Posts about Taxi Commission

The commission plans to fund these initiatives with a surcharge of 50¢ per trip. Ron Linton, chairman of the commission, sees the new surcharge as a critical element of the proposed bill. "The creation of the Consumer Service Fund insures that funds obtained through a passenger-paid surcharge will be used to improve the quality of services for passengers," said Linton.

Other items in the bill would allow the taxicab commission to upgrade the fleet, carry out more inspections, provide incentives for drivers to purchase fuel-efficient cabs, and expand taxi service to all areas of the city. The commission also plans to add more robust tracking systems to monitor overall taxicab performance.

Survey showed public support for reforms

Cheh's office conducted an online survey about the provisions of the bill and taxi service in general. Responses by more than 4,000 metro area taxi riders showed that only 22% of respondents thought that the quality of taxi service in the District was good or excellent. 69% said it is worse than other major cities. The proposed taxi reform legislation and the requirement to accept credit cards found overwhelming support with 94% and 93% positive responses respectively.

In the survey, a majority of respondents supported higher taxi fares only if the quality of service improved. Belinda Li, a Chicago-based management consultant, testified at the hearing on Cheh's bill that the additional costs to hail a cab would put a burden on riders and potentially drive people away from riding taxicabs.

The hospitality industry supports the reforms as well. According to industry data, the District hosts over 17 million visitors a year, generating roughly $6 billion in expenditures in the city. An improved taxi service would allow visitors to get to their hotels and other destinations safely and efficiently.

"This is something we have been working on for quite some time," said Solomon Keene, President of the DC Hotel Association. "DC is a world class city so we want to make sure that we provide a world class taxi service."

Drivers less enthusiastic

Though the public supports the reforms, taxi companies have expressed opposition to the bill, citing cost concerns. The industry generally opposed the change from a zoning system four years ago to a meter system, and sees this new proposal as further undermining their ability to make a living.

At a public hearing earlier this year, drivers testified that they felt the effects of the bill on the industry were not fully taken into account before the bill was drafted. They questioned how the fund will be managed and whether drivers will be compensated adequately for expenses incurred to retrofit their vehicles. It is also unclear how soon the reforms can be implemented, since funding from the surcharge won't be available right away.

Other proposals may also affect taxi service in the District. In addition to Cheh's bill, Council chairman Kwame Brown introduced a bill to require that 10% of all cabs be wheelchair-accessible within 4 years.

Long-term questions remain

Beyond the short-term issues of fare increases and who bears the costs of implementing the reforms, there are unaddressed long-term concerns about the management of the industry. When Tommy Wells chaired the council committee with oversight over taxis, he expressed interest in making more major structural changes, possibly abolishing the taxicab commission and moving responsibility into DDOT and/or DCRA. However, Cheh has not pursued this approach.

In addition, the Council also considered and dropped the concept of a medallion system. Taxicab systems in major cities like New York and Chicago restrict the number of licenses issued and allow for licenses to be transferred between owners. In an open system like the District's it is relatively easy to operate a taxicab. As a result, independent operators saturate the market, making it easier for people on the street to get cabs, but driving down earnings for each driver.

In testimony at the public hearing, Belinda Li said that the District has one of the highest taxicab per-capita ratios in the country (12 per 1,000 residents), compared to Chicago (2.6 per 1,000 residents) and New York (1.6 per 1,000 residents). "The proposed bill," Li said, "does not restrict new cab drivers and does nothing to address the current oversupply issue." Not all residents may agree with Li about whether there is an "oversupply" today.

By choosing to put off addressing these fundamental challenges, the council will likely be forced to revisit taxi reform in the not-too-distant future. Until then, the reforms in the current bill will modernize the taxi fleet and make for a more pleasant cab ride in the nation's capital. Riders will be paying more, but should find that fewer surcharges make the final price less confusing as well.

A TechCrunch article argues that Uber's business model is legal, while in DCist, Ben Freed defends the sting in which Taxicab Commission chairman Ron Linton personally got involved in hiring and then punishing a driver.

