INNOVATION TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING SESSION TRANSCRIPT 3/13/15
Task Force Members Present:
City Staff Present:
Task Force Members not Present:
A note on this transcript:
These notes were taken by hand during the task force subcommittee working group meeting, and transcribed by Wynde Dyer, M.S. [A.B.T.], a former journalist, communications studies professor, ethnographic researcher, and current artist and permitted Portland taxi driver for Green Cab. Any factual or interpretive errors in these notes may be emailed to [email protected] for consideration.
- Jim Owens (Moderator, Cogan Owens Greene, LLC)
- Mike Greenfield (Chairman, retired State of Oregon Executive)
- Rihana Ansary (Portland Business Alliance)
- Dan Lenzen (Venture Hospitality and Real Estate)
- Joan Plank (Former ODOT Executive)
- Richard Lazar (Technology Association of Oregon)
City Staff Present:
- Bryan Hockaday (Policy Advisor to Commissioner Novick) [email protected]
- Frank Dufay (Private-For-Hire Transportation Manager) [email protected]
- City Lawyer, (Name and title unknown)
Task Force Members not Present:
- Leslie Carlson (Brink Communication)
- Chris Bebo (Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association)
- JoAnn Herrigel (Elders in Action)
- Kayse Jama (Center for Intercultural Organizing)
- Jeff Lang (Gales Creek Insurance Services)
- Jewel Mlnarik (Workform.co)
- Sue Stahl (Commission on Disability)
A note on this transcript:
These notes were taken by hand during the task force subcommittee working group meeting, and transcribed by Wynde Dyer, M.S. [A.B.T.], a former journalist, communications studies professor, ethnographic researcher, and current artist and permitted Portland taxi driver for Green Cab. Any factual or interpretive errors in these notes may be emailed to [email protected] for consideration.
- [Bracketed Communication] = paraphrased as heard, or used to fill in missing context
- [NOTE: Bolded Italics in Brackets] = transcriber’s input regarding omitted information
- I have no idea why that no. 1 is below this no. 3, but I can't seem to make it go away
[NOTE: This meeting had a rambunctious audience, which resulted in difficulty hearing.]
STARTING OUT
Jim Owens: My proposal [is to look back at the] last meeting and circle back to cover the new items. What comes out of today we’ll package up for the the rest of the group. It would be helpful if when review, we include the existing code, and insert it into what we propose.
Mike Greenfield: Sounds good.
Jim Owens: [In my review of] the principles section I didn’t realise how well the code matched our principles. It really seems to jive.
Mike Greenfield: This is section 10?
Jim Owens: Yep. General recs?
Mike Greenfield: Page 3.
Mike Greenfield: Sounds good.
Jim Owens: [In my review of] the principles section I didn’t realise how well the code matched our principles. It really seems to jive.
Mike Greenfield: This is section 10?
Jim Owens: Yep. General recs?
Mike Greenfield: Page 3.
INSURANCE
Jim Owens: Shall we jump into insurance? There are a variety of aspects bulleted that inform the types and levels. Will apply the current code and same for workers comp. What was left undetermined was for coverage and gaps of coverage.
Bryan Hockaday: We’ll have the state recommendations by Wednesday.
Mike Greenfield: What products are available in our jurisdiction? I think the city must decide and impose [those decisions on the TNCs]. We can’t force the insurance companies to make them.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: And if they don’t by April 9th?
Bryan Hockaday: We’re tracking it closely, [how they’re doing it in other jurisdictions] and [someone] has already been in touch with the companies.
Frank Dufay: [Something I didn’t mention in the last meeting is] the accidental occupational insurance. It’s not a code requirement, so that’s not relevant, but we got the existing companies together to agree to get accidental occupational insurance [which is similar to workers comp]
Mike Greenfield: It needs to be consistent.
Frank Dufay: We promoted it and allowed taxi companies to raise kitty. We pushed it through without council approval because the insurance company’s offer was about to expire.
