live--they obviously have so little actual crime that police have time to plan and implement sting operations on people daring to give other people rides.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

..and the Austin police is cracking down on the black-market ride sharing, using sting operations:

http://blueberrytown.com/index.php/2...-working-folk/

The seizure of the vehicles involved is a nice touch.

Austin must be a great place to live--they obviously have so little actual crime that police have time to plan and implement sting operations on people daring to give other people rides.

---

but as devil's advocates........ when somebody gets molested, raped, etc.... then suddenly the issue is real. A black market ride sharing seems like a logical place to troll for victims. Of course it would be somewhat hypocritical for a staunch liberal to use that defense considering their stance on transgender bathroom usage, since that type of thing rarely happens.

Not that I agree, only devil's advocate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

but as devil's advocates........ when somebody gets molested, raped, etc.... then suddenly the issue is real. A black market ride sharing seems like a logical place to troll for victims. Of course it would be somewhat hypocritical for a staunch liberal to use that defense considering their stance on transgender bathroom usage, since that type of thing rarely happens.

Not that I agree, only devil's advocate.

---

There is a safety issue with anything like this, but what Austin has done is classic liberalism, which is to raise the bar with issues like safety to such a point that they dramatically raise the price for services and then lament about how the working poor can't get by.

I'm not keen on the safety of using taxis or Uber or anything else, but if someone is comfortable with those options then that's their choice, and all they've done is raise the bar so high as to force a black market that is in fact LESS safe than had they allowed private companies to freely contract in the market.

So safety is lower, you now have honest hard working people forced to break the law in order to get by (both riders and drivers), and you've kept the free market from coming in and forming a better solution simply b/c such a solution is not completely perfect in all circumstances, as if the more heavily regulated option didn't also have flaws.

It's a classic example of how leftist use of government destroys a free market that was working well and was actually desired by all those involved simply b/c those in power decided they should do things a different way.

Of course the real truth is that safety had nothing to do with it, this was about money and politics. no doubt the taxi franchises spend well with the city council, and the city wants their taste of revenue from licensing fees which Uber wasn't going to pay.

So in the end it wasn't even about helping the public, it was about power and money as it is 90% of the time when you allow government to make our decisions for us.

Ultimately it's because Austin can't control it, or tax the hell out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

There is a safety issue with anything like this, but what Austin has done is classic liberalism, which is to raise the bar with issues like safety to such a point that they dramatically raise the price for services and then lament about how the working poor can't get by.

I'm not keen on the safety of using taxis or Uber or anything else, but if someone is comfortable with those options then that's their choice, and all they've done is raise the bar so high as to force a black market that is in fact LESS safe than had they allowed private companies to freely contract in the market.

So safety is lower, you now have honest hard working people forced to break the law in order to get by (both riders and drivers), and you've kept the free market from coming in and forming a better solution simply b/c such a solution is not completely perfect in all circumstances, as if the more heavily regulated option didn't also have flaws.

It's a classic example of how leftist use of government destroys a free market that was working well and was actually desired by all those involved simply b/c those in power decided they should do things a different way.

Of course the real truth is that safety had nothing to do with it, this was about money and politics. no doubt the taxi franchises spend well with the city council, and the city wants their taste of revenue from licensing fees which Uber wasn't going to pay.

So in the end it wasn't even about helping the public, it was about power and money as it is 90% of the time when you allow government to make our decisions for us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

There is a safety issue with anything like this, but what Austin has done is classic liberalism, which is to raise the bar with issues like safety to such a point that they dramatically raise the price for services and then lament about how the working poor can't get by.

I'm not keen on the safety of using taxis or Uber or anything else, but if someone is comfortable with those options then that's their choice, and all they've done is raise the bar so high as to force a black market that is in fact LESS safe than had they allowed private companies to freely contract in the market.

So safety is lower, you now have honest hard working people forced to break the law in order to get by (both riders and drivers), and you've kept the free market from coming in and forming a better solution simply b/c such a solution is not completely perfect in all circumstances, as if the more heavily regulated option didn't also have flaws.

It's a classic example of how leftist use of government destroys a free market that was working well and was actually desired by all those involved simply b/c those in power decided they should do things a different way.

Of course the real truth is that safety had nothing to do with it, this was about money and politics. no doubt the taxi franchises spend well with the city council, and the city wants their taste of revenue from licensing fees which Uber wasn't going to pay.

So in the end it wasn't even about helping the public, it was about power and money as it is 90% of the time when you allow government to make our decisions for us.

---

As stated, I was playing devils advocate. Personally, I feel SAFER in an Uber vehicle. Took me a long time to actually use them but once I did I found them FAR MORE desirable than a cab. The drivers actually give a crap about where they are taking you, the cars are CLEAN and the service is impeccable. Would it be easy for some criminal to impersonate or utilize Uber? Sure but then Uber drivers are registered and they send a picture of the driver to riders. Criminals can impersonate cabbies too, or be cabbies.

But this is about two things...1) dollars and cents as well as 2) government control (well I guess that is 3 things). And you're right about the liberal policies squeezing out business and the free market

^Nothing's foolproof, but 1 thing I like about Uber is they won't let drivers drive unless they maintain at least a 4 out of 5 rating from users.

Also, the app will show the picture of the driver who's coming to get me and what his current user rating is. That way I know the actual person picking me up and I have a basic idea of how other users view the driver. That provides a better sense of security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

As stated, I was playing devils advocate. Personally, I feel SAFER in an Uber vehicle. Took me a long time to actually use them but once I did I found them FAR MORE desirable than a cab. The drivers actually give a crap about where they are taking you, the cars are CLEAN and the service is impeccable. Would it be easy for some criminal to impersonate or utilize Uber? Sure but then Uber drivers are registered and they send a picture of the driver to riders. Criminals can impersonate cabbies too, or be cabbies.

But this is about two things...1) dollars and cents as well as 2) government control (well I guess that is 3 things). And you're right about the liberal policies squeezing out business and the free market

---

Doc, sorry I wasn't directing any of that at you personally. I know about where you will fall on this issue, and was just replying to the devil's position.

Uber won't be perfect, there are bound to be incidents, but I'm sure there are incidents with cabs as well, and the other side is there are I'm sure WAY WAY WAY fewer incidents than in a world where people are walking in bad areas or hitching or bumming rides from people to get from A to B. It wont' be perfect, but it will be vastly superior.

Of course that's a given b/c if it wasn't vastly superior then millions of people wouldn't be driving and riding for the services. By definition the free market works in these circumstances and is working well.

airbnb

had an uber driver pick us up in san antonio a few years back and then he explained how he wasnt supposed to be doing it because the city had shut them out. it was an old guy in a little clean car, perfect. i love uber when i've used it.

Apparently Louisville-Jefferson County has enacted AirBnB regs which go into effect today for what the ordinance deems 'short-term' rentals (where the dwelling isn't the host's primary residence):

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...rged/87909224/

It seems like every approach that lawmakers are taking with the 'shared economy' businesses is wrong.

Basically, what needs to be done is to promote the values of the 'shared economy' system, regulate(and that cost should be paid for by minimal taxes on the service) against those that intend to manipulate it for larger gains that have negative impacts on the economy.

Of course, that's obviously easier said than done.

What's happening with AirBnB is one of those cases, where basically the company allows for real estate speculators to snatch up properties in a location and rent by the day or weeks at higher prices, albeit more affordable, or more luxurious for the $, for those who are seeking to spend extra $ on a vacation, ultimately reducing supply and driving up standard rental prices. That's the absolute opposite of establishing a 'shared economy' business.