INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Yes, it is possible!

A recent article out of NYC lauds a group of students who won a business award from the city for their idea to put mini vending machines in the back seat of taxicabs. TLC chair David Yassky is reported to have said "We love the students' ingenuity. EDC's Next Idea is a great initiative, and it is clearly inspiring some great thinking. I don't know if this is something we'll ever see in a taxicab, but I congratulate the students on the strength of their ideas,"

Removing the politically correct verbiage before and after the meat of the quote I am encouraged to think that "we'll ever see in a taxicab" translates to "whaddayounuts." Not that I'm against innovation, but with drivers being shoved into "green" cabs it doesn't make a lot of sense to add weight and refrigeration capability to a means of transportation.

Transportation? Yes, remember that we're dealing with a method of transportation. "Wet! Clean up on aisle three" isn't exactly what I'd expect to hear in a taxicab. Beyond the power requirements being hoisted on the driver's fuel expense, and what an expense it is, there's the additional potential cleanup. As a rookie driver it didn't take me long to figure out that I didn't want people eating and drinking in my cab. Call me crazy, but some people just don't know which fork to use.

Is the media populated by idiots?

In what masqueraded as a "news" piece out of San Diego, the sub heading states "cameras would allow drivers to monitor passengers." Further in the article it states "that way a cab driver could know who his or her passengers were every time they stepped inside the vehicle." Now, is it me or do these two statements indicate a reporter that has no idea what he's talking about?

Gee, I wonder how disinformation gets spread? First, in the taxicab security camera world the driver doesn't have a monitor or access to the stored photographs or video. Second, without facial recognition software there is no way the second statement can be true even if the driver had access to the pictures. So, the question becomes, are they idiots or just lazy? The taxicab security camera debate can become quite contentious in cities looking for ways to improve driver safety and real debate can't be served by idiots spreading misinformation. Can we pursue the facts please?

Cab drivers don't like change.

That may be the only thing I've seen that doesn't change. The mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu, has proposed some major changes to the taxicab industry. Like any change in any law there are the usual suspects demanding this or that. Most of the ordinances seem pretty routine and actually beneficial to the public, though they will increase fares. The problematic changes, at least for me, are partially in what's in the law and what's not in the law.

If the city wants a bigger piece of the medallion pie, called a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience (CPNC), why not make the pie bigger? They stick with an antiquated method of entry that stifles innovation and quality and then complain that they need more innovation and quality.

When you protect inefficient operators you end up with what you currently have in New Orleans, a stagnant industry. I would suggest to the city that they'll make more money and have more innovation if they simply rent the medallions rather than protect the stagnant cesspool their industry and regulatory structure has become. It's a wonderful thing to have newer cars, GPS and credit card terminals, but without real competition to keep companies sharp real progress will continue to be elusive.

The proof is in the pudding.

The Maryland Public Service Commission is considering whether to allow security cameras instead of shields in taxicabs. Meanwhile, New Yorkers are finally coming to understand that bouncing off of the shields put you on the fast track to plastic surgery. So, it would appear that decisions on cameras or shields are in the news.

The statistic in the article that attracted my attention was zero taxicab driver murders since 1995. While you can complain about the kiss the shield injuries and loss of leg room, zero murders in eighteen years is a hard statistic to brush aside. Cameras are a wonderful security tool, but there are still robberies of every type in establishments that have, and are known to have, security cameras. Yes, the shields aren't bullet proof, but they certainly give the impression that they are and leave a question in a potential gunman's mind.

I've heard the case argued both ways, but I'm all about choice. If the driver would prefer a camera to a shield that's great. If the company wants to make that decision for the driver that's a little less great. Having been shot at as a driver and attended a murdered driver's funeral I can tell you from personal experience that both are extremely unpleasant experiences. That said, I'd take the camera.

They're so high that.

Fees for lease drivers in Boston are so high that drivers are suing. Let's see, wasn't ‘Boston the sharecropper’ an article of a month ago? Why, I believe that's correct. I guess some drivers must have read the article and taken offense because they've hired a lawyer and they're suing. Looking for more victims, er drivers, the attorney on the case is going to try for a class action suit.

While claiming the usual independent contractor/employee complaint the attorney left out some potential class victims, the riding public. The public has been paying the "taxi tax" since the inception of the medallion system. If a driver was to decide to purchase a medallion he would have to fork over a tidy $500,000. I don't know a lot about Boston, but right off the top of my head I can't think of a single other business license that costs half a mil.

Let's say our driver hadn't quite saved up the purchase price. If he financed the medallion, and many do, he'd have to pay over a hundred dollars a day, at 7% interest, just to pay his mortgage. Now, throw in gas, insurance, a dispatch service, a cell phone, a vehicle, and maintenance and you've got yourself a pretty tough business. The answer would seem simple: set fares at what you need to make a profit.

Well, not so fast. There are alternatives to taxi transportation. In some cities it's cheaper to rent a car than it is to take a cab one way into the downtown area. Yes, the city taxes that cash cow too, but a two day stay warps the cost of taxicab service well ahead, cost wise, than renting a car. Throw in the less than robust economy and drivers have more than a little reason to complain. The way the city, named in the suit, has the industry structured the driver has to chain himself to the car to get by. I doubt the city will lose, but they ought to.

Hot and cold running ideas.

You have to give New York City regulators credit, they're creative. On the one hand they enforce their ordinances, on the other hand they have so many rules that surely everybody is doing something wrong. One of the city's latest conundrums is the storage of impounded gypsy cabs. Kudos to NYC regulators for enforcing their laws. Many cities can't manage to find a way to curb illegal taxicabs. It would be good for other cities to follow NYC's lead on regulation enforcement.

"Yo ambulance" may be the cry of the handicapped passengers in the outer boroughs. According to news reports, which we all understand the questionable accuracy of, the city may require ambulettes, non-emergency ambulances, to apply for the new street hail outer borough taxi permits. While Cuomo has put the city into a difficult situation with his 1200 wheelchair accessible livery car requirement, the solution the TLC has come up with does not solve the problem of wheelchair accessible taxicabs.

The issue, of course, is money. The issue always seems to be money with governments large and small. Okay, large and larger. The city can simply be patient, demanding that all of the new street hail medallions be wheelchair accessible and let the problem solve itself or it can engage in extortion and force the ambulette companies to buy street hail medallions for their vehicles. Once again, government is trying to solve a problem created by a solution to a solution to a problem created by a regulation. I suppose it's good that we have government that can solve problems created by government, but I'm now sure how.


If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at dmc@mcacres.com. —dmc