En Farce: Part One

Acting, as usual, more like a spokesperson for Uber, Lyft & Sidecar than a director of Policy and Planning for the CPUC, Marzia Zafar, who was supposed to be a neutral moderator, came to the defence of the TNC conglomerates when a spokesman for the taxi & limo businesses pointed out that the TNCs did not do Department of Justice (DOJ) background checks using fingerprints.

Ms. Zafar (photo left) argued that the venture capitalized transportation corporations (VCTCs) did do background checks but did them online. She spoke as if she had scored the final point (online background checks = the DOJ's background checks) for their side and that the subject was closed.

This was – at the same time – one of the most typical and most bizarre moments of the CPUC hearings on so-called "ridesharing" that started in March of 2013.

Chris Hayashi & the Wisdom of Solomon

Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi has had an extraordinary impact on the cab business that goes far beyond anything you might reasonably expect from an administrator.

Her uniqueness become evident to me the first time I saw her at a Medallion Holder Association (MHA) meeting in 2009, shortly after Mayor Gavin Newsom had threatened steal all the taxi medallions and sell them to cover San Francisco's $500 million debt.

What struck me about her was the absolute absence of any sense of snobbery or superiority of rank.

Maybe I can best get my idea across by contrasting her behavior to that of MTA Board Member Bruce Oka who also came to the meeting. Oka was all smiles but he also let us know how important he was. He told us that he was in a hurry and could only stay a little while. He also hinted at inside knowledge of Newsom's plans that he couldn't quite express to us. In short, he acted like people of position usually do when glad-handing the lower classes.

Hayashi, who undoubtedly knew more about Newsom's plans than Oka did, simply sat down next to a few drivers and talked to them like they were fellow human beings. I've rarely seen anybody who held power over others act so modestly.

Chris Hayashi at the CPUC

Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi (photo) gave two powerful speeches at the recent CPUC hearing on Order Instituting Rulemaking on Regulations Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, and New Online-Enabled Transportation Services.

Hayashi illuminated issues obscured by the rhetoric of both the so-called NOETS and the CPUC spokespersons. She also explained the negative consequences for the public of legalizing these bogus taxicab services.


The first talk begins with a comment on sharing the podium with Uber. The joke is that Uber had held court for over forty minutes before Director Hayashi was given the opportunity to speak. And, of course, Uber and Hayashi don't like each other very much.

The second talk is brilliant and impassioned. It's ending also points out the varying levels of respect given by the CPUC to the spokenperson for the City of San Francisco and the one for Uber.

A CPUC "facilitator" rudely shut down Director Hayashi before she had a chance to finish by claiming that Illya Abyzov, a manager for Uber, had only been given two minutes to talk before his Q & A. Actually Uber attorney Ed O'Neil's introduction of Mr. Abyzov took two minutes by itself and, as I mentioned before, the entire performance took up over forty minutes with Illya neither saying much nor answering any question he didn't like. The kicker is that Illya Abyzov is not listed as a "Party" to the Rulemaking. That is to say - he should not have been allowed to speak at all.

You might also have noticed that Hayashi was cut off precisely when she was about to give the "specific" ideas for change that the "facilitator" claimed to be asking for.

The Bay Citizen & Bedbug Journalism

"The correct perception of a matter and a misunderstanding of the  same matter do not preclude each other."          Franz Kafka

Some time ago I quoted Kafka's bit of wisdom to Zusha Elinson, the writer of the Bay Citizen's Cab complaints climb in San Francisco. It was my way of having a heart to heart with a young reporter. I was trying to subtly let him know that he lacked a firm grasp of both subject matter and context in his pieces on taxicabs. He laughed but missed my message.

Not that Elinson's posts are unique. In my twenty-eight years of cab driving I've never read a good article on taxicab drivers or the cab business in a San Francisco publication. I've come across excellent work in New York papers and magazines but not in San Francisco. Here the writer comes up with a salable idea ("bad cabbies" usually get traction), calls around to get a few quotes verifying his or her theme, throws in a counter quote for balance, and pops out the piece without so much as a thought to furrow the brow.

The amount of misinformation that the public has been fed about taxicabs by local news outlets continually boggles my mind. Until now my favorite was a radio piece on the legislation to enable the sale of taxi medallions in 2010 by KCBS personality Barbara Taylor. Ms. Taylor inaccurately stated that the legislation would allow the medallions to be bought by cab companies. This was and is not true. The medallions can only be sold (or transferred) to working cab drivers.

I called up Ms. Taylor and told her that she had it wrong.

"That's your opinion," she said. "I'm busy."

"It's not my opinion,"I retorted. "It's in the legislation. I'll send it you."

"I don't have time to read," she said. "What I do is take opinions."

"But, if you'd just take five minutes to read it, you'd see that you were wrong."

"That's your opinion," she snapped and hung up the phone.

I didn't think it would be possible to top Ms. Taylor in willful negligence but Mr. Elinson's hatchet job gives her a run for her money. For instance:

1. San Francisco cab drivers take over 30 millions rides a year

In light of this, 1,733 complaints (or .0000577 of the trips) does not have much significance at all.  (See Kafka quote.) Certainly not enough to make make sweeping statements like the opening two paragraphs of Mr. Elinson's purple prose.

Given the small number of complaints you could just as well ague the opposite. Namely that this minuscule fraction is sign of how good the taxi service is.

Of course it could be argued that many people have complaints about cab service but don't bother to do anything about it.

To which I would counter by saying that I routinely have customers tell me how enjoyable or how wonderful it's been to ride in my taxi. I get a least a hundred of such comments a year. Furthermore, I'm not the only professional driver in the city. Conventioneers and other visitors frequently tell me that San Francisco has the friendliest and most knowledgeable cab drivers in the country and it's a reason why they like to come here.

These people don't call 311.

2. Moe's Cab is an illegal taxi

A reader could not have discovered the above fact from Elinson's article where he wrote,

"One patron reported that a cab driver allegedly stole his credit card number and used it to make purchases in Brazil."  

Then he repeated the accusation in more detail later on.

