A Conversation with Desoto President Hansu Kim

I was about to publish an interview that I'd had with Desoto Cab President Hansu Kim awhile back when local journalist's came out with the story that Kim was thinking of turning Desoto into a sedan service – one writer said that it might happen in as little as 90 days.

Mr. Kim denied that he said he intended to convert to a sedan service in  "90 days." Only that he could convert in 90 days if he had to. But has "no intention doing so."

What he was doing was giving an "if" scenario.

"What I'm saying is that the taxi business as we know it will not be in existence in 18 months 'IF' the industry continues to be deregulated as it is."

"I don't believe that the taxi business will ever disappear but it could be that full service, dispatch-centric companies will no longer be in business as they are today."

"My feeling is that in a deregulated environment, it would be a race to the bottom."

Aside from usual sensationalism and inaccuracies that one has come to expect from the local media on the subject of  taxis, the coverage of Kim's statements lack context and understanding of what deregulation of faux taxi services like Uber x really means. What Kim and the other cab companies are spending money on is public safety.

Uber and the rest are endangering the public by cutting corners. To use a metaphor from the construction business I grew up in, what they are doing (not carrying proper insurance, not fingerprinting drivers, not guaranteeing the safety of passengers or pedestrians) is the moral equivalent of pouring sand into the foundation of a building in order to save money on concrete.

Thoughts on Electronic Taxi Acess (ETA)

Director Christiane Hayashi would have had an easier time with the measure if she'd simply pushed for the Electronic Taxi Access part without including additional data collection. But the Director thinks the information to be gained will be invaluable in helping her regulate the taxi industry and she's never been one to back down from a fight if she thought she was right.

On the other hand, Yellow and Luxor killed a similar measure two years ago so she would have had a battle in any case.

I supported ETA, despite a few reservations about personal privacy, because I think this may be our only chance to get a universal dispatching system. And, without universal dispatch, we'll never be able to compete with Uber and the TNC's (Twit & Nerd Carriers).

Company Opposition

Hansu Kim, President of Desoto Cab, told me that he favored a universal App but was against the Frias Transportation Infrastructure (FTI) platform. He said that FTI had refused to co-operate with San Francisco taxi companies and that the taxi companies had offered their data to FTI but the tech company had refused to give them the technology necessary to transfer their data. He also seemed to fear that FTI (an offshoot of Frias Transportation which runs cab companies in Las Vegas) would try to take over the local business.

The compromise with the SFMTA would appear to render Kim's first objection moot. If the San Francisco companies provide the data necessary for ETA, FTI would have to provide the necessary technology to use it or loose their software contact.

As for Frias taking over ... I guess that is a legitimate concern. However, Hayashi has said that the contract with FTI includes clauses that will prevent them from entering the taxi business in San Francisco.

Down Dinosaur Walk

Nate Dwiri of Yellow cab presented his usual set of dubious statistics at the Board meeting and then pulled my-favorite-all-time-argument-for-more-taxis out of his cellar. He claimed that Yellow was unable fill their dispatch orders which proved (for him) that the city needs more cabs. In other words, he used Yellow's incompetence as a reason for the SFMTA to help him make more money. There is much to be said about this:

1. Sources tell me that, for years, Yellow has deliberately been holding calls in order create the stats that Dwiri gave out at the meeting. In short, Yellow has been deliberately giving poor service so that the city will give them more medallions. Bizarre – but entirely possible under the gate system.
2. Although I don't have definitive proof for the above assertion, the information gleamed from Yelp on Yellow shows that there are drastic problems with Yellow's dispatching service. Out of 91 Yelp reviews, 6 were positive. 80 of the reviews were negative, giving only one star (out of a possible 5). Many of these reviewers expressed regret that they couldn't give a negative rating. 
3. Yellow can't come close to filling their shifts now. Where would Mr. Dwiri park additional cabs?
4. Mr. Dwiri does not drive cabs anymore. If he did he would realize that that there already are far too many taxis on the street most of the time. 
5. I spent a couple of hours with Taxi Services' inspectors last Saturday night (see future post) and we watched empty cabs following each other down Mission and Polk streets while Lyft and Sidecars were picking up right and left. Why? The customers had hailed the same TNC's that had picked them up at home and taken them there.

Charles Rathbone of Luxor Cab, on the other hand, argued that Luxor didn't want to provide the city with their data because their dispatching system gave them a leg up on their competitors.

