Taxi Myopia Blues

I offer this photo as a balm to those who've taken umbrage at my comparing San Francisco taxicab company owners to dinosaurs. I think this analogy is more accurate. Besides, it also applies to many cab drivers (far too many) as well.

Let start with the owners.

One could write a fat, non-fiction novel on the short-sightedness and petty greed of the people running S.F. cab companies – especially Yellow and Luxor. But for this article, I'll restrict myself to their opposition to an universal app or Open Taxi Access (OTA).

When John Wolpert first introduced Cabulous in 2010, it should have been obvious to anyone with an entact frontal lobe that, if adapted throughout the taxicab fleet, the app had the potential to both drastically improve service to the neighborhoods and create business for the drivers.

Chris Hayashi Goes Out in Song

In keeping with her tradition of never quite doing anything like anyone else, the former Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi (as the White Rabbit in photo) turned her retirement party into a buffet concert.

The food, which was contributed by people from Russia, Brazil, Africa and Latin America among other places, would've fed four times the hundred or so of Chris's friends who stopped by.

The bands which came from Burma, Russia, Africa, Brazil among other countries played rock music as well as works from their native lands. Each was better than the other and they were all good. Several musicains also played with other groups.

Hara Study Calls for 120 Cabs in 2013, 200 in 2014, 800 Total

At the Town Hall Meeting yesterday,  Director Chris Hayashi gave us a preview of the Hara and Associates study that will officially be given to the SFMTA Board on March 19th. (Make that April 16 - see below).The above figures are the number of new taxis that the MTA staff will recommend that the Board approve.

The numbers are based on three assumptions:
1. That there are not enough taxis to meet the demand now.
2. That the city will grow over the next eight or ten years, increasing the demand for cabs.
3. That many people who don't take cabs now will begin taking them if the service improves.

The figures naturally will be subjects for extreme debate. I personally don't think any more cabs should be put out until Lyft and Sidecar are crushed while Yellow Cab's Nate Dwiri is probably thinking, "Why didn't I ask for a thousand?"

Mark Gruberg, among others, complained that people will not have enough time to study the Hara document before the MTA votes on it. I made a similar point in a conversation with Hayashi after the meeting and she said ...

But just as I'm about to post, the Staff comes down with a bout of common sense and sends along this message:

NOTICE

March 13, 2013

The SFMTA Board hearing on whether to issue new medallions will NOT be held
on March 19, but instead will be conducted on April 16, 2013. This decision to
reschedule the hearing is to allow time for public review of the final report from
Hara and Associates prior to action being taken by the Board. The SFMTA
expects the Hara Report to be ready for distribution during the week of March
18. Copies will be distributed to the SFTaxi newsletter and will be posted on our website www.sfmta.com/taxis.

There will be a Town Hall meeting to discuss the Hara Report on April 9,
2013. See www.sfmta.com/cms/ctaxitownhall/taxitownhallindx.htm.

The following item related to taxis will still be heard on the March 19, 2013 Board
Amending Transportation Code Sections 1102, 1105, 1108, 1109, 1113 and 1114 to require all motor vehicle for hire permit holders to cooperate with implementation of the Electronic Taxi Access (ETA) System to support the development of taxi hailing smart phone applications, forcolor scheme permit holders to provide financial data to support the SFMTA’s review of gatefees, and extending the deadlines for implementation of electronic trip data and blind-accessible passenger information monitors, and providing that a driver may not smoke inside ataxi at any time.

I'll deal with the report in more detail after reading it. I'll review Electronic Taxi Access (ETA) etc manana.

Living the Farce 1

There is good news. The SFMTA Board changed the percentage for a transfer of a medallion (they are no longer to be sold) from 30% to 20% of $300,000 and raised the cut for a "surrender" of a medallion by both Pre-K and Post-K holders to $200,000 instead of $150,000.

Director Malcolm Heinicke came up to me before the meeting, told me that he read my blog and said that he had no hard feeling over what I'd written about him. We shook hands like pals in a debating society. He added that he did pay attention to my ideas.

I imagine that this was his way of telling me that my writing had influenced the changes that he'd made in the above figures. Flattering - but I doubt that I really had much to do with it.

I think it was more like the old scare-the-be-Jesus-out-of-them-and-they'll-be-happy-with-what-we-give-them gambit. There are a few reasons for my thoughts:

1. Contrary to Heinicke, the financiers clearly did not "bless" the 30% loan. Rebecca Lytle of the San Francisco Federal Credit Union, who loves her work and has enthusiastically answered every question I've asked her in the past, politely declined to comment on the 30% figure; and her boss Stephen Ho spoke with relief about the drop to 20%.
2. Nobody else on the SFMTA Board discussed, debated or questioned the amendments that Heinicke introduced, giving the impression that the subject had been vetted and agreed upon behind closed doors.
3. Driver Tariq Mehmood claimed during public comment that he knew about the changes the Saturday before the meeting.
4. If true, this would be a clear violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. But, the existence of a rule has rarely stopped people in power from abusing it.
5. In any case, it shows that something other than the force of my prose motivated the amendments.

There was another theory going down on "The Street." Depending upon who you talked to, either John Lazar of Luxor and Jim Gillespie of Yellow or Lazar, Gillespie, Chris Sweis of Royal and Dan Hinds of National had either threatened to sue the MTA or had worked out a back door deal with them.

I asked Jim Gillespie about the rumors. He told me that he was "a Christian" and "wouldn't lie" to me. He assured me that no such events had taken place.

