The ride share business Uber has been in Chattanooga only a short time and already is changing the transportation for hire industry. The Chattanooga City Council meeting Tuesday afternoon drew a group of drivers for the new ride-share program, a few customers speaking in support of the business, and several taxi drivers seeking a level playing field.
The council welcomed the new company but now must decide how it will be regulated and how those rules will be enforced. The council is attempting to update comprehensive guidelines for the vehicles for hire business and must decide if ride-shares such as Uber and Lyft are governed by the same laws as taxi companies.
Two plans have been developed as potential revisions to the city’s codes governing these companies, one developed by Councilman Ken Smith, who leads the transportation committee, and the other by Councilman Chris Anderson.
Regulations in the proposal from Councilman Smith pertain to both taxis and ride-shares companies with some exceptions. The distinguishing difference between the two types of businesses is the manner of dispatch. Taxis use radios and phones and ride-shares use smart phones to summon a driver.
Changes included in this proposition are renaming the current Transportation Board which would become the Passenger Vehicle for Hire Board with four appointments coming from the mayor and three from the city council. This plan would allow a fare increase for the metered taxis and a price increase for wait times, the first increases since 1992.
Registration would be required by the city. This plan would give city inspectors more authority and allow them to impound a vehicle if not in compliance with regulations. A point system would be established for violations so that punishment would be uniform.
A physical location for 24-hour storage is required for a taxi company. The new proposal would eliminate this requirement for ride-share companies since the drivers use their own cars. For this type enterprise, only a principal place of business would be needed. Insurance requirements for the individually owned cars would differ as well. Uber provides commercial insurance for the time that the car is in service for the business, and personal insurance on the vehicle is used when it is not. Uber also is responsible for doing background checks on the drivers as opposed to the city doing it.
The alternative plan to regulate the new ride-share businesses was created by Councilman Anderson. It considers ride-shares and taxis as different businesses and deals only with the transportation network services leaving the ordinance as is for taxis. Under this plan the Transportation Board would issue permits for the cars and define criteria for the operations and procedures for the drivers. Inspections and insurance verification would be the responsibility of Uber. Fares for the ride-share car would be negotiated between the passenger and driver; no minimum charges would be set as long as they are fair under this proposal. Enforcement of the codes would be the responsibility of the Transportation Board. The company would be required to provide a list of their drivers or operators and to maintain a website which could be used to lodge complaints.
The fact that this issue would be discussed in a public hearing on Tuesday was not clear to the council members; even Councilman Anderson had to verify that it would be on the agenda. Councilman Yusuf Hakeem said “it seems that we look at public comment as an afterthought,” adding that had he known it was a public hearing there were people that he would have invited. Councilman Moses Freeman said because of the complexity of the ordinance the announcement of the public hearing should be made in time for members of the community to be involved. He added that the committee chairs have a better understanding than others on the council who may need more time to study the proposals since they have had the advantage of doing the research and know the issues better than the other council members.
Chairman Chip Henderson and others agreed that current procedure for placing items on the agenda need to be refined and that notification should be made in enough time that the council and public are aware of when a public hearing will take place. A suggestion was also made to wait two weeks after the public hearing to provide time for assimilating the information, to hear public input and make amendments before voting on any complex issue.
Because of the many questions posed about both of the proposed plans and the need for additional study and public comment in order to hear all sides on the subject, a second public hearing on the vehicle for hire ordinance will be held at the next council meeting on Dec. 9.