INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Hopkins revisited.

Cleveland's Hopkins Airport is still wrestling with their taxicab service issues despite denying access to several of the local taxicab companies. It would seem that little has really been done to improve the service.

What's the problem? Well, from my perspective it's the same problem they have in other cities, no enforcement. It's the old "everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die" axiom.

Airports, cities and other regulatory jurisdictions generate reams of rules, requirements, by-laws, regulations, bills of rights, and ordinances to no avail because they simply fail to provide the funding to enforce their requirements. Limiting service to a company or even multiple companies doesn't change driver behavior. The practical reality is that the companies are not providing the service, the drivers are.

It's not unusual for airports to have more stringent requirements than the cities they service, but it is unusual for them to enforce those requirements. It's the 80/20 rule. Eighty percent of the drivers are going to comply with the regulations while twenty percent are going to cheat. The rules then become harsher for all drivers, but nothing changes because you have not dealt with the twenty percent that aren't going to comply with the regulations anyway.

Here's my free advice, worth every penny I might point out: create a reasonable set of guidelines and enforce them. How? Let the drivers know you're looking, and will continue to look, and ban the drivers that will not comply. Here in Texas we call it culling the herd. As soon as the drivers come to the realization that they will be banned they will straighten up. Your problems will decrease, but your vigilance must not. If you need tips, try the Charlotte airport.They run a tight ship and their drivers toe the line.

So much for progressive.

A recent article regarding a blind woman's refusal of service at the airport in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada points up an example of the lack of enforcement described in the previous paragraph.

Despite laws stating a driver cannot refuse to transport a blind person with a guide dog Ms. Bergeron, a blind lady with a dog, was refused service by every taxicab in the airport taxi line. How did this happen? Have they no police at this airport? No taxicab loader? Every driver in the line should have been issued a citation, but none were. How does this happen? Failure to enforce the rules is exactly how it happens.

Why not just disband the police department and save the taxpayers a bundle of money? Think of all of the beautification projects you could do with that cash? No need for jails, nobody would be getting arrested. You simply approach the crime problem the same way you approach taxi service issues, do nothing. Make up some rules and expect everyone to comply automatically. Pretty ridiculous you say? So do I. But that's exactly what happens in regulatory jurisdictions regarding taxicab regulations. One, just one, sweep by the airport police ticketing every driver that refused Ms. Bergeron would send the message that the practice was unacceptable. It's absolutely shameful that a controlled environment like an airport taxi stand could produce such shabby service with no repercussions. It's pretty obvious that the airport authority simply doesn't care.

Be careful what you wish for.

A recent article from the Spokesman Review in Spokane Washington reported the demise of TC Transportation Services. Not a huge story, unless you understand the amount of discussion regarding independent contractor drivers versus employee drivers that took place prior to the demise of TC Transportation Services. You see, TC Transportation Services was an employee driver only company.

Not only was TC Transportation Services the exclusive taxicab service at the Spokane airport, it also had contracts to provide handicapped transportation. What happened one wonders? Well, it's like this. See, if you don't take in enough money to pay your bills you go under. Pretty simple. Given the fact that they had to pay $42,000 or 8% of the gross to the airport and the added expense of employee drivers it's no wonder they tanked. It would be my speculation that with fares regulated most taxicab companies would go under if they were required to use employee drivers only. If cities decide they want employee drivers they'd best be willing to jack up the fares to cover the additional expense. Or perhaps just have them all go out of business.

Say it ain't so!

A recent report from the Seattle Post Intelligencer stated that "illegal town cars have been a problem in Seattle and elsewhere for years". This just in, it's been decades. The part of the story that I found hilarious was when they said "the problem is prompting some to question whether changes are needed in the law governing limousines and executive sedans".

Hello? They're illegal! They're not obeying the law. Not now, not ever. What they are doing now is currently illegal. Are you going to make it more illegal? How illegal does it have to be before we recognize that enforcement is required for any law, existing or new, to be effective in controlling the problem?

How about writing some tickets, arresting some illegal operators, impound some cars, do something. If you regulate an industry you owe the businesses operating within the industry guidelines a level of enforcement that, at least, keeps out the unlicensed drivers and vehicles. Clearly this is just another case of regulating the willing.

The boon of town car services is, in my opinion, entirely regulation related. With no option to open their own taxi company industrious drivers opt for the less regulated town car market. Denying any entry into the market or making entry too onerous simply has the more industrious drivers looking for alternatives. The amazing part to me is that town cars loading illegally happen right in front of those who are supposed to be enforcing the law. Seattle shouldn't feel alone, I've personally been solicited at a half dozen airports across the country. Nobody seems to be interested in fixing the problem.

Do you really think that's going to fix it?

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada is claiming to have a taxi shortage at night. Their solution is to put on 60 new accessible taxicabs. Like most cities Edmonton hired a consultant to evaluate the problem and then ignored the part of their recommendations they didn't like. Sorry, that's not original,

I've done consulting. I'm not sure how 60 accessible taxicabs are going to cover the night shortage since they're not required to operate at night. I will admit, based on my experience as a night driver, that hauling drunks might be easier with a wheel chair lift.

The current license holders, reported to be about 60% individually owned, are upset about the new licenses claiming the value of the their licenses would go down. Now there's a novel thought, let the public walk as long as license values don't go down.