I guess he means Desoto, Yellow, ect. More to the point might be Bay Cab.

Mr. Rathbone has expressed anger with me in the past for calling Luxor a dinosaur. But I don't know what other comparison to make: Neandrathal? Denisovan (early hominoids who had sex with Neandrathals)? Or, for a non-extinct species, the Ostrich?

Cab companies competing with each other is as relevant to the problems facing the taxi industry today as the Warring States Period of Ancient China is to modern geopolitics.

The real game today is taxi companies vs Uber & the TNC's. It's how to win back the hearts and minds of the riding public. The only way to succeed is to take back our turf in the outer districts and the only way to do that is a universal dispatching system. The only brand that's important for us now is Taxicabs.

Although many companies are against ETA, most drivers are for it, and I have yet to meet a customer who didn't find the idea "awesome."

We win those customers back and they'll be plenty of business for everybody.

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.

SFMTA Board Okays Meter Increase and 87 New Taxis

The threatened honkathon was a non-event yesterday.


Tariq Mehmood claimed that he called off his taxi strike to give the SFMTA to make changes he liked. But, I think he was really reading the same tea leaves I was. I had lunch in the plaza across from City Hall at 12:30 P.M and, in the half hour I sat eating, only 3 cabs came by looking for a protest.


But on to the business that was.


1. The Meter Increase


The topic for a vote by the SFMTA Board was actually whether or not to increase the flag drop by 40 cents to $3.50. The MTA had already okayed a meter increase of 10 cents for every 1/5th of a mile and 10 cents per minute of waiting time.


The measure was a slam dunk. Not only did the board pass it with a unanimous voice vote but hardly anyone spoke against it. A few people expressed fears that the raise would lose business and others asked for cost of living reviews every couple of years but that was it.


The raise of both the meter and the drop will equal about a 24% increase in the cost of a fare.


2. The second vote was on whether not to put out 50 new Single Operator part-time medallion permits, 25 new medallions to drivers on the List, 2 temporary electric vehicles and to sell 10 new medallions to drivers on the list.


The measure passed 6 to 1, but the ideas of the MTA selling medallions and leasing the  Single Operator Permits proved controversial.


Mark Gruberg  and Barry Korengold both attacked the idea of the SFMTA setting a precedent by selling medallions saying that the organization had a conflict of interest. Possibly - but neither of these speakers addressed the fact that the 10 new medallion would be part of the 60 medallions that the Pilot Plan allows the MTA sell - more than 20 of which have already been sold.


 The 50 Single Operator Permits, on the other, took a lot of flak.

• Rebecca Lytle of the San Francisco Federal Credit Union and Desoto Cab owner Hansu Kim both experssed fears that allowing the MTA to lease taxis would undermine the value of taxicabs as well as lead to a future takeover of the taxicab business by the MTA.
• Desoto manager Athan Rebelos thought that the idea of the permits was not sound from a business standpoint. 
• Medallion holder Christopher Fulkerson expressed fears that the drivers of these vehicles would lose money.

The most entertaining objections, however, were put forth by John Lazar  of Luxor Cab and Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab. 

First, they tried to delay the measure by claiming a legal technicality that the MTA's attorney noted but thought unimportant.

Then, the owners claimed that they hadn't had time to study the plan for Single Operators and said that the permits should not be put out without PC and N hearings. Gillespie also claimed that the subject hadn't been discussed at Town Hall or TAC meetings.

Tara Housman, John Han and I all pointed out that the measure had been debated at several Town Hall meetings in addition to being debated, voted on and passed by the Taxi Advisory Council, of which Gillespie is a member.

The idea of Lazar and Gillespie asking for PC and N hearing is comic. This dynamic duo has spent much of the last year knocking on back-doors trying to get 500 cabs put on the street WITHOUT PC and N hearings.

President Nolan of the MTA Board said that both PC and N hearing and cost of living meter increases should be done on a regular basis.

John Han (photo) was praised by members of the board for his efforts to make the Single Operator Permits a reality.

What Happened to the Good Old Days?

The taxicab industry has always been divided but not that long ago we all came together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation and saved the business with a plan that gave a little to everybody but not too much to anybody. 


Look at that picture. They're all there: representatives from all the major companies and driver's organizations and drivers themselves sitting or standing around the mediator of that peace, Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi.


