Lyft Continues it's Battle to Expand to NYC

Lyft has expanded to 60 US cities and had hoped make it 61 with the addition of New York City last Friday. However, NYC has declared Lyft an "unauthorized service" and threatened legal consequences if the ride-share app launched. Lyft held off as long as they could before announcing they would work with the Taxi and Limousine Commission:

"Today we agreed in New York State Supreme Court to put off the launch of Lyft's peer-to-peer model in New York City and we will not proceed with this model unless it complies with New York City Taxi and Limousine regulations. We will meet with the TLC beginning Monday to work on a new version of Lyft that is fully-licensed by the TLC, and we will launch immediately upon the TLC's approval."

Lyft assured the public that there was no TRO (temporary restraining order) or injunction, but that everyone agreed to meet Monday if Lyft held off on their launch. Wall Street Journal reports that the decision was less nonchalant than Lyft lets on. They state that familiar face, New York Attorney General Eric. T, Schneiderman (from the Airbnb's subpoena in NYC earlier this year) and plaintiff Benjamin Lawsky, filed court papers on Lyft's original launch date in order to stop the company from operating in the state. 

"Lyft's arguments are a disingenuous attempt to disguise old-fashioned lawbreaking that jeopardizes public safety," Messrs. Schneiderman and Lawsky said in a news release. Schneiderman is no new face to opposition of the shared economy and knows that NYC will set a standard for other cities worldwide. 

Lyft's competition Uber, managed to get licensed in NYC after initially launching without the TLC's approval. Some have speculated that this was because Uber had recently hired Ashwini Chhabra, the then TLC deputy commissioner for policy and planning. Many within the taxi industry find this to be very suspicious:

"About 4-5 weeks ago, [we] ... accused Ashwini of working for Uber presently and in the past," Evgeny Freidman, who owns one of the largest taxi fleets in New York, wrote to TLC Commissioner Meera Joshi shortly after Chhabra's hire, according to the New York Observer. "I would insist as a major stake holder in this industry ‎that the TLC open a [Department of Investigation] investigation into this matter."

However, several industry experts believe that Chhabra's hiring had nothing to do with Uber's licensing but rather that Uber agreed to play by the TLC's rules, which up until now, Lyft has refused to do. Uber has embraced regulations and operates only with city-licensed vehicles. TLC spokesman, Russell Murphy states:

"From our perspective, … Lyft is unique from Uber in a larger sense because they’re not following TLC regulations. Uber, at least from what the TLC says and what Uber says, is following all the regulations,"
 

So yet another legal battle to watch in the sharing economy. Let us know what you think, will NYC grant Lyft a license? Or use them to set an example for other "unauthorized services"? To read more check out the Business Insider article on Why NYC's Lyft Crackdown Probably Isn't Linked To Uber and Wall Street Journal's coverage of Friday's decision.

Seattle decides in favor of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.

Back in March, Seattle city council voted to heavily regulate ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft by capping the number of active vehicles to 150 each. Considering Uber claims to have around 1,000 drivers in the city, this initiative would have severely limited each company's capacity to meet demand.  Yet by mid-April these regulations were suspended due to more than 36,000 signatures on a repeal petition (double the 16,510 required to force a public vote).

Now, after more than a year of debate, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced an agreement between the taxi industry and ride-share apps. App-based transportation platforms such as Lyft, Uber and Sidecar can continue to operate without any limit of drivers. The key terms of the deal include:

• Transportation network companies and their drivers will be licensed and required to meet specific insurance requirements.
• The City will work with the industry to clarify or change state insurance law to account for recent changes in the industry, similar to recent actions in Colorado.
• There will be no cap on the number of transportation network company drivers.
• The City will provide 200 new taxi licenses over the next four years.
• Taxi and for-hire licenses will transition to a property right that is similar to a medallion in other cities.
• For-hire drivers will have hailing rights.
• An accessibility fund will be created through a $0.10 per ride surcharge for drivers and owners to offset higher trip and vehicle costs for riders who require accessibility services.

This is a huge change from the March decision not only because of the unlimited drivers, but also because you can now hail for-hire drivers, a right originally reserved for taxi's only. 

“I believe Seattle once again will lead the nation in showing how what appears to be conflicting interests can actually come together,” Murray said after announcing the agreement. “We have deregulated a highly regulated monopoly, allowing taxis and for-hires to become far more competitive than they are in the current situation. We are recognizing that a technology exists that is rapidly changing the marketplace.”

GreenCab Taxi General Manager Chris Van Dyk, talked with Geekwire about the decision:

“The experience in Seattle in years past, in San Francisco and in Ireland now, is that if you have unlimited entry, if you have no limit on the number of taxi and for-hire vehicles, operators simply cannot make a living wage, and the industry goes to hell in a handbasket, and in a relatively short time,” Van Dyk told GeekWire. “The economics of the industry are counter-intuitive, because of the low threshold of entry. Apps do not change this.”

We have yet to hear if the taxi industry will choose to fight the decision or not. 

Seattle joins a small handful of cities allowing ride-sharing apps including Chicago. It seems like every city has a different attitude when it comes to the sharing economy, Miami police are impounding Lyft drivers while Uber is banned in Brussels and in high court in London. We're curious to see if this decision holds in Seattle and if will influence other cities still in debate. Regardless, it's becoming more and more obvious that the sharing economy is here to stay.

Check out the complete article by Geekwire and let us know what you think.

European Commission VP Neelie Kroes on the Shared Economy

This week Dutch politician and European Commission vice-president Neelie Kroes gave us her perspective on the sharing economy and recent taxi protests. She believes that there is a 'valley' start-up culture in Europe and it needs greater support. On her blog she responds to widespread strikes and attempts to ban or limit taxi app services across Europe.

“The debate about taxi apps is really a debate about the wider sharing economy. That debate forces us to think about the disruptive effects of digital technology and the need for entrepreneurs in our society”

She recognizes that this is a fearful time for cab drivers stating "it is right that we feel sympathy for people who face big changes in their lives" but "we cannot run away from these debates either". 

“We cannot address these challenges by ignoring them, by going on strike, or by trying to ban these innovations out of existence. That is why a strike won’t work: rather than “downing tools” what we need is a real dialogue where we talk about these disruptions caused by technology.”

Kroes believes that Europe needs more entrepreneurs to create jobs and growth. These entrepreneurs understand that services can no longer be designed around the producers, but need to empower the consumers. She is concerned that if Europe does not embrace entrepreneurship Europe will be know as "the place that used to be the future, but instead has become the world's tourism playground and nursing home". Kroes states that the disruptive force of technology is a good thing. "It eliminates some jobs and it changes others. But it improves most jobs and creates new ones as well".

She also warns that sharing entrepreneurs need to follow the rules and pay taxes but also sheds some interesting light on the role of regulators:

“The job of the law is not to lie to you and tell you that everything will always be comfortable or that tomorrow will be the same as today. It won’t. Not only that, it will be worse for you and your children if we pretend we don’t have to change. If we don’t think together about how to benefit from these changes and these new technologies, we will all suffer.”

She concludes with a plea for Europeans to stop running away and face facts: "digital innovations like taxi apps are here to stay. We need to work with them not against them."

Check out the rest of her blog post on her website and let us know what you think. It's certainly one of the more in favor responses to the sharing economy by a regulator thus far. Is she right? Are regulators running from digital technology instead of embracing it's potential? Is there a way for both apps and taxi companies to live in harmony?