Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Get Me

Other rideshare companies sued over lack of access for disabled people

Noted for the record.

A state disability rights group has sued the ride-hailing apps Get Me and Fare in federal court, arguing that because the apps only partially offer text-to-speech software, they are unusable for blind people and therefore in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For example, Austin resident and accessibility consultant Jeanine Lineback, who is blind, was able to set up an account but was not able to request a ride, the lawsuit says.

The Fare app was officially made accessible to blind individuals in its iPhone update Sunday, and the Android app will have the same update in two weeks, Fare’s CEO Michael Leto said. As a result, Leto expects the lawsuit to be dropped against Fare.

Officials with Get Me said they disagree they are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because they do not provide public transportation.

The National Federation of the Blind chapter in Texas is suing on behalf of Lineback and four other Austinites, arguing that they are entitled to damages as well as an injunction against the apps, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday. The injunction would require that the apps’ companies make these apps accessible to people who are blind.

When the National Federation of the Blind sued Uber in 2014 over some drivers refusing to transport blind individuals with guide dogs, Uber also argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to them. However, the federation argued that private entities primarily engaged in providing transportation services are covered by the act, and Uber settled the lawsuit this summer.

[…]

“Get Me and other similar taxi services are a critical transportation option for many blind individuals in Austin, Texas,” the suit says. “Due to distances between destinations and the limitations of public transportation and paratransit, many blind persons must use taxi services to travel from one place to another.”

The suit also argues that if these kinds of apps put traditional taxis out of business, people who are blind will have even fewer options to get around. The suit says “other competing taxi services” operating in Austin have incorporated this technology into their apps, but does not specify which ones.

Color me unimpressed with GetMe’s defense. All of these rideshare companies need to have some level of accommodation for disabled riders. Perhaps the formula for it should be different than it is for a traditional cab company or public transit service, but it needs to be greater than zero, and they need to be accountable for it. That has to be a corollary of the way the vehicles for hire industry is changing. I hope GetMe can follow Fare’s lead and find a way to settle this rather than fight it out in court.

What a free market in ridesharing looks like

It looks like Austin right now.

Uber

When Uber and Lyft left Austin last month, they thought they were sending a message to the Austin City Council and other local governments looking to regulate them. Instead, their departure may pave the way for a revamp of ride-hailing in Austin that could draw the notice of other cities.

At least six new companies have launched in Austin, all emerging from the ashes of the Proposition 1 election that left the capital city without the two industry giants in vehicle-for-hire apps, which are also sometimes referred to as transportation networking companies.

“What [Uber and Lyft] have left us with appears to be the only open TNC market in a major city in the world, maybe,” said Austin Mayor Steve Adler. “In the marketplace, when you have a monopoly, or in our case a duopoly, that leaves town, what you would expect to see in the market is innovation and competition. And that’s what we’re now seeing happening in Austin.”

[…]

While other companies offering similar services had operated alongside Uber and Lyft, none had seen anywhere near the same level of success. An estimated 10,000 drivers found themselves out of work after the two companies ceased operations.

Newer faces have quickly flooded the market. There’s Arcade City, getme and Fare. There’s also Fasten, Wingz, zTrip and RideAustin. And InstaRyde will have its official Austin launch later this week.

Many of these companies, most of which have business models similar to those of Uber and Lyft, are still finding their footing, rushing to get drivers on the road and apps on Austinites’ phones in the race to emerge as the face of peer-to-peer transactions in the city. Some sprouted roots in Austin before Uber and Lyft left but have seen a recent boost in business.

Yet all of these firms still operate in the shadow of the two ride-hailing giants, struggling to distance themselves from their competitors while still offering comparable services. Even now, it’s unclear if any of these new companies will be able to offer the same level of coverage or see similar success.

[…]

Despite the turmoil from the election, Adler said he stands by the council’s decisions, even as the fallout has captured national attention.

“I have talked to mayors from around the country about this issue,” Adler said. “My position on this is that cities need to be as innovative and creative as are the industries and businesses and economies that it intersects with … There’s a suggestion that what’s happened here demonstrates that Austin is not an innovative city, and I don’t think what happened here indicates that at all … Austin is where ideas go to become real.”

Adler said it was unclear what the ride-hailing environment will look like down the line, but he said he is certain there will be “choices operating at scale in the city.”

The future could depend on whether the Legislature decides to take action on the issue next year. Immediately following the departures of Uber and Lyft, Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, said he will file legislation on the issue next session that emphasized a free market. Other GOP lawmakers expressed similar concerns on social media after the election.

Adler said while statewide regulation is “certainly an option” the Legislature can use, the atmosphere in Austin has already significantly shifted since the election.

“I think that when some of the legislators initially spoke, it was uncertain as to whether or not Austin had adopted something that would prevent the market to function,” Adler said. “I would say the evidence at this point would at least suggest that the market is working well.”

There’s little the Legislature can do until the 2017 session, but the House Committee on Business and Industry is holding an interim hearing on Wednesday to discuss “how Texas can support shared economy growth in the state.” Uber General Manager Sarfraz Maredia has been invited to testify.

In the meantime, the future of Austin ride-hailing will be determined by the market, Adler said, “as opposed to government deciding.”

Boy, wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants? I wonder if Sen. Schwertner and his Republican colleagues will recognize it if it is happening. I’ve been harping on all this for awhile, so I’ll try to restrain myself here. I don’t expect all these companies to be successful – frankly, if one or two of them make it, that will be great. Austin represents a unique opportunity for these companies. Let’s see what they can do.

First rideshare legislative hearing

There will be a lot more where this came from.

Uber

Representatives from Uber and Lyft urged lawmakers to adopt statewide regulations for the ride-hailing industry during a Texas Capitol hearing on Wednesday, citing what they called burdensome local ordinances that have driven them to leave Austin and other Texas cities.

The companies fielded pointed questions from members of the House Committee on Business and Industry about safety concerns and how local regulations, like those in Austin, impact their operations.

“I think we first need to recognize the obvious – technology is changing our lives,” said Committee Chairman René Oliveira, D- Brownsville, at the start of the hearing. “These changes are going to be very profound; you’ve already seen that in Austin … but this is not just an Austin, Travis County issue.”

Currently, regulations for ride-hailing companies are handled on a city-by-city basis. The Legislature discussed potential regulations during the 2015 session, but those bills failed to gain any traction. Now, several months ahead of the next session, lawmakers are revisiting the issue after Austin citizens voted in May to keep in place a requirement for ride-hailing drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks.