"One passenger said a driver took a credit card impression “the old-fashioned way.” The next day, the customer said he got a fraud alert about the card being used to make purchases in Brazil. His taxi receipt said it was for Moe’s Cab."

Indeed, from the context said reader would naturally assume that Moe was a San Francisco cab driver.

Now a sharp investigative reporter like Mr. Elinson could have easily discovered the truth on the Moe's Cab webpage. Hint - the fact that Moe has neither an address for his cab company nor a listing of operating hours is an indication that the service is illegal.

But, if this was too challenging for our intrepid reporter, he could simply have pulled down the Taxi page from the SFMTA website. The first listing under Information for Taxi Customers is a link to Licensed San Francisco Taxi Companies. Had Elinson bothered to read this he would've noticed that Moe's Cab is not a San Francisco taxicab and could have spared us his misleading and slanderous statements.

But it gets better. Mr. Elinson interviewed me, you see, before he ran his article. I told him that I'd never heard of Moe's Cab and suggested that it might be an illegal taxi. Despite this, Elinson did not bother to check his facts.

Did Moe's theft fit so nicely into his naughty "cabbie" thesis that Elinson didn't want to know the truth?

3. A Bedbug

Elinson opens his second paragraph by stating,

"Taxis infested with bed bugs ... were among the complaints."

Later in the piece he quoted "an anonymous National Cab driver" who called 311 "to report that some of the cabs had bed bugs."

"Me and other drivers are getting tons of bites," Mr. Anonymous said. "The management has been informed but they are doing nothing about the problem."

As it turned out the city's Department of Public Health found "ONE DEAD BED BUG" in One TAXICAB and "no active infestation."

Nonetheless, Elinson still chose to use "TAXIS INFESTED WITH BED BUGS" to start his second paragraph despite the fact that his own limited research proved his lead a lie.

Mr. Elinson devoted over 10% of his article to this subject. On the principle that "the exception proves the rule," a more responsible writer would not have included the beg bug in his piece at all.

4. Missing and Dubious Sources

Elinson apparently did not talk to Director of Taxi Services Chris Hayashi. Nor does he mention talking to MTA Investigator Eric Richholt despite the fact that I gave him Richholt's phone number.

Elinson did get a negative quote from Jordanna Thigpen who was the deputy director of the former Taxi Commission and who replaced by Hayashi. Elinson has previously told me that Thigpen intensely dislikes Hayashi. Thigpen also clearly thinks that taxi service would be better if she was still in charge.

In addition, I thought that the Bay Citizen didn't use anonymous sources? Judging by the one Elinson chose to quote, it sounds like a good policy. Had Elinson run his bed bug tale by me, I could have told him who Anonymous was. So could any number of other people familiar with the San Francisco taxi business.

Anonymous is a former National Cab Driver who was in an accident that a better driver probably could have avoided and keeps trying to sue National on variety of pretexts including the claim that National did not have insurance despite the fact that he collected Workers' Compensation for his accident.

A while back Anonymous, who has none of the mannerisms sometimes associated with homosexuals, told me that he'd been assaulted in the National Cab lot because he was gay. This seems unlikely. National Cab was managed by a cross-dresser for many years and several openly gay people work in either the office or as drivers.

Anonymous, who has zero credibility with people in the taxi business, has send me e-mails telling me how much he hates cab drivers. He sometime gives talks on the same theme at MTA Board meetings.

Given that in all my years of cab driving I've never come across, or even heard, of a cab with a bed bug in it, I think it's entirely possible that Anonymous planted the damn thing himself.

At any rate, Elinson fans will be comforted to know that Anonymous now drives for Sidecar.

5. So what is Elinson's article? A hit piece? A hatchet Job? Or, just good old fashioned yellow journalism?

Certainly it's one of most biased pieces I've read. There are some serious problems with with the industry and with some San Francisco taxi drivers (I'll deal with credit cards etc in the next post.) but the vast majority of us do a very difficult, low paying and dangerous job at a very high level. Instead of acknowledging this, Elinson uses a laundry list of mostly trivial incidents to trash every driver in the city.

Yes, of course, there should not be anybody slammed with a racial slur. But there are 7,000 cab drivers in this city and you can't expect them all to be saints. One example doesn't mean San Francisco cab drivers are racist. In fact, most San Francisco cab drivers themselves belong to racial or ethnic minorities. I've often thought the kind of hack attack that Elinson indulged himself in is based on its own racist assumptions.

Other than the racial insult, in over 30 million rides, the worst actions that Elinson could come up with is one driver who asked two friends to kiss each other and another driver who called up a customer for a date. There can be no doubt about it. As a criminal class that "routinely flout the law" we suck.

The truth is that if you ride in a San Francisco taxicab (with 99% certainty) it will be in fairly good shape and will not have bed bugs.  You will not be charged for bringing a baby along. If the driver hits on you, all you have to do is say "no." You will not be overcharged. You will be taken to your location by the best possible route. The driver will not you ask you to kiss your friend but I'd personally like to request that you try to keep you cloths on next Friday night. The cameras do not link to HBO. And please stop doing joints in my cab. Three people in San Francisco don't like the smell. If you're lucky enough to ride with me you might be able to listen en route to Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto, Tito Puente, old school rock or Kind of Blue. The choice is up  to you. And, yes, I take credit cards and love trips to the Sunset.

Single Operator Permits Hit the Streets

Dave Schneider, who is the thirteenth driver to be issued a Single Operator Permit (SOP), stands next to his taxi.

Schneider has driven cab for over thirty years in San Francisco but never put his name on the Waiting List. He sees these permits as correcting an injustice in the original Prop-K legislation. (For more of his thoughts on the subject see the end of the post.)

Dave seemed so excited that he reminded me of a fifteen year old who had just bought his first car and was trying to be cool. He says that he intends to drive Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday nights so that the other drivers of the cab will have some decent shifts. It's the first time in his career that he's had the choice to work when he wants.

The Evolution of an Idea into Reality.