[NOTE: Taxi industry GMs remember it very differently. They felt it was mandated]
Richard Lazar: If the coverage doesn’t exist and it hasn’t been approved, is it an issue?
Bryan Hockaday: I don’t have an answer. I’ve asked the state. Presumably if there’s not a product, they can operate without one until one is available.
Mike Greenfield: Can we have the city review and offer insight? It needs to be consistent.
Jim Owens: What have they done in other jurisdictions?
Bryan Hockaday: In similar jurisdictions they establish a regulation and insurance companies create the products.
[NOTE: No mention of the fact that as of this writing, Virginia and California are the only states that have special insurance riders for TNCs, which is hardly predictive of what the insurance companies will do in Oregon, or nationwide. Even so, the people of Portland have no insight into what the coverage levels are, as each driver selects his/her level of coverage. Regardless, this insurance does not pay out as high as commercial policies]
Jim Owens: The accidental occupational insurance is an alternative to workers comp. Would it be put in code?
Frank Dufay: It was always intended to be.
Mike Greenfield: Is everyone okay? Yes.
[Agreement reached]
Bryan Hockaday: We’ll have the state recommendations by Wednesday.
Mike Greenfield: What products are available in our jurisdiction? I think the city must decide and impose [those decisions on the TNCs]. We can’t force the insurance companies to make them.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: And if they don’t by April 9th?
Bryan Hockaday: We’re tracking it closely, [how they’re doing it in other jurisdictions] and [someone] has already been in touch with the companies.
Frank Dufay: [Something I didn’t mention in the last meeting is] the accidental occupational insurance. It’s not a code requirement, so that’s not relevant, but we got the existing companies together to agree to get accidental occupational insurance [which is similar to workers comp]
Mike Greenfield: It needs to be consistent.
Frank Dufay: We promoted it and allowed taxi companies to raise kitty. We pushed it through without council approval because the insurance company’s offer was about to expire.
[NOTE: Taxi industry GMs remember it very differently. They felt it was mandated]
Richard Lazar: If the coverage doesn’t exist and it hasn’t been approved, is it an issue?
Bryan Hockaday: I don’t have an answer. I’ve asked the state. Presumably if there’s not a product, they can operate without one until one is available.
Mike Greenfield: Can we have the city review and offer insight? It needs to be consistent.
Jim Owens: What have they done in other jurisdictions?
Bryan Hockaday: In similar jurisdictions they establish a regulation and insurance companies create the products.
[NOTE: No mention of the fact that as of this writing, Virginia and California are the only states that have special insurance riders for TNCs, which is hardly predictive of what the insurance companies will do in Oregon, or nationwide. Even so, the people of Portland have no insight into what the coverage levels are, as each driver selects his/her level of coverage. Regardless, this insurance does not pay out as high as commercial policies]
Jim Owens: The accidental occupational insurance is an alternative to workers comp. Would it be put in code?
Frank Dufay: It was always intended to be.
Mike Greenfield: Is everyone okay? Yes.
[Agreement reached]
VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
Jim Owens: The scope of inspections required by city, state and federal [unclear] . . . we proposed new standards about who performs the inspections. As I understand it, private inspections will be done by Blue Seal Certified or ASE Certified Mechanics.
Bryan Hockaday: [some minor clarification]
Richard Lazar: Currently does the city do it?
Frank Dufay: We do an aesthetic inspection [and for first aid kits, fire extinguishers, etc.]
Jim Owens: Aesthetics will be addressed in phase two. But are current requirements suspended for the interim? We need to be consistent.
[Agreement reached to suspend aesthetic inspections during the interim.]
Bryan Hockaday: [some minor clarification]
Richard Lazar: Currently does the city do it?
Frank Dufay: We do an aesthetic inspection [and for first aid kits, fire extinguishers, etc.]
