Taxi Reform Town Hall Meetings

The Town Hall Meetings on Tuesday May 22nd attracted the usual small gatherings. About twenty people attended the afternoon session and maybe fifteen came in the evening when I showed up.

This has always struck me as strange. Several groups are trying to bring out throngs of drivers for the June 5th MTA Board  meeting (which is important) but you can actually change or modify proposals at a Town Hall meeting - especially if Deputy Director Hayashi is running it.

Indeed, there were a few modifications made in the Taxi Services Recommendations draft.

• In part (III) Continue Medallion Sales two changes were made (1) Drivers who earn or buy a medallion will have to keep it for at least five years before selling; unless (2) The new medallion holder is 65 or disabled.
• Under (V) Changes to Leasing Regulations, the wording that would limit "affiliate" leases to 1/3 of the fleet has been struck out. It was felt that "if the standards of regulation were high enough," the affiliates would limit themselves.
• Perhaps less important, the terms for the Issue of Temporary Color Scheme Permits (IV) (d) would be changed to "Three or Four Years" instead of the "life of the vehicle." (c) It was emphasized by Hayashi that driver surveys regarding their companies would be anonymous and that customer surveys would also be used to rate the cab companies.

Drivers expressed hostility to various recommendations especially: dedicating all 350 Pre-K medallions to the waiting list, issuing temporary permits to the color schemes and, surprisingly, giving up to 100 newly issued medallions to aging drivers Not on the medallion list on the basis of A-Card seniority.

All 350 Pre-K's to the Waiting List.

Most the arguments about this item came from members of the Medallion Holder's Association (MHA). I didn't attend the afternoon session where they spoke but I'm familiar with their ideas. They think that Pre-K's should be able to sell because:

1. They paid for their medallions prior to Prop-K.
2. All medallion holders should be treated the same. Not to do so would be discrimination.
3. Most of the aging Pre-K's have already sold their medallions so it would take ten or twelve years for the current medallions to go to the Waiting List.
4. They are the people who built up the taxicab business, it would therefore be unconscionable not to let them sell.

Issue of Temporary Color Scheme Permits.

This is by far the least popular of the proposals. I haven't run a poll but a the majority of drivers that I've talked to are against this measure. Although softly focused in my photo, cab driver and dispatcher Ben (whose last name I didn't catch) clearly summarized the reasons for opposition:

1. The taxi companies already make plenty of money.
2. The companies are crooked

3. Medallions should go to working drivers.

4. Once the companies start getting medallions, they will never stop.

5. The money the MTA makes from the leasing might influence them to take away medallions and turn more cabs into leased taxis.

Deputy Director Hayashi defended the plan, saying that:

• It would help give companies financial relief.
• By setting high standards for the distribution of the permits, it would give the MTA greater control over the companies.
• It would inspire companies to improve their performance.
• It would allow non-medallion holding gate & gas drivers to drive Friday and Saturday night as well as other primo shifts.
• The permits would be temporary and could be taken back if they didn't work or the economy took a nose dive.

Driver and TAC member Tone Lee thought that the MTA should either put out more Single Operator Permits or lease the cabs directly to the drivers.

Hayashi said that both Lee's ideas were future possibilities but the current plan would give Taxi Services the chance to compare the Leased Permits and the Single Operator Permits with each other to judge their effectiveness. One or both might be eliminated or expanded in the future.


Issuing up to One Hundred Medallions by A-card Seniority to Drivers Not on the Waiting List.

Both Ben and Naim Malik, who are on the Waiting List, were vehemently hostile to this idea. Ben wanted to know why drivers who didn't take the trouble to put their names on the List should deserve a medallion.

"Why didn't they put their names on the list?" He asked.

Rua Graffis (photo) responded by saying that she didn't put her name on the list because there was no cab company she wanted to join. Meaning, I think, that she didn't want to make money from cheating cab drivers like medallion holders do at most companies. But, now there is Green Cab which doesn't accept tips or charge credit card fees thus living up to her high standards.


Director Hayashi then told a story that I believe she got from TAC member Athan Rebelos.

"A man finds an old lamp, rubs it and a genie pops out saying, 'you can have anything you want but your enemy will get twice as much.'"

"The man then takes a pencil and puts out one of his eyes."

...

Rua Graffis was the the only one who got the joke - at least she's the only one who laughed - so let me spell it out for those of you who might not have "gotten it."