[…]

Lyft

Oliveira said while he tends to favor local control, “there are some issues that demand state intervention.”

“I am neutral on this issue,” he said. “What I am concerned about is finding out the necessary facts to determine – is this an issue that the state of Texas should get involved in or is it an issue of local control?”

During the hearing, he asked both [Rena Davis, a public policy manager for Lyft] and Sarfraz Maredia, the general manager for Uber in Texas, if they had data to support claims that they offer safer rides than taxis. Neither Davis nor Maredia provided specific numbers, to the frustration of the committee.

“I can’t believe [Lyft] or Uber doesn’t have data that we could look at that involves drivers and what the incident rate is,” Oliveira said, referring to the number of violent encounters between drivers and riders.

Both Maredia and Davis assured the panel they would provide lawmakers more information.

So let’s talk about regulations and transparency. After that post was publushed, Uber pointed me to this safety report on their website that goes over their criteria for background checks and what causes a potential driver to be eliminated. I appreciate the feedback and commend them for making that public. I also have this memo from Sarfraz Maredia on Uber’s safety procedures, as well as Maredia’s written testimony to the committee. A lot of what’s in those documents are things we have heard before from Uber, though perhaps not as much lately as the argument has largely defaulted to “do it our way or we’ll leave and then you’ll be sorry”. The thing is, I think Uber and Lyft could have done a lot better in Austin if they had focused on the things they do for customer safety instead of bludgeoning everyone to death with nonstop misleading ads and automated text messages. They could still gain some ground, in Houston and in Austin if they want to, by going back to that emphasis on their methodology and by being forthcoming with their data to back up their claims. Show us the numbers, on how many drivers they reject and for what reasons, compared to the cities, and how many incidents per capita there are in cities that do it their way versus cities that impose “unnecessary” regs on them, however they want to define that. If the cities in question can’t or won’t provide adequate data to allow them to make the comparisons, then so much the better for them and their argument that the cities are making them jump through hoops for no good cause. And if some of the numbers don’t show them in as positive a light as they’d like, be honest about it and see what can be done to improve. These guys say they’re bold innovators leading the way to a better future, well then do the math and show us the analytics to prove it. I promise to keep an open mind.

Since the Austin election and Uber and Lyft’s departure, startups and smaller ride-hailing companies have swarmed the city and its newly open market.

One company that has seen success in the capital city is getme, which has offered rides since December. The company’s founder, Michael Gaubert, told lawmakers Wednesday the company opposes statewide regulation of fingerprint background checks .

“The notion that there should be a state law ban on fingerprinting is not the correct way to go on this,” said Gaubert, who was joined at the hearing by former Dallas Cowboys player Michael Irvin, who he described as a close friend.

But lawmakers seemed committed to pursuing some sort of regulation next session, particularly Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, who cited concerns with the “patchwork quilt” of regulations across the state.

“It may not get to the governor,” he said of potential legislation, “but we’re going to try something.”

It would be nice to think that the Lege will look at the data and put forth reasonable proposals to address what can be done while allowing cities to take the steps they need to get the service they want. I doubt that’s what will happen, but it would be nice to think. Trail Blazers has more.

RideAustin

Another new player gets set to enter the Austin rideshare market.

Adding to the growing number of ride-hailing options in Austin since Uber and Lyft’s wholesale evacuation, a new nonprofit, community-based app called RideAustin was introduced today at the Alamo Drafthouse on South Lamar.

The app is being described as “innovative,” as well as made “by Austin, for Austin,” according to Joe Deshotel, RideAustin’s PR representative.

The initiative is a collaboration of Austin-based tech entrepreneurs and community leaders, for service that “[brings] the community together to build local solutions for Austin’s ridesharing future.” Formed as a nonprofit, and led by billionaire Austin tech giant and Trilogy founder Joe Liemandt and Crossover founder Andy Tryba, RideAustin’s overarching goal to become a “community asset,” per Deshotel, begins with uniting tech advancement with social responsibility.

Only two weeks in the making – Deshotel himself joined the group a week ago – the app joins Get Me, zTrip, Wingz, and still-in-the-works Warp Ridesharing. The RideAustin app will go live for iPhone users this morning, with service starting in June. (The Android version of the app is also expected to roll out in June.) Prospective drivers can start the on-boarding process, and get themselves scheduled for fingerprinting.

Blue-sky success would involve a smooth scale out from its initial services areas: the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and the Downtown area, for which exact parameters haven’t been set. Not having “to worry about shareholders” as a nonprofit, it “will allow drivers to earn more [RideAustin will take a smaller than industry-standard commission] and riders pay less while helping local charities.”

Initial ride pricing itself is unknown, but unlikely to be as low as Uber and Lyft, at least to start. As reported previously, the best current option, Get Me, has been struggling with driver/rider matches, often forcing riders to wait longer than 10 minutes – Uber took an average of three minutes – and pay significantly higher prices.

Two unique RideAustin app features include a fare roundup option and “optional surge pricing,” says Deshotel. The fare roundup feature would allow riders round their fares up to the next dollar over the fare, to be given to a choice of as-yet-determined charities.

The more interesting (and potentially problematic) feature, optional surge pricing, would allow riders to opt-in to surges, allowing them first ride at premium cost. Riders electing not to opt-in, or financially unable to do so, will remain in driver queues, placed behind those accepting surge pricing. Though RideAustin is surely a business in all contexts, even with its additional aims at targeting the underserved and disabled, locating balance will be paramount, and could throw its first-look presentation as community-facing into immediate question.

Having this be a nonprofit is an interesting variation, and while I’m not exactly sure how well that will work, I see no reason why it can’t work. The point is that we should all hope that at least a couple of these new ventures find success, which they are then able to bring to other cities. I’ve heard an awful lot about the “free market” in ridesharing over the past several months, but the truth is that the rideshare market was and currently is entirely dominated by two enormous firms. That’s a “competitive” market in the same way that the broadband and cable/satellite TV markets are competitive. Surely that’s not what we really want here, right? I’ll say again, the single best outcome here is for multiple viable alternatives to Uber and Lyft to emerge. That would be good for riders, good for drivers, and good for city governments that don’t want to be held hostage by a couple of would-be monopolists. The Statesman and Buzzfeed have more.