Gillespie reminds me of Ronald Reagan. He has the same ability to believe everything he says while he's saying it. I always believe him when I'm listening to him. Later in the meeting, Gillespie told God and the MTA Board that there was no enforced tipping at Yellow Cab. I'll leave it to the drivers at Jim's company to judge the relationship between his religious beliefs and his conception of truth.

But, do the amendments make the Heinicke plan a good deal?

My mother might have said that the changes were better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. $50,000 is $50,000 and 10% is 10%.

But, Heinicke is once again being misleading when he says that his amendments are "in line" with the Pilot Plan:

1. In the Pilot Plan - there were no separate categories of medallions. Whether Pre-K, Post-K or re-sold, they all gave the same 15% to the MTA and 5% to the Drivers Fund.
2. Under the Pilot Plan - any increase would apply to all medallions being sold. Therefore, capping the profit at $200,000 for a "surrender" has nothing to do with the plan that was worked out with the consensus of most people in the industry in 2010. If the price went up to $300,000 under the Pilot Plan, the medallion holder would get $240,000; at $400,00 the holder would get $320,000.
3. This makes the cut to the MTA either 33% or 50% for a transfer. The national average is 5%.
4. Under the Pilot Plan - an increase in sale price was to be based the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not Director Heinicke's thoughts.
5. The CPI that I just ran calculates that $250,000 in 2010 is worth $262,666.47 today.
6. As driver Tariq Mehmood and others pointed out at the board meeting, the combination of a slack tourist season and run-a-muck competition from illegal taxis and limos has greatly reduced the money coming into the taxi industry. 
7. This challenges the very idea of raising the price of the medallions.

In addition, "surrendering" the medallions instead of selling them would also apparently take the 5% away from the Driver's Fund.

There is neither a policy reason for the increase in the sale price nor for the creation of "surrendered" medallions except to give the SFMTA more money from the labor of the drivers who have worked to earn it. The MTA would gain $18 million over time from the Driver's Fund and $72 million from $300,000 sales.

Is it worthwhile to get a medallion "transferred" to you for $300,000 with 20% to the MTA?

Depends.

The $250,000 figure was chosen because it was doable without too much pressure on the new medallion holder. The down payment on $300,000 would be $10,000 more or $60,000 and payments would increase about $400 per month. Balance that against making an additional $40,000.

More important might be the difference between a "sale" and a "transfer." The 300 or so drivers who bought medallions under the Pilot Plan actually own or owned them. In a transfer, the city owns the medallions as an "asset." And, as we've repeatedly been told, the city can do anything it wants with one of its assets ... for the public good as is, of course, understood.

Another way to put the question might be to ask, "Would you buy a used car from Director Heinicke?"

More tomorrow.

A Reward for Playing by the Rules?

Brian Rosen is fifty-two and has followed all the rules. He's done everything that he was supposed to do to "earn" a taxi medallion.

Rosen's been driving cab five shifts a week (2,000 to 2,500 hours a year) for almost twenty years. He takes a lot of dispatched calls, knows the city, rides for orders in the neighborhoods, has a good driving record, accepts credit cards and treats his customers well.

He's also one of the few cab drivers who has health insurance. He pays $854 per month for a policy with a $2,950 deductible.

 Brian put his name on the Waiting List in 1993 and he's currently number 38.

If the SFMTA Board had not replaced K with the Pilot Plan two years ago, he would almost certainly hold a medallion by now.

If the rules of the Pilot Plan had stayed in effect, he would almost certainly be a medallion holder soon. The Plan called for one newly issued or re-issued medallion to be given to the List for every medallion put up for sale. Whenever the city put more cabs on the street, he would have received a medallion.

If the Taxi Services Staff Recommendations worked out by Director Christiane Hayashi in May 2012 (calling for one medallion issued to the List for every permit issued or medallion sold by the MTA) were to take effect, he would certainly get a medallion soon.

But, if the SFMTA's current proposal (based on a plan of MTA Board Director Malcom Heinicke that was rejected by a Charter Amendment reform group in 2007) is passed by the MTA Board, there is no mention of the commitment previously made by the city under every other plan to reward drivers like Brian for playing by the rules.

"I'm very concerned," Mr. Rosen told me stoically. "The anxiety I feel is very frustrating."

The City vs the Cab Drivers: Now!

How rapidly the past becomes the future. Yesterday morning I wrote a post about a bleak moment in our recent past and today I find that it could become tomorrow's reality. The SFMTA has a new proposal.

It appears that Director Malcom Heinicke has convinced his colleagues that he is an expert on the taxicab business and they have taken in his gab hook, line and sinker.

Certainly, I doubt that anyone else on the MTA Board is cold enough to come up with a scheme like this.

Philosophically, the plan holds that public needs are more important those of any individual - especially if said individual drives a taxi. ("The city needs money, driver, and we volunteer YOU to foot the bill.") If enacted, the proposed legislation (on rough calculation) would result in the transfer of $100 million to $200 million from taxicab drivers to the SFMTA over a period of time - maybe more ... probably more.