Jim Owens: Aesthetics will be addressed in phase two. But are current requirements suspended for the interim? We need to be consistent.
[Agreement reached to suspend aesthetic inspections during the interim.]
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Jim Owens: For background checks we have a new standard. Private checks must be equal to or better than LEDs, and there’s an FBI trigger, certification by a manager, and audits.
Bryan Hockaday: I got more info on that. The only reason to do FBI checks is because LEDs looks for Oregon. Uber and Lyft already do detailed multistate checks, which produce info comparable to what the FBI gets. To do a third-party check and an FBI check would be redundant.
[NOTE: How, then, are so many Uber drivers with criminal histories getting approved to drive, if the background checks Uber offers are equal to or better than FBI checks, the latter of which uses biometric fingerprinting, the gold standard of background checks?]
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: If we are saying to TNCs, “Your background checks are acceptable,” would we say the same for taxis?
Bryan Hockaday: It would have to be consistent.
Richard Lazar: So are we saying LEDs is better or are we saying it only covers local? If the third-party background checks are already doing national scope checks, we wouldn’t have to include the FBI check.
MIke Greenfield: We need to be consistent with all.
Raihana Ansary: Is the LEDs better? Is it because it addresses the 7-10 years issue?
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
Frank Dufay: I’m not . . . [Unclear]
Mike Greenfield: So we have some current standards, do the newcomers have to do that, or is it as good or better?
Frank Dufay: But if they only go back 7 years . . . [Unclear]
Mike Greenfield: Does the city insist on 7 or 10?
Raihana Ansary: The reason why TNCs only go 7 years is because they have federal limitations on pending infractions.
City Lawyer: To propose is fine, but staff needs more. We need a quantitative standard, for sure, but qualitatively I have no understanding of whether they’re the same or not. Only what they say, that their background checks are “top of the line.” But they’re tech companies, and the companies they’re doing these checks through are tech companies, and they feed into tech databases. Maybe there are qualitative differences we need to know about.
Raihana Ansary: If it’s going to be 10, using the LEDs-based, I don’t believe [the TNCs] can go through LEDs, they’ll have to go to the city.
City Lawyer: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: Can we expect 10?
Raihana Ansary: Federal limitations make it so they couldn’t do a third-party, and it is preferable for them [to do a third-party check].
Richard Lazar: LEDs is 10?
Frank Dufay: It goes all the way back for felonies.
Richard Lazar: There is no substantive safety issue between 7 and 10. Regarding the qualitative points, the only way to address this is to understand the content, to compare third-party to LEDs. We could make recommendations to continue the following thoughts on qualitative issues.
City Lawyer: I’m not an expert on criminal background checks, but I would like to know more.
Mike Greenfield: First, LEDs by the city, or, second, demonstrate reviews are being done, but I doubt . . . [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: Could we say 7 or 10 works.
City Lawyer: Police could put on the parameters.
Richard Lazar: My concern is the aren’t going to be able to do enough drivers.
Jim Owens: We could transfer to the companies. Maybe the interim approach is to accept third-party checks, and during the second phase Ken has more time to . . . [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: But we’d want to allow cab companies?
City Lawyer: The qualifications that matter are: (a) who does it, and (b) what disqualifying criteria matters? That’s what the current code requires.
Richard Lazar: But the code has 10-year requirements, so modifications might include amending it to 7 years.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes, I but I expect resolution.
Raihana Ansary: Can we say 7 years?
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: It has to be certified. There has to be a, “Here is a background check for each, submitted themselves or certified.” They have to look into it.
MIke Greenfield: Subject to . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: I have privacy concerns. Executives need to certified they’re not disqualified.
Bryan Hockaday: Certified by a local rep?
Richard Lazar: It would have to be an executive.
City Lawyer: And there needs to be repercussions for fraudulent filing or failure to provide documentation.