San Antonio to re-revisit its rideshare requirements

Just when you thought it was all over

Uber

With Transportation Network Company (TNC) tension looming from Austin and Houston, the City of San Antonio is preparing its push to renegotiate with ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft. And one of the officials taking the lead on the talks believes they’ll be a model for other municipalities to follow.

“It’s important that we move forward and set the example. And I think we’re about to for the entire state and possibly the entire country,” said City Councilman Roberto Treviño at a meeting of the City Council Governance Committee. Treviño has spearheaded much of the City’s negotiations with TNCs.

Lyft and Uber left San Antonio in March 2015, after City Council mandated that drivers undergo fingerprint background checks. After a spring and summer without the services, a 9-month pilot compromise was struck to bring them back: The checks were made voluntary, with the City footing the bill for those who wished to undergo them. If a driver submitted to a fingerprint background check, they’d receive a special designation on the app’s screen.

The deal was portrayed as a win for consumer choice and TNCs alike. But few drivers have undergone the voluntary checks. There’s also no way to specifically hail a driver with a fingerprint background check, so passengers who want one must repeatedly hail a ride, then cancel it until they’re picked up by a fingerprinted driver.

Councilman Joe Krier said he hadn’t heard of “a single … bad experience with Uber or Lyft” from constituents. But Councilman Mike Gallagher expressed concerns over if citizens understood how to identify whether a driver has passed the fingerprint check.

“I almost wonder if we need to strengthen the ordinance with something that says ‘Caution: Driver has not passed fingerprint background check,'” Gallagher said.

See here for the background. If you live in San Antonio, there are a couple of public meetings scheduled to discuss this; see the link at the top for more details. One such meeting has already happened, and there’s also an online survey you can participate in. The operating agreements with Uber, Lyft, and GetMe expire in the next few months, with the GetMe one the lasting until October, but it looks like they will all be allowed to go through then. For all the sturm und drang in Austin, I’d say this is the situation to watch. if SA and the TNCs can come up with an agreement that is broadly acceptable to all, including the cab companies, then that could serve as a starting point for Austin and Houston, if they are inclined to redo their own ordinances. If not, well, that will add to the impetus for the Lege to butt in. We’ll see how it goes. Texas Public Radio, San Antonio Magazine, and the San Antonio Business Journal have more.

Uber and Lyft do what they said they would

They’ve cut and run.

Uber

Uber and Lyft made good on their threat to end Austin service Monday, pulling out two days after voters rejected their $9.1 million bid to overturn the city’s rules for ride-hailing companies.

Their departure came despite offers from Mayor Steve Adler to return to the table to negotiate a compromise. Meanwhile, smaller ride-hailing firms tried to press their newfound advantage.

“If they’re saying the election results mean they had to leave town, maybe they shouldn’t have asked for the election,” said Jason Stanford, Adler’s spokesman.

“The mayor’s been very clear,” Stanford added. “They are welcome to stay, and he invites them to the table, regardless of what they choose to do at this point.”

[…]

Lyft

In notices posted on their apps Monday, both Uber and Lyft blamed their pullout on the City Council’s rules, making no mention of the failed ballot measure to overturn them.

“Due to City Council action, Lyft cannot operate in Austin,” Lyft’s statement read. “Contact your City Council member now to tell them you want Lyft back.”

Uber’s statement was similar: “Due to regulations passed by City Council, Uber is no longer available within Austin city limits. We hope to resume operations under modern ridesharing regulations in the near future.”

Let’s be clear about one thing: Uber and Lyft were not forced to leave Austin. The rejection of Prop 1 simply means that the city’s existing rideshare ordinance – which as I understand it has not actually begun requiring fingerprint checks yet – remains in place. Uber and Lyft chose to leave rather than operate under those conditions, as Uber has done for the past year and a half in Houston and as both of them have done for longer than that in New York. Nothing about the Prop 1 vote requires them to leave. It is entirely their choice. There has always been room for further discussion on this, though it’s hard to do so when the first move is to go to DefCon 5. But despite all the rhetoric and millions of dollars flushed down the pockets of political consultant and media buyers, it’s not too late to start talking.

What should happen now, then?

Fingerprint-based background checks aren’t great. The FBI’s database is known to be flawed with outdated and inaccurate information. It’s kind of like taking your shoes off before you get on an airplane—it provides the feeling of security while also inconveniencing a bunch of people for show. Still, it might turn out to be the best option—more on that in a second—but as the city considers what regulations are in everybody’s best interest, now that it has ensured that it has a full complement of options at its disposal, it should be looking beyond fingerprinting.

Isn’t Austin stuck with fingerprinting now that people voted down Prop 1?

Nope. If Prop 1 would have passed, the city would have been prohibited from passing fingerprint-based regulations. But now the city is allowed to create whatever regulations it deems appropriate. City council can—and should–be looking to tweak the current ordinance with one that, for example, doesn’t prove discriminatory against drivers of color the way that fingerprint checks do. Although we doubt that Uber and Lyft are particularly passionate about that issue when it doesn’t directly concern them, the Austin chapter of the NAACP and the Urban League certainly are, and the objections they raised deserve to be considered and taken into account.

So what sort of background check should Lyft and Uber do?

That’s the zillion dollar question here. The problem is that most jobs have a process that screens out people who raise red flags. For most companies, you go through an interview, meet the people you’ll be working for, and get offered the chance to interact with the public based on the judgment of someone who is responsible for making sure that the company is represented well. (Depending on the job, it can also come with more formal background checks.) Because the “hiring” process for Lyft and Uber is more of a “sign up” process, the system relies on computer checks to do all of that work. That’s going to result in a process that has definite flaws—and it’s going to take creativity beyond just “run a fingerprint check” to address them. What that specifically looks like is hard to say, but between Austin’s leaders and Lyft and Uber, you’d think there would be enough brainpower to consider some viable options.

[…]

So what would make Uber and Lyft come back to the table, if they can just lobby for new rules in the legislature in 2017?

A couple of things: One, they don’t want to give up market share if a competitor picks up steam here over the next year. Two, it’s hard to keep growing a company that’s opted out of too many markets. Investors who see that Lyft doesn’t operate in Austin or Houston, and who know that they may have to make some threats about leaving L.A., have to give some thought to the growth potential of the company.

So what’s the best case scenario here for everybody?

