Any cab upgrades should include turning tr fleet over to hybrids. Boston has done this successfully. With DCs air pollution resulting mostly from cars, this seems like a no brainer.

by Emily on Dec 20, 2011 9:00 am • link • report

Thumbs down to the cab regulation proposal. Not only does the legislation impose an "upgrade fee" on every ride, but they're going to require that every cab contain those annoying, loud, advertising-playing touchscreens (apparently as part of the credit card machine). And no doubt this advertising contract will be another easy source of graft for the City Council. Ugh.

Also, I know people see the "cabs must be replaced every five to seven years" rule and get excited about the prospect of nicer vehicles. But the environmental costs of scrapping a still-functional taxi (that presumably can pass all inspections) every five years ought to be considered. Not to mention the entirely-plausible claim by cabdrivers that this will favor the big, corporate taxi operators (who can more easily persuade banks to finance new taxis) over the independent businessmen cabs.

Two thumbs down.

by Arl Fan on Dec 20, 2011 9:18 am • link • report

Can we stop referring to the taxi cab fare increase as a 44% fare increase and rather an increase of 44% on the mileage rate. The drop rate won't get up and many of the annoying extra charges (extra people, baggage fee, etc) will go away. For some rides your fare will go down under this proposal.

by nathaniel on Dec 20, 2011 9:22 am • link • report

Does anyone have a concise summary of all the drama involved in this Alexandria Waterfront planning? I've lived there for 3+ years now and I have never had any idea what all the fuss was about.

by David on Dec 20, 2011 9:34 am • link • report

The new rate is obnoxious. $2.16 per mile? I'd ask why not just make it something like $2.15 or even $2.25, but I'm pretty confident they did it so people will give a higher tip since they don't want to deal with small change.

by Eric O on Dec 20, 2011 9:35 am • link • report

The new taxi rules would probably benefit customers AND taxi drivers.

Consumers would see cheaper taxi rides for shorter rides and rides that have more than 2 people in the cab. Taxi drivers will see increases in income from the long rides that cost them the most.

Raising mileage and wait rates and getting rid of the surcharges (ESPECIALLY the ridiculous passenger surcharge) will encourage people to take the cab rides that benefit taxi drivers the most - short trips between activity centers where they can pick up another fare. It will create a disincentive to take long taxi rides by yourself.

This could be a win-win if the quality of taxis and drivers improves and drivers can make a little more money.

by MLD on Dec 20, 2011 9:35 am • link • report

The impetus for the VRE fare increase, as cited in the Examiner article, are COLAs for Keolis employees, a drop in state funding, charges by Amtrak for dispatches to/from Union, maintenance on its fleet, and of course the federal transit benefits subsidy.

VRE has continually and repeatedly stated that income from ridership is a small part of its overall budget. The impending mid-summer fare hike will only raise an expected $3.9 million, while changes in state and federal subsidies (not transit benefits) are expected to cut VRE's expected budget by $5.3 million. Clearly the Commission is dependent on subsidies much more than ridership.

A drop in demand as a result of reduced transit benefits will have an immediate impact on traffic6. Combined with the opening of the Mark Center, this will have severe consequences in the I-95 corridor.

As for VRE, I wonder if management is rethinking their decision to drop Amtrak? Would they be in a better position to face these changes?

by Jack Love on Dec 20, 2011 9:49 am • link • report

@David... "Does anyone have a concise summary of all the drama involved in this Alexandria Waterfront planning? I've lived there for 3+ years now and I have never had any idea what all the fuss was about."

Q. How many Virginians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. Six: One to swap it out, and five to give speeches on how great the old one was.

by Jack Love on Dec 20, 2011 9:51 am • link • report

@Jack. Thanks, but I was hoping for something a little *less* concise. :-)

by David on Dec 20, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

I agree that the screens can be annoying in NYC, but you can turn them off easily enough, and it's normally the first thing I do after telling the driver where I'm going.

For me, I'm ok with slightly higher rates if it means all these improvements and the elimination of BS surcharges.

But we haven't yet seen the massive pushback the cabbies will engage against the proposal to track all their fares electronically. It would seriously crimp their loose interpretation of income reporting.

by TM on Dec 20, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

The taxi regulations will result in worse service and higher fares. It's classic textbook capture on the part of the taxi lobby, and [phrase removed for violating the comment policy].

by cynic on Dec 20, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

David,

The gist of the water front plan from what I know is that the city council wants to a.build a park along the waterfront b. finance this through allowing hotels to build on the waterfront as well. Residents oppose this because a. some of the land was going to be taken through eminent domain b. they don't want more hotels so the residents came up with a counter plan that kept the park, ditched the hotels and replaced it with some sort of maritime museum which the city contends would be an even bigger drain on the budget. There was an article last week by city councilman Rob Krupicka about why the city doesn't want the alternative plan and you can search backwards from there.

by Canaan on Dec 20, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

DC has some of the lowest cab prices in the USA. I hope giving that up is worth all these fun little toys and neat concepts (like a uniform color).

