If Uber and Lyft leave, Metro Mobility can’t fill the gap

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

On Thursday, the majority of the Minneapolis City Council brushed aside major concerns that individuals with impairments and disability organizations had about an ordinance setting minimum pay for rideshare drivers and passed the measure despite warnings from Uber and Lyft that it would lead them to stop providing service in the city. The vote was 9-4, indicating enough support to override Mayor Jacob Frey’s subsequent veto.

Thankfully, Council Members Emily Koski and Michael Rainville introduced reasonable amendments, both of which were approved, that would have the City Council review the measure every six months and examine the benefits that Uber and Lyft have on passengers with disabilities.

In debating the measure, the City Council had a lengthy conversation regarding the paratransit transportation industry in the Twin Cities. Some council members suggested that Metro Mobility would be ready for increased ridership and are implementing a plan that would ultimately expand services to transport passengers who will struggle to find rides if the rideshare companies cease service in Minneapolis on May 1.

Unless Metro Mobility has a grand plan to hire several new drivers and acquire more buses, I have serious doubts that it can be the sole replacement of Uber and Lyft. Council Member Andrea Jenkins said that Metro Mobility should not be considered an alternative to the rideshare companies, and I absolutely agree with her.

Metro Mobility, a service run by the Metropolitan Council for riders certified to be unable to use fixed-route buses, has already been struggling for years to keep up with demand. The service is frequently late, has poor algorithms for routing drivers and is inconsistent on the maximum time passengers can be traveling on a bus. The situation makes adding to its passenger list inconceivable.

Rather than Minneapolis approving an ordinance that threatens to eliminate much-needed transportation services, the city should be looking for ways to introduce new transit systems, and keeping services already in place, that transport seniors and others with limited mobility. One way that I would suggest is having an Americans with Disabilities Act-regulated rideshare service available to transport passengers within Minneapolis and St. Paul, with residents having the option to book rides the same day.

Furthermore, Metro Move, which will be part of the Metropolitan Council, is about to be debuted in May. The new service will be a big boost for the disability community. If Uber and Lyft stay in Minneapolis, Metro Move would just increase the possibilities riders have, resulting in less time that individuals are in transit.

The proposal that Frey put forth for rideshare drivers is both fair to drivers and passengers alike. Under his plan, drivers would make $1.20 per mile and 35 cents per minute. Those figures would bring wages to the city’s minimum wage requirements. Nine council members ignored a common-sense outline that would be fair to all parties involved and instead put two important entities on the brink of leaving the Twin Cities.

Again, the goal should be to improve and make transit services easier to use, not eliminate them. Individuals with disabilities rely on transportation, like Metro Mobility, Uber and Lyft, for daily activities. If any of those services leave, it will cause unnecessary havoc and confusion to the disability community.

Therefore, I applaud Frey for vetoing the ordinance, and hopefully one council member will flip their vote to uphold the veto. If that indeed happens, let us all finally come together and draft legislation that works for all of us.

Michael L. Sack, of Minneapolis, is a member of the Minneapolis Advisory Committee On People with Disabilities.