Smart regulations that don’t rely on fingerprinting would be a good place to start. Austin should want Uber and Lyft operating in the city. Uber and Lyft should want to operate in Austin. Austin should want to create regulations that keep people with a history of DWI arrests, or violence against women, or other red flags like that, from driving people around for money—but it shouldn’t enforce regulations that would, say, keep drivers of color (who are disproportionately arrested for minor infractions that don’t put passengers at risk) from working. That system may not exist yet, but creating it ought to be a priority for everybody.

More than anything, a lot of ego is gonna need to be checked. The people who fought against Prop 1, which had a sort of David and Goliath quality to it, need to recognize that the support they received on Saturday was at least as much of a response to the tone of the campaign Uber and Lyft were running as it was a show of support for the specifics of the current regulations. Drawing a hard line around those specific regulations just because they won the vote would be a short-sighted, wrongheaded move.

Uber and Lyft, meanwhile, definitely need to approach Austin City Council with some humility, and consider not just what makes it easiest for them to add drivers to their ranks, but also that there are legitimate safety issues at stake here that the current regulations fail to address.

As Vox points out, Uber in particular has a choice to make about its public image. At the very least, I don’t think this debacle helped them with that. It would be nice if they came up with a solution – even a suggestion – that was more than “trust us, our process is all you’ll ever need, and if you don’t like it we’ll come after your ass”.

As far as the statewide regulation possibility goes, this is a reminder that there are never any guarantees in the Lege.

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee on Monday said that he prefers cities to set the rules for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing companies, even after a municipal vote in Austin has prompted new calls for the state to step in.

Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, said he’s “more interested in what the public thinks” — and that “they spoke in Austin.” Voters there on Saturday rejected a measure to get rid of the city’s current ride-sharing rules, which will require fingerprint-based background checks.

Some Republicans say the election — and the decision by Uber and Lyft to now leave Austin — shows the need for the state to pass industry-friendly rules. That group grew on Monday to include Sen. Robert Nichols, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee.

But Pickett didn’t join the dog pile.

If the Legislature were to get involved, Pickett said, it should be through a broad discussion about all car-for-hire models, including taxicabs and limos. And if there are statewide rules, he said, fingerprint-based background checks should be part of the agenda.

“Still, the best would be to let the local municipalities decide,” said Pickett, who stressed that he supports all the ride-hailing options, including Uber and Lyft.

[…]

On Monday, Nichols, the Senate Transportation chairman, said in a written statement that “it is important to create consistency with a statewide policy to ensure all requirements for Transportation Network Companies are uniform across the state.”

“It can be difficult for these types of companies to operate when there are different ordinances in cities that are adjacent to each other,” said Nichols, a Jacksonville Republican.

That’s the first we’ve heard from Sen. Nichols since his comment in January that seemed to support a fingerprint requirement in any statewide bill. This story notes that Rep. Chris Paddie’s bill from last session eventually had a fingerprint requirement in it before it passed out of the House committee. We’re a long way from any bills being introduced, and I fully expect this to be a headline fight next year, but all I’m saying is that the signals are mixed right now about what such a bill might wind up looking like. Don’t take any bets on it just yet.

One more thing, from that Statesman story:

Still, the exit of Lyft and Uber from Austin created an opening for GetMe, a small Texas-born ride-hailing upstart.

“GetMe is seeing an unprecedented spike in driver sign-ups, uploads of the app and transactions on the app,” said Jon Laramy, a company co-founder. “I applaud the city of Austin for standing up for, and listening to, the citizens.”

The service had 350 active drivers in the city as of Friday and another 1,600 in the process of joining up, Laramy added, a number that he expects to grow.

[…]

GetMe isn’t alone in the Austin market. San Francisco-based Wingz is primarily an airport shuttle service but plans to expand its “private car service” in the next month, the company’s CEO said Monday.

Another company called zTrip offers a variety of services, including airport vans, limousines and a Williamson County cab service and also is eyeing quick growth, owner Billy Carter said Monday. A third upstart service, Phoenix-based Fare, told the Statesman it’s interested in Austin.

By far, the best thing that could happen as a result of this, regardless of what goes on next year in the Lege, is for multiple viable competitors to Uber and Lyft emerge. I mean, isn’t that how a free market is supposed to operate? Let a thousand flowers bloom now that the field has been abandoned by the top predators. We all win in that scenario.

GetMe waits in the wings

No matter what happens with the rideshare repeal referendum in Austin, there will be at least one vehicle for hire company in the capital city.

Early voting is underway in Austin on Proposition 1, where residents will decide which regulations the city should adopt for vehicle-for-hire companies like Uber and Lyft.

Both companies have pledged to leave the city if the proposed ordinance is not adopted — a claim they’ve made good on in three Texas cities this year. But at least one ride-hailing company insists it can fill the gap Uber and Lyft would leave behind.

“We’re not going to be the donkey or the elephant,” said Jonathan Laramy, the chief experience officer for Get Me LLC, which the company has stylized as getme. “We’re here to stay. Vote Prop. 1, vote Prop. 2 – we don’t care.”

[…]

Laramy said getme — which currently operates in Austin, Dallas, Houston and Las Vegas — is willing to adhere to any local regulations, as long as the process for obtaining fingerprint-based background checks is “fast, easy and cost effective.”

“We’re a good corporate citizen,” Laramy said, adding that the company is willing to collaborate with cities on their regulations.

While his company is still working out the specifics, Laramy said that “at some point, we will fingerprint all of our drivers” — even in cities without a requirement.

If Austin voters do not approve the proposed ordinance, Uber and Lyft have said they will leave the city — although The Daily Dot reported last week that Uber fully intends to stay, regardless of the outcome of the election. If the companies leave, Laramy said getme would be prepared to process a potential influx of driver applications.

“We have a platform where we could actually — and we already have this in place and ready to go — sign up conceivably 5,000 drivers in a month, if not more,” Laramy said. He would not elaborate on specifics of the plan, but he said it involved “using information that’s already been done and then verifying and showing us that.”

After starting up in Dallas in February 2015, getme recently relocated its headquarters to Austin. Laramy said it has more than 10,000 drivers across the four cities where it operates, more than 2,000 of whom are in Houston. The company boasts 6 corporate employees and a handful of contractors, making it a significantly smaller operation than ride-hailing giants Uber and Lyft.

Laramy says the company soon plans to offer services in Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago and Atlanta. In Texas, he said, the company is launching operations in Galveston next week and Corpus Christi this summer.

This follows Uber’s cessation of operations in Galveston and Corpus Christi earlier this year after both cities adopted fingerprint background check requirements. Laramy said getme’s interest in both cities was unrelated to Uber’s actions and that they had planned to launch in both locations well before Uber left.