That was only a year and a half ago. Hard to believe isn't it? Look what's happened since:


We've had a Taxi Advisory Council that, as one of their first acts, voted to give their own members and their kin medallions as key personnel, without having to follow the same rules as everyone else.


We've had Tariq Mehmood (sitting so politely in the second row) turn himself into a local fool by running around making asinine slanders against Hayashi at every city meeting he can find and to every public official who will agree to listen to him - as if lies could become truth through repetition.


And, of course we've had endless protests lately - including a few against agreements that many of the protesters themselves helped to formulate at Town Hall Meetings. And now they're threatening to strike even if they get what they want - despite the fact (as previously noted) that the protesters have no unified goal. And, if they do strike on August 2nd, it will be on a day when (in all probability) new medallions will be issued to the Waiting List and drivers will get a 22% raise.


Adding to this absurdity, we have Luxor, Yellow and Desoto Cabs going behind Hayashi's back to temporary Executive Director of the SFMTA Debra Johnson, trying to undercut a plan that was developed through Town Hall Meetings for the issuance of 50 Single Operator Permits and 35 medallions to the List (25 issued to the top of the list and 10 sold by the SFMTA). And, this is a plan that their own company representatives agreed to at a TAC meeting. 


They don't want no Single Operator Permits or 35 new medallions right now because issuing a these few medallions might relieve the pressure to flood the city with taxis later. They don't want no studies of whether new medallions are needed or not. They don't want no outside input. They want 500 taxis, they want them immediately and they don't want to give anyone else a chance to speak. Corporate oligarchy at its finest.


As if Ms. Johnson would be stupid enough to unleash another whirlwind of protest over 500 new medallions during her last few weeks as SFMTA chief,  just before she steps down to work for her successor, Ed Reiskin.


When Johnson didn't go along with their plan, the company reps went running off to peddle the same soap to Mayor Ed Lee with hopefully the same result. Why would Lee undermine Reiskin, his own favorite candidate for SFMTA director?


And all this when the country is on the brink of a politically induced recession.


I'm tempted to make  a call for unity - like the Beatles' song "Come Together Right Now." But, with all these clowns running around out there, I don't know if it's worth the gesture.


At least we in the taxicab business don't need to worry about being divided and conquered from the outside.  

Back Seat Terminals: Demonstrated

Athan Rebelos (photo, person) and Hansu Kim (photo, hands) were kind enough to show me the VeriFone PIMs at Desoto Cab Thursday.

I now understand that I made some mistakes in my previous post on the subject. For one thing, the terminals will broadcast ABC news feeds so, indeed, they can be described as TVs. (I'll mention another misconception later in the post.)

I came as a skeptic. I wasn't convinced that customers would tip more and I was very concerned about drivers not being able to control the sound.

In fact, I felt that, if I couldn't turn off the sound, I didn't want the damn thing in my cab.

The truth, as it turns out, isn't quite so simple.

• There are sound control arrows on the front seat terminal that Athan is pointing at in the picture and the driver can turn the sound all the way off.
• The ads and the public service announcements will NOT have sound.
• However - the caveat - the customer can turn on the sound for the news if he or she wants to and it overrides the driver's control.

But, the speakers are on the back of the suicide seat so they point away from the driver, meaning that the sound is fairly low when it is on. Furthermore:

• The system resets with each new fare so the sound should not remain on after a customer leaves.
• From talking to customers who have used the terminals in NYC, the first thing most of them do is turn off the sound if it is on anyway.
• So very few customers are likely to turn the sound on at all.

Conclusion: the sound at worst should be a minor annoyance.

What about the 5%? Will the tipping prompts really give the drivers more money?


The terminals have prompts that encourage the customers to tip well. If the fare is low (under $10?), they are prompted to tip $2, $3 or Other (photo).

On longer rides, the customers are prompted to hit 20% or Other. In addition, the 20% is calculated to include any extras such as airport or bridge tolls.

Hansu Kim says that studies have shown that customers tip up to 30% higher than they would without the prompts.

I don't know if I quite buy this. After all they are studying a novelty. Once the newness wears off, the tipping will probably level off as well.

On the other hand, the natural thing to do with these screens is to hit the $2 or the 20% buttons.