Nothing is free, and the costs of these changes will be passed onto the end user (cab riders).

by cynic on Dec 20, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

@If the improvement are to happen sooner than later, I'm all for the increased rates.

@nathanial, Can we stop referring to the taxi cab fare increase as a 44% fare increase and rather an increase of 44% on the mileage rate.

Thanks because I was just getting ready to ask how in the sam hell can rates go up by 44% and there not be a huuuge backlash.

by HogWash on Dec 20, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

Really? I've never found DC cabs to be particularly affordable. Granted, a 44% hike on single-occupancy fares is going to *suck,* but the current system does make multiple-occupant trips almost ridiculously expensive.

I've also found that DC has what is easily the worst and most poorly-maintained cab fleet of any developed nation, and some of the most unprofessional drivers.

by andrew on Dec 20, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

@cynic

1. How could cab service in DC get worse? I suppose there could be no cabs at all.

2. DC has the lowest cab prices for some kinds of trips. For others, especially when you start putting more people in the cab, not so much.

A 4 mile cab ride with 2 people will cost about the same under the 2 systems. Add in another passenger and the new system is cheaper.

by MLD on Dec 20, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

Thanks, Canaan!

by David on Dec 20, 2011 10:21 am • link • report

@cynic

What you fail to imagine is the possibility that taxi riders don't necessarily want the lowest possible cost/service. For example, not everyone wants to stay at a cheap motel and many others are willing to pay a little more for things like clean bathrooms and helpful staff.

However, taxis don't work like hotels -- you don't know which taxi is the Motel 6 and which is the Hilton until you step in one. So, all taxis tend to gravitate toward the lowest possible standard legally permitted. If we're only going to have one kind of taxi, I'm betting most people want taxis that are at least a small step above the equivalent of Motel 6 -- maybe more like Super 8 Motels.

As for uniform taxi color, that should be a self-paying improvement. Taxis will be easier to spot and hail, increasing taxi utilization and driver revenue. I assure you that if all the taxis were bought by a private company, one of the first steps they would take is painting the cars uniformly so they can be easily spotted.

by Falls Church on Dec 20, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

Is this taxi reform also going to get rid of the ridiculous "group riding" law where the drivers reset the meter anytime someone gets out of the cab?

by Phil on Dec 20, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

@TM - To maximize advertising revenue, Verifone's in-cab advertising system permits the taxi company (or the driver) to disable the "turn off advertising" option. And although NYC's taxi commission bars use of this feature, it was "broken" in my last two cabs from LGA into the city.

But the reason the advertising function is provided by a credit card processing company is because Verifone and its competitors can turn a profit by running payments and selling ads, even after the cost of installing the system. So it's either misleading for DC to claim that the 50-cent surcharge is necessary to pay for having credit-card readers, or DC is about to negotiate the worst contract in the world with the credit-card reader provider.

by Arl Fan on Dec 20, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

I thought that the "group riding" thing was already illegal, but (like many other things) the cab drivers continued to do it anyway.

by andrew on Dec 20, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

Phil,

Resetting the meter is actually up to the discretion of the passenger. When the first person leaves the cab, just tell the driver to keep the meter running.

by David on Dec 20, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

@FallsChurch:
you don't know which taxi is the Motel 6 and which is the Hilton until you step in one.

Taxis will be easier to spot and hail, increasing taxi utilization and driver revenue. I assure you that if all the taxis were bought by a private company, one of the first steps they would take is painting the cars uniformly so they can be easily spotted.

Isn't a major reason taxi companies paint their cabs in a uniform color is for branding -- thus "Yellow Cab" and "Red Top Cab", etc. And the "taxi" signs on top of taxis pretty much take care of the problem of spotting them.

Maybe these changes could be combined by allowing taxis to differentiate by service level -- reserve one color of taxi as a "premium cab" with a 50-cent surcharge and a guarantee that it is no more than 5 years old, is a hybrid, whatever. And let other cabs continue to allow discount service for those of us that don't want to pay for "improvements."

by Arl Fan on Dec 20, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

A correction from my last comment. Turns out leaving the meter running is up to the discretion of the driver.

