Chicago continues to block Uber airport pick-ups. (Image: Jim Glab)
Despite a new online petition drive aimed at changing the city’s tune toward ride-hailing apps, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has once again refused to allow UberX to make passenger pick-ups at O’Hare and Midway airports.
This is in spite of Uber’s willingness for its UberX drivers to pay $4 per pickup in airport fees. It’s the second time in a little over a year that the mayor has closed the door on airport rideshare pick-ups.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a spokesman for the city said Emanuel is “not planning to revisit” the existing rules, “especially while the city continues to receive and investigate complaints about ride-share vehicles attempting to game the system.”
Existing rules bar Uber, Lyft and other such firms from picking up passengers not only at the airports but also at McCormick Place.
Current options for getting to and from Ohare (Image: CTA)
As in many other cities, Chicago’s taxi drivers are vigorously opposed to any expansion of service by ride-hailing apps, especially to the airports.
Should ride-sharing companies like UberX and Lyft be allowed to pick up passengers at airports? Please leave your comments below.
NOTE: Be sure to click here to see all recent TravelSkills posts about: Bumped out of first class by air marshall? + Newest Centurion Lounge + My favorite travel pants
What taxi company do you work for Chuhyona
What if I get my friends to drive me to O’Hare. Is that now illegal to. My friends do not have taxi licenses and they drive me to airports all the time.
He is a licensed taxicab driver!!!
NBC reports he was working for UberCab, not UberX, so if true, all the talk about not enough regulation is pure BS. He was regulated as a taxicab driver, with all those requirements and background checks you say he needs.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Uber-Driver-Arrested-in-San-Francisco-Crash-That-Killed-Girl-238491691.html
US News says Uber is as safe as taxis.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/11/report-uber-lyft-as-safe-as-taxis
So if Uber needs more regulation, then the taxis need even more regulation because fingerprinting,… is not making them any safer than Uber.
We are talking about Chicago O’Hare where Uber is regulated by Chicago and Illinois. WTF are you talking about?
you cant get ride from uberx or lyft new law in chicago if the ploice catch you , your car will be towed
Uber could buy the off-property lot and then run a shuttle bus to/from the airport and inbound Uber drivers could drop off at the lot and then queue up for a return fare.
One thing I have learned about Chicago, if something doesn’t appear to make sense or is woefully inefficient, it is because someone is profiting from that inefficiency and paying off one or more city leaders to keep it that.
or take a shuttle to an airport hotel and use Uber from there
Love it. Keep this criminal enterprise (Uber) and their flouting of the law out.
The editorial point of view here is certainly skewed by the advertising, I see.
Napster is an interesting, but imperfect parallel. From a legal problems standpoint, perhaps it’s an instructive example. But from a moral perspective, it’s completely different.
Taxi regulations are first and foremost a form of rent seeking by the incumbent taxi companies. The public safety issues are mostly a red herring; these could be fixed without killing uber.
Where I dislike uber is that I think it takes advantage of the economic illiteracy of its drivers. Uber is monetizing the depreciation of their driver’s vehicles and treating it as profit. That’s not sustainable.
I hav no idea how long they can keep it going, but I suspect it will be at least as long as it takes for the founders to cash out…
I trust Uber a lot more than I trust cabs. Just because cabs are heavily regulated doesn’t mean I trust drivers to drive safely or not screw me over. That said, CTA from O’Hare is clutch.
Government has no more important responsibility than to provide for public safety, and many of our laws are for this purpose, including regulations covering vehicles for hire. Because there is a clear potential for harm to life and limb when individuals are transported in automobiles by strangers, the reasons for regulating vehicles for hire, such as taxicabs and limousines, are obvious and crucial. Accordingly, there is a compelling need for government oversight and standards pertaining to all aspects of the vehicle for hire business.
In Georgia, limousines are regulated by the state and taxicabs by local governments. These respective regulations are designed to ensure the public’s safety and otherwise promote public welfare, by accommodating this mode of ground transportation to the public at large with fair and reasonable rates. Hardworking, honest Georgians providing taxicab and limousine service to the public have invested years of capital and labor to comply with applicable laws.