There is also the fact that (at VeriFone anyway) the customers do not have to sign the receipt for under $25. In fact, according to Mr. Kim the minimum for a signature is now going up to $50. This makes taking a credit card almost as fast as cash. The customers like this and, if the customers are happy, they tend to tip more.

In short, tt's hard for me to see how the tipping on these terminal would not more than the cover 5% drivers are to be charged for cashing the receipts - even in a worst case scenario.

For drivers at Town Taxi and Checker, even covering the 5% would be a huge improvement by itself. And, who knows? The drivers (other than Green's) at Citywide Dispatch might even start accepting credit card calls.

Why should the drivers be charged at all?

1. As I've mentioned, many of them are already being overcharged now.
2. The use of credit cards is expanding rapidly with huge costs to the companies. These PIMS will allow them to recover their costs.
3. The drivers should make more money.
4. The public should be better served.

The Merchant Accounts


There have been some complaints from drivers about these accounts - mostly due to the delay in being able to use the funds.

The normal hold on the money is 24 hours to 48 hours. On three day weekends, this can mean up to 4 days without the drivers being able to touch their money.

However, Hansu Kim says, that with a month or two, VeriFone will start "instantaneously crediting the driver's accounts," meaning that there will no longer be any hold on the funds..

It should also be kept in mind that these accounts have been set up so that the taxi companies can't touch the money and thus the unscrupulous companies amongst them will be unable to misappropriate the funds.

Advertising Revenue

As previously reported, 90% of the revenue will go the vendors and 10% will go to the drivers. The companies will NOT get a share.

On top of this, it will probably take three years before anybody makes a profit off the revenue. VeriFone estimates that it will take that long for the advertising money to cover the installation costs.

One More Thing


Contrary to rumor (spread partially by me) Hansu Kim says that he does not own shares in VeriFone. He says he is a paid consultant for the company and will neither receive a commission nor in any way make a personal profit from the sale of the units.

Kim also says that VeriFone will not hold a monopoly on the systems. CMT (being used by Luxor) and Wireless Edge will also be involved.

TAC 3-14-2011 Part 2

The rough draft of the TAC report on the Pilot Program was put together by Council Chair Chris Sweis (photo) after going through more than 12 hours of tapes. For this he deserves an award.

However, as councilor Carl Macmurdo and others pointed out, Sweis forgot to include Medallion Holders as one the four primary participants in the S.F. taxi industry. (A Freudian slip? Sweis wouldn't be the first owner of a taxicab company to wish that medallion holders would disappear. ) The Chair admitted that it was an oversight and promised to include a section on medallion holders in an amended draft at the next session.

As for the rest, I simply want to deal with a few points of the draft. You can read the full text in TaxiTownSf.

The discussions at TAC were mostly about the effects on Taxi Companies and Drivers on the waiting list.

1.The major effect on companies was the change from Gates and Gas to Affiliate Leases.

• In 2003 there were few cabs operated on as Affiliates.
• By 2010 more than half the taxis were affiliates.
• 56% of the medallions purchased during the pilot program have chosen to become affiliates.

Sweis and others see this as a negative.

• G and G operations, according to Sweis, "provide greater control over vehicles and drivers."
• Loss of G and G medallions "will reduce company revenues and quality control."
• Companies are losing taxis to Affiliates.
• Experienced drivers are losing good shifts when Affiliates replace them with less experienced drivers.
• Which "would lead to a decline of taxi service to the public."

Driver Tone Lee (photo) disputed this claiming that Affiliates and LTLs did a better job because the drivers worked harder and took better care of the cars that they, themselves, purchased.

Gratchia Markanian, the head of Checker Cab, made similar points and predicted that all taxis would someday be Affiliates.

Hansu Kim (photo), on the other hand, who has been strongly in favor of Affiliates, reversed his position and said that taxi companies needed gate and gas arrangement to be profitable. Coincidentally, Kim recently purchased Desoto Cab.

Councilor John Lazar of Luxor Cab said that the frozen gate rates had "killed gates and gas" arrangement. He also said, as he's said before, that new buyers couldn't afford to work under gate and gas because their loan payments were too high.

I have a few problems with these arguments - namely that neither one of them appears to be true.

• The payments on a 15 years loan are $1,798 per month. The lowest amount that a GG medallion holder is paid is $1,800 per month and the highest is $2,400 per month. In addition a medallion is worth $5,000 to $10,000 per year in better shifts etc. What can't they afford?
• If the cab companies are so strapped for cash, how come they are engaging in medallion bidding wars?

