Strike Down the Minimum Fare Language in the DC Uber Amendment

In my letter I just spoke about how both companies, "the taxi" and über could co-exist. Überx is a way to support local taxi companies. The customers are out there, über has just found a better way to reach them. Not to mention, their service is polished. Überx will ease the fear of taxi extinction and do away with a need to have a MINIMUM FARE. Customers of uber would choose to take a regular taxi car if it were offered to them through the app. Using über, for me anyway, gives me the peace of mind that the company I am spending my money with is working very hard to provide the best service possible. Down with the MINIMUM FARE, support Überx!

Is this report true? http://dcist.com/2012/07/cheh_shelves_uber_amendment_after_b.php

Cheh Shelves Uber Amendment After Backlash from CEO and Customers

At a breakfast meeting with her colleagues today, Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) reversed her plans to introduce an amendment to the taxicab modernization bill that would, among other things, put into legislation new "sedan-class" rules that would effectively bring the upscale livery service Uber into compliance with D.C. regulations.

Cheh's decision comes in the wake of a rampant backlash to the amendment, which Uber CEO Travis Kalanickdenounced yesterday as a mandated price floor in an email to his customers. At today's D.C. Council breakfast, several members mentioned that since Kalanick's email went out, they were inundated with impassioned emails from Uber customers. Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said he has received more than 5,000 notes.

The amendment would have mandated that luxury sedan services charge no less than five times the minimum of the $3 flag drop collected by standard taxicabs on rides that are measured by time and distance. Uber's pricing model includes a $7 base fare plus $3.25 for each mile traveled and 75 cents for each minute a car is hired, with a $15 minimum for all fares.

In his email, which was also published on Uber's corporate blog, Kalanick accused the D.C. Council of stifling his business:

Consequently they are handicapping a reliable, high quality transportation alternative so that Uber cannot offer a high quality service at the best possible price. It was hard for us to believe that an elected body would choose to keep prices of a transportation service artificially high - but the goal is essentially to protect a taxi industry that has significant experience in influencing local politicians.Kalanick's rebuke caught Cheh, who believed her office had drafted an agreeable piece of legislation, off-guard. In an email to her staff and fellow councilmembers, Cheh wrote that she and representatives from Uber hammered out an arrangement that would put the company in accordance with local regulations and prevent future incidents like the "sting" conducted in January by D.C. Taxicab Commission Chairman Ron Linton.

"Several months ago, Uber contacted me and asked to work together to legalize services like Uber in the District," Cheh wrote. "Since then, I have met with Uber many times, negotiated in good faith, and believed that I had reached an agreement with them last week."

Cheh, who leads the Council committee that oversees the livery industry, wrote she was "deeply disappointed" by Uber's rejection of her amendment. At today's breakfast, Evans and Michael A. Brown (I-At Large) said that they would introduce a measure that would strip out the $15 minimum. A few moments later, Cheh said she would rescind the amendment entirely. She called herself "flabbergasted but flexible" on Uber, according to WTOP's Mark Segraves.

There are differing accounts on how Cheh's now-shelved amendment came to be. Though Cheh's intraoffice email suggested cooperation with Uber, the company said otherwise. Kalanick says his side and Cheh's office were never as close as her email suggested. In an phone interview, he rejected the idea that there was an arrangement in place.

"There was no agreement," he said. "We have always been opposed to price fixing."

Kalanick also said that Uber did not see the text of Cheh's amendment until 4 p.m yesterday, when it was far too late to recommend any language changes. And he contended that even without Cheh's amendment, Uber is not breaking any rules. In a Twitter conversation with the Post's Mike DeBonis, Kalanick said the meetings with Cheh left Uber staffers feeling "strung out."

"We are legal as is," Kalanick told DCist. He would not elaborate on the "strung out" phrase.

Had Cheh's amendment been adopted, it would have effectually imposed a price floor on Uber's operations in D.C., potentially crimping its plans to introduce UberX, a more moderately priced service that employs vehicles less luxurious than its standard-issue Lincoln Towncar. The UberX service is already in place in New York and San Francisco, but Kalanick said his company will have to "wait and see" the fate of Cheh's amendment before continuing with plans to introduce it into the Washington market.

Kalanick has his defenders, though, not the least of whom is Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who tweeted his support for the company.

In the mean time, Kalanick said that for the remainder of July, Uber's minimum fare in D.C. would be dropped to $12, in apparent defiance of the equation offered by Cheh's amendment.