If Ben, who is thirty-one years old, can't sympathize with a few seventy year-olds who drove cab for thirty or forty years but failed to sign a piece of paper, how can he expect anyone to care about him?


Next: My take on the recommendations.

Jeanette Du Day

Jeanette Du, Professor of the Foreign Language Department at City College of San Francisco, received an official proclamation declaring "Jeanette Du Day" on Wednesday May 16, 2012.  President David Chiu delivered this award for her on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  This is the highest award that can be given to a citizen of San Francisco.

Professor Du is the person responsible for opening my eyes and mind to the beauties of Chinese language, literature, art, cuisine, music and culture. Without her influence and the curiosity that her teaching awoke in me, I doubt that I would ever have travelled to China.

“Jeanette Du Day” was proclaimed in recognition for Professor Du’s 27 years of tenacious dedication in promoting diverse cross culture projects which include compiling a series of bilingual educational teaching materials in Multimedia; producing East Meets West theatrical events and performing in the Bay Area; creating language and music CDs and DVDs; being chosen for the Dictionary of Chinese Musicians as one of the top overseas Chinese musicians and making influential short films.  Moreover her many years of pioneer multimedia teaching at colleges, universities and companies in San Francisco and other projects has enlightened many thousands of students, audiences and readers illuminating them to  to Chinese language, culture, history, music, art and films.

Many students and friends of Professor Du attended the ceremony.  One of her students, Mr. Richard Fabian, graduated from Yale University in Chinese Study with summa cum laude and honors with highest distinction, is a well-known American Art collector in Chinese Paintings and calligraphers.  Another one, Ms. Faye Lee is one of the most reputable attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Perhaps the least distinguished of her students is me. But this highlights one of Professor Du’s other fine qualities - her humanity. Despite her high education, multiple talents and amazing accomplishments, she treats all people as her equals and works to bring the best from all her students. She gave me my first Mandarin lesson as a customer in my taxicab. She deserves a Nobel Prize for teaching this tone deaf “lao wai” how to speak her marvelous, musical language correctly. 

After the ceremony, people went to a nearby restaurant to celebrate “Jeanette Du Day”.

Selections from her books, CD's & DVD's can be found at her website, joyofeastwest.com

Staff Recommendations Well Received at TAC

Deputy Director of Taxi Services, Christiane Hayashi, presented her recommendations for medallion reform yesterday at the Taxi Advisory Council.

The plan (See May 13, 2012 post) carried forward Hayashi's signature idea from the Pilot Plan of giving something to all the various interested parties in the taxicab business without giving too much to anyone. In short, a gravity defying balancing act.

The proposal was surprising well received and praised by people as different as Barry Korengold of the SFCDA, Carl Macmurdo of the MHA, Councilor Tone Lee, Desoto Cab owner Hansu Kim and myself.  Macmurdo and Kim called it brilliant as did I.

Of course almost everyone disliked some item or other of the proposition. The main bones of contention were:

Maintaining the Driving Requirement for Medallion Holders.

Coucilors Barry Korengold, John Lazar of Luxor Cab and Carl Macmurdo all thought that medallion holders should have the requirement of driving 800 hours or 156 half-shifts lowered or eliminated for older drivers. Korengold wanted medallion holders be given the choice of either selling their medallions or retiring with them and having the medallions go back to The List after their deaths.

Hansu Kim, on the other hand, thought that the requirements should be maintained so that medallions would become available more quickly for younger drivers.

The Driver's Fund.


Macmurdo and Lazar thought that the Driver's Fund should become an Industry Fund." Lazar wanted the fund to be used to help wannabe medallion buyers make their down payments.

I spoke in favor of using the fund for non-medallion holding drivers, pointing out that three-quarters of cab drivers will never own a medallion and have no benefits or retirement. The fund therefore should be used for these drivers as was originally intended by the people who created the Pilot Plan.

I ran out of time so I was unable to suggest that, if Councilor Lazar wanted to have an industry fund, he could pool the money that he and his fellow taxi company owners have grabbed by way of "voluntary" tips from their drivers. This could well be enough for the entire industry to retire on. Conversely, the money could be used to pay off the MTA's debt so they wouldn't take so much money from the rest of us.

Dedicate All 350 Pre-K Medallions to the Waiting List.

Councilors Macmurdo and Dan Hinds of National Cab said that it was unfair to not to allow the Pre-K medallion holders to sell. Hinds thought that we should have "compassion" for the Pre-K's who had worked so hard to develop this industry.

