The PPA met with bloggers about uberX. Here's what they asked us - Philly


Nov. 24, 2014 4:28 pm

The PPA met with bloggers about uberX. Here’s what they asked us

In a "reverse press conference," the PPA asked questions like, why do people feel comfortable getting into an (uberX) car with a stranger?

PPA headquarters at 7th and Market Streets.

(Photo via This Old City)

The Philadelphia Parking Authority wanted to know, why do people love Uber?*

That was why this reporter was sitting around a conference table at PPA HQ with three PPA execs, the PPA’s PR crew (social media firm Chatterblast, which organized the meeting, and PPA spokesman and self-proclaimed “old media” head Marty O’Rourke) and three other reporters of what you might call the millennial generation (that was by design; the PPA specifically wanted, well, millennials to answer their questions).

Chatterblast cofounder Matthew Ray called it “a reverse press conference.” Instead of the reporters asking the questions, the PPA would. (Naturally, the reporter crew snuck in a handful of questions of their own.) It was an attempt to make sense of the PR problem PPA had on their hands, with transportation app Uber operating its lower-cost uberX ridesharing service illegally and the PPA conducting sting operations to get them off the streets.

The meeting reminded us a little of this conversation on mobile payment app Venmo between older and younger staffers of Quartz.

Here are our notes from the conversation:

  • On getting into cars with strangers. The PPA was confused as to why people would feel comfortable using uberX since it’s essentially getting into a car with a stranger. You don’t know if [the driver] has been drinking or if his car’s brakes are faulty, said PPA deputy executive director Corinne O’Connor. (To which the reporter crew responded: It’s the same situation — or at least feels like it — with Philly cabs.)
  • It’s about safety and consumer protection. That’s what the PPA said when we asked to explain their stance on uberX. There has to be a place for consumers to turn if they have a problem with uberX, said PPA deputy executive director Rick Dickson. Since uberX is operating outside of city regulations, the PPA can’t play the consumer protection role. The PPA also asked if we thought people would support “common sense” regulations, like ones that would make sure an uberX car was up to snuff. (Would you? Tell us in the comments.)
  • On following orders. The PPA seemed frustrated that it was getting flak for doing their job. “We’re just enforcing the law,” said Taxi and Limousine Division Director Jim Ney. He added that it wasn’t a matter of being “for” or “against” uberX — if the state legislature legalize ridesharing in Philadelphia, the PPA would happily regulate.
  • On the unforeseen benefits of uberX. Competition from ridesharing services like uberX has forced taxi cab companies to “step up,” Dickson said, and upgrade their technology and their vehicles — something that Ney has pushed for over the past decade. PlanPhilly’s Jon Geeting, who was at the meeting, has a detailed rundown of that point here.
  • On the confidential list of uberX drivers. PPA attorney Dennis Weldon previously told us that the uberX driver list was a point of contention: Uber refused to share it. That meant that the PPA couldn’t do its own background checks. At the meeting, Ney said that Uber didn’t want to share the list for fear of another company stealing it.
  • On credit where credit is due. “It’s not a dumb approach,” Ney said about Uber’s tactic of rolling out uberX illegally and trying to get people hooked so there’s public support for it when agencies like the PPA try to take it away.

For more, check out This Old City’s recap of the meeting here.


*Nationally, Uber-hating has appeared to have risen dramatically in the last week.

Juliana Reyes

Juliana Reyes became's associate editor after reporting on the Philadelphia tech scene for four years. She's co-president of the Asian American Journalists Association Philadelphia chapter and a two-time Philadelphia News Award winner for "Community Reporting of the Year." The Bryn Mawr College grad lives in West Philly, likes her food spicy and wears jumpsuits often.

  • Cris

    Interesting.i would consider getting paid driving someone to point a to b. Just curious on safety. Personally I would prefer to have personal protection. MB ride with a guard dog or another person.

  • The first point in the notes is my favorite.

  • Jonn

    Let’s get one thing straight: The PPA’s priority isn’t safety and consumer protection. It’s about making money through tickets and fines.

    “if the state legislature legalize ridesharing in Philadelphia, the PPA would happily regulate.” That part made me chuckle. Yes, of course you would. And you’d regulate the hell out of it…so much so that the price they’d have to charge would double or triple…with no meaningful benefit to the driver or rider.

    Substitute “The Devil” for every mention of “The PPA.” It makes discerning their motives easy!

  • ICDogg

    When I drove a cab for about 3 weeks in the 1970s that was how long it took for me to get robbed at gunpoint. And that was one of the scariest things that ever happened to me. It was all a setup. One guy got in my cab and directed me to a dark desolate place where the second guy got in and pulled a gun on me.

    Which got me to thinking. Wouldn’t Uber drivers be fantastic targets for similar thugs?

  • ICDogg

    Someone has to be accountable when something goes wrong. Uber driver crashes car and badly injures passenger. Who pays? I wonder if auto insurance companies even would cover passengers when their customers are using the cars commercially. Does Uber have insurance to cover such “mishaps”?


Sign-up for regular updates from

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!