Finally – Regulators Start Regulating & Fining Uber, Lyft et al

Most cab drivers are aware that SFO is starting to crack down on Uber, Lyft et al but you may not know the details or realize that this is happening in other parts of the county. To help correct this oversight, I'm sharing some links on the subject – a few of which overlap but nonetheless help fill in the picture.

To me the two most hopeful signs are the fact that the tncs have turned the person most responsible for  legalizing Uber & Lyft, CPUC President Michael R. Peevey, against them; and that San Francisco Mayor Ed (Lyft Day) Lee refuses to come to their aid despite hefty campaign contributions from Uber-friendly Libertarians like Ron Conway. A sign that the world is turning against the worms?

Enjoy the links.

CPUC Chooses Venture Capital Over Public Safety

To hardly anyone's surprise, the CPUC chose to validate the operations of Lyft, Sidecar and Uberx. That this would be their decision has been obvious from the moment the CPUC lifted their cease and desist orders against Lyft and Uber – before the hearing on legalizing ridesharing even started.

The members of the commission gave a lot of lip service to public safety and a little bit to helping the cab business but the decisions they've made will inevitably lead to shafting both taxicab drivers and the public.

More later – I need to take a woman I met in my taxi to lunch. Then, I need to drive my hybrid taxi tonight so I can make some money while it's still possible.

Analysis later. But first a preview.

I told one of President Peevey's assistants that personal insurance companies won't write policies for people who drive for Lyft et al.

She said, "We know that – the insurance companies will have to adapt."

And, indeed they will.  Insurance companies don't loose money. They'll pass the bill on to the public and raise the personal insurance auto rates for everybody in California.

Enjoy your lunch.

I think this links to latest version of the proposed decision.

NOTES:

I wrote this piece in about 10 minutes and naturally left much out.

1. In the original version, I said that the CPUC had "legalized" the operations of Lyft, Sidecar and Uberx. This was incorrect. Only the California State Legislature can change these laws. It would have been more correct to say that the CPUC proposed legalizing ...

They will have a fight on their hands.

I'd like to thank Barry Korengold of the SFCDA for pointing this out. I'd also like the thank him for pointing out my  many typos and grammatical error over the last years. I'm a horrible proofreader.

2. I was unable to find the name of Peevey's assistant on the CPUC website but, while I didn't misquote her, I did leave her next sentence out.

She said, "We know that – the insurance companies will have to adapt."

I said, "Yes – the insurance companies will raise their rates."

She said, "No – we're already talking about a commercial lite policy with Geico."

There is much to said about that but here I simply have a question,

Why is the CPUC spending tax payers money bending over backwards to help these companies out? They keep claiming that they don't want to interfere in the TNC's business. Having been handed over $400 million in venture capital, they can probably afford to look into this for themselves.


The Phantom

The CPUC's Confused Ideas On Reducing Greenhouse Gases

President Michael R. Peevey of the California Public Utilities Commission (in his Proposed Decision of 9/19/2013) upheld the laudable goal of reducing greenhouse gases in the transportation sector in keeping with The Global Warnings Solutions act.

Unfortunately, he also accepts TranForm's belief that "ridesharing services have the potential to advance" these goals. If Transform had been talking about real rideshare services, their idea might well be true. However, what they meant was Lyft, Sidecar and Uberx – services that transport passengers for a fee.

The difference?

The model of a real rideshare would be people who share a vehicle to or from work. If you have four people riding together, this takes three vehicles off the roads.

Lyft, Sidecar and Uberx, on the other hand, use an app to drive over and pick people up at one location and drive them to another. This was recognized by President Peevey in his proposed decision.

What he appears to have missed is the fact that the TNC's increase rather than decrease greenhouse gases. They do so in two ways: One – the distance separating a TNC from the customer adds to the length of the trip thus emitting gases over and above what the customer would have emitted by using his or her own car; and Two - instead taking cars off the streets, the TNCs add vehicles.