On the other hand, Uber, Lyft and similar companies intentionally bypass and ignore the state and local regulations pertaining to vehicles for hires. They claim that because they use mobile device applications they are “technology” companies and not “transportation” companies. Their claims are intellectually false. Uber and Lyft are indeed transportation companies engaged in the vehicle for hire business, yet they freely operate without complying with state or local laws and without paying taxes on their business income.
The obvious and overwhelming risks to public safety by these companies are already being demonstrated. In San Francisco, an Uber driver plowed through a crowd of people and killed a six year old girl, resulting in Uber being sued for her wrongful death. This Uber driver would not have passed any reasonable background check applicable to taxi drivers in Atlanta or limousine chauffeurs in Georgia. Just two months ago in Atlanta, two women were victims of attempted sexual assaults by individuals they believed to be authorized taxi drivers.
Atlanta requires taxicabs to have a certificate of public necessity and convenience (CPNCs). Companies and drivers are required to have company permits. Background checks are performed on drivers, principals of companies, and CPNC owners. Vehicles are subject to semi-annual inspections, and companies are required to pay sales taxes. Uber and Lyft completely disregard these requirements.
While all of these requirements are important and have been imposed by Atlanta pursuant to its police powers, perhaps the most important is the subject of driver backgrounds. Consumers using Uber often believe that they are utilizing regulated taxicabs and have no idea that they are riding with drivers who have not been vetted by the city as to criminal background or driving history. Unsuspecting riders are being regularly exposed to such drivers.
There are other substantial problems with the manner in which Uber, Lyft and similar companies operate. Taxicabs are required to serve the public at large and may only refuse to provide service to an individual who is dangerous or intoxicated. Uber and Lyft, as a general proposition, seek to provide service only to a select few, leaving many city neighborhoods beneath their notice. Second, Uber does not recognize Atlanta’s fare structure and
charges excessive prices during so-called times of peak demand, such as rushhour or bad weather. Uber has been accused of price gouging in other cities asa result of their practices.
Also, Uber’s contract with passengers requires the passengers to waive any claims against Uber resulting from the vehicle for hire transportation. Most passengers do not realize that the moment they accept a ride from Uber, they are releasing valuable legal rights that would protect their interest in the event of an accident. Moreover, there are serious unresolved questions about whether individual Uber drivers have proper commercial liability insurance and the extent of insurance coverage, if any, provided by Uber.
Important legislation has been introduced to require companies like Uber and Lyft to register as a transportation service referral provider. This bill will also requires these companies, when referring vehicle for hire business, to utilize legitimate taxicabs or limousines and prohibit referrals to unpermitted individuals using personal vehicles to provide ground transportation to the public. This legislation is grounded in common sense, legitimate concerns about public safety, and concepts of fair play for the companies that have been in compliance with the requirements for operating in the vehicle for hire business.
Uber and Lyft will argue that this legislation, and indeed, any attempt to regulate them, is anti-competitive. This is a false and misleading argument, as nothing in the proposed legislation prohibits Uber, Lyft or any similar company from doing business in Georgia. If these companies want to operate as traditional taxicabs and limousines, they must comply with the state and local regulations which govern those industries. If they want only to refer business, they must refer business to companies who comply with applicable state or local regulations. This law will create a level playing field and protect public safety.
A few years ago, the company Napster argued that because of technology, it should be able to authorize music downloads in complete disregard of copyright laws. Courts and lawmakers completely rejected this thinking, and the music download industry was required to comply with intellectual property laws. This analogy is apt. Chris Dolan, the San Francisco lawyer handling the wrongful death case of the child that was killed by the Uber driver, made a similar observation when he said “New technology does not eliminate well-established legal principles”. There are strong and necessary reasons why government regulates vehicles for hire. Companies like Uber and Lyft should not be allowed to operate, in complete disregard of the public safety and welfare and of principles of fair business competition, without complying with applicable regulations. Uber and Lyft are not above the law, and they should be held accountable for meeting the standards and adhering to the regulations Georgia’s taxicab and limousines companies observe.
Maybe Uber could buy an off-airport parking lot next to O’Hare so they don’t actually drive on O’Hare property. Then airport passengers could use cabs for a $3 fare to/from the Uber parking lot. I’m sure that would make the cab drivers very happy.
Funny how so many politicians support freedom of choice until it starts to hurt their campaign donors and pet lobbies.