The reason we are in this mess with ridesharing is because the current taxi system was and is undependable, and there are not enough taxis [“Vote delayed on driver caps for Lyft, uberX, Sidecar,” The Today File, March 6]. Even though Uber is more expensive, it arrives when they say it will, often only 5 minutes…More
Uberx, Lyft, and Sidecar are certainly not using Seattle as a “chance to test their new technologies” [”City oversight won’t kill ride-service innovators,” Business / Technology, March 3]. They are already doing business in dozens of cities in the U.S. and around the world. Brier Dudley portrays the lobbying by rideshare companies as a…More
This proposed legislation limiting the number of drivers for Transportation Network Companies (uberX, Lyft, Sidecar) is atrocious for the citizens of Seattle — although it’s good news for the old taxi monopolies [“Seattle City Council members approve driver cap on rideshare services,” The Today File, Feb. 27]. The reasons for these restrictions given by council…More
What is the City Council thinking? [“Seattle City Council members approve driver cap on rideshare services,” The Today File, Feb. 27]. I grew up in the Seattle area and I choose to stay here because I believe in the progressiveness of this city. Since when did the leaders of this town decide to become…More
The decision by the taxi committee of the Seattle City Council to restrict the number of uberX and other ridesharing providers makes little sense [“Seattle City Council members approve driver cap on rideshare services,” The Today File, Feb. 27]. Beside promoting free enterprise, ridesharing contributes to public safety by reducing drunken driving, safeguarding women…More
Giving a catchy name like ride-share to companies such as Lyft and Uber do not make them anything but what they are: taxis [“Seattle City Council postpones tough vote on uberX, Lyft and Sidecar,” Opinion Northwest, Feb. 14]. The only difference is that the taxi industry is highly regulated by the very same…More
I was disappointed to read the guest column from Mike O’Brien and Rich Stolz [“Looking out for immigrant drivers in new taxi," Uber, Lyft laws,” Opinion, Feb. 13]. He claims that regulations protecting the Seattle taxi monopoly are really in place to protect our city’s immigrant population. This is an unfortunate line of attack…More
The Times editorial “City Council rideshare plan hurts innovation” [Opinion, Dec. 23] ignores a very important piece of the relevant policy considerations. The folks who use these new systems have smartphones; others cannot utilize any advantages rideshares might offer over taxis.
Even in tech-savvy Seattle, a substantial portion of the population does not have a smartphone. This is largely a function of economics, although personal choice may play a role for some who are affluent enough but chose to forego such a device.