The idea of "Peak Time" taxis has been around for at least as long as Schneider's been driving. It was given new life by driver and blogger John Han who first proposed "Single Operator Permits" during a Town Hall meeting a few years ago. Deputy Director Chris Hayashi liked the idea and ran with it. Why? It offered a solution to the eternal San Francisco problem of too much business at certain times and too little at others.

Han, Hayashi and others at the meetings originally proposed that the SOPs should be owned like an affiliate by a single driver who would be allowed to work a maximum of 60 hours per week. There would be no designation of what hours the driver should choose but it was assumed that he or she would naturally self-select to work busy times like Friday and Saturday Nights or conventions and avoid the slow times.

During the Town Hall meetings in the spring of 2011, the concept was modified. Hayashi thought that SOPs would be a good way to reward drivers like Dave who had not put their names on the List but nonetheless had driven cabs for 20 or 30 years. It was pointed out that older drivers might not want to put in 60 hours a week so the possibility of a second driver to share the cab was added.

The SOP's happened to mirror a longtime plan of SFMTA Director Malcom Heinicke for "Peak Time" taxis. The main difference was that Heinicke wanted the cabs to be driven at fixed times. There was some back and forth between the Director and the people at the Town Hall meetings. The argument that peak times actually fluctuated and changed with conventions, sporting events and so forth carried the day and 50 "Single Operator Permits" were approved by the SFMTA last summer.

The Current Plan: A Different Kettle of Fish.


The SOP's have morphed into a very different program.

1. They now have a single permit holder and will be run as gates&gas instead of affiliates.
2. The vehicles will be run for 90 hours instead of 60.
3. The vehicles will be bought and owned by color schemes.
4. The color scheme must be able to produce electronic trip data.
5. The color scheme will fill the shifts that the permit holder doesn't drive.
6. All conditions that apply to a regular medallion will apply to these permits.
1. The permit holder must drive 800 hours per year.
7. The permits are for a term of three years with an option to renew for three years. 
1. The permit holder and the SFMTA both have the right to reject renewal.
2. If the permit isn't being used properly, the MTA can terminate at any time.

What Happened?

I interviewed MTA Investigator Mike Harris who is running the program. He said the changes were made because:

1. None of the older drivers wanted to buy the cars themselves.
2. None wanted to work as affiliates or choose their own drivers.
3. The hours expanded from 60 to 90 hours because the cab companies complained that they couldn't make a profit at 60 hours.

When I pointed out that this defeated the purpose of the SOPs, Harris disagreed. He said that most of the old school drivers didn't want to drive at peak hours. They wanted to drive Sundays, Mondays or Tuesdays and leave the busy hours (along with the drunks) to younger drivers.

One Beauty of the Taxi Business ...

... is that if you do something for one group of people everyone else complains.

1. Company owners and managers don't like the SOPs because they think that they won't be profitable enough.

At Green Cab, Treasurer Joe Mirabile said that he didn't know how they were going to make money off the SOPs. On  the other hand, Green didn't have to buy new cars for the first two permits that they put out because the company recently lost a couple of medallions. All they had to do was invest in a new paint job.

Desoto Cab owner Hansu Kim said that the SOPs would make little or no profit.

"They should either have put them out with one driver/owner for the 60 hours or just given the older drivers regular medallions," he added.

However, he also said that he would pay $1,000 a month to any Single Operator Permit holder who ran the taxi through Desoto.

2. Non-medallion driver and TAC member Tone Lee, who had strongly supported the original plan of one or two drivers and 60 hours, is very upset by the expansion to 90 hours.

I ran into him at the Mariott Marquis on Thursday and he talked about how slow it was on a night that was supposed to be busy and predicted that the SOPs would have devastating effect on the Monday night business. He also thought that it was unfair to give out the permits by A-card seniority rather than to people on the Waiting List and he feared that the permits would eventually be turned into full time medallions.

Of course Tone has a right to his opinions but I think he's wrong on one of his complaints.

He said the MTA was giving the permits to former medallion holders who had already sold their medallions.

I put the subject to Mike Harris who said that two former medallion holders had applied but he turned them down. He added that allowing former medallion holders to get permits, "was not the plan and is not the plan."

He said that anybody who knew the name of a former medallion holder who was given a SOP should contact him at (415) 701-5493.

If you don't feel comfortable talking to Mr. Harris, you can send the name to me and I'll pass it on.

Lee is organizing a protest for the MTA on Tuesday July 17th at 1 PM. Refreshingly, he's asking the drivers NOT to drive around City Hall and NOT honk horns. He just wanted drivers who are upset by the SOPs to show up and speak.

If you're in favor of the SOPs, you should also show up and say your piece.

My Take

I have mixed feelings. Like Mr. Lee I liked the original plan - especially the 60 hour limit. But, I also like the idea of rewarding older drivers who have driven for years but aren't eligible for an earned medallion. Besides, 90 hours is 50 or 60 hours less than cabs are ordinarily driven. This means that drivers stuck with the really bad hours are unlikely to see much new competition.

I sympathize with the drivers who didn't sign up on the List because the only reason that I put my name on it was that I was living with a woman who used to greet me every morning by bitching,

"Did you put your name that list yet?... No! ... Boy are you stupid!"

I finally caved just to shut her up. If I hadn't had the good/bad luck to be hooked up with this Harpie, I'd be in the same situation as Mr. Schneider. I'm happy that these guys are finally getting a little something after all the the contributions they've made to the business.

As for the people on the List ... well, unless the MTA screws them (not a possibility to be discounted) in the final plan, they should be able to either earn their medallions or buy them.

I don't like the expansion of the hours but I think that fifty cabs added on Monday or Tuesday peak times aren't a real problem. Increasing the fleet by 3% isn't going to break anybody's bank.

The real reason that it was slow on Thursday (and almost every other day) are the hundreds of illegal limos and taxis either racing us down the streets or bribing doorman so they can steal our fares. My number one priority is to encourage the City and the MTA to stomp on them - while our medallions still have some value.

In the meantime, congratulations to Dave and the others.