"As a courtesy to the passenger, and totally at the operator’s discretion, the driver may opt to allow the meter to continue to run and collect the fare at the final destination, instead of stopping the meter and collecting the fare due at each stop."

http://dctaxi.dc.gov/dctaxi/cwp/view,A,3,Q,487826,dctaxiNav,|30625|.asp#43

by David on Dec 20, 2011 10:44 am • link • report

Emily -

I agree with your goals but disagree with the method. Instead of mandating a specific type of car - hybrid, electric, ICE (Internal Combustion Engine), etc. - the city should mandate maximum levels of pollutants or minimum gas milage (if using ICE). Then let the taxi companies figure out how they will best meet those goals.

This method also gives the city flexibility to tighten the standards over the years - say every 5-10 years the standards are tightened a little so that over 20 years the overall fleet will be dramatically cleaner. This also allows the taxi companies to plan ahead since they'd know 5-10 years in advance of the coming standards.

by CleanAir on Dec 20, 2011 10:45 am • link • report

"Turns out leaving the meter running is up to the discretion of the driver."

This seems to differ from the stickers I've seen in many cabs that say it is "THE LAW." Big surprise there.

So basically it's a license for drivers to screw passengers over by resetting the meter and collecting a new flag drop charge when one person in a group gets out of the cab.

by Phil on Dec 20, 2011 11:00 am • link • report

Isn't a major reason taxi companies paint their cabs in a uniform color is for branding -- thus "Yellow Cab" and "Red Top Cab", etc. And the "taxi" signs on top of taxis pretty much take care of the problem of spotting them.

Yes, it's for branding but I haven't seen much branding going on with DC taxi's which seem to be largely operated by a hodge-podge of small-time independents. Also, simply having a "taxi" sign doesn't make it as easy to spot from a distance as having a uniform color that stands out. Think about it from the perspective of a tourist, not necessarily a local.

The uniform color is also a re-assuring sign that you're hailing a regulated member of the taxi fleet and not some kind of gypsy cab.

Maybe these changes could be combined by allowing taxis to differentiate by service level -- reserve one color of taxi as a "premium cab" with a 50-cent surcharge and a guarantee that it is no more than 5 years old, is a hybrid, whatever. And let other cabs continue to allow discount service for those of us that don't want to pay for "improvements."

This is potentially too confusing for people not familiar with the system but if you've seen it work elsewhere, maybe it could work.

by Falls Church on Dec 20, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

Actually I think resetting the meter is what the driver is supposed to do currently when taking multiple people to different places. I think the section mentioned about resetting the meter is for when a person wants to make multiple stops on route to a destination. It's not that much different actually, but this multiple passenger stuff never made sense anyway.

Title 31 DCMR §801.7 provides that “In cases where more than one passenger enters a taxicab at the same time on a pre-arranged basis (group riding) bound for different destinations, in addition to the applicable charges set out in this section, the fare shall be charged as follows: Whenever a passenger gets out, the fare shall be paid, the meter shall be reset, and the last passenger shall pay the remaining fee

by inlogan on Dec 20, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report

@ David,

And it's not just a park, it's a pier that will extend King Street into the river, and a boardwalk type thing that will run along the waterfront, connecting it all so you can walk between the Robinson Terminals (which are closing, which is part of the reason for the timing of this) along the river, which is not possible to do now. This is all great (in my opinion). They're going to look for new uses for many of the existing buildings (mainly old warehouses etc) and rezone the whole area to allow hotels.

Here's the City's plan (there's a summary and details) http://alexandriava.gov/Waterfront

Some people are being really NIMBY about the whole thing, not wanting change just because they don't want change and are worried about traffic and parking. Residents being concerned about traffic and parking get scoffed at 'round these parts but I will say that they've got a point. I used to live on the 200 block of Prince and I can honestly tell you that if I moved my car after 6pm on Friday or at all during the weekend (particularly during nice weather), I would absloutely NOT get a parking space anywhere near my house before midnight. Absloutely NO chance. I probably used the parking garage under Market Square more often than regular visitors to Old Town which is really unfair considering I paid for my on street permit, and the garages are there for visitors, not residents.

I always chalked it up to part of the price of living where I did but it still doesn't change the fact that it's frustrating, especially if you feel like you're being taken advantage of. The City seemed to have made the decision to just not enforce parking restrictions (for visitors) on nights and weekends. Think what you will of car ownership in cities, but no matter what you think, it IS a problem.

"Traffic" is in the eye of the beholder, and King Street does get pretty backed up down by the river on nights and weekends but I don't personally mind. I suppose if I lived near there it would be annoying, but not as bad as the parking or living along the upper parts of Duke, Prince or Cameron which people like to treat like Interstates. So personally I feel kind of ::shurg:: about the whole thing. I don't know why people don't just bus/Metro to Old Town but that's their problem, not mine.