“You can’t get home if you take a ride down there,” said Laramy, describing someone looking to travel between Houston and Galveston using getme. “It’s silly not to have both cities.”

See here and here for more on GetMe, which will likely get a little extra exposure here in Houston now as well. That Daily Dot report seems thinly sourced and contradicts everything we’ve heard so far, but who knows. Regardless of the outcome on May 7, I suspect there will be more than a few people in Austin looking for an alternative to Uber and Lyft, so whether they clear out or not, this is a smart move on GetMe’s part. Has anyone out there used them?

Uber says it will leave Houston if it does not change its fingerprinting requirement

I called it.

Uber

Uber announced Wednesday that the company plans to cease operations in Houston if the city council does not repeal its existing regulations relating to vehicle-for-hire companies.

Houston is one of two cities in the country where Uber continues to operate despite a local requirement that its drivers undergo fingerprint-based background checks. Uber has recently left three cities in Texas for approving similar regulations and has threatened to do the same in Austin.

The company’s main competitor, Lyft, pulled out of Houston over a year ago in response to the new rules requiring its drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks. Uber had continued to operate in the city while publicly criticizing the regulation as burdensome.

“We have worked hard and taken extraordinary steps to help guide drivers through the current process in Houston,” said Uber General Manager Sarfraz Maredia in a letter to Houston City Council on Wednesday. “However, a year and a half later, it is clear the regulations are simply not working for the people of this city.”

Uber also released a report Wednesday detailing, “The Cost of Houston’s Ridesharing Regulations.” The report claims Houston’s regulations have led to a decrease in Uber drivers and in turn, “fewer safe rides.”

Here’s Uber’s press release, their letter to Council, and the report mentioned in the story. Before I get into any details, here are some further news bits. First, from the initial Chron story.

No departure date has been set, Uber spokeswoman Debbee Hancock said.

“We have not set a specific deadline,” she said. “We want to work with the city to develop regulations that work for riders, drivers and the entire community. We understand this process may take a few months.

[…]

Meanwhile use of Uber in Houston surges, something both sides have said bolsters their case. The city argues use means Uber is profitable even with the regulations, though the company says they stifle supply of drivers.

From the Statesman:

The company does not disclose to the media or public how many drivers it has working in Houston, and it obtained a court order preventing city of Houston officials from releasing that information. (Lyft does not operate in Houston.)

The report released Wednesday by Uber includes a chart purporting to show drivers-per-million residents in Houston, Austin and Los Angeles, and the chart is presented in such a way as to imply that Austin (with no fingerprinting required until Feb. 28) has many more drivers per million residents.

But the chart has no numbers listed on its vertical scale of drivers per million residents, rendering it qualitative in nature, not quantitative. Given that and the company’s refusal to release driver figures, it is impossible to confirm the company’s claims about driver supply there.

The letter and report do not mention that Houston has a process under which a driver can get a 30-day “provisional” license without first going through fingerprinting. But according to Uber, a Houston driver, even to get that provisional license, must complete a physical, take a drug test, appear at Houston municipal court to get a check of outstanding criminal warrants, buy a fire extinguisher for the car, get his or her car inspected by a city inspector and get an Uber identifying marker for the car.

From the Houston Business Journal:

According to the letter and a corresponding report on Uber’s Houston operations, 59 percent of its Houston fleet drives less than 10 hours a week. That’s compared to 79 percent of drivers in Austin, and 77 percent in Houston’s outer limits. Uber argues that for these part-time drivers, the regulations are too oppressive and prevents new drivers from signing up.

Mayor Turner held a press conference yesterday at 4 to give his reaction. The Chron story that contained it was updated too late for me to see it last night, so I’ll do another piece tomorrow to discuss that. Click2Houston reports him saying he was “surprised” and that when he had last spoken to Uber reps a few months ago they gave no indication they were dissatisfied; I received another statement from Uber later in the day that takes issue with that, but I’ll get to all that tomorrow. The one thing that surprises me about this is that Uber announced it before the results of the Austin referendum are known. I had assumed they’d wait and pounce if they were successful in repealing Austin’s ordinance; if they failed, I figured they’d still make some move in Houston, but they might be more circumspect about it. Winning the referendum in Austin gives them leverage, which I strongly suspect is part of the point. Maybe this is a show of confidence on their part, maybe it’s just bravado, or maybe this was the plan all along. Who knows?

There are three logical ways Houston can go with this:

1. Do what Uber wants, which would surely have the effect of bringing Lyft back as well. That would not be my first choice, but if Prop 1 passes in Austin, there may be a lot of sentiment here for that.

2. Stand pat and let Uber do what it’s going to do. Get Me is operating in town, so it’s not like there’s no vehicle for hire alternative. One could argue that Uber’s abandonment of many Texas cities, potentially including Austin, would pave the way for another competitor to arise. The demand clearly exists for this service, and opportunities like this don’t come along every day. This is a better strategy if Prop 1 fails, and the bigger the margin the better. It also assumes a commitment to ensuring that no legislation that pre-empts local rideshare ordinances gets passed in the 2017 Legislature.

3. Try to negotiate a compromise. I still kind of like Austin Mayor Adler’s proposal for voluntary fingerprinting, which then becomes part of a driver’s profile and which customers can request. Let’s see what the free market has to say about that, shall we? There are certainly other possibilities, and again, this is likely to be more feasible if Prop 1 goes down.

Anyway. I don’t know as I write this what Mayor Turner had to say beyond his surprise, nor do I know what the prevailing opinion on Council is. Whatever the case, I’m sure this will be a big part of the discussion over the next few months, which I’m sure is exactly what the Mayor wanted given the forthcoming budget battle, the ongoing flood cleanup, the continuing search for an HPD chief, and everything else on his agenda. Well timed, Uber.

An outside view on Uber in Houston

The Statesman looks at how Austin’s fight with Uber and Lyft over fingerprint requirements compares with other cities in Texas, including Houston.

Uber

Officials in Houston said they decided early on that their city, despite having almost 2,500 licensed taxis, could benefit from the emerging ride-hailing industry. So they approached Uber and Lyft a few years ago and began to try to work out a framework for operations there.

That stringent framework, including a requirement for fingerprinting, drug testing, physicals and vehicle inspections, passed the Houston City Council in August 2014, just two months after Uber and Lyft had more or less barged into Austin and set off a furor by operating in defiance of city law. At first, Houston officials say, Uber officials had nothing but praise for the new law and worked with Houston to set up procedures and a facility for licensing of ride-hailing drivers.