I haven't gone through the specifics yet but in general the Medallion Reform Proposal would:

• Increase the transfer fee to the MTA from the sale of a taxi from 15% to 30% while increasing the price to $300,000.
• Allow Pre-K medallion holders to sell ... er ... I guess the world is "surrender" (as if the drivers had stolen the medallions when, of course, it's the MTA that wants something for nothing). Anyway, the "holders" can "surrender" their medallions to the MTA for $150,000 as opposed to selling them for $200,000 as they could have under the Pilot Plan.
• Force Post-K medallion holders to "surrender" their medallions to MTA for $150,000 instead of selling them for $200,000 as they could have under the Pilot Plan.
• Allow the MTA to turn around and sell the same medallions for which they had just paid $150,000 - for $300,000.
• Leave the drivers on the Waiting List who have worked the job hard and served the public well for fifteen or twenty years, who have followed all the rules and were promised a medallion if they did so, who have chosen to drive cabs instead of doing other jobs or following other careers,  hundreds of whom are over sixty waiting for - NOTHING.

Maybe this should be re-named Medallion Deform.

There will be two Town Hall Meeting to discuss the particulars of this moral and political abortion on: 

Tuesday, August 7 at #1 South Van Ness, 2nd floor Atrium from 1:30pm - 4:30pm  & 5 pm - 8pm.

The following items will be on the agenda for the August 21, 2012 SFMTA Board Meeting, meaning that nothing we say at the Town Hall meeting is expected to have any effect. Talk about transparency, huh!

MedallionReformCalendarItemfor08212012_000(1).pdf 24K   View   Download

MedallionReformLegislationfor08212012.pdf 72K   View   Download  To Brad Newsham, Sorry, Brad, if I said anything unkind.

The City vs the Cab Drivers 4: Heinicke's Schemes

Over the years Director Malcolm Heinick has presented us with a few variations on a major theme. The basic plot has always been to take money away from the cab drivers who do the work and give it to the City. This is usually to be accomplished by taking individually held medallions and turning them into special medallions or permits that are to be leased to drivers or companies by the city.

But, since the specifics change, I thought that it might be interesting to see the reception that these designs have been given by the people in the taxicab industry (the experts in the business) before looking at a version of the plan itself.

There was a Charter Amendment group studying taxis in 2007. I didn't attend but everyone I've talked to about it tells the same story.

Numerous industry people (drivers, medallion holders, managers) gave their ideas about how the taxi business should be reformed. Heinicke was then either assigned the task of writing up their ideas into a report or took it upon himself to do so. His report, however, included no thoughts or plans of anyone else - only his own. The other members of the group all repudiated the report.

It should be pointed out that in 2007 the economy was booming and San Francisco was flush. The city didn't need the money that Heinicke proposed to take away from the cab industry. Thus, for Heinicke, politics appears to precede economics. The principle of separating cab drivers from their coin - of turning the industry into an "income stream" for the SFMTA - appears primary for the Director even if there is no pressing reason for it.

Director Heinicke's ploy popped up again in 2009.

After Christiane Hayashi was demoted to Deputy Director, she was instructed to present this plan to the drivers by the MTA Board. We were told that we could "tweak" or "make "improvements" to the gambit but it was to be the future of the cab industry.

The new Deputy Director then proceeded to present Heinicke's stratagem at a couple of Town Hall meetings. She asked drivers, medallion holders, company owners and managers what they thought of the plan. Then she copied down the comments and brought them back to the Board to read.

The people at the Town Hall meetings universally expressed loathing for Heinicke's disregard of people working in the taxi industry.. Jane Bolig, who then was president of the board at Desoto Cab, quipped that, if the plan was implemented, the taxi industry would "look like Berlin after Wold War II."

Medallion holder Mike Spain thought that the plan looked like it was "drawn up by a grad student." Those were two of the nicer comments. 

The MTA Board finally "got it" and set up a new series of Town Hall meetings that culminated in the Pilot Plan - still the fairest and best conception of how to improve both the taxi business and taxi service that anyone has come up with - probably because people from all aspects of the cab industy helped create it.

I hate to have to spell out the moral of this story but some taxi people tend to be a tad slow on the uptake.

In 2009, it took all the people in the taxi industry acting together to stop Heinicke's nefarious ruse to turn the cab business into a feeder stream for the SFMTA.

TAC 10.24.11

The Monday 10/24/11 TAC meeting covered a variety of topics.

The photo shows (from left) driver and dispatcher Bill Minikel, driver and blogger John Han, medallion holder and Yellow Cab representative Tim Lapp.

In what other industry can you find councilors of such uniqueness and diversity?


Illegal Taxi & Limo Update

SFMTA Investigator Eric Richholt thanked all the drivers who have sent him photos and videos of bandit cabs and limos and said to keep the info coming.  He can be reached at: eric.richholt@sfmta.com or 510-867-4694.

Richholt stated that he and his partners have handed out over one hundred $90 white zone citations to limos and nine $5,000 tickets to illegal cabs, including three for not having A-cards.

A few of the drivers expressed impatience with what has been done. They wanted a bigger crackdown on limos and town cars acting as cabs. Eric said that it was more difficult to prove that limos were making illegal pick-ups but that he and his colleagues would be going after them in the near future.

These drivers appeared to forget that this is the first systematic attack on illegal vehicles in memory (mine anyway) and is just getting underway. It wouldn't exist at all if Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi hadn't written legislation to allow MTA investigators to give these citations and hadn't gotten the law passed by a hostile Board of Supervisors that thinks illegal taxis and limos serve the public. She also had to hire and train the investigators. Taxi Services needs a few more of them in order to maintain a presence on the streets both night and day.

Richholt said that they were prioritizing illegal taxis because they often have substandard equipment, rarely have insurance and thus are a danger to the public.

We Can Finally Use the Bike Lanes - Sometimes

After over a year of discussions, Hayashi has finally talked the powers that be into allowing cabs restricted use of bike lanes for picking up and dropping off customers.