(Personal aside: Funny thing? I eventually moved closer to the center of town and got an apartment that came with a dedicated alley parking space. 6 months in to this arrangement, I bought a bike (not possible to store one in the old living situation), didn't need the car anymore, sold it and now have for years had a dedicated parking space smack in the middle of town with no use for it).

Anyway, the crux of the plan seems to revolve around the Boat Club's parking lot, which is right on the river at the base of King Street. More or less where the peir would be. They won't sell, the City's trying to exercise eminent domain and everyone's flipping out about that for many different reasons and the issue's in court.

A lot of people (myself included) don't like the hotels idea, not because of the (valid) parking and traffic concerns but because I think that the land and the buildings can be used in more interesting, dynamic and resident focused ways. The rest of the City's plan (I think) is great. I wish the Boat Club would just sell and we could get on with it. I'm politically opposed to eminent domain. I think that that parking lot is a waste and an eyesore and the Boat Club is working against the best interests of the residents and not winning any points for their reputation, but I'm still opposed to eminent domain. I just don't think it's right for a government to take private property.

by Catherine on Dec 20, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

"Also, I know people see the "cabs must be replaced every five to seven years" rule and get excited about the prospect of nicer vehicles. But the environmental costs of scrapping a still-functional taxi (that presumably can pass all inspections) every five years ought to be considered."

There is no environmental cost as these cabs will not be scrapped. There is a secondary market for used cabs in smaller cities that are less regulated. For example, every cab in New Brunswick, NJ is a former NYC cab. I suspect that DC cabs will wind up in PG County or somewhere else. Worse comes to worse they will be shipped off to Africa like many other types of used cars.

by dcdriver on Dec 20, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

@FallsChurch:
Yes, it's for branding but I haven't seen much branding going on with DC taxi's which seem to be largely operated by a hodge-podge of small-time independents.True enough. However, you seemed to suggest that the desire of Big Taxi Cos to paint in a single color provides proof that it would be "a self-paying improvement... increasing taxi utilization and driver revenue." My point was that Big Taxi Cos color schemes are an effort to take market share from competitors and thus prove less about the value of painting the entire taxi fleet a single color.

Also, simply having a "taxi" sign doesn't make it as easy to spot from a distance as having a uniform color that stands out. Think about it from the perspective of a tourist, not necessarily a local.

Sorry, not buying this one. Although David linked to an online petition for red, Cheh's bill would paint them white. Do you really think a white vehicle will stand out?
Not me - not when white is the most popular color for passenger cars, not to mention delivery vehicles.

by Arl Fan on Dec 20, 2011 12:52 pm • link • report

An important part of the bill has been omitted:

"“The District of Columbia Taxicab Commission is authorized to establish a public vehicle-for-hire licensing quota which provides that the number of new taxicab vehicle licenses may be limited, after making a determination that the market is saturated with taxi vehicles and would benefit from a stabilization or reduction of new vehicles.” It’s not a medallion system exactly, but it’s close. The bill would also allow the commission to set a driver quota."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/the-dc-taxi-reform-bill-in-detail/2011/12/19/gIQA877s4O_blog.html

by ah on Dec 20, 2011 1:18 pm • link • report

I am in favor of a single color for cabs.

For the individual companies, let them have a stripe along the side that is an 2-4 inches thick. This stripe could be a solid color or incorporate some sort of pattern. You could also let them do a different, but make the difference in a uniform location and uniform way.

Also, it would be nice to have better lights on top of the cab to designate if a cab is occupied or not.

by Rob P. III on Dec 20, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report

@Catherine

I probably used the parking garage under Market Square more often than regular visitors to Old Town which is really unfair considering I paid for my on street permit, and the garages are there for visitors, not residents.

If your permit does not grant you a dedicated space (and most residential permits do not), then how is this situation unfair?

On-street parking is not a right.

by Alex B. on Dec 20, 2011 1:54 pm • link • report

@arl fan

Agree that white is a pretty dumb color foor taxis. They should be painted universal taxi yellow. Easiest to spot and the safest car color as well.

by Falls Church on Dec 20, 2011 2:11 pm • link • report

Oh yay! A soapbox! I'm more than perfectly aware that on-street parking is not a right. But it's also against the rules to park in zones that are two hours only for more than two hours (which was, and remains, the issue in that part of town).

Additionally, there was no off-street parking for my building, there were no monthly spots in any lots or garages available. I'd checked--I used to live in Arlington and work near City Hall and drive in, and hourly parking was the only option. 6 months into that job I moved to Old Town and my only option was on-street parking or getting rid of the car.