Dave Schneider	10:45 AM (19 minutes ago)
to Dave

I'm appreciative to the SFMTA and also to Chris Hayashi who I heard was one of the prime architects of the single operator medallion.  It seems to me it CORRECTS AN INJUSTICE IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFTING OF PROP K by then Supervisor Kopp. The way Kopp wrote it and, as amended  by Daly Ma and subsequent legislation,  DID NOT CREATE A TRUE SWEAT EQUITY BASED CRITERIA for medallion qualification - you had to sign up in addition to doing the work.     But many worker drivers didn't sign up for whatever reason and, while there may be some truth in "you snooze, you lose," still they did THE REAL WORK carrying thousands of passengers, driving lots of hours, shifts and miles.     They did the work by the seat of their pants.    Now with the single operator medallion, there's a chance the working poor might be able to move into at least the lower middle class and even pay off a few bills in what remaining time remains for these often elderly and impoverished drivers for whom the so called American dream has been, more often than not, a real social and economic nightmare.    In one San Francisco appellate court decision awarding cab drivers workers' compensation, the court compared cab drivers to sharecroppers working in the fields.    Today the taxi worker struggle in many fields continue and the the single operator medallion is one drop of welcome rain in the parched taxi driver fields.  Not only single operators, but all drivers should have fair working conditions, real wages and benefits beyond "independent contractor" poorhouse status. Dave S.

TAC Proposes: 25 Single Operator, 25 to the List, Restart OTA

On Monday, June 13, 2011 the Taxi Advisory Council held its most productive meeting so far.

It started with the introduction a new councilor, Timothy Lapp (Photo front), who replaces Jim Gillespie as the Yellow Cab delegate. Tim and I started driving taxi on the same day almost 28 years ago. I know him as a creative person who has travelled widely in Europe and Asia with a definite mind of his own. I'm sure that he'll make great contributions to the council when he's not parroting his firm's propaganda - maybe even when he is.

Then, a ghost proposal popped up. At the Town Hall meetings (of which TAC was supposed to be an extension) Peak Time Permits had been given the thumbs down and left for dead by everyone. Yet, there they were back on the agenda under the new name of "Part Time Company Permits." They certainly couldn't be peak time because they could be operated up to 80 hours a week.

Veteran MTA watchers recognized this as the handiwork of Director Malcom Heinicke. Heinicke has occasionally spoken about "transparency" but appears to have only the vaguest idea of what the word means. For the director's elucidation allow me to include a few definitions from Wikipedia:


Transparency, as used in the humanities and in a social context more generally, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings ....


In politics, transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public ... when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.


In short, what's the point of putting us through 3 days of Town Hall meetings and then going back door to whimsically change what the drivers had decided upon? Did the director think we wouldn't notice?

Heinicke is in danger of turning all these meetings into the farce that Brad Newsham, Tariq Mehmood and others claim they are.

Whatever - the TAC didn't like the Heinicke Corporate Cabs any better than drivers liked Peak Time Permits at the Town Hall Meetings. Thumbs down once again!

Under the firm direction of Chair Chris Sweiss, the Taxi Advisory Council voted for:

• 25 Single Operator Permits.
• 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) permits.
• 25 Medallions to the top of the Waiting List.

The council also decided to urge the MTA Board to work out various ways to improve service before arbitrarily adding cabs to the fleet

TAC then voted to advise the Board to re-issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for Open Taxi Access (OTA). This would invite bidding from tech companies to build the Open Taxi Access Platform. This would be the first step to making OTA a reality.

TAC also voted to encourage all companies to take dispatched calls.

Speaking of Tariq Mehmood (And how can one not?) ... he showed up at TAC to tell everyone that he was going on strike because, at the last Town Hall meeting, he took 9 of his friends into another room where they agreed that the Single Operator Permits should be operated at fixed times.

Most of the people at that meeting appeared to prefer a more flexible schedule.

But Mehmood, the self-proclaimed "powerful and great" leader, declared that he was in the majority, that 80% of the drivers were behind him and that, if the permits were not operated at fixed times, he would strike.

There you have it! Talk about motivation! A "powerful and great" man's gotta do what he's gotta do.

The rest of the drivers at the Town Hall Meetings had pretty much agreed with TAC's recommendations.

The upshot is that the drivers should get a meter increase and (quid pro quo) 25 Single Operator cabs should be put out to work at peak times, 25 more taxis should be added to the fleet and a high-tec dispatching solution should link all the taxis in the city in one big network.

Hopefully this will help both the drivers and the public.

We'll see.

On the Back-seat Terminals: Some Facts?

There is a lot to be said about the back-seat terminals (photo) currently being installed by National, Luxor and Yellow Cabs. Some of it might even be true. (See TaxiTownSF.)

But there are some misconceptions.  I don't claim to be an expert but I will try to clarify a few points.

1. It's not a TV, it's a video terminal and a card swipe.  According to Chris Hayashi, it will have no audio. It will, however, carry advertisements and public service messages. I don't know if it can be turned on and off by the customer.

2. The taxi companies WILL NOT pay for the terminals. The vendors will pay for all equipment and pay for their costs out of the fees collected and advertising revenue.

3. The cab companies WILL NOT share any advertising revenue with the drivers. The vendors will get 90% of the profits above the installation costs and 10% will go to the Drivers Fund.

4. The taxi companies ARE NOT currently allowed to be merchants for credit card accounts ( for obvious reasons), although some companies are requesting the SFMTA to be allowed to be merchant account holders themselves.  The actual cost of the merchant account is closer to 3%, so there is potential profit involved.

5. Despite it's prominence in the field, Verifone will probably not be the only vendor. Any company that meets certain standards set by the MTA could qualify. CMT and Wireless Edge are also planning to compete.

6. Although drivers are required by law to take credit cars, I notice that there is no regulation that says that a driver MUST use a specific credit card cashing system, especially since the drivers are not employees. Drivers are free cash them anywhere or any way they like.

• Many drivers - especially those at Desoto Cab already have their own merchant accounts.
• For drivers with smart phones Square - which is a free and charges 2.75% - is a good option.
• There are other companies on the market with similar or possibly lower rates such as Obopay which claims to charge only 1.5% per transaction and doesn't need a swipe.
• I understand that the Russian speaking lady near Checker Cab will still be happy to cash receipts for 10%.

