The Port Townsend City Council has curbed discussions for a year surrounding an agreement with Raiser, a subsidiary company of Uber.

This time around it will be Uber that is left in the cold, waiting to be picked up, after council members unanimously agreed to table discussion on an agreement that would allow for transportation operations by the ride-sharing company within city limits. 

The draft agreement, presented last month to the council, allowed for temporary operations that fit with city regulations.

Port Townsend currently does not have rules that cover transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft. Under the temporary agreement, which would act as a pilot program, drivers would be required to operate as a separate business and need to obtain a city business license and a city for-hire license.

Councilmember Amy Howard cited “serious ethical concerns” in her request for additional time to review the agreement at a December meeting.

She was still concerned when the proposal came up again at last week’s council meeting.

“I cannot in good conscience support this,” Howard said at the Jan. 19 meeting.

“Uber has a pretty significant history of disregarding worker protections. They, generally speaking, do not pay any mind to overtime or unemployment, or breaks, because these are contract employees, not employees,” she said.

Howard added that she had reviewed data which suggested rides with Uber often replace greener options like walking, biking and transit trips. A lack of formal safety training for drivers was another sticking point.

“Basically you are getting in a car with someone who you don’t have any guarantee that they are a safe driver, other than [the fact] that they have no moving violations at this point.”

Councilmembers Owen Rowe and Monica MickHager cited issues beyond those raised by Howard.

“Uber also offers a service called Uber eats,” Rowe said. “That would also be something that would potentially be competing with local delivery services and restaurant delivery.”

Rowe also questioned whether Uber could fall under the city’s formula store ordinance. 

“It’s not a storefront, but it is a formula business and the vehicles follow a certain look and display logos and it’s not one of the businesses that is exempted from that ordinance,” Rowe added.

“When small towns like ours allow in box stores — which is why we have the ordinance — and brand national businesses, they quickly make our rural businesses, our local businesses, not be able to compete,” MickHager said. “We have one taxi service and we have one food delivery service and even if this was a pilot program, I don’t know if either one of those could make it through, and those are our community members.”

MickHager also brought up carbon emissions and the effort to reduce Jefferson County’s carbon footprint. 

“To get into business with a company that just solely how they do business is going to increase those carbon emissions, is us not walking the walk we need to walk,” MickHager said. “I know we need to increase transit and help them do that, I know we need to get all of us out of our cars, but I don’t think this is the way to do it. We need to keep working this problem; this is not a solution.”

Councilmember Pamela Adams said Uber service may decrease ongoing parking issues in downtown’s central commercial district and also reduce drunk driving. 

Downsides, Adams added, include more wear-and-tear on roadways, an increased carbon footprint from idling drivers.

Councilmember Ariel Speser agreed that Uber could help cut down on drunk driving.

“We do have such limited [transportation] options in the evening, that’s something that gets my attention,” she said. “Obviously it’s hard to turn down the convenience … That’s something I think a lot of people would appreciate and access. But it also, in my mind, is a question of who’s going to really access that and is that access equitable?”

Speser questioned whether an agreement with Uber would truly serve the residents of Port Townsend, or if it would be an added convenience geared toward visitors to the area who are used to being able to access the service elsewhere.

“I’m inclined at this time to vote no, or at least to request that it be tabled for now,” she said.

“I would say that the one thing that I still am very compelled by is I really think that anything we can do to get people to not drink and drive is a real bonus and we just don’t have a lot of options in our community. I’m really on the fence, I’m torn,” Speser added.

Councilmember David Faber said concerns raised by his fellow councilmembers were “incredibly compelling.”

“We are a very geographically large, rural community with a small population that’s spread out, that cannot possibly be served fully by transit,” Faber said. “We have high rates of drunk driving in this community. Thankfully, we don’t have super frequent drunk-driving deaths or injuries, but they do happen.”

Faber said having that ride-sharing option in Port Townsend could save lives.

“That, at the end of the day, is I think a pretty important point when we weigh how we move forward,” he said. “All of these issues are incredibly complicated but I do think it’s not easy to just say ‘no’ to this because of the health impacts that not having these transportation options brings about.”

Faber joined those who were not yet ready to vote on the agreement.

“I just think it is something we need to keep in the options for us to explore,” Faber said. “If there’s other options, then great. But it’s just a concern that we have such a large, rural community and no way for a lot of people to get around without driving a personal automobile.”

The discussion culminated in MickHager moving to table further talks about an agreement with Uber for one year to allow for additional examination of a transportation benefit district.

The motion carried unanimously.