MTA Board Okays Electronic Taxi Access

The SFMTA Board unanimously approved Electronic Taxi Access (ETA) which will lead to the development of a platform allowing smart phone apps to show all the available taxis in San Francisco on a single map.

Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin (photo), who introduced the measure, said that he thought ETA should have been implemented two years ago.

President John Lazar and Charles Rathbone of Luxor Cab along with Nate Dwiri and Bill Gillespie of Yellow Cab spoke against the measure as did a spokesman for Taxi Magic. They talked about the money that they had spent developing wonderful apps of their own which made a universal app unnecessary. Gillespie said that Yellow was working on a new advanced app that would let drivers talk directly to the customers.

Well ... I could talk to customers on Cabulous (now Flywheel) three years ago which is my way of pointing out that much of what these companies are doing is re-inventing the wheel. In any case, most of their innovations are beside the point. The creation of multiple apps from multiple companies merely exacerbates the problem of the customers having too many choices with no way of knowing what the best choice is.

ETA will allow the customers to find the closest available cab and will eliminate the problem of two or three cabs from different companies going to the same address. This should greatly reduce the dreaded no-go, free up more cabs to pick up more orders and lead to better coverage in the neighborhoods.  It's best idea to improve service that anybody has come up with in the thirty years I've been in the taxi business.

The details of how this will be implemented have yet to be worked out. After the Board meeting, Director Chris Hayashi said that she will be holding meetings involving Frias Transportation Infrastructure, the cab companies and the public as to how best to implement the technology. Issues such as allowing companies to keep their own dispatch systems and brands as well as pre-tipping will be studied and discussed.

Too Many Cabs

The indefatigable Tariq Mehmood brought in somewhere around fifty drivers to speak against more cabs and Electronic Waybills. He handed out a script that they were supposed to follow which ended with a call for Tariq's favorite fetish - firing Director Hayashi. It turned out that Electoronic Waybills were Okayed by the Board over a year ago and were not on the agenda. As for Hayashi ... apparently only a couple of drivers shared Mehmood's weird obsession.

What most of the drivers did speak about was the decline of income caused by unfair competition from the illegal, uninsured vehicles of Lyft and Sidecar etc. Many drivers said that their were making 50% less than they were making a year ago. One driver said that he had started driving for Uber but quit and went back to Yellow after Uber put out so many fake cabs that his income at Uber dropped in half. Medallion holders spoke about being unable to find drivers to fill shifts. A little humor was injected by a driver named Ben who talked about a date that didn't go too well with a woman who turned out to be a Lyft driver.

Director Ed Reiskin, who is apparently powerless to go anything about this, suggested that the drivers tell their tales at the CPUC hearings that begin on April 10th.

Good idea.

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.

Bye Bye Electronic Waybills? Bye Bye Waybills?

Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi had an epiphany during last week's Town Hall Meetings on Electronic Waybills. Since the major cab companies are already computerized and collecting data on every ride, why have waybills at all?

The real question for Hayashi is, "What information do I need?"

The MTA needs data to:

• Qualify medallion applicants.
• Revoke medallions from medallion holders who are not disabled and not driving.
• Investigate criminal complaints.
• Identify key industry statistics.

And what stats do they need?

• Times of pick ups and drop offs to help identify busy times and slow times - including days of the week.
• The locations of pick ups and drop offs - to give the MTA the ability to plan taxi stands and white zones for drop offs. Or, to eliminate taxi stands that aren't needed.
• Paid vs unpaid miles - in the aggregate - broken down by times and days of the week.
• Number of passengers - how many people are riding in taxis.

The goals for obtaining this information are to improve driver income and service to the public by increasing the percentage of paid miles and increasing the number of taxi rides.

What the MTA doesn't need is a lot information on individual drivers. 

In short,  you probably won't have to fill out daily trip sheets because companies are already generating them. Medallion holders, people on the list, and drivers who want will be able to get waybills for their own records but drivers won't have to keep records unless they want to.

The MTA won't have to keep much information on file because it's being kept by the companies. When the MTA does need to know something for one of the above reasons, they can simply get it on a need-to-know basis from the companies.

Security Issues.

Director Hayashi has already stated that the MTA has refused to open up its files for Homeland Security.

As it happened, I had some high-level security experts in my taxi over the weekend (they were discussing attempts to hack U.S. Government secrets concerning Pakistan) so I picked their brains. They said:

• Whether or not information can be hacked depends upon how the security is set up.
• Keeping info in different locations makes it more secure.
• Credit cards are usually insured against theft.

There was also a point that they didn't state but hinted at ... namely that thieves generally don't steal from the poor. Grifting my identity, for instance, wouldn't get them much and, as cab drivers go, I'm filthy rich.

Thoughts on the Protest

If nothing else yesterday's protest was the biggest in my 27 years of cab driving, topping even the famous anti-Feinstein demonstration of 1984. It was truly awesome with honking taxis circling the block around City Hall for at least 4 hours.