7. Taxi companies have the option of not putting in the terminals in which case they are responsible for paying to cash the credit card receipts.

Flashing and Other Crimes

The SFPD have resurrected and re-interpreted an old law concerning the inappropriate use of flashers and are now ticketing cab drivers who use flashers when they are picking up or dropping off fares.

Vehicle Code Section 25250 says that: “Flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles except as otherwise permitted.” 

Vehicle Code Section 25251(a) lists the circumstances in which flashing hazard lights are permitted:

        (2) When disabled or parked off the roadway but within 10 feet of the roadway, or when approaching, stopped at, or departing from, a railroad grade crossing, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

        (3) To warn other motorists of accidents or hazards on a roadway, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights while the vehicle is approaching, overtaking, or passing the accident or hazard on the roadway if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

        (4) For use on authorized emergency vehicles.

        (5) To warn other motorists of a funeral procession, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights on all vehicles actually engaged in a funeral procession, if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.”

Director of Taxi Services and Taxi Advisory Council Liaison Christiane Hayashi said at last Monday's TAC meeting that she interprets the law differently and is trying to work with the police to get them to change their policy. In the meantime, she suggested that turn signals might be an alternative when stopping for customers in order to avoid being ticketed by the police for the use of hazard lights.

I experimented with this technique Tuesday night and concluded that it was much like playing Russian Roulette - especially when pulling off to the right at corners. If you put your right signal on, the car behind you is likely to think that you're turning and smash into your rear end. If you put no signal on but merely brake, the driver might conclude that you're only slowing down and smash into your back end. If you put your left signal on, the dude might conclude that you're a Darwin Award candidate and try to kill you before you breed. In short, it's a lose-lose-lose tactic.

Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab thought that the PCOs were causing much more of a problem as did John Lazar of Luxor cab.  Mark Gruberg of Green Cab added that there had been an upsurge of tickets during the last month.

Hayashi said that she had been talking with SFMTA Enforcement as well as the SF Bicycle Coalition with some success. It is now supposed to be okay to pick up or drop off in bike lanes and in bus stops - as long as the cab pulls up as far as possible. It's just that the PCOs don't appear to have gotten the message.

One driver said that he had stopped to take a radio call on Market between 3rd and 4th when a cop told him that he had to move along. He did move along and a got a ticket in the mail anyway.

Another person pointed out that elderly people might need to be dropped off near a corner with a ramp.

Hayashi said that you should protest the tickets by following the instructions on the reverse side and let Taxi Services know when you have received a ticket while loading or unloading passengers.

John Han, who has written on this problem in Taxi Town SF said that he had fought two tickets by arguing that he wasn't supposed to get tickets because he was a cab driver and lost both times.

My take on this is that the cops and the PCOs see us as a revenue stream and an easy  target with which to hit their quotas. I think that the only chance we have of influencing their behavior is to go over their heads.

Therefore, I think the best course of action is to show up at the SFMTA Board and Police Commission meetings until they stop giving us ridiculous tickets. I'm not talking about being rowdy. Just go up and state your case.

The next MTA Board meeting will be held on January 18, 2011 at 1 pm in room 400 in City Hall.

The Police Commission meets every Wednesday. The times vary.

MHA 2010 Meeting

The Medallion Holders Association held its annual meeting Monday at the Mars Bar and Cafe.

A nice buffet which included hot wings, hors d'oeuvres and delicious hamburgers seemed to be enjoyed by just about everybody. Board member Mike Spain briefly summarized his plan for peak-time medallions and President Carl Macmurdo discussed various subjects and strategies important to the members. But the highlight of the evening was an appearance by Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi.

Showing her usual charm and charisma, the director fielded questions and used them as a springboard to express her thinking on various topics. Not necessarily in order, these included:

The Fixed Price for Selling Medallions.

Hayashi said that she liked the fixed price because:

• It's unique to San Francisco and other cities have shown an interest in it.
• The price is low enough to be affordable for drivers. 
• It thus allows buyers to get reasonable loan options.

She pointed that in New York, where medallions often sell for $500,000 or more, only high interest loans with balloon payments are available and that buyers rarely succeed in paying off their loans.

One medallion holder said that the $150,000 that a holder would clear by selling the medallion would not be enough to retire on.

Ms. Hayashi responded by saying that the medallion sales were never intended to be a retirement but rather a way to help people retire in conjunction with other savings.

She added that she didn't expect the Fixed Price to go over $300,000. Otherwise medallions would no longer remain affordable for working drivers.

Peak-Time Medallions

After hearing plans about peak-time medallions for as long as I've been in the cab business, it looks like an idea whose time has come.

Director Hayashi said that people in city government wanted to see it happen so it will - probably early next year.

Various plans for how this will happen are being discussed at TAC but she did say that her plan called for the peak-time medallions to be leased from the MTA.

Not, on the other hand, a popular idea among MHA members.

Watch Those Flashers

Medallion holder Norma Greer had recently written to Hayashi about being harassed by a policeman when she tried to drop in a bus stop. The cop also threatened to cite her for using her flashers illegally.

The director said that she looked up the law and there is indeed an obscure vehicle code against using the flashers for anything except emergencies.

Hayashi said that it was legal to drop in a bus stop - as long you pull "as far forward as possible." She also said that she would discuss enforcement policy with the PCOs (meter maids).

In the meantime, she added that you should fight any such tickets and report the incidents to her office. It's also helpful to get the badge number of the officer involved.


Electronic Waybills and Credit Cards

Hayashi said all taxis would probably have electronic waybills installed by the first quarter of 2011. She added that Luxor and Yellow Cab were already equipped to handle them right now.

She expressed enthusiasm for the new technology because "we'll be able to gather accurate information" about the number of rides and so forth "for the first time ever." This could prove invaluable to the Controller's office in helping to figure out how to improve taxi service.

Ms. Hayashi also said that systems for handling credit cards would be installed on the back seat of some cabs at the option of each company.  One such system, VeriFone, would:

• Allow the customers to swipe the cards themselves.
• Prompt the customer for a tip.
• Automatically transfer the funds into a driver's bank account.