Freed disagrees with the analogy in my Post editorial that taxis complaining about Uber is like Safeway complaining about upscale cupcake shops. Freed writes,

Not quite. Cupcakes, however widespread they've become, are not a regulated utility. Taxis are. ...

Linton, though, said he's responding to complaints he's heard from cabbies who say Uber's eating into their business and from customers who feel they've been overcharged. The sting was necessary reconnaissance, he said.

But this is exactly crux of the issue. Why are taxis a regulated utility while bakeries aren't? Why is electricity a regulated utility but backyard propane tank sales are not? Why are tap water fees regulated but not the bottled water prices we pay in the supermarket?

To say that taxis are different from cupcakes because taxis are regulated and cupcakes are not begs the question (in the grammatically correct sense).

It's not uncommon for one business to complain that another is "eating into their business." Whole Foods is eating into Giant's business. But Giant doesn't go to the DC Supermarket Regulatory Commission and ask them to take action to stop Whole Foods. Amazon has taken a lot of business away from brick and mortar retailers, which is too bad for our neighborhood corridors, but we don't respond by banning Amazon (though it would be fair to insist that both pay the same amount of sales tax).

But, many are saying, the difference is that Uber, or more specifically its drivers, may be breaking existing rules, while Whole Foods and Amazon are not. In some regards, this may present an important distinction, but from a public policy standpoint, it is somewhat irrelevant.

We can ask 2 questions: What are the rules now, and what should they be? Regulations can be beneficial or they can be harmful. There are many rules we don't have which ought to exist, and many that do exist which should be repealed.

If Uber is doing something which is not permitted to regular taxis, we can either stop Uber from doing that thing, or we can allow regular taxis to partake in the same behavior. As I said in my Post editorial, I've never used Uber, don't plan to, and don't care that much about Uber specifically as a company. But if they are competing unfairly against taxis, then let's let taxis compete against Uber rather than shutting down the competition.

When deciding which approach take, the Taxicab Commission should bear in mind one and only one principle: What's good for customers? The degree to which Uber is "eating into the business" of existing taxis is immaterial, and Linton should not be making decisions on that basis.

A common criticism of many regulatory agencies is "regulatory capture," shorthand for the way that an agency becomes more sympathetic to the needs of the industry it regulates than the interests of consumers. This happens because regulators tend to get to know their counterparts at regulated companies well, to see issues from the companies' point of view, and also look to those companies for future jobs.

The starkest example of regulatory capture is the Minerals Mining Service, which was supposed to be regulating deep-water oil drilling but instead ended up just speeding approvals and overlooking dangerous practices, ultimately with disastrous consequences.

Taxi drivers' main gripe against Leon Swain's leadership at the Taxicab Commission was that he didn't do enough to protect drivers' interests. They are suing Mayor Gray and Ron Linton as well, for not giving them more of a voice on the board. In short, drivers want DCTC to be more captured by its industry. However, that would absolutely not benefit customers.

That said, Linton's proposal for taxi rates does seem customer-centric. He wants to raise rates, but eliminate many of the confusing surcharges that annoy riders and make it easier for drivers to cheat customers. When the government has to set taxi rates, as it does for street hails, those rates should be high enough to ensure that driving a taxi brings in a decent living, not because it's a jobs program, but because having a lot of taxis is good for people who want a taxi. In turn, this also benefits drivers, a prime example of how public interest and the interest of drivers needn't always be in opposition to one another.

The debate over whether Uber is breaking a law right now is an interesting one, and it's fine for DCist and others to discuss it. But let's not lose sight of the longer-term question, as well. What are the right taxi regulations? How much do we need to regulate to advance the public interest, and which regulations are just protecting a small group of people from needed competition?

What's more, Uber can actually improve the efficiency of "black cars," the for-hire sedans which spend a large portion of the day idling. While the Uber founder says they discourage drivers from accepting Uber trips while they are on a job, it is distinctly feasible to do with their system.

I used to live in Foggy Bottom, and when major summits came to town, the neighborhood would be covered with Town Cars and Tahoes with Virginia "For Hire" license plates. With the IMF, World Bank, and numerous upscale hotels in the area, the vehicles would sit idling all over Foggy Bottom and the West End. The cars often took up parking spaces for hours, double parking at times.