Taxicabs will be issued bumper stickers indicating that the cabs have the right to be in the bike lanes for the above purposes. Taxis are supposed to use the lanes only as a last resort if there are no other safe locations nearby. We can only use separated bike lanes to drop off disabled or elderly customers. (Click photo for more detail.)

We are only supposed to pick customers up in a separated bike lane if the dispatcher tells us that the customer is disabled. Does this mean that we have to blow off disabled customers who try to flag us down from these areas? I think this item needs a bit more thought and discussion.

At any rate, we are only supposed to enter a separated bike lane at the beginning of the block and exit at the end.

For more information contact the SFMTA.

TAC Will Finally Be Able to Present Proposals to the SFMTA Board

After an exchange of letters between Taxi Advisory Council Chair Chris Sweis and SFMTA Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose, it has been decided that Sweis will be able to present TAC's recommendations directly to the SFMTA Board at the their bi-weekly meetings.

This should put an end to a period when no recommendations were acted upon by the Board.

For background see TAC: or, Whatever Happened to Our Recommendations?...


New Town Hall Meeting Schedule

TAC: or, Whatever Happened to Our Recommendations?

Perhaps the most interesting thing that came out of the September 26, 2011 Taxi Advisory Council meeting was the fact that nobody knows why a dozen or so recommendations made by the TAC have not been acted upon by the SFMTA Board.


Chair Chris Sweis (photo) originally thought that the council would report directly to the Board of Directors and that the TAC was analogous to the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC). What Sweis now understands is that "our recommendations go through staff first and then staff presents to the board." 


In any case, TAC is an advisory council and the Board is not bound by the recommendations. The Directors can decide to accept or reject the suggestions, or send them back to staff to be modified.


So far, however, the only recommendation that has been discussed or acted upon by the Board was the recent meter increase.


Sweis says that all the other the recommendations are "in the hands of Sonali Bose," the Chief Financial Officer of the SFMTA and the person to whom staff at Taxi Services reports. But what Ms. Bose intends to do with them is a continuing mystery. 


At the TAC, Sweis said that he didn't know why everybody should be wasting their time coming to the meetings if their advice isn't even going to be discussed or acknowledged much less put into effect.


The Chair has sent an e-mail inquiry to the SFMTA Board asking for clarification but so far hasn't received a response.

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.

Will There Be A ...

A while back, Tariq Mehmood announced a 24 hours strike on August 2nd, but the winds of revolt may have died down. I don't keep up with Mehmood's decrees but, last I heard, the self-proclaimed "powerful and great leader" was thinking about pulling back to the usual ho-hum honkathon at City Hall.


If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I think other protest leaders have decided to either follow suit or not protest at all. And, indeed, why should they? The MTA has already compromised or agreed to compromise on most of the driver's concerns.


Plus, it doesn't made a lot of sense to protest on a day when San Francisco's cab drivers almost certainly will be given a 20% raise.


The raise is one of two taxi items on the agenda for the SFMTA Board meeting on Tuesday.


1. A Meter Increase 


of 10 cents for every 1/5th of a mile and 10 cents for every minute of waiting time, which was worked out by drivers at Town Hall meetings, has already been approved by the board.


In addition the board will discuss adding 40 cents to the flag drop thus raising the drop to $3.50.


That there is to be no discussion of a gate increase at this meeting is a good sign for the drivers. Hopefully, this means that the board has wisely decided that there should be no gate increase for the foreseeable future. If so, drivers will get a 20% raise even if credit card fees continue to be passed on by the companies.


2. The Issuance of New Medallions


The plan on the agenda calls for:

• 50 new single operator part-time taxi permits.
• 25 new full time permits given to drivers on the list.
• 10 new full time permits to be sold by the MTA.
• 2 full-time temporary electric vehicle permits.

The presence of this item is a good sign because it means that the back-door efforts of John Lazar of Luxor Cab and Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab to kill the item (so that they could flood the city with taxis) failed.


Appointing Edward Reiskin to the position of  Director of Transportation, effective August 15, 2011, will also be on the agenda.


What can also be expected is an hysterical, full-bore, slanderous, misogynistic attack on Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi by the  Mehmood. I'm sure that Tariq sees this as his last best chance to get rid of the nice lady that he's demonized. In this he'll be backed by a group of misinformed drivers who've never met and don't know Hayahsi, and a few of the more corrupt cab companies who want to continue cheating drivers out of their money.


It would be nice if taxi people who have worked with the Deputy Director and know what a fair, honest and brilliant administrator she has been would speak on her behalf. If you've done this before, please to do it again if you can. Show Director Reiskin the support she really has in the cab community. You owe it to yourselves.


The SFMTA Board meeting will be held at Room 400 City Hall at 1 P.M. Public comment usually takes place fairly soon after the meetings begin.

TAC Advises Taxi Companies, "Pass No Mas!"

Monday afternoon 7/25/11, by a count of 8  to 7, the Taxi Advisory Council voted to advise the SFMTA Board to no longer allow taxicab companies to pass on credit card fees to their drivers. You read right. No more credit card charges for the drivers. Now - this is a reason for honking and dancing in the streets. Only I don't hear any horns. Maybe because nobody is sure what this means ... It's complicated.

But first the play by play.

The meeting started with Tariq Mehmood loudly launching one of his patented, semi-coherent, cretinous, psychopathic rants against "staff" and was allowed to do this by Chair Chris Sweis because Mehmood didn't mention his victim by name although we all knew who he was spewing out his hatred at.