There would be a 5% charge to the driver but Hayashi says that studies have shown that drivers make more than the additional 5% off the tips because of the prompting.

She also said owners and medallion holders could use other systems if they wanted - citing Yellow Cab that has chosen to keep their own system - but, in such cases, it would be illegal to pass the credit card charges onto the drivers.

This naturally segued into ...

Calling 311

Director Hayashi went on to say that every cab driver in San Francisco was required to take credit cards and, if they didn't, other drivers should report the culprits on 311. She also added other crimes such as being rude to customers or reckless driving to the list of things that should be reported.

So ... next time you see a cab driver holding up a customer with a Uzi be sure to call 311.

(Okay. Okay. Off with the sarcasm.)

I did point out to Hayashi that my information was that the taxi drivers, who were turning down credit cards, mostly drove for companies that were illegally charging the drivers 10% - 12% per transaction.

Hayashi said that we should let her know which companies were doing this.

Taking her at her word - the number to call (if your company is illegally charging you for credit card transactions) is 415.701.5235

In the past, Ms. Hayashi has promised anonymity and protection to any driver who makes a complaint against a company. I've never known her to go back on her word.

TAC 10-12: This and That

Most of the TAC meeting was concerned with leasing but a few other subjects came up.

1. Chris Hayashi, wearing her flashiest dress ever, mentioned that she was re-staffing in order to end various backlogs.

She also said that an owner/driver has been putting stickers on cabs calling for an end to Paratransit. The man apparently has a website advocating violence against handicapped people. Chris said that she has started revocation action against the owner and added that any other drivers who knowingly placed anti-Paratransit stickers on their cabs would face disciplinary action.

"This goes way beyond the rights of free speech," she said.

2. Hayashi has revised and re-written Article 7 of Division 1 of the Transportation code to add several new misdemeanors. I intend to write a post on the subject later but the ordinance would:

• Allow MTA investigators to fine illegal limos and taxis $5,000 for violations.
• Make enforced tipping illegal.
• Make it a misdemeanor for a customer to refuse to pay the fare.

The ordinance will go before the MTA Board on Tuesday 10-19-2010. Public comment will be allowed and is usually listened to by the Board.

3. Speaking of public comment, I quietly suggested that TAC's policy of requiring public comment to come before the council discussed a subject instead of after was, "unheard of, ridiculous and outrageous" adding that TAC was the only committee that I knew of that followed such a policy.

Much to my surprise, Council President Chris Sweis discussed the issue with me after the meeting. I told him that the public could make more meaningful contributions if they were allowed to speak after the councilors but before motions and voting. I was backed up in this by Barry Korengold who noted that both the Board of Supervisors and the MTA Board conducted their public meetings in the manner that I was suggesting.

Sweis said that his main concern was that my approach would be less efficient. I told him that I thought that doing it (taxi reform) right was important than doing it quickly.

Swiess said that he'd look further into the matter and presumably make a ruling on it next meeting.

4. Mark Gruberg of the UTW, in one of his stranger (considering that he's supposed to be representing lease drivers) speeches, passionately attacked the provision in the MTA ordinance that would make tipping illegal. He said that it would be unenforceable.

Nonetheless it'll be on the books, Mark, making it more enforceable the than nada we have now.

5. As the meeting was winding down, John lazar, out of the blue, said that the taxi industry was being run by an agency that didn't know anything about taxicabs and was doing nothing. He added that the room was full of people who really knew what they were doing, implying (I think) that the cab business would be better off if it wasn't regulated.

Director Hayashi  responded heatedly to Lazar saying, "I take exception to the idea that we've done nothing here." She went on to praise her staff for their hard work and accomplishments under trying circumstances; and pointed out that, among other things, they'd re-written all the rules and regulations concerning cabs and cab driving in San Francisco.

I would add that, while Lazar and his knowledgeable pals spend over 20 years trying to get the right to transfer medallions, Chris Hayashi is the person who made transferability happen. She also:

• Negotiated the Pilot Plan.
• Set up a realistic method to rid the City of illegal limo and cabs.
• Created the Taxi Advisory Council that has empowered Lazar to influence the way the industry is run.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.

Although I no longer think that Chris Hayashi is perfect, she's close enough for the cab business.

Next: More on Leasing.

TAC 9-27: The Driver's Fund

As of last week, some numbers for the Driver's Fund were:

• 13 = Total Medallions Sold at $250,000 each.
• $162,500  (5% or $12,500 for each salex13) = Total in Driver's Fund.
• $92,026 = Taxi Wrap Fund balance.
• $254,526 = Taxi Wrap and Driver's Funds combined.

                                                The Taxi Wrap Fund

was a holdover from the Taxi Commission and has been administered by Taxi Services since last year. The money coming from the current taxi wraps ($141 to the MTA while $265 goes to the companies) is currently being put into the fund.

The Taxi Advisory Counsel, in an unanimous vote, decided to wrap the Taxi Wrap Fund into the Driver's Fund.

Director Chris Hayashi said that she was working to make sure that future wraps would not cover any windows in the cabs and that taxis would be clearly recognized as such by the public.

The Driver's Fund

There were an abundance of ideas about what to do with money (see top photo.)

Jane Bolig said that what was done with it would depend upon whether it was "a popcorn fund or a plasma tv fund."

Chris Hayashi did some arithmetic showing that the sales of 100 medallions under the Pilot Plan would bring in 1.25 million dollars.  If such sales continue beyond the Pilot Plan (almost a certainty), the fund would definitely grow way beyond the "popcorn" category.

There were several ideas about how to increase the money in the fund:

1. Put the money into an interest bearing account instead of just letting it sit as it does now. Chris Hayshi said that she would look into this.
2. Councilor William Minikel had the intriguing idea of makiing the MTA give part of its advertising revenue to the Driver's Fund since the MTA gets money from us. Quid Pro Quo. Great idea. Good luck with that Bill. 
3. Mininkel also proposed that each driver give one dollar to the fund every shift echoing a plan laid out by Barry Korengold last year. 