Uber gives them the ability to provide some trips instead of blocking lanes of traffic and every conceivable parking space. This would be good for everyone.

Ironically, the limousine industry should be the one that is more concerned about Uber. Their business is likely to change as long is Uber is around. If someone can book a black car on-demand, pay a mileage-based rate, and then book another one for a return trip, without having to pay for time in between, why, except for the most demanding situations, would anyone bother to hire a car service?

What's more, the taxi industry actually stands to benefit from the presence of Uber. At peak times, such as New Years' Eve, there are not enough cabs to go around, period. Uber maintains their reliability by using "surge pricing" to price out many people and find those customers who are desperate, or well heeled, enough to pay for that reliability.

At high traffic times, Uber takes some people who would have otherwise tried to hail a cab, leaving fewer people to fight over the limited cab supply, and ultimately making traveling by taxi cab easier and more reliable.

Lawyers, Uber, cabbies, the Taxi Commission, and possibly DC councilmembers will debate the legality of Uber's operation in coming weeks. Residents should hope they come to a conclusion that lets the service, and others like it, keep running.

The commission has 3 industry members, but currently they are representatives from hospitality industries, not from drivers directly. People differ on whether the taxi drivers should be directly represented, but at the moment they're in limbo, where they're supposed to have representation but don't.

Tommy Wells was already going to be tackling the Taxi Commission problems even before the recording incident. What should the Council do?

The more I watch DC government, the more I feel that these boards and commissions don't work. They have a significant role in setting policy, but the last two mayors, at least, haven't appointed people with an eye toward specific policy directions. Instead, they appoint people they know personally or big campaign donors.

Mayor Fenty, for instance, was widely considered more friendly to development interests than anti neighbors, and the actions of his Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development certainly reflected such a bias, often to an extreme. But when making appointments to the Zoning Commission, a board with enormous influence over development (arguably more than DMPED), he didn't seem to consider this at all.

This divorces policy too far from our elected officials. The Council or Mayor can set a policy direction for the city and voters can either elect or replace them because of it. But when policy is being made by people picked just for arbitrary reasons, there's no link from the people to the policy.

Many commissions take a lot of time, but don't pay members, dramatically limiting the range of people who can serve. Often that limits the field to either people with a professional interest in the issue, or retirees.

Government seems to work better when decisions are either made by the legislature, or by political appointees directly reporting to an elected executive. The elected legislators or executives might not always be very good, but at least people can throw them out of office if they're doing a sufficiently bad job.

Perhaps instead of a Taxi Commission, the agency should report to the Mayor like most other agencies. In fact, 2 current DCTC members are also DDOT employees, Scott Kubly and Ralph Burns, from the division overseeing the Circulator, streetcars and Capital Bikeshare. If the Mayor wants administration officials setting taxi policy, they could simply set it directly.

Should it be subsumed into an existing agency? The Taxicab Commission serves two roles. It sets taxi policy, such as fares and whether to limit supply with medallions. And it handles licensing and inspections for drivers.

The former function would best belong at DDOT. That agency already is setting transportation policy and can consider big picture issues like how to encourage taxis to serve areas of high demand and/or areas without good transit options. On the other hand, the latter function is closest to the current work of the DMV or DCRA.

DCTC's responsibilities could be split, with DDOT setting policy and the DMV or DCRA handling licensing. However, having other split functions has created problems in the past. Traffic and parking tickets, for instance, are written by MPD or DPW and enforced by the DMV under regulations formulated by DDOT. That's often created many problems where DDOT might set a rule but nobody enforces it, or tickets get written but nobody goes after drivers to collect the money.

If DDOT gets the job, it could create a whole large licensing role that DDOT hasn't had to handle and might turn into a distraction. On the other hand, if all of the responsibility goes to DCRA, then they might not think creatively about policy. DCRA and the DMV is structured to grant and monitor permits, and could have an inherent orienation toward not changing much.