How about this for a novel idea, night drivers. If the 60% of license owners don't want to drive at night they could lease their cabs to night drivers to eliminate the need for additional licenses. The public would be served and the city would stop thinking more licenses are the answer. Pushing 60 more licenses out on the street may not change the dynamic of drivers wanting to work the day shift. I can tell you from my own personal experience that finding a quality night driver is often not an easy task, but putting 60 more cabs on the day shift probably isn't going to fix it.

How about something original like sixty 6pm to 6am licenses with an option to be a 24/7 license in 5 years. Then you can do it all over again. While I can't want to sympathize with the license holders complaint, especially since they're doing nothing to resolve the issue, I don't see the city's "solution" as being a solution.

Sieg Hail!

Well, New York City is trying to figure out how to reduce traffic. One of the suggestions being considered by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission (TCMC) is to ban hailing a cab below 86th street. Other considerations include the mayor's proposal to charge $8.00 a day for a car to be allowed in Manhattan.

Ever notice how politicians' solutions seem to gravitate toward people paying more to the government? That aside the "no hail" zone will be equipped with taxi stands every block so that New Yorkers can queue up at the stand where the taxicabs will queue up. Well there goes the little old lady waving the $10 bill. It kind of reminds me of Las Vegas where the taxi Gestapo will ticket any driver that stops to pick up some lost tourist on the street. Personally, I don't see the taxi stand proposal going anywhere since it doesn't add anything to the city coffers, but that's just me. I wish the city all the luck in getting these two herds of cats organized.

City "leaders" approve new taxicab company.

The City Taxi Board of Chattanooga Tennessee approved a new taxicab company with 10 permits. How is this newsworthy you wonder.

Well, considering that there are four members of the board and two of them are current taxicab company owners I'd say it's a miracle. Tim Duckett, one of the board members who owns a taxicab company apparently seconded the motion thinking he was seconding a motion to "study" the local industry. Gee, I've been to a bunch of these types of meetings and I can attest to how hard it can be to stay awake.

The question for me is quite simple, how can voting for or against allowing a competitor in my industry not be a conflict of interest? The greater question is would someone with a minimal amount of integrity recuse themselves from such an obvious conflict of interest?

It's my own opinion that the statement by city councilman Manny Rico might have been the most honest thing said at the meeting, "this board is broken and we need to fix it and be fair to everyone." While I believe that everyone has a right to have their opinion heard at public hearings, I fail to see the wisdom of having someone on the board that doesn't have the best interest of the citizens at heart. Having two current company owners on the board seems a lot like having the wolves guard the flock to me.

Timing is everything!

The Ocean City Police Commission has decided that it's time to crack down on errant taxicab drivers. They've decided to start on New Year's Eve, only the busiest taxicab day of the year. While I'm certainly up for enforcing existing regulations starting on New Year's Eve seems a bit counter productive. I'll tell you what let's do, let's jerk a bunch of cabs off the street on the day when we have the potential of having the most drunks without a safe way home. Brilliant! A couple of quick questions for the city "leaders" involved in this decision. First, why does it take overtime to enforce existing laws? Second, why haven't these laws been enforced prior to now? Third, what happens when the allotted overtime pay is exhausted?

Well, finally!

Ever needed a cab and couldn't remember the 1-800-taxicab number? Well, don't fret, now you are alleged to be able to connect to "the best cab companies in North America" by simply dialing #taxi on your cell phone.

Best cab companies? What if the "best" cab company in the area refuses to pay the unmentioned fee? How do you define "best"? Most willing to pay or providing the fastest service? Not to worry, usually somebody will pay the fee so you'll probably get a cab. I'll let you decide if it's the "best".

Going green on someone else's green.

Well it's reported that the NYC TLC has voted unanimously to require all vehicles going into service after October 1, 2008 to have a city gas mileage rating of 25 miles per gallon and by October 1, 2009, 30 miles per gallon. This is reportedly going to save the owners $4,000 and $11,000 in gas costs over the course of a year. See that, I didn't even know that the owner of the cab paid for the gas, unless he was the driver also.

The inspection reports have been quite rosy, although nobody has mentioned a subject near and dear to the taxicab owner's heart, maintenance and repairs. One of the things that make the Crown Victoria the "workhorse" of the taxi fleet is its durability and parts availability. Has anyone heard any detailed reports on these subjects relative to the vehicles able to provide greater milage per gallon? I certainly haven't.It's funny how politicians feel like they can dictate anything to an industry because it's regulated, regardless of how awful a business decision it may turn out to be.

I don't know how hybrids are going to turn out, hopefully fabulous, but I'm not willing to risk my financial future on them just yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner air and water, but not if I have to eat out of dumpsters to get it. That really doesn't matter for the TLC. None of their money is at stake.

Why isn't the industry racing to replace their dinosaur burners for the money saving treasures without prompting? Hard to say. Maybe they aren't willing to rush into something they haven't fully investigated. For an individual owner operator you can get away with a weaker vehicle, but for a fleet lease vehicle it better have guts or they're going to go broke repairing it. Minivans were once the rage of the age in the industry until their repair records and accident survivability became apparent.

I had an owner of 54 cabs tell me the reason he was successful when everyone else was struggling was that he'd never bought any minivans.

I am certainly hopeful that this is not another one of those occasions. The good news for the politicians is that they can puff out their chests and strut around bragging about all the good they've done for the environment and it didn't cost them a dime. Bravo.

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.