INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

What's good business?

Recently, in an "executive order" the Philadelphia Parking Authority ruled that all cabs must accept credit cards. WCAU-TV in Philadelphia ran a story titled "credit cards cause trouble". I would suggest that there is a little confusion here. The credit cards aren't causing the problems, the drivers are.

I almost hate to side with the "Parking Authority", but to not accept credit cards in today's business world is ridiculous. As a recovering business traveler I can tell you that the process for getting a cab that will accept credit cards at several airports I've been through is nothing short of ludicrous. The comments attributed to the Taxi Workers Alliance make me wonder how stupid they think we are or how stupid they are.

You drive 12 to 14 hours a day and take home $40-$50? Get a job. The fact is that if drivers take credit cards it improves their tips and their opportunity for fares. How much business do you think has simply moved to executive sedans because taxicab drivers insist on living in the stone age?

With progressive groups like the Taxi Workers Alliance to guide them taxicab drivers can look forward to a steady decline in the industry. Sorry, the Parking Authority is right, get rid of the losers that won't accept credit cards and maybe the remaining drivers will make more money.

Whoa there big fella!

The push for radical change in Colorado's taxicab laws has slowed somewhat. The headlong rush to make change for the sake of making change has given way to cooler heads, and that's a good thing. Poorly thought out regulations have devastated the industry in numerous cities. There were the usual touching stories of evil empire taxicab companies and the downtrodden drivers struggling to survive. What has failed to get covered is that the companies are the organized units that actually serve the local citizens.

Allowing small companies, 25 or less cabs, can fragment the business so badly that service to the community deteriorates or simply becomes totally unreliable. This isn't an opinion, it's already happened in a number of cities.

It's a wonderful dream to have, owning the company, but it entails financial resources and personal sacrifice to start your own company. Allowing one and two vehicle companies may sound like the American dream realized, but it's a taxi rider's nightmare. Great service at major hotels, the central business district and the airport while grandma has to walk home from the grocery store.

Unless the PUC is willing to come up with some centralized dispatch scheme they should think hard about what method of entry they are willing to allow. A method of entry without the phony "need and necessity" proof is fine as long as the applicant can show the financial resources to put 100 cabs on the street. Fewer may be acceptable in smaller communities, but for major cities 100 would be the minimum to get any realistic coverage.

I certainly agree with the idea put forth that oligopolies don't serve the public need and over charge, but it's important to get past the emotional discussion before deciding the best approach. Regulating the driver payments to the company hasn't worked in San Francisco, but hey, Denver isn't San Francisco.

Do you know the way?

San Jose taxi drivers are threatening to strike if the city initiates driver training and testing. The drivers want the city to put a limit on the number of cabs, but any clown that wants one should get a drivers permit?

If I had to propose a single item to improve the taxicab industry it would be driver training and testing. It amazes me that the veteran drivers are the ones whining about testing. Help me understand here, wouldn't requiring a greater degree of knowledge prior to getting, and especially renewing your license limit the number of drivers eligible to be on the street?

Would it not also cull out the drivers who cannot speak the language well enough to properly serve the traveling public? If drivers cannot pass a geography and ordinance test after driving for a year or more what are they doing in the business in the first place?

Of all of the various regulations I've heard discussed over the last few years San Jose's seems to me to be the most reasonable. If the drivers want to strike over that I suggest that they join PATCO right away. There are certainly driver issues that need attention, but threatening a strike over having minimum driver standards is not only asinine it's counter productive. If you're going to fight, fight for something worth winning.

But, that's by design.

New York City is trying to get the yellow cabs to work the outer boroughs. Huh? Why would you take the radios out of the taxicabs and only allow them to take flag customers and then complain because they go where the flag business is?

New York, perhaps more than any city I've encountered, has segmented the business. If you want a ride outside of Manhattan you call a livery service. If you want a ride in Manhattan you go out and flag one down. Of course this is just one of the unintended consequences of regulation.

What? Yep, it's true. When the radios were removed from the yellow cabs the result was what can be predicted in open entry situations that allow single ownership. Not only does New York City allow single taxicab ownership, they demand it. By compelling single owners to drive their own taxis they create the great service in the central business district (Manhattan), but also the second class service in the other boroughs.

I don't want to sound simplistic here, but wouldn't the easy solution be to allow local livery services to pick up flags? Other jurisdictions, like say Colorado, have only to look at New York City to see what allowing single cab ownership will create.

Say What?

The Metropolitan Airport Commission of Minneapolis has "stiffened" the penalties for drivers refusing to convey at the Minneapolis airport. First offense a 30 day suspension of the driver's airport license, second offense a 2 year suspension of that license.

It looks like the MAC is up for a game of chicken with the imams
that issued the fatwah against drivers carrying passengers that are transporting alcohol. I read various opinions on the subject and even other Muslims are not convinced that this isn't much ado about nothing.

That aside, there have been complaints from other religious groups driving taxicabs that have gone without accommodation so this is nothing new. I have had complaints from Christians and Sikhs regarding people of various lifestyles that they felt they should not be compelled to carry every passenger.

I pointed out to them that the law that governed their industry stated that they could refuse to convey only if in fear for their personal safety or the passenger could not show the means to pay. Barring either of those they were required by law to carry them. The choice for the Muslim drivers seems pretty plain to me, don't work the airport. There is nothing that compels them to work at the airport. I'd be willing to bet the farm that we have not heard the last of this.

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.