Or, DCTC could remain its own agency but without a commission, instead having all responsibilities handled by mayoral appointees subject to laws passed by Council. Finally, the commission could stay, perhaps with added power to carry out its own decisions.

What do you think would work best?

The video shows Peter Tucker, the other reporter, insisting this is a public meeting and he's doing nothing but recording it; the officer is telling him he has to agree to stop reporting or be arrested.

Police are supposed to protect the public, not act as the private security force for people in power.

What is going through these officers' heads? Say you're an officer who gets a call from someone running a meeting objecting to a reporter there. You show up and see for yourself that the reporter is just sitting quietly recording or taking notes, not disrupting the meeting. What would make you think that your appropriate course of action is to get rid of that person just because the chair asked?

This isn't an isolated incident. It relates to three troubling police-related subjects: The Park Police becoming very disrespectful toward individual liberty, the Metropolitan Police Department's escorts of celebrities, and numerous stories of officers arresting or assaulting people for legally videotaping events.

The Park Police's troubling behavior. The National Park Service is a paradoxical agency. It operates parks but frequently seems to not want anyone to enjoy those parks, or to be able to travel easily to and from them except by the least environmentally friendly means. It operates the venue that hosts the largest numbers of protests (the Mall), yet its police seem constantly averse to smaller and less intrusive First Amendment behaviors.

The Park Police chose to turn some silent and respectful dancing at the Jefferson Memorial into a major issue, and again overreacted to the subsequent dancing protest. They told an ABC7 news crew they couldn't report from the Mall, which is entirely false. They even shut down all the food trucks at Farragut Square despite them operating completely legally.

MPD escorts. Today the DC Council also held a hearing on news that MPD gave Charlie Sheen a high-speed escorts, with sirens and lights, in contravention of policy, and further that they do this quite often. Our police force is not supposed to be making life easier for celebrities, or helping them reach events quickly and get through traffic.

Its mission is keeping the public safe. That public does include celebrities, but as witnesses argued at the hearing, there was no reason to believe the Sheen escort was necessary for public safety. It seems to simply involve doing the bidding of famous or important people. That isn't far from the mindset that someone like Reed could simply ask the police to get rid of a pesky journalist and that the police would comply.

Nationwide harassment of photographers and videographers. Carlos Miller has documented many troubling cases of police blocking or even arresting people who try to take pictures or video of police activity or other public buildings and objects. Rochester, NY police arrested a women for videotaping from her own front yard. Boston police arrested a man for videotaping in a park.

Los Angeles police kept a teen in prison for 7 months after he videotaped them arresting an unrelated person; they are continuing to harass him despite him being uninvolved in the original crime.

Albuquerque police took away a reporter's camera and deleted footage of arrests at a nightclub; Miami police pulled a gun on a citizen taking video of a police shooting.

It's not just about people actually taping police activity. People have recently been arrested or detained for photographing a TSA checkpoint in Denver, a whale in Florida, and a courthouse in Dayton.

In this region, we've had problems with officers harassing people for photographing USDOT's historic gas pumps, Union Station, and the Baltimore light rail.

Certainly, this is a minority of cases. People probably photograph federal buildings, whales, transit, arrests by police and more all the time without being harassed. People videotape on the Mall constantly and the Park Police doesn't bother them. And for all we know, there have been times when the chair of a meeting asks officers to remove a reporter and the officers properly refuse, saying he or she is breaking no law.

But when there are so many incidents, we can say there's a pattern. There seem to be far more incidents with the Park Police than with other police forces. Police look for patterns of behavior to solve crimes. There's a pattern of behavior from the Park Police having trouble understanding or following the Constitution.

We hear many calls for Congress to intervene in District affairs, often on completely internal matters from those unhappy with an outcome. The Park Police, though, is a federal police force. Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress should be very concerned about their officers so blatantly disregarding the First Amendment. And DC officials should take strong action to correct this kind of behavior from the DC Taxi Commission.

Update: Reed says that Tucker insisted on placing his microphone in certain locations to get a better recording, and claims she was entitled to bar the practice or even to refuse recording entirely.