Think what you will of car ownership in cities (I'm now 3 years car-free and regret not doing it sooner, and ironically, the 200 block of Prince parking issues are NOT what made that change happen), but that IS a choice that some people decide or need to make. I'm pretty sure I said "I considered this a part of the price of living where I did".

But, the "unfair" part comes from the that I lived on a street that was two hour parking only, except for residents and that all weekend, non-residents would park there for FAR longer than two hours without penelty. If they wanted to park in Old Town for more than two hours, they were supposed to pay for a garage. By them choosing not to, they forced me to do so and often at greater cost than they'd have had). This had the effect of making it difficult for other non-residents to come visit that part of the City and for residents to go on with their day to day lives. It's particularly difficult if you've been out getting heavy/large items, if you have a broken foot or slipped disk (both of which I was unfortunate enough to have while living on that 4-floor walkup). People do actually have to LIVE in cities and often, like it or not, that comes with a car. And real life problems.

Again, I'm more than perfectly aware that that sticker was no guarantee of a spot. But had the actual rules been enforced, even just every now and again, there may have been enough turnover to prevent this kind of problem or at the very least I wouldn't have felt like I was getting screwed over. Or, you know, the people who are fighting the Waterfront redevelopment might not have a "parking" leg to stand on because (a) the problem wouldn't exist (b) they'd believe the City when it says they've got the parking thing under control and no way will this impact the residents.

by Catherine on Dec 20, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report

@arl fan

I could also argue that uniform color scheme is a form of branding for the DC taxi industry at large. The brand says to a tourist that you can expect a uniformly reasonable level of service from our taxi fleet as they follow a set of min standards. This will help taxis take market share from alternative transpo.

by Falls Church on Dec 20, 2011 2:38 pm • link • report

I'll defer to your knowledge but I thought the two hour limits only counted on weekdays anyway (or during the more daylighted parts of the day at least). Regardless, if the city wants its residents more access to on street parking then it should just extend the metering out across the weekend as well.

by Canaan on Dec 20, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report

@Catherine

But the problem isn't the fault of the parkers, it's a failure of a) policy and b) enforcement. If you don't want the interlopers there, then meter the spaces! Metering is a far more effective way to enforce turnover than just stating a time limit. Put in some regulation about those with residential permits being exempt from the meters or something.

If that doesn't solve the problem, then I'd posit your problem is one of enforcement.

Either way, this isn't an issue that's commensurate with the anti-development response. If it rains outside and I get wet, I can respond by buying an umbrella next time. The arguments against the development are more like suggesting that I should never have to go outside, yet still be able to access everything like I normally do. That's not a realistic solution.

by Alex B. on Dec 20, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

Does anyone know what's with the number of cabs that seem to park during all hours on various NW DC streets without residential permit parking restrictions? Aren't the cabs taken to a garage or driven home by the operator? Or are some cabs driven by multiple operators and left in "safe" areas for the next driver?

by Sarah on Dec 20, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report

Canaan and Alex B, it could be different there now but it was restricted parking except Sundays. I don't remember the times. I'd want to say until 8pm? I really don't remember the time but I'm guessing that's it. My current block is restricted to residents only M-F until 11, which I remember being suprised about.

Anyway, general disclaimer...I moved from that block in late 2008. I have been car-free since 2009. The City did a parking study in 2010 and according to the Waterfront Plan has upped enforcement in and is considering an resident-only zone in the affected area (including the block I used to live on). My dealings with the City tells me that they're lying through their teeth about this but I thought I should at least mention that that's what they claim so my points could all be moot.

Anyway, It became clear that the City was enforcing the rules during business hours to (a) target the people coming into Old Town to work and (b) keep spaces clear for local businesses' customers. They did not enforce after that period of time, when residents were returning home from work/errands when the parkers were more the "coming to town to play types"--the kind who would stay longer and later (and spend a lot more).

Alex, I know it's not the parkers' "fault" (though it kind of is--they should read and obey the signs and lots and garages are inexpensive and all over the place). Ding ding ding! It's the City's real fault for having bad parking policy and enforcement standards that make residents feel like they're getting screwed over. But since the City's the one at fault....why should the residents who feel that they're ALREADY getting screwed by the City parking-wise trust that very same City when it says they've got it all taken care of, no worries, all this development won't affect parking in the area AT ALL?