Then Councilor John Lazar and his sidekick Charles Rathbone tried to have Councilor Barry Korengold dismissed from the Council for talking during a vote at the previous meeting to limit the right of the MTA to sell medallions. When this failed Lazar tied to get a re-vote only to be told that only the winning side could ask for one.

This drama was followed by about three hours of excruciating boredom as everyone recapped their positions on 5% credit card charges and back-seat terminals (PIM's). Not that I'm knocking boredom. It's part of the democratic process.

The theme of the meeting was set by Councilor John Han who seems to have read every document, note or e-mail ever written on the subject of credit card fees and back-seat terminals. Han's research has convinced him that, if the back-sear terminals were trashed and burned, the driver's fees could be lowered to 3% or 3.5%.

John Lazar, on the other hand, claimed that the companies were treading water at 5%. An idea seconded by Councilor Athan Rebelos and Desoto President Hansu Kim although Kim did admit to John Han that the rear-seat terminals might indeed add to the charges.

Barry Korengold said that he'd never met a driver who liked the PIM's. Councilor Tim Lapp of Yellow Cab countered him by saying he had been one of the drivers testing the terminals at Yellow and loved them. He said that he was making $12 to $15 more a shift using them and wasn't going to let anyone take the one in his cab away. Hansu Kim added that he had completed his study of the PIM's vs front seat terminals and that it showed that the PIM's earned drivers about 20% more.

Councilor and owner of Metro Cab, Richard Hybels said that his drivers were making a lot more money since he'd installed front-seat terminals in his taxis. Before that Metro didn't take credit cards. Hybels also said that he'd be forced out of business unless he could pass the charges on to the drivers.

Councilor Dan Hinds said that the companies should use whatever they earned from the PIM advertisements for the relief of driver's fees.

Councilor William Minikel thought that the credit card fees should be passed on to the customers - an idea that other people in the room liked.

Penultimately, a motion was made by John Han to end the requirement for rear-seat terminals in order to pass on credit card fees to drivers and limit the fees to 3.5%. A vote was taken and the motion failed by a count of 10 to 5.

Shortly afterwards Councilor David Kahn (photo) made his motion to stop allowing taxi companies to pass any credit card processing fees on to the drivers.

Yellow Cab driver Murai, who sat next to me, and I both thought that the measure was doomed to failure and half wondered why TAC was even bothering to vote. We foresaw another 10 to 5 defeat.

Then, Wham! The motion passed 8 to 7. I mean it was staggering. The idea had hardly even been discussed because it seemed so random.

Tara Housman, who voted for the measure, later told me that she didn't even know if she liked the idea. She said that the only reason she voted as she did was to make Kahn feel better about losing.

Nobody really knows what this means. TAC is an ADVISORY council and I'm sure that (even as I'm finishing this post at 9 am)  the MTA is fielding calls from desperate owners pleading, "say it isn't so."

If nothing else this vote should help the Taxi Services negotiate lower fees from the vendors.

Strike! Or the Fine Art of Shooting Oneself in the Foot

"There was no one else but Tariq who did almost everything except that we all joined him and came along to sing national anthem. Everyone was left with no choice but to follow his leadership. It became scary for leaders that if they do not follow they will be left alone. I guess one of the most largest strike in this town is coming soon. The one you have seen it was the preview."
                     Anonymous Tariq Mehmood Disciple

I received this the day after the June 28th "strike." That is to say that Tariq Mehmood was already planning the August 2nd strike before the last one. Just like he'd planned the last one before the one before; or, was it before the one before that?

And, his followers and many admirers like medallion holder Brad Newsham are enthused about this coming strike. They talk about "keeping the momentum going" like it's a football game. They seem to think that if they honk and holler long and loud and often enough the world will give them what they want - whatever that is. They act, in fact, as if the rest of the world doesn't  exist - a common miscalculation among groups that spend too much time talking to each other and not enough time talking to anybody else.

 The World as It Relates to Taxis

Consists of San Francisco officials (Mayor Ed Lee, SFMTA Board, Board of Supervisors) and the public. Would it be wrong to speculate about what they want?

• The Mayor - wants more cabs and better service.
• The MTA Board - wants more cabs, better service, lots of our money and a board meeting with no cab drivers in attendance.
• The Board of Supervisors - wants a lot more cabs, a lot better service and don't want to give cab drivers a raise until these things come to pass. 
• The Public wants better service, more cabs and more taxis that will accept credit cards.

Protests vs Strikes; or Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 1.

A protest is a way to tell the government and/or the public about injustices done and policies that should be changed. 

A strike is a way to inconvenience, to intimidate, to punish the government/public for not making those changes.

The public in this country, in this city anyway, tends to cut protesters a lot of slack. People don't mind a little inconvenience. Everyone has the right to complain. It's the American way. But, if the protests go on too often or too long, if the inconvenience grows, the public become annoyed.

From conversations with my riding public on the effects of the the recent taxi protests have exactly followed this path of regress.

• After the first protest, everybody was smiles and understanding. They were on my side.
• With protest two, they were concerned and confused. What was this about again?
• With the protests that called itself a "strike,"it was like, "I just wanna go home."

What the threatened "24 Hour Strike" really threatens to do is alienate the public and turn them completely against us.

Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 2.

Brad Newsham wants the SFMTA to get out of the taxi business; or, barring that, he wants to pass a proposition that will keep the SFMTA from spending money taken from the cab industry on anything except cab drivers.