Lyft, however, left town. That company operates in only one place that requires fingerprinting: New York City.

The Houston law took effect in November 2014, and the city’s permitting center in downtown Houston, along with a temporary off-site location to handle an initial rush of drivers, began operations, said Lara Cottingham, Houston’s assistant director of administrative and regulatory affairs.

Drivers can get a 30-day provisional permit without fingerprinting, Cottingham said, although they do need to undergo the physical, drug test and a check for active criminal warrants. Then, within that month, the drivers would have to be fingerprinted and pass the background check to get a two-year ride-hailing license.

Getting a provisional license at the agency’s Houston office, can take as little as 20 minutes, Cottingham said. The process of being fingerprinted and getting background results from the FBI, which can be done during those 30 days after the applicant is already driving, can take three to five days, she said.

Uber spokeswoman Jenn Mullin contends that jumping through those hoops can take several weeks and that it has been a noticeable deterrent to becoming a driver for the company. That, in turn, has increased waiting times for rides well beyond the average 3-minute wait that Uber customers see in Austin, she said.

But testing this assertion is difficult. Mullin declined to provide driver or wait time figures in Houston. And the company has resisted, through the courts, any attempts by the press and public to find out how many drivers have Houston-issued ride-hailing permits.

When Uber lobbyist Adam Blinick testified in December before the Austin City Council, [Austin City Council Member Ann] Kitchen asked him why the company was resisting fingerprinting in Austin but operated with it in Houston.

“Houston has been a very difficult city for us to operate in,” Blinick said. “It requires a lot of resources. It does not scale to a good quality of service.”

So, Kitchen asked, would Uber be leaving Houston anytime soon?

“I’m not in a position to answer that tonight,” Blinick said.

That’s a question I’ve been pondering too, as you know. I feel like if Uber and Lyft win this election in August, the issue will come up again in Houston whether Mayor Turner and Council want it to or not. The article also looks at the experiences in San Antonio and Midland, where Uber backed out after an agreement had been hammered out, so go read the whole thing.

Get Me goes to Galveston

Swooping in to fill the gap left by Uber’s departure.

Galveston is close to getting app-based transportation back.

Get Me, a Dallas-based company that started serving Houston in October, has submitted an application with Galveston to provide ride services on the island, city spokeswoman Kala McCain said Monday.

Galveston has not had any competition to cabs since Uber – the most popular ride-hailing service – left the city over its decision in February to regulate the company exactly as it does taxi firms. The loss of Uber was predicted to mostly hit tourists, especially the cruise lines.

Get Me, which provides both ride and delivery services via smartphone app, has started Galveston’s application process, McCain said. Licensing is a multi-step process that includes providing detailed insurance and licensing information.

“It is my understanding everything is going well,” McCain said, saying the company could be operating in a matter of a few weeks.

Get Me is a new entrant on the scene, operating in a handful of places so far. Galveston was recently dumped by Uber, so this is an opportunity for them to come in and have this market to themselves. They have said that they will comply with municipal ordinances that mandate fingerprinting as part of the background check process for drivers, so that opportunity for them is potentially lucrative, especially if Austin rejects that referendum to repeal its ordinance. Has anyone used Get Me? I’m curious what you think, in particular how the experience compares with Uber and Lyft.

Lots of money being spent on the Austin Uber/Lyft ordinance referendum

Wow.

Uber

David Butts, meet Goliath.

Campaign finance reports filed Thursday for Austin’s ride-hailing services election show a beyond-massive lead in money for Ridesharing Works for Austin, the Uber- and Lyft-backed political action committee supporting a proposed ordinance that would become law if Proposition 1 passes on May 7.

Ridesharing Works reported that between Jan. 1 and March 28 it raised $788,750 in cash contributions and received $1.38 million in in-kind contributions, all of it from Uber and Lyft. The report says the committee spent $781,251 during that period, the bulk of it on Block by Block, a Washington company that conducted the petition drive that led to the May 7 election.

But that understates the costs already incurred. The in-kind contributions — huge consulting fees paid directly by Uber and Lyft as well as lodging, travel and staff time from both companies — were all expended before March 28 as well.

That means that, with more than five weeks left in the campaign, Uber and Lyft have already plowed $2.16 million into the Prop. 1 campaign. That already dwarfs the $1.2 million Mayor Steve Adler spent to get elected in 2014, up to now the gold standard for spending in an Austin municipal election.

The primary group opposing Prop. 1 reported raising and spending less than $15,000. Butts — a consultant who spent Thursday afternoon hammering in yard signs for the Our City, Our Safety, Our Choice political action committee — said he hopes to raise $100,000 by May 7, less than 5 percent of what the other side has spent already.

Lyft

[…]

Chelsea Wilson, a Lyft spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement that the heavy spending is necessary to avoid voter confusion about what is at stake.

“Unfortunately, the ballot language voters will see on May 7th is extremely misleading,” Wilson said, “and we will continue working to ensure that people have all the facts about this election.”

Uber contributed $387,750 in cash and made about $905,000 of in-kind contributions, including more than $450,000 on “consultant fees for campaign strategy.” Lyft made $401,000 in cash donations and nearly $475,000 of in-kind contributions.

Butts said that what Uber and Lyft are putting into the election indicates a lack of confidence that the public supports their cause.

“They see their own polls, and it obviously can’t be that great,” Butts said.

Our City, Our Safety, Our Choice reported just $12,459 in cash and in-kind contributions, and $8,560 in loans, all of that from Butts and Dean Rindy, another political consultant working to defeat Proposition 1.

That sure is a lot of money for any kind of municipal election, and that’s not even counting the cost of conducting the election, which the Trib pegs at $500K. Uber and Lyft drew a line in the sand here, so it’s not a surprise that they’re going all out to win. I’m sure they’d prefer to operate in Austin, which is as amenable a market for their services that they’re likely to find in the state, and they would like even more to make an example of it. If they get what they want here, that gives them a fair amount of leverage in other cities. Losing would also be a pretty big disaster for them. I keep thinking this issue is going to come up again in Houston one way or another. The chances of that a much greater if Uber and Lyft win this fight.