Companies are currently offering bonuses as high as $5,000 and medallion payments as high as $2,400 a month to wrest medallion away from each other. If they're so broke, where are they getting the money for their campaigns?

In the end, they passed a motion by 10 to 4 to have all cabs that are awarded to drivers on the list to be worked as Gates and Gas for the first three years.

Next: The effect on Drivers.

Fleet Taxis and Employees

The dawn of the New Year seems a good time for exercises in nostalgia and theory.

President of Desoto Cab, Jane Bolig, wants a return to the good old days when cab companies owned corporate permits. In a TaxTownSF post,  Remembrance of Peak Times Past, she writes that San Francisco didn't need Peak Time permits back in the good old 60's because Old Yellow Cab owned its medallions and didn't have to pay the medallion holder the fees that cripple companies today.

"To pay them (the fees),"  Jane says, "they (the cab companies)  have to put out all their cabs every shift, every day of the week, every week of the year. That is why drivers fight for rides most Sunday mornings and passengers can’t find cabs any Friday night."

Old Yellow was apparently so profitable that they could "hold back unneeded cabs (sometimes equaling 40% of its fleet)" on slow days and put cabs out when it was busy. "It’s why we discuss peak time medallions in 2010," Jane says, "and why we didn’t in 1968."

The thrust of Jane's essay is that allowing cab companies to have fleet medallions would cure all our peak time problems.

Simple as that!

Unfortunately, Jane is leaving out parts of the equation. Back in the good old days, cab drivers were all employees and belonged to unions. The real reason why Old Yellow didn't put the taxis out at slow times was that they split the meter with the drivers - to whom they first had to pay minimum wage. It wouldn't have been profitable for the companies. In fact, they could have been the ones losing money on bad shifts instead drivers who can't cover their gates today.

Jane also seems to be envisioning combining fleet taxis with a "gates & gas" system. Well ... it certainly would be a way for taxi companies to maximize profits but would they really hold back cabs on slow days? During a recession when people are desperate for any kind of work?

We're talking about the characters who currently manage cab companies in San Francisco - not in Shangri la. In short, fat chance.

Ms Bolig appears to be waxing nostalgic about the other side of the problem as well by assuming that Old Yellow covered the City better back in the good old days. Was this true?

I have word-of-mouth, anecdotal evidence that the service really was better in the neighborhood but this was largely due the fact that companies split the meter and paid minimum wage to the drivers. The companies made their money by actually dispatching taxis to pick up orders and drivers could afford to work areas like the Sunset or wait at the cabstands which were spotted around the outlying areas of the city.

But, how about coverage at peak times and on Friday nights?

San Francisco had a population about 10% lower than it does now and about half as many taxis. 1968 was peak time for the Vietnam war. Sailors and solders embarked for Asia from here. According to the old, old timers this was one of the busiest eras in San Francisco taxi history.

So ... Right Jane,  nobody waited for a cab back then.

Players & Plans: Jane Bolig Comments & Clarifies

Another out of the box thinker is Jane Bolig, President of the Board at Desoto Cab. She wants to transfer the medallions but instead of selling them to individuals, she thinks they should be sold to "all the drivers and employees in their companies ..." Bolig says that this could be done through federal programs called Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) that have worked successfully for almost 50 years and "carry enormous tax advantages."

I'm not clear as to how this would work but, having once helped put together a paper with Jane in the distant past, I'm certain that she can provide a detailed and logical argument. Some features of her proposal are:

• Both individual medallions and the List would continue.
• Companies could continue to contract only with medallion holders but when the owners retired they could sell their companies to an ESOP.
• K medallion holders could continue to work them as usual. When they retired or died the medallion would be given to the next person on the list just as they are now. Or the holder could sell the K medallion to an ESOP.
• New medallions would go to people on the list.
• The City could charge a fee for each medallion sale.

The plan is idealistic and would solve more problems than any other plan out there. Non-medallion holding drivers would benefit far more from this proposal then they would from anything else that has been offered so far. Unlike the UTW or the Asian Law Caucus, Bolig actually addresses the fundamental weakness of the ordinary driver's situation - a lack of power or control.

It's a great proposal and could make medallion holders, ordinary drivers and the City all happy. Now all Jane has to do is convince her fellow owners to go along with her idea.