Uber Hypocrisy at SFMTA Meeting: or, the First Casualty of Venture Capital is truth

Speaking at the SFMTA hearing on the Vision Zero plan for a Safer Market Street, Mark Gruberg of the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance spoke to the "hypocrisy of Uber" being in Sacramento claiming that they should be "exempt from commercial vehicle" registration at the same as they were in San Francisco wanting "the privileges" of commercial vehicles.

This seemed to become a moot point when both Uber and Lyft speakers later backed the plan.

However, their endorsement for a Safer Market Street really was yet another demonstration of their posturing and mendacity because they primarily gave their support for two reasons: they realized that they were not going to be allowed to use transit lanes in any case and it gave them a chance to undermine the taxi industry.

Brutal Attack on S.F. Cab Driver Over $36 Fare.

The ABC coverage of this attack was sent to me by driver Dave Schneider who writes.

    "Think reality is all it's cracked up to be with its two bit acts and players ... low level challenges right?  

    For what it's worth perhaps I didn't follow proper procedure and no one elected me and I ain't no perfect person, still I've been in communication with SFMTA regulators re a discreet panic button also advocated by a lady veteran driver.  I just get the run around.  Maybe it's my bad karma.  Had that panic button been in place going directly into 911 it might have helped in the recent bloody attack on the cab driver. 

    However, at the same time, the cab driver followed the perp and asked for the $.  That turned out to be a bad mistake as the driver was beaten to a pulp.  Perhaps a rookie mistake -- although maybe you can't blame him.  Hey I ain't no perfect person, but I wouldn't have followed him.  

    I also couldn't even get the bastards at the SFMTA to issue a public service annoucement of the location of the new Mission Bay UCSF children's emergency at Mariposa and Minnesota off of 3rd Street so you think they are going to lift a finger to protect the cabbies they regulate?

Give me a break ... and I ain't no perfect person to say the least.  But the protection of human life ought to be beyond the worth of the messenger/s don't you think ... ."

Yes, I think.

How Demoting Christiane Hayashi Backfired

To briefly summarize:

San Francisco voters approved Proposition K in 1978 which put an end of the sale of taxi medallions.

San Francisco voters passed Proposition A in November 2007 giving the Board of Supervisors the option of transferring the powers of the Taxi Commission to the SFMTA. The Supervisors did so and the SFMTA took over the regulation of the taxi industry on March 1, 2009.

In January of 2009, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had promised not to put medallions up for sale if Proposition A passed, came out with a plan to take all the taxis medallions away from the current medallion holders and sell them in order to cover San Francisco's $500 million dollar debt.

Bay Cab Going Out of Business on December 1, 2013

Bay Cab is going out of business on December 1, 2013.

The company, which is owned by Roger Cardenas, has been hit with over $50,000 worth of fines by the SFMTA.

According to Taxi Services staff:

"The fines were for continuous violations of company reporting requirements and vehicle equipment problems (disconnected Paratransit equipment)."

Mr. Cardenas has agreed to go out of business as a settlement for the fines.

Bay's 109 medallion holders will have until November 1, 2013 to tell Taxi Services to which color schemes they choose to move their medallions. Because it won't be a voluntary transfer, the standard color scheme transfer fee of $611.50 will be waved. The transfers should be completed by November 29, 2013.

The SFMTA'S Comments on the CPUC's Rulemaking on Ridesharing

No, I 'm not on the MTA payroll. I've earned my gold star for SFMTA bashing by writing twenty some posts criticizing them for trying to cure San Francisco's shortfall by taxing cab drivers and killing the waiting list.

But that fight is now in the past and possibly in the future. At the moment we're both lined up against the same adversary - illegal app mongers out to destroy the taxi business.

That's right! Contrary to urban myth, the SFMTA is as strongly against the illegal encroachments of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar as anybody. 

The government officials actually responsible for keeping attack dogs off the techie, snake-oil, sales-persons are the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Mayor Ed Lee and pro-corporate, anti-environment Supervisor Scott Weiner.

The SFMTA has actually gone beyond mere opposition to help organize and lead the fight. Director Christiane Hayashi, for example, has been instrumental in showing Barry Korengold of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and myself how to jump thorough the CPUC's hoops so that we could become part of their rulemaking process.

The below comments were put together by the Taxi Services staff with the final version being written by City Attorney Mariam Morely. The paper was okayed and signed by Director of Transportation Edward D. Reiskin. 