If I were in Austin, I would likely vote against this referendum. I don’t like the idea of companies overriding the normal legislative process like this, and as I’ve repeatedly said here, I disagree that including fingerprint checks is an unreasonable burden on Uber and Lyft. The existence of Get Me, which offers similar ride for hire service and which has said they will comply with fingerprint requirements, is evidence of that. That said, the void that Uber and Lyft would leave in Austin is non-trivial. Austin On Your Feet explains why tat city’s situation pre-Uber and Lyft was so ripe for disruption.

1 THE CITY (STILL) LIMITS THE NUMBER OF TAXIS
Finding a taxi in Austin when you needed one was hard. At 2:00 AM on Friday and Saturday nights (closing time for bars), throngs of downtown revelers used to line up desperately searching for cabs. Many folks had to wait until the first wave of cabs had already driven to the suburbs and back. Others gave up and either drove home intoxicated, took unpaid rides from strangers, or hired unlicensed cabs. Since Uber and Lyft have arrived, the number of people offering rides for money and the number of paid rides have both risen dramatically, showing that the demand was always there, but couldn’t be provided for with the limited number of taxis the city permitted.

2 THE CITY (STILL) FORBIDS TAXIS FROM PRICING APPROPRIATELY
Uber and Lyft vary their prices for a variety of reasons. They use sales and first-ride discounts to promote their services; they use temporary price hikes to motivate drivers to get on the road at times of high demand. Given the city-mandated taxi shortage, taxi companies could have used similar tactics to build ridership at down times and motivate all their drivers to drive at times of highest demand. Except the city doesn’t allow taxicabs to change their prices except by act of City Council. The tools that Uber uses to provide reliable service aren’t available to taxis.

3 THE CITY (STILL) LIMITS THE NUMBER OF TAXI COMPANIES
Ever wonder why, when riders and drivers both complain vigorously about the existing taxi companies, no other company came into existence and tried to lure drivers away to work for them instead? After all, Uber and Lyft are constantly fighting for each others’ drivers. The city only grants franchise agreements to three companies and limits the number of drivers for each, so they have no incentive to compete for drivers. As a member of my neighborhood association, I’ve met with people looking to start a new taxi company. Unfortunately, all their time was spent on the politics of convincing City Council members to allow them to serve customers rather than the actual logistics of serving customers. Starting a business is hard enough; starting a business that requires political approval before you are allowed to operate is a step too far for most people.

4 THE CITY (STILL) FORBIDS OTHER COMPANIES FROM OFFERING ANYTHING THAT EVEN VAGUELY RESEMBLES A TAXI RIDE
With the city-mandated taxi shortage, you might expect people to get more rides from slightly differentiated services like prearranged ride companies (called limousine service, but not limited to stretch limos). However, the city code includes many rules with no conceivable consumer benefit. For example, limo services are forbidden from charging less than $55/hour, must wait half an hour before providing service, and must keep trip tickets proving both of those facts.

That’s a terrible status quo, and as someone who supports efforts to enable people to live without (or with fewer) cars, having convenient options like Uber and Lyft are necessary. I don’t envy anyone the decision they have to make for this. Mike Dahmus and Austin Teacher Dad, both of whom will vote for Prop 1 but for different reasons, have more.

Austin will vote on rideshare ordinance revision

The month of May just got a lot more interesting.

Uber

Let the people choose how to regulate Uber and Lyft, a divided Austin City Council decided late Thursday.

The council, on a 2-8-1 vote, declined to adopt an ordinance underlying a petition drive that organizers said gathered more than 65,000 signatures. Under city rules about petition initiatives, that means that the city must hold an election on that ordinance May 7.

Council Members Sheri Gallo and Ellen Troxclair voted to adopt the ordinance, put forward through the petition drive earlier this year. Council Member Don Zimmerman, although he supports the ordinance and signed the petition, abstained. The election, the Austin city clerk estimated, will cost the city between $500,000 and $900,000, depending on whether some local school districts choose to hold elections at the same time.

The choice in May for voters will be between the petition ordinance, similar to Austin’s ride-hailing law that has been in place since October 2014, or, in effect, one passed by the City Council in December that in a year’s time would require virtually all drivers for Lyft and Uber to have passed fingerprint-based criminal background checks. The petition ordinance specifically says that drivers will not be subject to fingerprinting, instead undergoing the company background checks that are based on identifying documents like driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers.

The choice also, if the companies are to be believed, will be between having or not having Uber and Lyft operating in Austin. That would leave only GetMe, a small Austin-based company new to the peer-to-peer transportation business, to offer app-based rides here. That company has said it will abide by the city’s December law, which will go into effect Feb. 28.

A “yes” vote by the public May 7 would wipe out that ordinance.

“It’s going to be an expensive fight,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, executive director of Public Citizen in Austin. “But sometimes you have to stand up to the bullies.”

[…]

The council, on a 4-7 vote, also rejected an alternative ordinance put forward by Mayor Steve Adler that would have been similar to petition ordinance, but would have required transportation network companies to pay the city 2 percent of its annual revenues to fund an incentive program for drivers to be fingerprinted.

See here and here for the background. Given all the noise that Uber and to a somewhat lesser extent Lyft are making in other cities that have tried to pass ordinances that regulate vehicles for hire, even ones that didn’t require fingerprints, this election is going to set a precedent. If Uber and Lyft get what they want in Austin, I feel confident they’ll try to do the same in other cities. If not, I don’t expect them to stop trying, but they’ll have to rethink their approach. Either way, the case for statewide regulation, in particular statewide regulation that requires fingerprint checks, takes another step forward.

Austin versus San Antonio on ridesharing

The Current reviews the state of play.

Uber

In the spring of 2014, Lyft led the way in Austin, but the company launched without city approval and was eventually banned, along with Uber, which launched in the capital a short time later. Roughly a year ago, Austin’s city council eased its fight, allowing ride-hailing companies to operate. Last week, Austin policy makers approved requiring drivers to pass finger-print based background checks. Now Uber and Lyft are warning that they may cease operations in the city.

Sound familiar?

Lyft

Around this time last year, city council amended its vehicle-for-hire ordinance to include regulations for Lyft and Uber. Part of the new rules meant that drivers needed finger-print based background checks. So the companies threatened to leave the city, and followed through about three months later. That move came two months before a mayoral election, and bringing the companies back became a regular campaign talking point.

However, over the summer, San Antonio’s city council worked out a compromise with the companies: a 9-month pilot program with a driver option for finger-print based background checks that provide those who pass with a city-certified badge in the ride-hail applications. Lyft immediately agreed to return when city council narrowly approved the pilot program in August, and Uber returned in October.