Well - the possibility of the MTA firing itself is pretty slim. The only way to keep the money for the drivers would be to get the public to pass ballot proposition. The best way to get a proposition on the ballot is to have either the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors vote to put it on the ballot.

Whoops.

Mayor Ed Lee, who wants to become a permanent mayor, is unlikely to back a group that alienates the voters and, most of the Supervisors, who have never much liked us much anyway, really dislike us now.

Meaning that the only way to get the proposal on the ballot is finding enough of the alienated public to sign a petition to put it on and then getting enough votes from the same alienated public to pass the measure.

Whoops. Whoops.

Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 3.

Perhaps the most consistent complaint that cab drivers have is about the illegal limos, town cars and cabs that steal legitimate cab driver's fares.

Perhaps the most consistent complaint that the public has is that taxicabs are not picking them up with enough frequency.

So, Mehmood and his minions intend to punish the public by making sure that they get fewer cabs than usual?

Now, that's what I call a brilliant strategy - for the illegal limos, town cars and taxis that is. Ubercab and that ilk should have field day.

And, you know? I've yet to hear anybody call Tariq Mehmood a genius.

Shooting Oneself in the Foot: Part 4.

Mehmood has claimed that his drivers would be striking if the MTA didn't agree to compromise on the credit card fees, the electronic waybills and the back seat-terminals. Of course we know this is a lie. He called for this strike before the last protest (see lead quote.)

Besides, the MTA has already compromised, or is considering compromising on all these things. And, this ignores the one thing that the strikers talk about the least. The elephant in the room. The fact that this Board meeting is about passing a meter increase of around 24%.

This means that even if credit card fees are not renegotiated (as the MTA says they will be) the cab drivers will still get a raise of about 18% to 20%. I would call that a compromise. Some drivers want the credit card fees passed on to the public. What do they think a meter increase does?

The only important issue on August 2nd will be to try and make certain that the cab companies do not raise the gates.

Is the MTA more or less likely to do this if they are surrounded by honking cabs who refuse to pick passengers up?

With the probable exception of Supervisor John Avalos, the Board of Supervisors is recommending that the meter increase not be put into effect.

If  drivers are going to strike no matter what the MTA does, the Board might just follow the supes advice.

I'd hate to see Tariq and his troops ruin things for the thousands - the vast majority of San Francisco's hard working taxi drivers - who won't be on strike.

A Review of the Protests: A Unified Front?

 Ursula, "He's got go anyhow."
Gudrun, "I know - ccertainly he's got go. Unfortunately, where does his go go to?"
                                              D. H. Lawrence Women in Love

Cab driver and medallion holder Brad Newsham (photo, center) has been charged up by the protests at City Hall and by Yellow Cab driver Tariq Mehmood's ability to organize demonstrations.

"Tariq ... has at least tapped the passion of the larger driver body in ways that I, and others, have hoped to do over the years, but at which we have failed miserably," Brad wrote to me in a comment.  "I hope we can use this moment of passion to throw off the MTA's yoke, to reject and demolish their plan to use the cab industry as a cash cow ... And I hope we can find some unity of purpose as we move forward."

Judging from the above and other statements he's made, Brad appears to think that if enough drivers passionately unify to "strike" often enough and loud enough the "yoke" and the "cash cow" will somehow magically disappear.

You'd think the unity of purpose would have to come first. But here are few things more addictive than an adrenalin rush.

I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that a great deal of that "passion"of the last "strike" was directed, not against the SFMTA or their policies, but by one group of drivers against others. Newsham himself (along with fellow protesters like Mark Gruberg and Rua Graffis of the United Taxicab Workers and others) was slammed by Mehmood and his followers for supporting Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi whom Tariq pathologically hates.

Other drivers were booed by some taxi drivers at the MTA Board meeting following the protests for supporting a plan that had been negotiated by taxi drivers (including a few of the one's doing the booing) at a series of Town Hall Meetings.

In addition, Mehmood and Newsham have diametrically opposed ideas of how the cab business should operate. Brad wants a return to the days of Prop-k when medallion were not sold but given to drivers on a waiting list. Tariq wants open auctions.

A Divided Industry

This is not a business where a word like unity makes much sense. The normal divide between owners and workers is but a hint how split this industry is. There are divisions between:

• Large cab companies and small cab companies.
• Medallion holders and companies.
• Medallion holders who bought their medallion prior to Proposition K (Pre K's) and those who "earned" their medallions (Post-K's).
• New medallion holders who've recently bought their medallions and other medallion holders.
• Medallion holders and non-medallion holding drivers.
• Non-medallion holders who are on the Waiting List to either get a medallion or buy one and non-medallion holders not on the list. 
• Drivers who work for companies with good dispatching services and those who don't.
• Yellow Cab driver Ivonne (photo) and the rest of us.

And none of the above takes into account the interests of the City, the MTA or the general public.

A Short Study in Complexity; or, How Not to Negotiate

MTA Director Malcom Heinicke wanted Peak Time Permits that were run by the taxi companies to be part of a compromise plan to add more cabs to the taxi fleet. This has been talked about for 30 years because it makes sense. There is way too much business for taxis to handle on Friday nights and way too many cabs on the street on Monday nights.

But at the Town Hall Meetings nobody wanted such permits - least of all the taxi companies. Instead the idea of Single Operator Permits (SLP) held sway. The SLP's would serve the same purpose except that they would be operated by cab drivers instead of companies  - specifically drivers who had worked in the industry for a long time but were not yet eligible to earn or buy a medallion.