It's an excellent, well-thought out and thorough presentation that I thought I'd share with you. 

I. Introduction

As the SFMTA stated in its Initial Comments, the use of electronic hailing applications to deliver transportation for hire services does not change the underlying nature of the services.   Electronic hailing can and is being widely used to support delivery of both state-regulated charter-party service and locally-regulated taxi service.  It is also being used to support completely unregulated service.  With or without electronic hailing, transportation for hire services like those offered by Uber, Lyft and Sidecar must be regulated to protect the public health and safety and to meet many other critical public policy goals served by local taxi regulation. 

Services like Uber, Lyft and SideCar meet the statutory definition of charter-party service; however, as we review the record, we note that electronic hailing applications have effectively dissolved the previously coherent regulatory distinction between charter-party service and taxi service.  While meeting the statutory definition of charter-party service, Uber, Lyft and Sidecar offer services that can equally  be characterized as taxi service.  The solution to this regulatory problem is not double regulation; nor can it be the solution suggested by the CPUC's recent interim settlements with Uber and Zimride -- a weakened halfway form of charter-party regulation.  Existing California law provides two distinct frameworks for regulating transportation for hire.  The regulatory problem triggered by electronic hailing will not be solved by  "charter-party lite" or "local taxi lite" regulation.    Because transportation for hire services are critical to maintaining environmentally sustainable and economically vibrant urban areas, we urge the CPUC to work closely with local taxi regulators to develop a regulatory scheme that that ensures the availability of safe, reliable, affordable, environmentally-sustainable and nondiscriminatory transportation options for all segments of the market.  

The transportation for hire market in California cities can sustain two classes of service -- both of which can be supported and improved by the magnificent opportunity reflected in electronic hailing innovations.  As public servants, we must deliver a solution to the regulatory problem we face that does not abandon the critical goals that have historically been served by regulation of transportation for hire.  Our solution must ensure that unregulated services do not drive regulated providers out of business and, in so doing, undermine our state and local goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring access to safe and reliable transportation for all California residents -- including seniors and people with disabilities.  While born of innovation and opportunity, this challenge is formidable.   We can meet it effectively only by working together.

(To read further Click below.)

SFO Serves Cease-And-Desist Orders to Lyft, Sidecar and Instant Cab: SFMTA to Put on 8 to 12 More Inspectors

The SMTA has committed to hiring eight to twelve more inspectors to join Mike Harris and Eric Richholt (photo). Two of them will be starting within the next two weeks. Mike has been recovering from an illness so Eric has been the only inspector that Taxi Services has had for the last six months.

The MTA has been a little slow on the uptake but they are to be commended for finally taking action. Kudos.

The San Francisco Airport Cracks Down on Fake Ride-Sharing Companies.

Just passing on the news since I haven't done the legwork myself. Here is the link to the Tech Crunch article.

In addition, a news source has finally come out with a piece against the characters who run Lyft and Sidecar ... well, at least the Bay Guardian sees the companies for what they are. Maybe in the next post, the paper will let their readers know that John Zimmer and Sunil Paul are telling their drivers and riders that Lyft and Sidecar's vehicles are insured when they are not.  Here is the link to the Bay Guardian.

BTW - I came in late from Las Vegas last Wednesday night and waited for half an hour for a friend to pick me up at Southwest - the first terminal at SFO. While I stood there, five old Toyotas or Hondas came by one at a time and pulled up in front of me. Each driver held a cell phone while he studied a GPS map on the dash with a baffled look on his face. After a few minutes each drove on. Apparently none of them had had the smarts to look up where the various terminals were before they left the city.

On the other hand, there were no Lyfts. Maybe the drivers take off the mustaches before they go to the airport. In any case, these clowns should make fat targets for Taxi Service inspectors. They certainly are not hard to spot.

Addendum

You can read the CBS report on SFO's Cease and Desist letters at this link.

SFO spokesman Doug Yakel is quoted as saying:

“We’re certainly open to new business concepts, but we want to apply the same standard to all businesses that operate here at SFO and that requires going through the permit process.”

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 Sales for K Medallion Holders Over 65

I should subtitle this : "But Not For Pre-K's - Among Other Things."


