Anyone here used the car service called Lyft? City council is trying to derail it's success... (Seattle: 2014, insurance)

[mamainfl]

because taxi cabs are complaining. This is disconcerting. We probably would have used this service quite a bit when we move there, because we do not plan to have a car at first.

Anyone else have any opinions on this?

[arleigh]

Taxi companies or any companies for that matter, have a monopoly they can enjoy raping the public , when some competition can make a difference and it dips into their profits, and they pressure the city to eliminate the competition.
Some towns don't allow chain restaurants, because it would be too much competition on local restaurants.
In stead of letting a business in, and fail on their own due to it's own popularity, or the lack there of by the peoples choice, some cities won't take the chance sense the people on board are the ones giving the OK or nay whom have a stake in the issue fearing their own businesses reputation to falter.
I have seen situations where the guy got all the permits to do a trolly in town , and it was so successful the city harassed him till he sold it to them an they took it over.
Greed is another motivator as well.

[beautifulseattlehomes]

I have never used Lyft but have used Uber which I think is basically the same thing! Tons of folks use Uber in Seattle and I would be surprised if they get shut down since it is quite popular.

[Ira500]

Taxis are licensed, and pay taxes to the government as a condition for their being allowed to operate. Uber, Lyft, etc. are unregulated, and don't pay theses same taxes. So I don't think it's simply a matter of allowing the cab companies to continue to "rape" the public(pretty insensitive wording, IMHO), but also a decrease in revenue for the local government.
Thirdly, it's not a matter of these rich, multinational corporations trying to keep out a local upstart. Do you know any rich cab drivers? I don't. They are often immigrants, who work long hours for low pay. They spend a lot on their cabs, and licenses, and allowing Uber and Lyft, etc. to operate freely will have a bad effect on their investments. Just from a legal standpoint, they have a beef. From a practical perspective, I can see how Uber and Lyft would be the best choice in most cases. I just don't see the issue as so clear cut. People are just trying to make a living.

[JBVirtuoso]

I really hope that Seattle (and other cities) can figure out a way to make this work. The current system of issuing taxi licenses with strict regulations and standardized fees is completely idiotic. I'd love to be able to call a taxi and have it actually come, pay with my credit card without listening to the driver's complaints, and not have to put up with drivers who have a problem with going to certain areas of the city. That last one is less of a problem in a smaller city like Seattle, but in larger cities, there are large swaths of the city that have no access to taxi service because the drivers won't go there. This stuff might have been okay in the 20th century, but as a society, we've moved on. It's time for fuddy-duddy city councils to realize that and overhaul the system.

[Hemlock140]

I don't know anyone that uses them, most people I do know without cars are using Car2Go or Zipcar, which is not subject to this recent scrutiny. They find it affordable alternative to owning a car, and includes gas/insurance, but doesn't help people without a license.

[JBVirtuoso]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I don't know anyone that uses them, most people I do know without cars are using Car2Go or Zipcar, which is not subject to this recent scrutiny. They find it affordable alternative to owning a car, and includes gas/insurance, but doesn't help people without a license.

I'm actually a good example of this. I use both Car2Go and Zipcar, but I've never used a taxi or rideshare service in Seattle. I also never used taxis when I lived in NYC. For me, it's really just a cost issue. Especially with the terrible customer service and general inconvenience of using cabs, I can't justify spending that much money just to get from Point A to Point B. Rideshare services solve some of these problems, but they're still expensive.

[NorthWetter]

From what I understand they're targeting Lyft more than Uber because Lyft drivers don't carry the same kind of insurance that Uber drivers do. It's kind of ironic though that in a city that supposedly encourages rideshares and carpooling that they're trying to eliminate Lytf. It's all about the money.

[usernametaken]

I recently tried to get a ride on Sidecar in Bellevue after I ruptured my achilles tendon and was recovering. Unfortunately, while the ride was booked easily on my mobile Sidecar app, the scheduled driver (15 mins away per app) immediately called me back and said he was in Seattle and would not want to come down to give me a ride from one part of Bellevue to another for the $5 suggested donation for that distance!

Sidecar's representative then told me that despite their decent pay rates for drivers, they have very few applicant willing to roam the east side. It seems like all these immigrant taxi drivers would get similar incomes with no stresses if they were to work for Sidecar, Lyft, Uber etc... rather than try to run their own taxis and go through all the bureaucratic hassles.

Taxi fares in any event should be cheaper now that gas prices have dropped. Airport taxi fares from the east side are around 20-25 percent higher today than in 2010 even though gas prices are now probably lower than in 2010. I use the bus to go to the airport, but my last two flights were way too early in the morning and I was forced to get cabs each time. Wish these new options were available with more drivers. In fact I would contemplate working for Sidecar part-time after Spring if my leg is good as new again.

[flyingsaucermom]

That's really interesting. A couple weeks ago I had the privilege of being the only non-governmental/officiated citizen at a small meeting of different city departments in my suburb about the future of our transportation. Metro is basically reducing services to nothing but the most basic routes and will affect 4/5 riders in 2014 and the city will soon have to grapple with how to move these people around. To my amazement and satisfaction, the idea of using collaboratively consumed, sharing economy solutions is certainly being considered, but it's rather piecemeal and neither standardized or automatized, so nobody seems to have an idea how to really scale it enough to support an entire city. I imagine that Seattle being much, much more larger, populated and complicated, would find collaborative/sharing economic solutions also nice and progressive, but to procure them would be very daunting.