It seemed like a win win win. More drivers would become their own bosses, there would be no more cabs on the street during slow times and the public would be served by having more taxis when needed.

A group of non-medallion drivers on the Waiting List presented some opposition because they wanted all new cabs to go to them. But the SLP concept was liked by most people at the Town Hall Meetings including Tariq Mehmood. There were different ideas, though, concerning how the SLP's should operate.

Mehmood and his disciples wanted the cabs to be run at fixed times. Most other people at the meetings like the ideal of a more flexible time frame. 

I won't go into the details but the logical thing to do would have been to try one solution and, if that didn't work, to try the other.

What Tariq Mehmood did instead was to take his clique into another room, come back, claim that all nine of his people favored his plan and that they were the majority so the majority should rule.

Other people at the meeting disagreed with them so Mahmood included an attack against Single Operator Permits as part of his "strike."

Enough Protests Already

A major reason for having a protest is to have the Powers-That-Be negotiate with the workers. The SFMTA has indeed done this with a series of Town Hall Meetings.

A more important reason is to get the Powers-That-Be to change their policies. The MTA has done this by: 

• Granting a 20% meter increase.
• Putting an end to the need for waybills.
• Putting Open Taxi Access on the agenda.
• Trying to reduce the 5% credit card fees.
• Re-examining their policy on back-seat terminals.

 On the other hand, it's not realistic to expect anything more than a compromise. The City and the public have their interests too. It's also childish to expect complicated issues to be solved immediately. It might take months to negotiate lower credit card fees, for instance, and (partly because of the constant protests) there hasn't been time to complete a study on the effects on the public of back-seat terminals.

The most recent protest was probably already one too many. The MTA was (and is) already negotiating with the drivers - which is more than any other Power-That-Be has done in the twenty-seven years I've been driving taxis. The one positive - looking into 3% credit card fees - could have been achieved without a protest.

There also were negative aspects to the "strike" that people like Newsham choose to ignore (see next post.)

I have a simple question. In an environment of "passion"as opposed to compromise or thought, in a world where people"strike" over petty details, how does one decide which group of strikers and which policies to support? 

The truth is that it's simply not possible to balance the various interests and solve the complicated problems in this business by honking horns and shouting. 

Next: Perpetual Strikes or the Fine Art of Shooting Yourself in the Foot.

Thoughts on the Meter Increase

The SFMTA Board okayed a meter increase of ten cents for every 1/5th of a mile and 1 minute of waiting time. They will take up the question of an increase in the drop from $3.10 to $3.50 at the next meeting. For more complete coverage see John Han's blog.

Here I'm simply going to expand on the short talk I gave to the SFMTA Board.

The Need for the Meter Increase.

• Many people have pointed out that the cost of living has gone up 19% since the last meter increase.
• The increase the Board passed (including the additional 40 cents on the drop) would equal 22%.
• Therefore - it's simply a matter of catching up.  

After the meeting, I went to work and discussed the increase with my customers. Of course nobody likes the idea of paying more for anything but the people I talked with accepted the raise without much complaint - making me think that the amount we settled on was just about right.

Nix on a Gate Increase.

The vote hadn't even been taken before John Lazar, President and General Manager of Luxor Cab, stood up and pushed for a gate increase of just 75 cents a hour so that Luxor could keep on giving it's full service including computerized dispatch.

What a salesman? 75 cents an hour doesn't sound like much does it? Let's take a closer look. That means:

• $7.50 a shift or  $15.00 per day = $5,475 per year per driver profit for Luxor.
• $7.50 a shift paid by drivers * 5 shifts per week = $37.50 *52 weeks = $1,950 per year out of the drivers profits - off the top.
• If non-medallion drivers average $25,000 per year, a 20% meter increase = $5,000.
• Meaning that almost 40% of the income boost would be eaten up by the gate increase.
• Meaning that they've already more than lost their cost of living increase.

More later.

Town Hall Meeting: Meter increase

Let me start by saying that I think that a meter increase will take place. It would have to be approved by the SFMTA Board but it appears as if they will approve a reasonable raise.

The only questions are: how much of an increase and how would such an increase be calculated.

The chart on the left was a working tool used to look at various possibilities.

Factors considered were:

• The initial drop.
• Distance and waiting time.
• Radio dispatch fees.
• Gas surcharge fees.

Needless to say that in four sessions there were an incredible number of suggestions. But, toward the end, the mood was summarized as K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple Stupid.

The feeling was against gas surcharges per se (visible surcharges that is) and, if there was a to be a radio dispatch fee, it should probably be a set price of maybe $2. At least that was my impression - a lot of people had a lot of different ideas.

Toward the end three main plans held sway or at least my attention:

1. Christopher Fulkerson called for no increase in the drop and an additional 10 cents for every 1/5th of a mile which would bring the price to 55 cents every 1/5th of mile.
2. Tariq Mehmood called for no increase in the drop, an additional 10 cents per 1/5 of a mile plus an another additional 10 cents per 1/5 of a mile for a gas surcharge which brings the price to 65 cents for every 1/5th of a mile.
3. Tone Lee, on the other hand, wanted no increase in the drop but he only wanted an increase in the number of clicks from 5 to 6 per miles - meaning that there would be 45 cent for every 1/6th of mile.

I should say that there were quickie votes taken at both sessions and the Mehmood plan won by narrow margins in both cases. (Of course a nitpicker might point out that Mehmood had stacked the meeting with disciples so the votes were, shall we say, dubious). Nonetheless the powerful and great Tariq proclaimed this as THE DRIVER'S PLAN.