Specifically the Board okayed the following legislation changing the transportation Code:

1. Creates a ramp taxi enforcement program to hold ramp taxi medallion holders responsible to

ensure all drivers of the vehicle are qualified, and to require service to at least eight wheelchair users per month, with a $150 penalty for non-compliance, and provision for 90-day suspension for repeated violations;

2. Eliminates six month notice requirement for leaving the ramp taxi program;

3. Waives application and renewal fees for two battery-switch electric vehicle permits; 

4. Creates documentation requirements for applications to transfer a color scheme permit; 

5. Eliminates mandatory December 31 permit expiration date for permits; 

6. Eliminates the financial responsibility inquiry for driver and medallion permit applicants; 

7. Eliminates jitney bus provisions left over from the Police Code; and 

8. Re-opens the opportunity to sell medallions to individuals subject to the full-time driving

requirement who attain the age of 65 or older as of December 31, 2011, or who have a disability that prevents them from fulfilling the full-time driving requirement, clarifies that a medallion purchaser may sell regardless of age or disability, and that a medallion seller can be removed from the list of qualified sellers if they decline to sell their medallion within 15 days after an offer is made.

The item that interested most people was number 8. Since the legislation only opens sales to "individuals subject to the full-time driving requirement ... or who have a disability ..." it excludes all Pre-K medallion holders. Twenty or so of the Pre-K's (along with several K's) spoke to the unfairness of the measure. My favorite was the Pre-K who concluded by saying, "Why don't they just gas us?"

Indeed, why not? The poor dude would only get $3,000 a month for the rest of the his life, a figure that would warm the hearts of most people - except, of course, those who work for the MTA.

Please excuse the levity. Watching one Pre-K after another obsess about the injustice of their fates has been one of the more amazing aspects of the entire Pilot Plan process. These guys have made between $800,000 and $1,000,000 off a $10,000 or $20,000 investment and, as near as I can tell, they haven't stopped whining about it for thirty years. 


Or, as John Milton put it in Paradise Lost,


     "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."


On the other hand, there was no separation between the K's and Pre-K's in the Pilot Plan and no warning was given that something like this might happen. If there had been a warning, most of the Pre-k medallions would have already have been sold.

The legislation on this particular matter lasts only until the end of the Pilot Plan and is designed to keep medallion sales going until a final plan is adopted. Otherwise I probably would have been against the measure. 

Barry Korengold felt no such compunction and favored the legislation because he thought that it would give earned medallions to drivers on the Waiting List.

The MTA was divided on the issue and wanted to know Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi's reasoning.

(To read the rest of this article, click below.) 

Taxi Robber Arrested

I'm passing along a note from Green Cab driver Dave Schneider.

FROM THE SFMTA We are pleased to announce that an arrest has been made in the recent string of Taxi Cab Robberies.  If you have posted any photos, please take them down. Thank you. SFMTA | Division of Taxis & Accessible Services 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103-5417 Tel:  415.701.4400 | Fax: 415.

Dave, who belongs to the United Taxicab Workers (UTW), deserves special thanks for waging a lonely battle trying to improve communication on robberies between the police and cab drivers. His efforts have included speaking at innumerable Police Commission hearings and SFMTA Board meetings as well as talking to the policemen in charge and Taxi Services. The fact that photos of robbers are being passed around and posted (although not soon enough by me) is due at least partly to Dave's efforts.

Thanks Dave.

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.  

Review of the Protests: Successes

Friday, July 8, 2011

As entertaining as I found the recent protests, I'm a believer in real politics. Fun is fun but was anything accomplished?

If the purpose of the protests was to give drivers a chance to vent about injustice and create a feeling of empowerment, the demonstations were a resounding success.

If the purpose was to bring the SFMTA to a bargaining table, they were also successful.

If the purpose was to change certain working conditions, they were successful in some ways, not so successful in others. For this post, I want to look at the successes.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

I actually started this post last week but got sidetracked. I forget to take it off the blog and I've already got comments from people who apparently think that I don't see any successes. Not True. Sorry.

Town Hall Meetings

The most successful aspects of the tumult were the Town Hall Meetings themselves which gave drivers a chance to give their opinions on credit card charges, back-seat terminals, electronic waybills, etc.

It could be said (and was) that Taxi Services should have held these meetings before legislating major operational changes but such criticism is a little unfair. The subjects were discussed at a couple of TAC meetings and there was at least one previous Town Hall Meeting concerning various PIM choices and credit card fee options but almost nobody showed up.

This is typical. In addition to the other meetings, Taxi Services also recently held a Town Hall Meeting concerning the future of the Pilot Plan (potentially much more important than anything currently being discussed by protesters and there were only ten or twelve drivers in attendance). In this town, most cab drivers don't pay attention to taxi politics unless they're traumatized.