Former Yellow Driver Art Lembke came up from his retirement in Texas to argue against the item and with Barry Korengold who backed the measure. The pair engaged in what some might call "lively repartee" and others might describe as "insane caterwauling." Staring at Korengold, Lembke called the people who didn't want Pre-K holders to be able to sell "vindictive."

Well ... I don't think I'm vindictive but I think it's more "fair" and "compassionate" to give these medallions to the working drivers who have been on the Waiting List for fifteen or twenty years and would have nothing to retire on without a medallion.

I'd also like to point out that about 95 of those 350 are corporate medallions and many Pre-K owners, like Art Lembke, hold at least two medallions. So, what we are really talking about is around 150 people, all of whom will earn at least $2,500 from each of their medallions every month for the rest of their lives.

The Issuance of Temporary Permits to Select Companies.

I had expected much hostility toward this measure but, aside one outraged exception, the criticism stayed on point.

Many people accepted the provision because it was limited to 5% of the fleet but, along with Carl Macmurdo, feared that it could lead to a "slippery slope" of more and more medallions going to companies instead of drivers.

Many people liked the idea that the permits would be temporary and could be rescinded if necessary but others wondered whether or not this would work out in practice.

Athan Rebelos, who has long pushed for corporate medallions, thought that this limited release would give people a chance to see if his plan would work.

I suggested that the MTA should return half of leasing income from these permits back to the taxi industry to help improve service and build up the driving fund.

Is Cluelessness really that blissful?

The outraged exception was Brad Newsham (Photo) who likes to carry protest signs and give stirring speeches at meetings which he leaves before he has a chance to find out what's really going on.

Newsham's always entertaining but he outdid himself at TAC when he read a mock letter of resignation that supposedly came from Deputy Director Hayashi.

The text was confused and confusing but apparently Brad thinks that cab drivers would be better off if Hayashi defied MTA Director Malcom Heinicke's orders and quit her job rather than lease out permits to the companies  ... or some such. Highly entertaining to those of us who've taken the trouble to understand a little of the MTA's byzantine politics. No doubt it will prove so to Heinicke as well.

Maybe Brad thinks on a deeper level than the rest of us, but, I find it hard to understand how drivers on the Waiting List (who Newsham supposedly supports) would be better off if the person most responsible for the continued existence of that list leaves the field.

Or, maybe Newsham is alphabetically challenged and merely attacked the wrong "H." If Brad wants to take cheap-shots at a person, Heinicke would be a more appropriate target. He's the one who wants to ripoff cab drivers and gut the taxi industry for more MTA funding.

Taxi Services Staff Recommendations

The MTA Staff has released a draft of their recommendations in advance of the Monday, May 14th TAC meeting. The draft is available on the MTA website and ordinarily I would present the text without comment.

However, an earlier draft of recommendations released by Staff "for discussion" has led to all sorts of wild speculations, inaccuracies and distortions presented as fact. This in turn has upset a lot of drivers who have been falsely told that they'll either lose their shifts or their chances to earn a medallion.

Therefore, I'm going to highlight a few of the main points (with commentary) before listing the entire document.

I. THE WAITING LIST WILL NOT BE CUT OFF! 

• Qualified applicants will remain on the list.
• MTA staff has removed people from the list who don't have A-Cards or driving permits, already hold medallions or don't respond to mail, etc.
• This action has reduced the size of The List from 2,800 to 1,400.
• The plan is to give all of the eligible 1,400 drivers earned medallions as their number comes up.

II THE WAITING LIST SHOULD MOVE MORE QUICKLY.

• All remaining 350 Pre-K medallions will go to the Waiting List as they are returned to the MTA.
• Half of all new medallions will go to the Waiting List. (See the chart near the bottom of the draft.)

III MEDALLIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE SOLD.

• Post-K medallion holders will be able to sell their medallions at any age.

IV AFFILIATE LEASING WILL CONTINUE.

• But Affiliates will be reduced to a maximum of one-third of the fleet. (Currently 500 cabs.)
• Some long term leases will be gradually converted to gates & gas so that neither lessees nor their drivers will be hurt by the conversion.

VI TEMPORARY COLOR SCHEME PERMITS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO LESS THAN 5% OF THE FLEET.

• These permits WILL NOT be taken from medallion holders or in any way reduce the number of medallions available for drivers.
• They will come from a percentage of new issues only (See chart).
• They will be temporary. 