For example: Lyft, Sidecar and Uberx are currently operating over 2,000 vehicles in San Francisco alone. This more than doubles the number of taxis operating in the same areas. On surface, this would seem to only only double the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted.

However, 97% of San Francisco's taxicabs are hybrids or low emission vehicles and only 17% of the TNC vehicles are. This means that the amount of gases being emitted by the TNC's is far more than just double  that of a S.F. taxi – and this doesn't even include the pollution caused by the number of of town cars and limos being put on the roads by Uber.

The CPUC's proposal , instead of helping to reduce emissions, would exacerbate the problem.

The proposal would do this in two ways:

One – it states that,

"TNCs may only use street-legal coupes, sedans, or light-duty vehicles including vans, minivans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks. Hatchbacks and convertibles are acceptable."

Minivans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks? Gas guzzlers all! But no mention of low emission vehicles.

Two - more importantly the proposal says,

"TNCs need not apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to PU Code § 5371. TNCs are exempted from this requirement, as are many charter-party carriers regulated by the Commission, pursuant to PU Code § 5384(b)." 

This means that the TNC's can put out as many vehicles they like of any kind for any reason whatsoever.

Actually this has been a major flaw in the rules covering TCP vehicles. The state of California has been putting far too many limos out for years. 

If the CPUC really wants to reduce greenhouse gases, what they should be doing is requiring environmental impact reports before putting out more limos or the TNC's, not adding to the problem by applying the same absence of regulations to the TNC's.

As it is, the CPUC proposes to open the floodgates for an environmental disaster.

The Proposed Decision of CPUC Commissioner Michael R. Peevey

I think I've fallen behind a lot of people in that I'm just beginning to read the decision now. Thus, I'm in no position to make misleading comments on a subject I don't fully understand. In short, I'm not ABC or the Bay Citizen or the SF Weekly.

I can tell you that the item is targeted to appear on agenda 3321 for the Commission's Business Meeting on 9/5/2013 but it may appear later. A binding decision may be made then or later, and the Commission "may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside or prepare its own decision."

We thus have until at September 5th to influence the final judgement. Best to read the document yourselves. Me being me, I'll probably be giving you my thoughts on this sooner than later.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&DocID=73350686

CBS coverage at the Protest = halfway decent for a change.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/30/cab-drivers-hold-noisy-rally-at-san-francisco-city-hall-to-protest-rideshare/

We Say, "Down with Lyft": CPUC Say, "Down with Us"

San Francisco taxicab drivers held the biggest protest yesterday in the thirty years that I've been driving a cab. As a low estimate, 1,000 taxicabs circled City Hall. There may have been more. A crowd filled the steps. There were numerous brilliant speeches given by cab drivers, handicapped people, a taxi company owner and the head of a credit union.

At approximately the same time as the protest ended, I received this e-mail from the CPUC.

antonina.swansen@cpuc.ca.gov	3:43 PM (5 hours ago)
to me

This email provides service of Cmmr Peevey's Proposed Decision. The full text is made available through the link provided below on July 30, 2013. A Notice of Availability has been served by mail to all persons on the service list.

Summary: Proposed Decision Decision adopting rules and regulations to protect public safety while allowing new entrants to the transportation industry. Opening comments, which shall not exceed 15 pages, are due no later than August 19, 2013. Reply comments, which shall not exceed 5 pages, are due 5 days after the last day for filing opening comments. .

In the event of problems with the e-mail or the internet link, please contact Antonina Swansen at avs@cpuc.ca.gov, (415) 703-2546.

The afore-mentioned "internet link" did not work for me. So, the above is all I have for the moment. ABC news has reported that the decision will allow the illegal rideshares to become legal. But any relation between what ABC reports and reality is purely accidental. Until I can actually read what Swansen sent me, I won't understand what the decision really means.

In the meantime, we have thirty days from either now or the 24th to formulate arguments to sway the CPUC commission of the virtues our positon. In the meantime here are some photographs of the rally.