Who gets the money?

Barry Korengold (photo, right) wanted a vote to insure that the monies in the fund be used for non-medallion holding drivers - as the people at the Town Hall meetings intended. He said that it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it.

Director Chris Hayashi, on the other hand, has expressed the idea that the people at the Town Hall meetings had left it up to the Taxi Advisory Council to decide who the money was to be used for - an interesting view to me since the duties of TAC were never discussed at Town Hall meetings.

My impression agreed with Korengold's so I checked my notes and, indeed, that the monies in the Driver's Fund should be used for non-medallion holders, was a basic cornerstone of the Pilot Plan.

Chris Hayashi (photo, left) had said, "Nobody will get everything they want but everyone will get something." Her vision of fairness and justice - in a business with little of either - is what turned so many of us into her groupies.

The Driver's Fund was the "something" that 5,000 or so non-medallion holders were supposed to get. The medallion holders would be given the right to sell their medallions and the non-medallion holders would have the right to benefit from the Driver's Fund. Quid Pro Quo. That was the compromise. That was the consensus. That was the deal.

Nonetheless, Hayashi wrote it up differently than the vast majority of Town Hall participants had purposed and insisted that her Taxi Advisory Council decide for whom the money should be used.

The Vote

Despite the fact that eight of the fifteen members on TAC are taxicab company owners, managers or stockholders, I still thought that Korengold's motion would carry the day. My reasoning was:


3. Those 5,000 non-medallion holders make up about 75% of the drivers in the business. Simple logic would dictate that, if TAC is supposed to be representing the taxi industry, something should be given be given to the majority of its workers.

2. Retired medallion holder Art Lembke has often said that the reason that taxi companies can't give benefits to drivers is that the profit margins are too low. But the Driver's Fund is new money. Allowing regular drivers to keep that money would give medallion holders and company owners the chance to unleash the true generosity of spirit that Lembke claims has been held in check by the harsh realities of the taxi business.

1. Taxicab owners and medallion holders are very sensitive to the public's perception of them as greedy, grasping, self-serving, venal and corrupt sharks. Allowing non-medallion holders to keep the money in the Driver's Fund could help to change this bigoted and unjust stereotype.

After Korengold introduced the idea that the non-medallion holders should keep the fund, the ensuing discussion was initially lame, as if the councilors couldn't think of what to say. Then Luxor Cab President John Lazar (photo, in center), claiming that medallion holders could little more afford to pay for a catastrophic injury than a regular driver could said,

"Its a Driver's Fund ... yea, the medallion holders make a couple a thousand a month more ... but they don't have so much either ... they're all drivers ..."

A slight gasp of relief could be heard from around the room and one councilor after another soon gave a variation of the "we're all drivers" speech. I half expected them to break into a chorus of We Are the World.

Of course, one could have pointed out that:

• Lazar had turned the question on its head and was using semantics and sophistry to spin his argument. 
• Since the fund is about money and not sentimentality, the essential fact IS the $25,000 more a year that the medallion holders make, not the fact that some medallion holders also drive.
•  The "couple of thousand" more that we medallion holders make a month could be used to purchase the accident insurance that non-medallion drivers rarely can afford.

One could have added that:

• Being able to sell the medallion gives the medallion holder an additional $250,000 more than non-medallions drivers.
• Giving medallion holders access to the fund would be double-dipping - in effect giving them a rebate on the 5% that they are charged for transferring their medallions.

One could have concluded that the reason the Driver's Fund was set up in the first place was to give the non-medallion holding drivers, who make half as much money as their medallion holding brothers and sisters and won't be paid $250,000 when they retire, a little pocket change.

But one wasn't allowed to point anything out. TAC president Chris Sweis (photo, left) has decreed that (unlike at SFMTA board meetings or at most public government committee meetings of any kind in San Francisco and California) the public is not allowed to speak after the councilors and before a vote, making TAC's claims to meaningful public participation and true transparency largely bogus.

Thus, did semantics and sophistry carry the day. And, thus, the public's unfortunate prejudicial, bigoted and unfair perception of taxicab owners might continue.

Only Korengold,  John Han and David Khan voted in favor of reserving the fund for non-medallion holding drivers.

In sum: A victory for TAC over the Pilot Plan. A defeat for Chris Hayashi's vision. And, a defeat for those 5,000 non-medallions holding workers who are "all drivers" too.

Taxi Advisory Council - Two

At the Taxi Advisory Council meeting on August 30, 2010 Chris Sweis of Royal Taxi and Big Dog City was elected as the Chair and Barry Korengold of the San Francisco Cab Driver's Association as the Vice Chair.
 
The primary emphasis of the meeting was how to decide what to study as well as how to limit the study so that they could finish a report to the SFMTA by 12-31-2010

Studying the Pilot Plan

John Lazar of Luxor Cab pointed out that the process of selling medallions was already causing problems because the companies were being given no advance warning as to when a new medallion holder might take over a taxicab. He added that many of the buyers were choosing to run their cabs as "long term" leases instead of "gates and gas"  and this was causing regular drivers to lose their shifts.

Another potential problem could be what would happen to someone who had bought a cab under a long term leasing arrangement only to have the medallion sold out from underneath him or her.

It was agreed by the council that they should deal with the above problems in future meetings as well as the more general problems of the "long term" lease vs the "gates and gas" lease.

Athan Rebelos said that they should study what effects the Pilot Plan had on:

1. Buyers
2. Sellers
3. The Riding Public

Dan Hinds thought that they should create "accountability" from future medallion holders by setting high standards for people on the list.

Jane Bolig thought that the the possibility of raising the Fixed Price might have to be explored if potential sellers held on to their medallions because they thought that the price was not high enough.

Director Chris Hayahsi said that the Pilot Plan ends when you "transition through all the buyers and sellers. Watch what happens and make recommendations."

One of Hayashi's famous visual aids (see photo) summarizes some of the things that the council will be studying.