Speaking of getting screwed over (ranty tangent alert)-- the City tickets people with residental permit parking stickers like it's going out of style. The second a resident does something wrong--the car is inches past the sign post, he's one day late with inspection or car tax and the City would sometimes even chalk the tires to check for the 72 hours in one spot limit...anything like this and BAM! Ticket, boot, tow...whatever. They know they've got the residents over a barrel, but decide to let the visitors get away with anything (thus making obeying the rules harder for residents) because they don't want to discourage them from coming to Old Town to spend their money.

What got me the most was twice I had to park overnight it a metered spot (didn't have to pay at night, mind you...but the visitors wouldn't park there because they THOUGHT they had to pay so all the residential spots would be taken and all the meteres spots on the nearby blocks would be open) and woke up early the next day to move the car and and...BAM! Ticket! 8:02am! The parking people were sitting there just waiting for morning.

I parked overnight at metered spots all the time, it was just a few times I was late to move it and twice I got ticketed for it. I do realize, by the way, that parking for more than 72 hours, with expired car tax, at a meter during meter hours without paying etc IS against the rules. But the totally unequal application of rules between resident and visitor (and sometimes it's the visitor that puts the resident in a position to break the rules) was maddening.

So....in this context, I'll ask you again...why on EARTH would the residents of that area of town believe the City for one single second that they've looked into the parking situation and it'll all be just fine?

by Catherine on Dec 20, 2011 4:00 pm • link • report

@Catherine

the City tickets people with residental permit parking stickers like it's going out of style. The second a resident does something wrong--the car is inches past the sign post, he's one day late with inspection or car tax and the City would sometimes even chalk the tires to check for the 72 hours in one spot limit...anything like this and BAM! Ticket, boot, tow...whatever. They know they've got the residents over a barrel, but decide to let the visitors get away with anything (thus making obeying the rules harder for residents) because they don't want to discourage them from coming to Old Town to spend their money.

I would posit that there aren't any nefarious motives on the city's part, but that some infractions are easier to enforce than others.

The ones you list can all be enforced on the spot. Expired tags, illegal parking, etc. Those are quick judgment calls.

Enforcing time limits is entirely different. You have two options - one, meter the spots. Two, chalk tires. For a situation like this, where you have visitors coming in for dinner and drinks, staying longer than two hours, but not a whole lot longer, the chalking method is bound to be ineffective. Chalking tires for 72 hours is far more effective.

That's nothing nefarious, just the nature of what's enforceable.

If you want to get those interlopers to stick to the allowed times, then meter those streets. That gives the enforcement people a one-glance way to issue a ticket. If all you have is the time limit, then you must have the enforcement come chalk tires, and then come enforce. That kind of enforcement is designed to fail and will almost certainly be ineffective. Metering would also provide a price incentive, so long as prices were coordinated with the Market Square garage, so that visitors would be incentivized by price to use the garage.

"Enforcement" simply isn't a solution, you must design regulations that are actually enforceable. Beyond that, it's a good idea for cities to design regulations that are not just enforceable, but easily enforceable. Likewise, give parkers an easy way to comply and they'll make a reasonable effort to do so.

So, I doubt they're singling out residents. Instead, I'll bet that the resident regulations are simply the more easily enforced.

by Alex B. on Dec 20, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report

@Alex,

Good point on the resident type infractions being easier to catch. I'll give you that maybe that's why that happened. But it doesn't change the fact that they managed to enforce restrictions during the day but not in the evening or the fact that if people feel like they're currently getting screwed over by the City, then they're just not going to take the City at it's word about a closely related issue. This city has a real public relations problem with its residents on many issues and this is clearly one of them. Charging ahead with (likely false) promises about parking and other quality of life issues while making actual threats to take private property isn't really helping matters.

by Catherine on Dec 20, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report

DUDE, you'r sooo wrong.....
When a passenger gets out, the trip is OVER, you START a new trip if you want to "continue".
"Resetting the meter is actually up to the discretion of the passenger. When the first person leaves the cab, just tell the driver to keep the meter running".

by BBB on Dec 20, 2011 7:44 pm • link • report

Extra passenger charge is NOT RIDICULOUS. Most (if not all) cities have it. Arlington, Montgomery, PG, Fairfax, Alexandria. They ALL HAVE THAT, it's between 1.00-1.50 per. AND Arlington raised it to 1.50 not too long ago that will be in effect in few short weeks. WHAT'S REALLY RIDICULOUS is that 4 passengers want to go from 3-4 miles and thing $12-$14 is too much. GEES that's $3.50 PER PERSON, you cheap skate...

by BBB on Dec 20, 2011 7:53 pm • link • report

Looking forward to the day when the Taxicab Commission represents the interests of DC voters--rather than people who happen to drive a taxi in DC, the vast majority of whom are not DC voters.