See here for some background on San Antonio, and here for some on Austin. As the story notes, it’s unclear what will happen when San Antonio’s pilot program, in which fingerprint background checks were an option but not a requirement, comes to an end. I suppose that will depend in some way on how things play out in Austin, whether Uber and Lyft make good on their threat or if Austin’s City Council blinks. Remember, there’s another player in this, which is Get Me, and they have agreed to abide by the fingerprint requirement. They may wind up with the Austin market to themselves, and who knows what effect that could have. I will note that Houston has a fingerprint requirement, and Uber has chosen to stick it out here anyway. They claim to be thriving here, which seems to me to undermine their argument that having fingerprint background checks is a dealbreaker for them. Whatever else happens, all this strongly suggests to me that we will see another attempt to pass a law setting regulatory guidelines for transportation network companies in the 2017 Legislature. What we have now isn’t politically stable for the long term.

Austin passes new vehicles for hire regulations

It’ll be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Uber

Defying implied threats that such a vote would chase Uber and Lyft out of town, the Austin City Council late Thursday put into city statutes mandatory fingerprint-based background checks for ride-hailing drivers.

But the move will not immediately empty the streets of transportation network company drivers. The ordinance, approved on a 9-2 vote with Council Members Ellen Troxclair and Don Zimmerman opposed, would not take effect until Feb. 1, and it phases in the fingerprint requirement in four steps. The companies, subject to further action by the council, would not have to do the checks on any of their drivers until well into the spring.

Still to come, perhaps as soon as late January, yet another transportation network ordinance that would outline what council members call “incentives” and “disincentives” to encourage the companies and their thousands of drivers to undergo the fingerprint checks.

What might those perks and penalties look like? Adler suggested both more money per ride for drivers who are fingerprinted, or offering them better locations for pickups at big events like the ACL and South-by-Southwest festivals. The specifics would be crafted as part of a separate ordinance the council hopes to pass in late January.

“This is taking an aspect of what is happening in San Antonio” where drivers can volunteer to be fingerprinted and shown as such on apps, Adler said, “and trying to put it on steroids.”

Lyft

[…]

Both companies have issued thinly veiled threats to cease Austin operations if the fingerprint requirement becomes law.

Under the earlier city ordinance, Uber and Lyft have been able to conduct the name-based criminal background checks that they prefer. They say that process, which requires little more from the driver other than providing a name, Social Security number, driver’s license and a few other pieces of information, maximizes the number of drivers and thus available cars on the street. (Lyft also conducts an in-person interview.)

The changes announced Thursday met with poor reviews from the companies.

“We haven’t had time to fully examine the details,” Uber spokeswoman Debbee Hancock said in an email Thursday afternoon, “but it appears the only substantive change is the implementation date is now after the next election. Similar to earlier proposals, these rules reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how drivers use ridesharing platforms and the safety features inherent in our app.”

A third player in the market, Get Me, began providing rides Tuesday in Austin and has just 60 drivers at this point, the company said. Get Me officials have told Council Member Ann Kitchen that they will comply with fingerprint requirements.

See these Statesman stories for the runup to this. I have a hard time believing that Uber and Lyft will actually pull out of Austin, where I’m sure they do a lot of business. Good move by Get Me, which recently entered Houston and Dallas to pipe up that they’ll follow the new law – I’m sure they’ll be delighted to show Uber and Lyft out if it comes to that. I’m sure the two big boys will do what they can to put pressure on Austin City Council to ease up – they’re already doing that now, in fact – and they may well succeed. They’ve got the Austin police chief and Travis County Sheriff on their side because of their claims to reduce drunk driving, a phenomenon that has been observed elsewhere. The new regs are being phased in, so there’s plenty of opportunity for brinksmanship and one-upping. I can’t wait to see how it plays out. The Trib, BOR, and Newsdesk have more.

A new Uber competitor enters the scene

Here’s Get Me.

Less than two years after Uber disrupted Houston’s taxi market – with most of that time spent largely competition-free – the company now finds itself the established player facing upstart competition.

Get Me, a Dallas-based company that launched in North Texas in August and Austin earlier this month, is scheduled to start serving Houston on Thursday.

The company, similar to Uber and others in that it connects clients and drivers via a smartphone app, offers rides for people and the delivery of goods.

In the company’s parlance, it is providing something or somewhere, said Jonathan Laramy, Get Me’s co-founder.

“We built around those SOS moments,” Laramy said this week from Las Vegas, where the company will launch next month. “We all have these different scenarios where we’re having people over and need something, or you have an emergency and need to get somewhere.”

Every driver who accepts passengers will comply with the city’s regulations regarding paid rides, company officials said. Many drivers who have signed up so far are already approved because they are joining Get Me after stints as Uber drivers, Laramy said, and will likely work for both organizations.

“They should do whatever works best for them,” he said. “The drivers deserve to earn a fair wage. If that’s with us, great.”

[…]

Meanwhile, many Uber drivers have grown increasingly frustrated with the company, especially former cabdrivers that jumped to Uber’s black car service.

A recent increase in the company’s share of each trip’s cost – to 28 percent from 20 percent – irritated drivers, though the increase only applies to new drivers.

Others have complained an oversaturation of drivers has made it more difficult to make a living, pitting the full-time UberBlack drivers against the part-time UberX folks. UberBlack drivers organized in August at Bush Intercontinental Airport, and have had preliminary discussions about striking.

In Houston, Get Me is feeding off uncertainty about the deal drivers have with Uber.

“We love Uber, they paved the way for this crowd-sourcing economy with the other (companies),” Laramy said. “But when we got into this we came in and said ‘Can we make this work for the driver, so it’s something they want to do?’ What we found is you can maximize the amount of money from a driver’s perspective over the course of an hour.”

This helped inspire the “something or somewhere” model, Laramy said. By adding deliveries, drivers need not rely solely on carrying passengers to make money.

Get Me, working out of a trailer in a parking lot on Washington Avenue, has 300 drivers signed up, exceeding its goal of 100 before Thursday’s Houston launch.

Here’s their webpage and Facebook page. What’s good about this is that it gives the drivers some options, which is the best way to make their experience better. Uber is pretty pervasive here, so I don’t know how successful they’re going to be at attracting riders, and that’s ultimately what matters. But hey, if competition was good when Uber entered, it’s good when someone other than Uber enters. I wish them well.