I also received a note from Jack Evans' Chief of Staff that Evans is introducing an amendment that would have no minimum for Uber, and she urged me to contact other council members to support it, particularly the at-large members. I just wrote to the whole council, and told them that their vote would permanently effect my support of any of them for any office they run for (e.g., mayor). We should all do it!

Just received a note from Councilmember Jack Evans Chief of Staff that Evans is "introducing an amendment that would have no minimum for Uber."  

See Cheh Shelves Uber Amendment After Backlash from CEO and Customers: http://bit.ly/LM5Cpi

Just tweeted and called my councilmember and the chairmans office.

my letter: I find it really shocking that the DC City Council is making an effort to undercut Uber's transportation service by price fixing -- Uber is offering an amazing service - and their idea to add lower cost, environmentally superior hybrid vehicles to the city's mix of affordable transportation options is a good one. Rather than encouraging competition and free enterprise, not to mention cleaner air... the City Council's protectionist measures seem ill advised. Why not encourage the DC taxi fleet to go hybrid , as well? Why not encourage the city's taxi drivers to be polite, responsible, clean, reliable, and safe, rather than trying to undercut the "competition"?  

 I had never used Uber until today -- when I had to take my 90+ year old mother - recently released from the hospital --  to and from the surgeon's office. The last time I tried to call a cab for her at her doctor's office, she had to wait more than 50 minutes and nearly fainted from the heat. Today, we tried to hail a taxi, but none would stop when they saw her wheelchair. Using Uber, we had a ride at the door within four minutes - it was a clean, air conditioned car, the driver was polite and careful; he helped her out of her wheelchair, and then stowed the chair in the trunk of the car without complaint. The return trip was equally successful. I had planned to take a taxi, but again, none would stop for us.

Consumers deserve a choice -- I take metro bus, trains, taxis, and now, I'm a big fan of Uber, as well, even though it's expensive. There are times when those other options simply are not viable. The idea that the DC city council would vote to discourage LOWER prices for consumers, environmentally sound transportation, and more convenient service to its citizens seems outrageous. You should be helping the citizens of the District by voting down this anticompetitive, anti environmental, fiscally harmful policy that undercuts our choices and add an unnecessary financial burden to those of us in the city who do not have cars.

Please strike down the MINIMUM FARE language from the Uber Amendment. 

Here's my letter to my City Council member:

Mr. Wells,

I am a resident in SW DC, and customer of Uber.  I also take taxi cabs sometimes, and the DC metro often.  I find it shocking that a government would pass a law prohibiting a business from offering a service to consumers at rates that are highly competitive.  In a free market economy, consumers should decide whether a business model can exist.  If one company develops technology to improve efficiency and profit by offering a similar - or in this case better service - at a competitive or low price, then consumers should be given the opportunity to patronize that company. 

Instead of voting to fix prices and cause voters to pay more for transportation, I would think City Council would encourage the taxi cab industry to adopt similar technology and compete on better service and efficiency.

Thank you for your time.

Email them all at once: pmendelson@dccouncil.us, mcheh@dccouncil.us, mbrown@dccouncil.us,  jgraham@dccouncil.us, jevans@dccouncil.us, mbowser@dccouncil.us,  kmcduffie@dccouncil.us, twells@dccouncil.us,  yalexander@dccouncil.us, mbarry@dccouncil.us, dcatania@dccouncil.us,  vorange@dccouncil.us

Is it 5 times the fare or just the initial drop rate?  I've seen conflicting facts.

Can you provide some additional detail?  Who introduced the amendment, and what is the underlying bill? (I see the Taxicab Commission Service Improvement Amendment, B19-630, is on the agenda tomorrow for a final vote, but there are three other taxicab bills being introduced as emergency or temporary legislation.)

Also, I'm interested in how this would affect fares coming to-and-from Virginia. 

While I don't want to unnecessarily affect business owners in the District, I might adjust my plans more often than not to stay in Virginia for the evening.

I'm curious how this would affect Taxi drivers. I suspect there may is a living wage concern here. I'll grant you that there is room for an alternative but I'd like to hear from DCs Coalition of Cab Drivers. Is there a debate going on here?

It would have been handy (more increase participation) if you had some suggested language to use for tweets or even had one click tweets to make it way more likely people would do the thing you asked.  Same with email. Why not set it up so that you could do one click email with prepopulated content.  Finally, some link to a tool to find one's ward would also have been helpful.-Mario