• The 1984 rally took place just before the Democratic convention that year and probably cost Diane Feinstein the chance to be the first woman to run as a Vice Presidential candidate.
• Nonetheless Feinstein won the argument, put more cabs on the street (the issue of that day) and went on to become a very powerful U.S. Senator.

• Lesson - honking horns don't necessarily make policy.

The drivers made their point - they don't like electronic waybills and they don't want to pay credit card charges. In addition, there were about a dozen other things that the hundred or so drivers who spoke at the MTA Board meeting either liked or didn't like - including some of which (selling cabs at open auctions or putting an end to the sales program) contradicted each other. 

• Most of the drivers were, as advertised, the ones (mostly non-medallion holders) you never see at meetings.
• But there were also a fair number of medallion holders including friends from the SFCDA.

Misplaced aggression?

Many of the drivers complained about being forced to open bank accounts by companies like Yellow and Luxor; or being forced to give their social security numbers to open these accounts; or being hit by transaction charges; or being threatened if they tried to use Square or other Apps. If so, it should have been the companies that the drivers were protesting - not Taxi Services. To clarify:

• A driver does not have to use the back-seat terminal.
• He or she is entitled to use Square or any other App to process the credit card receipts.
• A driver should never pay more than 5% including all banking fees.
• If the drivers are being overcharged or threatened by a company they should contact Taxi Services.

At the Board Meeting I rhetorically asked, "If Green Cab can afford to pay their drivers credit card receipts why can't Yellow or Luxor Cab?"

• Actually my feeling are stronger than that.
• If Yellow and Luxor can't do anything without cheating their drivers, why should they get any break at all?
• To put it crudely: If they aren't satisfied with saving a $ million a year - screw 'em. They should continue picking up the tab.

Now for the most popular parts of my post.

I still think the back-seat terminals might work if installed properly and that they should be given a chance to prove or disprove their value.

• http://phantomcabdriverphites.blogspot.com/2011/04/tip-prompting-will-it-make-drivers-more.html
• http://phantomcabdriverphites.blogspot.com/2011/04/back-seat-terminals-demonstrated.html
• http://phantomcabdriverphites.blogspot.com/2011/04/back-seat-vs-front-seat-tipping.html

Higher Math or Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face.

• One driver said that the 5% cost him $4.00 on a $24.00 ride. "It cost me my tip," he said. Actually, dude, what you lost at 5% is $1.20.
• The suddenly omnipresent Dean Clark claimed that the 5% would cost him $300 a month.
• Have either one of these guys calculated how much NOT taking credit cards would cost them every month?
• I mean, two $10 rides a day should easily cover the 5% charge.

A suggestion.

Since you guys started complaining and refusing to take credit cards, I've been getting the best tips I've ever had in my life. I think of you as my living tip prompters.

When a customer gets in and nervously asks, "Do you take credit cards?" I smilingly say, "Of course I take credit cards - my customers always come first."

I repeat: the best tips I've ever had in my life. And, after the protests yesterday, they'll only get better.

Try a little showmanship. Smile through the pain.

TAC Votes to End the Driving Requirement for "Key" Cab Company Personnel on the Waiting List ... Or the End of Daly/Ma?

At the 10/25/10 meeting, the Taxi Advisory Council voted 12-3 to recommend ending the driving requirement for key cab personnel on the Waiting List. From the discussion leading up to the vote, "key" here means, not only managers, but mechanics and dispatchers as well. Only driver representatives John Han, David Kahn and Bill Mounsey voted against the motion.

There is a lot to be said about this motion but first I think you need to see the agenda item under which it was voted upon.

"Medallion Sales Pilot Pilot Program: Review buyer/applicant qualification procedures for the Medallion Application Process (Discussion and Possible Action.)

A careful reading of the above naturally leads to a few questions.

1. What does giving cab company personnel medallions without their having to drive cabs have to do with Pilot Program?
2. What does it have to do with the agenda item?
3. What happened to public comment?

Barry Taranto, a sometimes driver and a member of the public, started to object about the lack of connection between the motion and the agenda item only to be silenced by Yellow Cab's Jim Gillespie who said, "Barry - we don't think we need your comments."

Nor did they think they needed comments from the rest of the public. The specific subject of the motion wasn't brought up until AFTER public comment on the theoretical agenda item. So, as a member of that public, I have no choice but to make my comments now.

Arguing in favor of zapping the driving requirement for taxi company personnel were Anthon Rebelos, Jane Bolig and John Lazar. Lazar said that mechanics and dispatchers were so important to running the companies that they shouldn't be burdened with having to drive taxis. Rebelos said that managing a cab company was a very demanding job and he had trouble finding time to meet the driving requirement. Medallion holder Jane Bolig, (a little off topic but perhaps looking forward to a future motion) seconded this idea saying that she was not even paid for being the president of Desoto Cab.