What we need is a quick comparison. 

 At current rates with a 3.10 drop and 45 cents per 1/5th of a mile. (Using calculations from the above chart as a starting point.)

• A 3 miles ride with 3 minutes of waiting time = $10.75
• A 13 mile SFO with 5 minutes of waiting time  = 34.15

Under the Fulkerson Plan with a 3.10 drop and 55 cents per 1/5th of mile. 

• 3 mile ride = $12.45
• 13 mile SFO = $41.05

Under the Tone Lee Plan with a 3.10 drop and 45 cent per 1/6th of a mile

• 3 mile ride = $11.20
• 13 mile SFO = $40.00

Under THE DRIVER'S PLAN

• 3 mile ride = $13.75
• 13 miles SFO = $47.15

Of course these are rough estimates.

• Increasing the drop to 3.50 that would add 40 cents to these totals.
• Deputy Director Hayashi wanted to add 75 cents as a gas/credit card surcharge.
• A radio response fee would add $2.00 or $5.00 depending.

 The majestic Mehmood, realizing that a ride to SFO would be a tad high under THE DRIVER'S PLAN , declared that there shall be a flat rate to the airport of $40 from downtown and $45 from Fisherman's Wharf.

Faced with the criticism that THE DRIVER'S PLAN would lose business by making the rides too expensive in the outer areas of the city, no less a personage than the great and powerful Tariq Mehmood himself decreed that there shall also be flat rates from areas like the Excelsior, the Ingleside, Park Merced, the Outer Richmond and the Outer Sunset.

Although I have been told (both in person and with vague threats and obscenities sent as comments to my blog) by Tariq the Terrible and THE DRIVERS, that I am forbidden to speak, I will add my two cents anyway.

I think that something along the lines of either Tone Lee's or Fulkerson's plan will be adopted - possibly with a gas surcharge on the drop as long as it's kept under $4.00.

THE DRIVER'S PLAN is both too complicated and far too expensive. The burden of the cost would fall on people taking shorter rides - especially paratransit people. For that reason alone, the MTA almost certainly will not adopt it.

Deputy Director Hayashi said, that in the future, the cost-of-living need for a meter increase will be reviewed every two years so we won't have wait 9 years for the next raise.

Hayashi also said that she will advise the SFMTA Board NOT to allow the companies to increase the gate as a quid pro for relieving them of the credit card charges.

Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Transportaion Code

The ordinance that Director Christiane Hayashi intended to present to the MTA board today (it will be heard on 11/4/2010) does several things:

1. It puts the enforcement of specific laws concerning the taxicab business under the San Francisco Transportation Code.
2. It creates a class of misdemeanors.
3. It clarifies and describes various violations of the law.

For instance, it prohibits "Solicitation and Paid Passenger Referrals" and then spells out in detail exactly what this means.

I intended to do a summary of the ordinance but the Director has already done it far better than a humble cab driver like myself could hope to do, so I'll simply copy her prose for you.

SUMMARY:

 The proposed ordinance would grant express authority to Taxi Services’ field enforcement staff the ability to enforce specified parking regulations. Such authority would also support their ability to tow illegally parked vehicles in violation of those sections in accordance with state laws.

 The proposed ordinance would move several existing misdemeanors from the Police Code to the
Transportation Code: § 7.3.8 (to knowingly make false statement or conceal information in connection
with a motor vehicle for hire permit); § 7.3.9 (to refuse to pay the legal taxi fare), § 7.3.10(a) (for a Driver to overcharge a passenger); § 7.3.5(a) (to drive or operate a taxi on City streets without a permit).

 The proposed ordinance would newly create the following misdemeanors in the Transportation Code:
o § 7.3.5(b): To operate an unpermitted dispatch service or color scheme.
o § 7.3.5(c): To drive a taxi without a permit or to allow a person without a permit to drive a taxi vehicle.
o § 7.3.6(b): For any person, and for any person or business acting in concert with that person, to take
payments for the purpose of referring passengers.
o § 7.3.7: For any permit holder to solicit or accept payments or gifts from drivers in exchange for
dispatch calls, shifts, vehicles or assignments.
o § 7.3.10(b): For any permit holder to charge drivers except such charges to drivers that are authorized
in Division II of the regulations.
o § 7.3.10(a): For a taxi driver to charge more than the legal rate of fare.

The complete text, as well Hayashi's summary of the ordinance, can be found here.

Mas Dinero Por Citations

The ordinance allows police to issue misdemeanor citations to illegal limos and taxis for $2,500 for a a first offense and $5,000 for a second. This is up from the current charge of $165.

 Taxi investigators for the SFMTA already have the ability to issue "administrative" citations to limos and taxis for $5,000.

Administrative Enforcement vs Criminal Enforcement

This is an important distinction because administrative laws allow SFMTA investigators to issue fines without having to go to court. This is similar to the fines that investigators can level against restaurants for sanitary violations or bars for allowing underage drinking.

To tell the truth, I'd never heard of this field of law until I talked with Director Hayashi. Yesterday I tuned on Law and Order as a break from writing and there stood Lt. Anita Van Buren threatening to bust a bunch of militia types for carrying rifles in NYC under "Administrative Code No ...." It seemed effective. They dispersed.

Administrative fines should greatly enhance the ability of the SFMTA to go after and penalize illegal taxis and limos, doormen soliciting tips and the hotels where they work as well as others violators of the misdemeanors listed above.

If this ordinance is okayed by the SFMTA it will go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.