During the public comments Mark Gruberg said that he was worried that the Driver's Fund hadn't been defined. He also said that the was offended by being left off the council. "The UTW is the oldest driver's organization," he said. "The MHA and the SFCDA both have representatives. The UTW should have one too."

MTA Board member Bruce Oka gave a short talk saying, "If the Pilot Plan fails, we're in a lot of trouble. We can't afford for that to happen ... the more input (from the Taxi Advisory Council) the better," he added, "we are listening."

Elections

For me, this was the most interesting aspect of the afternoon. After watching the last meeting, I posited the theory that TAC appeared to be controlled by an "old boys' and girls' network" of owners, stockholders and managers that outnumbered everyone else by an 8 to 7 margin.

This week my idea did not cut the mustard.

The 8 to 7 margin did hold for the election of the Chair but Chris Sweis was elected instead of one of the "old boys" like Jim Gillespie or Dan Hinds.  The real surprise, however, was that Barry Korengold was elected as Vice Chair when Athan Rebelos and Laurie Graham voted for Barry instead of Carl Macmurdo.

These people think for themselves. In fact, during the various ballots, at least five or six council members cast votes contrary to what my theory predicted. Well ... that's what trash cans are for.

Bill Mounsey said that there were a lot of talented, intelligent people on the council with contrary opinions and that, instead of belonging to one group or another, they needed to work together to evaluate the Pilot Plan and improve the industry.

Indeed, Chris Hayashi has put together a dynamic, talented and knowledgeable group of people. If they do end up working to improve the business instead of just serving themselves, no one would be happier than I.

On the Agenda

In his first real test as Chair, Chris Swies showed a little uncertainty as to how to proceed.

Athan Rebelos wanted to add the Driver's Fund to the agenda for the next meeting. Swies clearly did not want to do so. Under the rules that the council had established the week before, the TAC sets the agenda, not the Chair.  I think that Swies should have either asked Rebelos for a motion or opened the subject up for discussion. Instead he said that the Driver's Fund was something to be studied later and acted as if the matter was tabled.

However, Swies did acknowledge Barry Korengold, who also wanted to discuss the Driver's Fund, and said that they needed to determine on whom the monies in the fund were supposed to be spent. Korengold made a motion to add the matter to the agenda, it was seconded by Rebelos and the motion was overwhelming passed by the council.

TAC will also look at the new credit card plan and take on the question of whether or not a 5% charge should be passed on the drivers.

  

The First Taxi Advisory Council (TAC) Meeting

The first Taxi Advisory Council meeting took place Wednesday, August 18, 2010 with Director Chris Hayashi acting as temporary chair. Although most of its business was administrative in nature, there were a few things worth noting.

Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morley gave a brief talk on the rules of San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance which begins by stating,  "Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public."

Morley went on to explain that, under the rules of the ordinance, members of the council should not discuss council business, aside from official meetings, if more than a quorum of eight or more of the fifteen members are present. This means:

• They shouldn't discuss official business at group meals or other similar gatherings.
• There should no be mass e-mailings or mass chats among the members.
• The members should be careful even about discussing council business in small groups because (let me do the math) if 3 members discuss an issue, than each of the 3 talks about it with 2 other members, they would be violating the Sunshine Ordinance.

A righteous ideal.

The council also had its first skirmish when Barry Korengold of the SFCDA motioned that, instead of appointing one Chair to head the council, the Chair should rotate with a different member leading each meeting. Korengold said that he was concerned that a permanent Chair would have too much power to affect the proceedings.

Such a plan probably would be unique and difficult to work with but I believe that Barry was reacting to the bias favoring ownership that is built into this council. While Chris Hayashi clearly has bent over backwards to fill the council with a "variety of voices and viewpoints," it can't be denied that either seven or eight of the council members own, manage or own stock in cab companies. (I'm not sure if Ramp Taxi Medallion Holder Laurie Graham owns stock in Yellow or not.)

Indeed, sides in the fray were drawn up along class lines with six of the seven members of the Owner's and Manager's Block (as I shall call it until proved otherwise) lining up for a single Chair and most of the non-medallion holders backing the idea of a rotating Chair. Laurie Graham, I think it was, suggested compromising by having four rotating Chairs to cover the two year period of the TAC. Jane Bolig of Desoto Cab Co-op agreed to the compromise as did Barry Korengold, drivers John Han and Bill Mounsey and most other non-medallion holders while most of the Owners and Managers Block initially held out for a single Chair.

Dan Hines of National/Veterns Cab said the he "didn't like the direction" that the conversation was going and that the important thing was for everyone to come together to save the cab industry.

If this was intended to be a unifying speech, it appeared to backfire because Hinds was clearly unwilling to accept the other side's point of view.

The members went around and around before finally arriving at a compromise. There will be three Chairs for periods of six months each, meaning that there will be a single Chair from next meeting until the council makes its report to the MTA on the Pilot Plan.  However, the power of the Chair will be greatly limited.

• The Chair must give every member who wants to comment a chance to speak.
• Every member of the public who wants to speak during the public comment periods must be given a chance to do so.
• The Agenda for the next meeting will be set by the council at the end of every meeting instead of letting the Chair do it.

Call it a draw. 

The next meeting will be held on Monday, August 30, 2010 at 1 pm in the 2nd fl Atrium at the MTA building #1 South Van Ness and every second Monday after that.

Given the make-up of the council, it would behoove drivers on the Waiting List and ordinary drivers to attend. It's a good idea anyway.

MTA Board Unanimously Passes Pilot Plan

With a vote of 7-0, the MTA Board made history by unanimously okaying Prop-K reform and passing the Pilot Plan.

The meeting, which didn't start until almost 5 PM, had the air of a foregone conclusion about it. The room was half full and only three people spoke against the plan. The usual people, with the addition of Murai, spoke in favor of it.

The people who are financing the loans (called "my suits" by Chris Hayashi) confirmed that they were willing to grant loans on the basis of a Fixed Rate of $250,000.

Director Heinicke asked them if they would be willing to grant loans for a higher amount of money and their spokesman said that $250,000 was all that they would be willing to loan at this time.

That's it folks. It's a done deal. Now we'll see how it works out.