I'd like to look at these "key" personnel groups one by one.

Mechanics?

As David Kahn and Bill Mounsey pointed out, being a mechanic is its own trade and it can be a good one. If they belong to a union, mechanics have it made - retirement and all the other stuff that cab drivers, including medallion holders, don't have.

Unionized or not, why should mechanics be entitled to a medallion simply because they work for a taxi company instead of a bus company or a garage?

Dispatchers???

This is may favorite.

These are the guys who used to give me cars without brakes if I didn't tip them enough. But we all know about the corrupt practices that are "key" to their income flow so I won't go into the subject here.

Let me just say that, almost without exception, dispatchers are ex-drivers who quit driving cabs for one or all of three reasons:

1. Dispatching is easier.
2. It's safer.
3. It pays a lot more money.

John Han mentioned the five or ten dollars that drivers have to tip in order to "get out" but he didn't total it up. I've heard numbers as high as $400 or $500 a shift but I suppose that's rare. Nonetheless, it's well known that dispatchers make two or three times more money than cab drivers do.

It must be a good deal. Once they start being fed those five dollar bills through the window, dispatchers almost never go back to driving taxis.

I think being dispatcher is a perfectly legitimate life choice - unless he or she wants a medallion. In which case, they can put in the time just like the rest of us.

Management Problems

I can certainly identify with the demands that meeting the driving requirement puts on people like Chris Sweis and Athan Rebelos. We all know what it's like.

Take me for instance. During the nine years leading up to the day I received my medallion, I worked two different jobs - teaching driving in addition to driving the cab - six or seven days a week. I did this because these are both low paying jobs and I needed money to take care of my loved ones.

I suppose I could have simply driven a cab six days a week like Francoise Spiegelman but, for the ten years prior to taking up teaching, I had been driving a cab over 2,000 hours per year and I began getting all sorts of repetitive stress injuries. I took up teaching because it's much less physically demanding. Of course you have to concentrate all the time when you teach or the kids might suddenly go on the freeway the wrong way or try to whip a left in front of a charging semi; so, it's not exactly relaxing.

In short, I know how tiring putting in the hours for the driving requirement can be. But managers, like other "key" personnel and unlike regular drivers, can pick and chose the shifts they want to work. They can schedule their time any way they want. And, remember, they only have to work 156 four hour shifts or 624 hours a year. That's a lot less than the time that Francoise, I and hundreds of other medallion holders put in to earn our medallions.

In addition, like all other medallion applicants, "key" personnel only have to drive four out of the five years prior to applying. They can take a year off and kick back whenever they get close.

If, as "key personnel" they can't find the time to drive, being a manager is still a very good job. Managers certainly make considerably more money than I do.  In fact, a few of them could be considered wealthy.

Unlike regular taxi drivers, they shouldn't need a medallion to help them retire.

Conflict of Interest?

Since this clearly is a foreign concept to the Taxi Advisory Council, a definition is in order. From Wikipedia:

"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other."

"More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit."

Chris Sweis, Athan Rebelos, John Lazar, and any other members of TAC who are the list, have engaged in a conflict of interest by using their positions on the council to vote to give themselves medallions worth a minimum of $250,000, or $25,000 for life, without meeting the requirements demanded of everyone else.

The ideal of K

I voted in favor of Proposition K long before I ever drove a cab myself because it promised to reward taxi drivers for working. When I started driving myself, and realized that unions were a thing of the past, I began to understand that a medallion was the only reward that a working taxi driver would ever get from this city. As I got close to getting my medallion, I began to see how much this system contributed to public service by keeping the best and most experienced cab drivers in the business.

Of course it was never perfect. In the old days, anybody could put his or her name on the waiting list. It was common for mechanics, dispatchers, lawyers and cops to put their names on the list and then claim that they intended to drive when their numbers came up. As Hansu Kim has pointed out, this resulted in all sorts of people (including a few millionaires) getting medallions who wouldn't dirty their hands by driving a cab.

With the advent of Daly/Ma back in 2001, a concrete set up of rules was adopted to insure that medallions would only go to working taxi drivers. Once again, of course, the system wasn't perfect. People could still fake waybills - although it was much more difficult to cheat than it had been earlier. 

Now, with electronic waybills on the horizon, the ideal of "K" can finally be realized.

And, at this precise moment, TAC is trying to change the rules so that non-cab drivers can once again own medallions.

This is no small thing. It's a radical change in principle.

One no longer has to drive a taxi to get a medallion, it's enough to work for a cab company. The medallion is now to be rewarded to people the companies "like" instead of working taxi drivers. The specter of medallion holders who have never driven a cab and never will, once again becomes a possibility.

The 3,000 or so drivers who have already qualified under Daly/Ma will just have to take a step back in line to move room for taxi company personnel.