Of course there is much more to the plan and this isn't the final version. Some of it will also probably be changed or modified during Taxi Advisory or Town Hall meetings.

I'm not giving my opinions on the ideas at the moment. I'm simply interested in presenting the plan as it is. There have been enough opinions already expressed without facts. Erroneous and emotionally loaded conjectures don't do service to anybody.

To see the actual draft click below.

The Phantom Does a Back-seat Terminal

Thursday night I finally had a chance to drive a cab with a rear-seat terminal thanks to Athan Rebelos, the manager at Desoto Cab.

Since many, if not most drivers, have already used PIM's , I'm simply going to give my own impressions.

The format I'll use will be to start with a complaint against the PIM's and then give my answers based on my limited experience on one shift.

The back-seat TV's will ruin rapport with the customers.


Absolutely untrue. A few people didn't want to talk but I had the same good time that I unusually have with the rest of my customers. The fact that there were video ads on the screen didn't seem to effect the conversations at all. Then again, the sound was (mostly) turned off.

Of course, I don't know what effect that those huge units used by Luxor would have on such interactions.

The customers won't like it.


Once again - not true. They either liked (or were indifferent to) it. The default for audio on this terminal is (supposed to be) off and light is dim.

Customers with credit cards enthusiastically liked using it.

It will take longer to process the credit card transactions.


Yet again - not true. In fact, for experienced users, the PIM's were much faster than cash. There were two people (including one drunk) who initially had trouble using the swipe but I was able to easily talk them through the process. In any case, you can still use the front terminal if you have a total lush in back.

The eternal question; will people tip more on the back-seat terminals?


Drawing a conclusion by comparing a few days of transactions is risky to say the least. But ... six of the 8 people using the rear PIM tipped 20%, one tipped a dollar on an $18.90 ride and one gave me an extra $6.00 for a $6.80 trip. The total on the tips equaled about 26% on $138 gross.

By comparison, I drove Friday night at Green Cab using a front seat swipe. On a $164 gross, my tips equalled slightly less than 20%. Then, Saturday night, I had about 24% on an $82 gross. But this didn't include no-tip on a $47 ride to Berkeley. They were college students who I didn't think would have tipped under any circumstances. On the other hand, seeing a prompt might have inspired them.

Of course, you can't make too much out of this but most customers do appear to hit the 20% button most of the time on the rear-seat terminals while the baseline on the front-seat units often dips below 15%.

So ... yeah I think you would get at least 2 or 3% percent more in tips from the rear-seat units.


What I didn't like.


The default was supposed to have the audio off but there were a few moments on a loop where talking and laughter suddenly became audible. It wasn't very loud but my right ear was less than 6 inches from the monitor and this quickly because very annoying. There was humming in that ear by the end of the shift.

Positioning the units so close to a driver's head might also be potentially dangerous. The PIM could possibly fly loose, or the drivers head might hit the monitor, during a major collision - especially with a T-bone.

In conclusion.


On the whole I really liked the rear-seat units. I especially liked the processing speed and the fact that I don't have to ask the customers whether or not they wanted to give me a gratuity. That always makes me feel like a panhandler.

But, for me to want to use a read-seat PIM on a regular basis, the audio would have to be turned completely off and the units placed differently.

The MTA's Strange Conception of Regulation.

The legal definition of "regulation" from the online Your Dictionary is:

"A rule issued by an administrative agency or a local governmental body prescribing conditions or authorizations that must be followed by the public or by public utilities; the process of controlling by restrictions or rules."

When Proposition "A" in 2007 allowed the SFMTA to take over the regulation of taxis, it gave the agency the power to make any changes and charge any fees necessary to do the job.

Countervailing this, is a city rule that states that a regulating agency should not take more money from the industry than the cost that such regulation requires.

(Feel free to send me the exact quotes from these laws, gentle readers. I'm under pressure of a deadline and don't have time to look the legislation up.)

However, the MTA has chosen to countervail this countervailing by claiming that they can charge any fees necessary in order to run transportation in the city ... or words to that effect. If that sounds like a nitpicking legal trick to you, it does to me too.

Airport shuttles, trucking companies, newspaper delivery trucks, the UPS, private buses, tour buses and other business vehicles - not to mention illegal cabs and limos - all use these same streets without having to pay special fees (beyond ordinary licenses) in order to do so. Instead, the MTA has us paying the costs for all of them.