by oboe on Dec 20, 2011 10:40 pm • link • report

@BBB

The extra passenger charge is ridiculous because the extra cost to the cab of carrying that extra passenger is zero.

by Alex B. on Dec 21, 2011 8:55 am • link • report

@BBB (or anyone else)

Can you provide examples, with a link, for major cities (World capitals or alpha cities) that charge extra passenger fees. I've traveled a fair amount and I don't remember instances of charges for extra passengers. I'm not saying they weren't there, I just don't remember them in places like NYC, London, Tokyo, or Caracas.

by Rob P. III on Dec 21, 2011 9:30 am • link • report

@Rob P

Why do you pick "alpha cities" (whatever those are) as a comparison. As BBB pointed out, all the other jurisdictions in the area have the fees...

What on does Caracas have to do with this discussion? London?? Tokyo???

by long-time resident on Dec 21, 2011 9:52 am • link • report

What on does Caracas have to do with this discussion? London?? Tokyo???

Agreed. Why should we be looking at what functioning cities do around the world? We have our own special way of doing things in DC, and frankly none of the changes over the last decade or two have been for the better. Riding in a DC cab is a special and unique experience that you won't find anywhere else. We should treasure it as our cultural heritage.

by oboe on Dec 21, 2011 10:00 am • link • report

Why do the local DC jurisdictions have the extra passenger fee? I understand that it’s done now because that’s the way it’s been done. However, what was the business reason for it when it was implemented and what is the business reason now other than extra revenue? Please share with me what the additional cost to the driver of taking two passengers to a destination rather than one is. It appears taxi industries in other major cities (or "functioning cities" as Oboe puts it) successfully conduct their business without additional per passenger fees and the myriad of other fees DC area taxi riders are subject to.

by Rob P. III on Dec 21, 2011 10:21 am • link • report

Please share with me what the additional cost to the driver of taking two passengers to a destination rather than one is

Using that logic, why should you charge people to get on board Metro? It's not like an extra passenger costs them anything...

The answer, since you seem to not understand the concept, is called price discrimination. You charge people what they're willing to pay.

by MPeeC on Dec 21, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

I assure you, I am familiar with the concept of price discrimination. In an unregulated industry people are free to price discriminate all they want. But the taxi industry is regulated to ensure taxis provide fair and hospitable service to residents, businesspeople, and tourists. In this case the regulators have sensibly decided that charging confusing fees that are not charged in any other major city is not in keeping with this goal.

By the way, I couldn't tell you how many times that "large luggage" fee has mysteriously turned into 3 or even 4 dollars on my various airport trips.

by Phil on Dec 21, 2011 11:43 am • link • report

@Phil

Maybe it's confusing for you, but I think an extra passenger fee is rather simple to understand: Have an extra passenger, pay a fee.

But the taxi industry is regulated to ensure taxis provide fair and hospitable service to residents, businesspeople, and tourists.

Actually, nearly all cases of consumer-protection regulation turn out to hurt the consumers in favor of the interest groups, but I guess DC will do it differently, right?

Finally, what's the obsession with other cities? We don't live in Venezuela, why should we price like them?

by MPeeC on Dec 21, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

@MPeeC
Using that logic, why should you charge people to get on board Metro? It's not like an extra passenger costs them anything...

That's not the same logic. Mass transit like Metro or buses is collective transportation - people are travelling individually to different places but collocate on transit because the service provided gets them where they need to go. It's true that each marginal passenger doesn't cost Metro anything but providing the whole set of trips lumped together has a cost, so we price it.

A taxi is different, it takes one individual trip from one place to another, then begins another trip. Each trip has a clear marginal cost. But it doesn't matter if there's one person in the taxi or 4 - the cost of that trip from point A to B is basically the same. So why would we add a surcharge for extra people?

The system as it exists now (low mileage rates but lots of surcharges) incentivizes people to take the kinds of trips cabbies HATE - long trips to the middle of nowhere where you can't find a fare on the other end. Higher mileage rates and lower surcharges incentivizes trips that are great for cab drivers - when 3 friends who are out pile into a cab and want to go from one bar to another. In these cases its much easier for a cab driver to find a quick fare later, which is better for them.

@BBB
When a passenger gets out, the trip is OVER, you START a new trip if you want to "continue".

The drop rate/charge exists to make up for the fact that a cab driver has to drive around searching for another fare when a trip is over. When you're dropping people off who are already in the cab and then continuing on to another destination, you don't have to search for another fare - the fare is already in your cab.

If mileage rates were higher then drivers would be more appropriately compensated for long rides, or rides where you don't take the fastest way from point A to point B because you're dropping people off along the way.