But I digress ... every protest (and the ensuing meetings) did stimulate at least one positive result for the drivers.

Protesta Número Uno

The major proposal that came out of the first series of Town Hall Meetings was a meter increase that should work out to around 22%. This was already in the works but there is no doubt that protests speeded up the process - possibly by several months.

Many in the taxi industry (including myself) have said that NO GATE INCREASE should accompany the rise on the meter. The Taxi companies have already been given a quid pro quo by the passing on credit card fees to the drivers.

If you do the math (assuming that half of a driver's rides are credit cards) this means that cab drivers should be getting a 19% or 20% raise - even if they are charged a 5% fee on credit cards.

Protesta Número Dos

As you may recall, some companies, supervisors and others were pushing to put as many 500 taxis on the street while these Town Hall Meetings took place. Coming up with a compromise plan was one of three proposals that come out of the discussions and the following TAC meeting

1. 25 Single Operator Permits, 2 Electric Vehicles should be added to the taxi fleet and 25 Medallions should be given to drivers on the Waiting List. This has since been magically changed by the SFMTA to 50 Single Operator Permits, 2 EV's, 25 to the List and 10 medallions to be sold by the MTA.
2. There was a major compromise on Electronic Waybills proposed by Hayashi.
3. A recommendation that the MTA Board reconsider Open Taxi Access.

Protesta Número Tres

The great time out protest - which was planned at least three weeks before it took place - lead to exactly one accomplishment.

1. SFMTA Board President Tom Nolan asked Hayashi to see if the credit card fees could be lowered to 3%. 

He also said that it was time for the Board to take another look at Open Taxi Access but that was the result of the previous TAC.

That's it kids!

Next: Not so positives.

Tariq Mehmood Stages Bitch-In at the SFMTA

Cab driver Tariq Mehmood (photo) doesn't like Director of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayashi. There are two reasons for this: 

1. Hayashi closed the Waiting List to new applicants last year in order to protect the seniority of long time drivers who had not put their names on the list before. Although Mehmood has driven for many years, he never put his name on the list but would be relatively low in seniority. He wanted to jump on the List before it closed and didn't get the chance - meaning that it will be a long time before Tariq will be eligible to own a cab. 

2. She neglected to put Mehmood on the Taxi Advisory Council.

Mehmood has repeatedly and bitterly complained about these things at  numerous SFMTA Board meetings. Last December he tried to make a major issue out of people waiting in line to renew their A-Cards - a problem that Hayashi had already solved as well as she could and one that won't be a problem in the future.

Yesterday, Mehmood finally had his moment in the sun when he led of group of angry, largely misinformed drivers on a rant against credit card charges, electronic waybills and in-cab video cameras.

Although the drivers raised some valid issues that should be considered, the tone of the protest was decidedly irrational and hostile.

At one point, trying to respond to a surge of shouting drivers led by Mehmood, Hayashi backed up against a railing. If she had fallen over the railing, she could have dropped one story and been seriously injured, if not killed.

The irony is that Hayashi has tried to put the back seat terminals and the video camera in for the purpose of helping some of the very drivers who were harassing her.

• Almost half the drivers in San Francisco are already being illegally charged 5% to 10% by Checker Cab, Royal Cab and Town Taxi others. The back seat terminals are intended to put an end to this.
• The PIM's in question are designed to prompt customers to tip large. Hayashi has seen studies showing that passengers who use these units tip 30% more than normal. That is - drivers should make more even after paying the 5% than they would make without the terminals.
• The in-cab video cameras are there to protect the drivers.

The fact is that Chris Hayashi is the biggest driver advocate around. She has written and had legislation passed making tipping and other corrupt taxi company practices illegal. She has written and had legislation passed that will allow Taxi Services to effectively fight illegal limos and taxis for the first time. And, after more than a year of pusing for them, she has finally gotten a couple of investigators to sic on the bad guys.

I would also like to point out for the umteenth time that the Drivers Fund wouldn't exist and the Waiting List would no longer exist had it not been for Hayashi's lobbying on their behalf. Indeed, I doubt that the Pilot Plan would exist had it not been for her extraordinary intelligence, dedication and negotiating skills. 

One other thing - these protesting drivers - many of whom have never been seen at a meeting before - seemed to be thought of the real cab drivers of San Francisco by Malcolm Heinicke. Yet this was clearly an ambush designed by Mehmood and fueled with misinformation and half truths.

How did these guys become more real than those of us who've taken the trouble to be at the various meeting and actually study the text of the proposals in question?