In short, cab drivers and the cab industry are being charged (what amounts to) special taxes because we are ... well ... cab drivers. The MTA, in fact, has been floating numerous plans to charge us humongous fees from before they even took over regulation. In doing this, of course, they were merely parroting the manta of former Mayor Newsom,  "Don't tax the rich, get it from those lowlife cabbies."

Unfair? Exaggeration? Hyperbole? Possibly - but the fact remains that the City of San Francisco's administrators have repeatedly attempted to pay the bills of 800,000 people by hitting 5,000 cab drivers with extortive fees. They aren't doing this to doctors, lawyers or, God forbid, mortgage bankers. They are raising funds by taxing one of the lowest paid groups of people in the city. It amounts to a reverse graduated tax. It is prejudicial in that it aimed at us simply because we are powerless and negatively stereotyped - modern equivalent of serfs.

And, nobody on the MTA Board has so much as blinked an eyelid at the thought of turning our money into an "income stream" for the city.

What? Service?


The problem is that the MTA's greed has kept the taxi industry from doing what regulation is supposed to be about - improving service to the public.

• Taxi Services is badly understaffed and is thus having trouble coping with the illegal limo and taxi problems.
• The lack of funds have also allowed illegal subleasing to flourish exposing the public to unqualified drivers and dangerous vehicles. 
• Programs like Open Taxi Access have been pushed aside for lack of funds thus depriving the public of improved service in the neighborhoods.

Time for a change.


If you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that my photo of the MTA Board is badly out of date. Four of the people in that picture are no longer with the Board. Hopefully the change in personnel will lead to a change in attitude.

Instead of "income streams for the MTA" let the new mantra be 'Fairness to the drivers and Service to the public."

Report on the Taxi Advisory Report: Part II - Show Me the Money!

The photo shows Councilor Richard Hybels, Chair Chris Sweis and Councilor John Han working on ideas that may have shown up in the TAC report.

I've decided to comment on a few facets of the report rather than do a play by play. (You can find the complete report on Han's blog.)

But, first, it appears that least two recommendations that the TAC passed are missing from the report:

One - that MTA should go forward with a Request For Proposal (RFP) for Open Taxi Access (OTA). This would invite bidding from tech companies to build the Open Taxi Access Platform. If implemented, OTA could drastically improve taxi service to the neighborhoods.
Two - That the Taxi Services should regain its status as a Division under the MTA.

Though seemingly unrelated, I believe that both subjects are germain to the issue at hand, namely:

Who should get the money?


Most people in the Taxicab business would agree with this statement from the TAC report:

"There is consensus among all industry members that revenue generated from the industry should be reduced and that the SFMTA should re-invest these revenues in the industry."

This was reflected in various TAC votes:

• Recommendation to reduce the SFMTA re-sale transaction fee to 5%. Adopted 13:1
• Recommendation to restructure the transaction fee so that 10% goes to the SFMTA and 10% goes to the driver fund. Adopted 8:6
• Recommendation that all revenues generated from the taxicab industry should be re-invested in the taxicab industry. Adopted Unanimously
• Recommendation that the SFMTA not have a financial interest in medallion sales. Adopted 9:5

Good for TAC.! Three cheers in fact!


But, the reality is that these recommendations will probably have little effect on the MTA Board.


Why?


Because the MTA looks upon Taxi Services as a source of income. It's clearly one of the reasons that they took over the taxicab business in the first place.


Now don't get me wrong! I'm not one of those people who is shouting for freedom from the MTA, or who thinks that money was the "only reason" that the agency took us over. If that was true there would have been:

• No Pilot Plan.
• No medallions given to people on the list.
• No updating of the list.
• No Driver's Fund.
• No attempts stop illegal cabs and limos.
• No modernization of things like A-Card renewal, etc.
• No dialogue between the drivers and the MTA like we've had at the Town Hall Meetings or (for all its flaws) at the TAC.

If all the MTA wanted was money they simply would have followed a plan of either former Mayor Gavin Newsom or MTA Board Director Malcolm Heinicke (Photo).

Neither of these mad scenarios have taken place ... yet. Nonetheless, the MTA has taken in over $18 million from taxi drivers, has given very little of it back and has shown little indication that it intends to change. In fact, they've added insult to injury by raising most of our licensing fees.






Next: A Strange Conception of Regulation.