Dallas also has the per-passenger charge, but their mileage rates are ridiculously low just like in DC. St. Louis has it also I think.

by MLD on Dec 21, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

"Mass transit like Metro or buses is collective transportation - people are travelling individually to different places but collocate on transit because the service provided gets them where they need to go. It's true that each marginal passenger doesn't cost Metro anything but providing the whole set of trips lumped together has a cost, so we price it."

If we were engaged in pure economic logic, we would charge zero for metro, except at peak hours on congested lines, when there is (at least short term) finite capacity that needs to be rationed. That we dont do that, and insist on some payment out of the farebox, is an issue of equity, politics or whatever you prefer to call it.

But in fact by charging a positive price for a zero marginal cost service, we are causing it to be less than optimally used. (and yes, that applies to UNCONGESTED roads as well, at least to the extent that we ignore vehicle physical damage to the road surface, and emissions externalities)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 21, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity

That "pure economic logic" argument is bogus, because you're not defining the goal ("optinal usage") of the transit system properly. If the goal of the transit system is to move as many people as possible, period, then yes, the cost at off peak times should be zero. But you're assuming no constraints. There is a big constraint, the limited amount of subsidy that is available.

The real goal of Metro is to move as many people as possible given a certain subsidy of $X. Charging off-peak may discourage some people from riding, but it captures more revenue than not charging at all. The transit system needs that revenue to provide enough service so that people will ride at all (few people would ride if off-peak waits for trains were 30-40-60 minutes) because the subsidy it receives is limited.

by MLD on Dec 21, 2011 1:10 pm • link • report

@MPeeC

Well, look who's back.

The key difference, of course, is that Metro is public transit. Taxis are not. Taxis are for-hire. When I hail a cab, I am paying for the exclusive use of that cab for the trip, thus fares should be calculated on a per-trip basis.

Public transit is not exclusive in that way, thus fares are charged on a per passenger basis.

by Alex B. on Dec 21, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report

@MPeeC

If the fare is the same regardless of the number of people, every cab has an incentive to just stop for the first fare they see. Why would a cab driver just aimlessly drive around passing by people he could potentially be making money from?

Cab drivers will just stop giving rides to groups of people? How does that make any sense?

by MLD on Dec 21, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report

I guess you're not sure what your position is then, because you just said that getting rid of passenger fees would lead to more single-occupant cab rides and MORE wasted fuel:

Since the cabbies can't charge for extra passengers, there's no benefit to him to stop for 2+ passenger groups. Thus, your "let's be like Caracas" regulations will increase the amount of single-car rides, which will waste gas and increase pollution if we assume that demand for cabbies is inelastic.

So which is it, should we keep per-passenger surcharges or should we get rid of them?

by MLD on Dec 21, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report

"That "pure economic logic" argument is bogus, because you're not defining the goal ("optinal usage") of the transit system properly. If the goal of the transit system is to move as many people as possible, period, then yes, the cost at off peak times should be zero. But you're assuming no constraints. There is a big constraint, the imited amount of subsidy that is available."

not as many people as possible, but at least all people where the marginal cost is less than the marginal benefit. which at least for off peak people is pretty much the same thing.

And yes, it follows from that that the operating subsidy should be large enough to make that possible. Its a political decision to keep subsidies below that, and I dont expect that to change. OTOH its also true that we spend money to goose ridership in other ways - from bus shelters to spending to improve reliability, amenity value, frequency, etc, etc. Its not unreasonable to ask if we would get more bang for the buck from simply buying down fares instead. Though I suspect its probably more politically feasible to spend $10 on improved service to get one rider, than to spend $10 on reducing fares to get 5 riders, because the pols and pundits will scream about "fair shares" and stuff like that. Thats reality, to be sure, but its not economically logical IMO.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Dec 21, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report

I think the far more interesting cab story of the week comes from Chicago, although the issues are related. Chicago cab drivers, as their colleagues in San Francisco and elsewhere are charged a credit card processing fee of 5%, which is truly exorbitant and they are right to feel cheated and demand to be compensated for it. However, the focus of their outrage is misplaced and it is not their customers who should be charged a fee when using a card.

See, a typical rate for a card payment processed at a taxi would be around 1.7% + $0.20 for credit cards, give or take, and could possibly be lower for debit cards. That is what the payment processing company would charge the cab company. However, the cab company then charges its drivers 5% for the same transactions, pocketing the difference as profit. So it is clear who the real culprit is here and it is not the customer. http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/why-cab-drivers-hate-credit-cards-christmas-edition

by Jay Gould on Dec 21, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report