Do they really represent us? Or, do they just fit the "cabbie" stereotype of being loud, unthinking and out of control? 

LIMITED DRIVING REQUIREMENT - A Proposal by the SFCDA

The Taxi Advisory Council is still collecting data and reviewing some effects of the Pilot Program so far.   Because of delays in the implementation of the program and the many issues presented to the council, we have not yet discussed long term medallion reform.  I feel much further thought and discussion is necessary before making a final recommendation to the SFMTA  Board.

There are many who would like to see all medallions eventually transferable.  I would like to point out that if all medallions become transferable, there will no longer be the advantage of jumping the line by purchasing.  Everyone will have to wait again, only now when their name comes up, they'll have to split their medallion income with the bank.  This will exclude many older veteran drivers from owning a medallion.  We therefore feel a significant cap on the number of transferable medallions is essential.

Barry Korengold
President, SFCDA
Vice Chair, Taxi Advisory Council

Medallion Reform Proposal by the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association

We believe that as in most occupations, career cab drivers deserve a dignified end to their career. This plan will benefit a broad spectrum of interests. It will benefit the city by putting money into the SFMTA, it will benefit all cab drivers by contributing money to the driver's fund, maintaining gas and gate shifts, as well as continuing San Francisco’s long honored system of earning a medallion through time spent on the road, rather than by having to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. This plan will keep medallions going to veteran drivers at the top of the list and allows for elder and disabled medallion holders to reduce or eliminate their driving requirement or to sell their medallion. It benefits the public by maintaining quality, career cabdrivers in the industry.

We feel that although purchasing a medallion might be a good choice for some younger drivers early in their careers, many other drivers have already invested 20 years or more of their lives servicing the public for low pay, long hours, with no benefits, doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Therefore, there needs to be a way for drivers who have made a career of driving a cab to be able to obtain a medallion.

In order for medallions to continue going to veteran drivers, as has been the respected practice in San Francisco for the last 32 years, there needs to be a cap on the number of transferable medallions. We suggest a third. Because of the slow movement of the list, we feel two thirds of the medallions should continue to go to the top of the list without purchase. When new medallions are issued, one third of that number would become transferable. In other words, if 30 medallions are issued, 10 more medallions could become transferable.

The City should sell no more medallions outright, as each one deprives a career working cab driver from obtaining their medallion, which can be compared in other industries with tenure or a management position after usually at least 20 years on the road.

We propose that when a medallion holder reaches the age of 55, the driving requirement could be voluntarily reduced to 600 hours and the holder would contribute $100 a month or $1,200 a year to be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches the age of 60, the driving requirement could voluntarily be reduced to 400 hours and a contribution of $200 a month ($2,400 a year) would be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches 65 or becomes disabled, the driving requirement could voluntarily be eliminated with a $400 monthly contribution ($4,800 a year) to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. The medallion holder would still retain the medallion and still be able to drive.

To allow for inflation and market changes, these payments could also be set at a comparable percentage to medallion income instead of a dollar figure.

All reduced or eliminated driving requirement medallions would be run as a gate and gas cabs. This would create stability for companies as well as maintain available shifts for drivers.

A medallion holder would have the option to sell when they reach 65. If they chose to hold on to their medallion with a reduced or eliminated driving requirement, they would retain their medallion the rest of their lives, but would no longer have the option to sell. When these medallion holders die, their medallions would go back to the list. A medallion holder over 65 who continues driving, could make their decision at the time they wish to stop driving.

Since there would be a cap on transferable medallions, eventually there could be a waiting list to sell. A qualified medallion holder waiting to sell would not have to pay to eliminate their driving requirement until able to so, at which time they would make their decision.

We’d like to make this comparison of revenue from the current transfer fee of $50,000 per medallion to the revenue from this Limited Driving Requirement plan. With the amount of debt undertaken when buying a medallion, the purchaser will likely hold onto their new medallion for more than 10 years, probably closer to 20 or 30 years. After 10 years of participation in our recommended program, a 75 year old driver will have contributed $48,000 to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. If the same driver took advantage of the plan starting at the age of 55 he will have paid in $66,000, and still be contributing to the fund and the SFMTA.

We feel this plan is healthier for the industry overall. It will allow senior and disabled medallion holders to stop driving and allows older career drivers to still obtain a medallion. This will also help color schemes maintain gas and gate medallions, and provide more available shifts for non-medallion holding drivers.

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.