The one thing I definitely did not like was the proposal giving them permission to stop in lanes of active traffic to drop-off/pick up. Thats just horse shit.
Agreed and surprised more people weren't talking about that.
The one thing I definitely did not like was the proposal giving them permission to stop in lanes of active traffic to drop-off/pick up. Thats just horse shit.
I thought just the opposite, that the hipsters would want to keep their Uber. Looks like I was wrong from that map.
You'll realize its a hipster thing if you ask anyone over 50 about when they last used Uber.
Both are right.It would appear that while many of you see a "California company bullying Texas cities", I see politicians lining their pockets by introducing frivolous regulation on a company that made a market more competitive. But alas, I guess no one really cares about these things until it directly affects themselves.
In my case thats anyone under 90.I think you mistake the word "hipster" for anyone who's younger than 50.
The one thing I definitely did not like was the proposal giving them permission to stop in lanes of active traffic to drop-off/pick up. Thats just horse shit.
Sec. 545.302. STOPPING, STANDING, OR PARKING PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN PLACES. (a) An operator may not stop, stand, or park a vehicle:
(1) on the roadway side of a vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street;
The Austin City Council can't give them permission to violate state law:
I think you mistake the word "hipster" for anyone who's younger than 50.
They didn't want to. Uber & Lyft wanted it, and reportedly operated that way in violation of the law.
That's what tickets are for.
It's great! I've earned half of what I normally would have, because the kicked out Austin drivers are now down here in SA.
At the heart of the issue is that city code is written to exempt “public schools” from the process. However, due to interlocal agreements between the city and its various ISDs, the exemption doesn’t really apply to any schools other than charter schools — the code was written before the Legislature established charter schools, which, because they aren’t taxing entities, do not have interlocal agreements with the city.
Charter schools are, however, considered public schools and therefore do qualify for the site plan exemption, which means they do not have to go through the site plan process. And without interlocal agreements with the city, they are not subject to regulations such as development restrictions.
Linseisen said that this is “very challenging” for the city.
“We’ve been doing the best we can to at least protect public health and safety, but they aren’t subject to all of our codes and ordinances,” said Linseisen, who explained that the current ordinance is an attempt to mirror the restrictions in those existing interlocal agreements and create a “level playing field.”
But the charter schools that are opposed to the change say that the ordinance would not create a level field and would, instead, raise their costs significantly.
How much? Peter M. Hayes, owner of Project Management Services, Inc., estimated that, for example, compliance with Transportation Impact Analysis standards could mean that inner-city schools would be “off the table,” i.e. not viable as sites for new charter schools, and could increase the needed acreage and internal roads for other schools at a cost of $500,000. Water quality ponds could run additional expenses of $150,000 to $200,000, and the addition of six- to nine-month review times could mean charter schools would have to identify and fund sites two years prior to opening.
Revamping the code is supported by the Austin Neighborhoods Council, which passed a resolution in July 2015. That resolution asked the city to “require and enforce that any ‘public’ charter school comply with City development codes and ordinances; require and enforce that any ‘public’ charter school facility not exceed an established student-per-acre ratio (to be determined in compliance with AISD standards); and enforce state laws that apply to the illegal location of ‘public’ charter schools within the boundary limits of existing businesses that provide the sale of liquor or that provide housing for sex offenders.”
Ride sharing fans have other choices. All is not lost.
********************************
5 alternative apps Austinites can use instead of Uber or Lyft:http://www.mystatesman.com/news/new...rnallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral
That happens all the time with taxis, pedicab, moped. It has never been an issue until now since Uber/Lyft that competes with them...The Austin City Council can't give them permission to violate state law:
That happens all the time with taxis, pedicab, moped. It has never been an issue until now since Uber/Lyft that competes with them...