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . frequency . . . apply code, record keeping, company maintenance, and the city can audit . . . [unclear]
[Resolution unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: I got more info on that. The only reason to do FBI checks is because LEDs looks for Oregon. Uber and Lyft already do detailed multistate checks, which produce info comparable to what the FBI gets. To do a third-party check and an FBI check would be redundant.
[NOTE: How, then, are so many Uber drivers with criminal histories getting approved to drive, if the background checks Uber offers are equal to or better than FBI checks, the latter of which uses biometric fingerprinting, the gold standard of background checks?]
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: If we are saying to TNCs, “Your background checks are acceptable,” would we say the same for taxis?
Bryan Hockaday: It would have to be consistent.
Richard Lazar: So are we saying LEDs is better or are we saying it only covers local? If the third-party background checks are already doing national scope checks, we wouldn’t have to include the FBI check.
MIke Greenfield: We need to be consistent with all.
Raihana Ansary: Is the LEDs better? Is it because it addresses the 7-10 years issue?
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
Frank Dufay: I’m not . . . [Unclear]
Mike Greenfield: So we have some current standards, do the newcomers have to do that, or is it as good or better?
Frank Dufay: But if they only go back 7 years . . . [Unclear]
Mike Greenfield: Does the city insist on 7 or 10?
Raihana Ansary: The reason why TNCs only go 7 years is because they have federal limitations on pending infractions.
City Lawyer: To propose is fine, but staff needs more. We need a quantitative standard, for sure, but qualitatively I have no understanding of whether they’re the same or not. Only what they say, that their background checks are “top of the line.” But they’re tech companies, and the companies they’re doing these checks through are tech companies, and they feed into tech databases. Maybe there are qualitative differences we need to know about.
Raihana Ansary: If it’s going to be 10, using the LEDs-based, I don’t believe [the TNCs] can go through LEDs, they’ll have to go to the city.
City Lawyer: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: Can we expect 10?
Raihana Ansary: Federal limitations make it so they couldn’t do a third-party, and it is preferable for them [to do a third-party check].
Richard Lazar: LEDs is 10?
Frank Dufay: It goes all the way back for felonies.
Richard Lazar: There is no substantive safety issue between 7 and 10. Regarding the qualitative points, the only way to address this is to understand the content, to compare third-party to LEDs. We could make recommendations to continue the following thoughts on qualitative issues.
City Lawyer: I’m not an expert on criminal background checks, but I would like to know more.
Mike Greenfield: First, LEDs by the city, or, second, demonstrate reviews are being done, but I doubt . . . [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: Could we say 7 or 10 works.
City Lawyer: Police could put on the parameters.
Richard Lazar: My concern is the aren’t going to be able to do enough drivers.
Jim Owens: We could transfer to the companies. Maybe the interim approach is to accept third-party checks, and during the second phase Ken has more time to . . . [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: But we’d want to allow cab companies?
City Lawyer: The qualifications that matter are: (a) who does it, and (b) what disqualifying criteria matters? That’s what the current code requires.
Richard Lazar: But the code has 10-year requirements, so modifications might include amending it to 7 years.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes, I but I expect resolution.
Raihana Ansary: Can we say 7 years?
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: It has to be certified. There has to be a, “Here is a background check for each, submitted themselves or certified.” They have to look into it.
MIke Greenfield: Subject to . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: I have privacy concerns. Executives need to certified they’re not disqualified.
Bryan Hockaday: Certified by a local rep?
Richard Lazar: It would have to be an executive.
City Lawyer: And there needs to be repercussions for fraudulent filing or failure to provide documentation.
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . frequency . . . apply code, record keeping, company maintenance, and the city can audit . . . [unclear]
[Resolution unclear]
TRAINING AND TESTING
Jim Owens: With driver qualifications and training and testing we’ve transferred it from the city.
Raihana Ansary: What is meant by English language?
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear, something about translating training materials] . . . into commonly spoken languages.
Richard Lazar: I’m not recalling this.
Bryan Hockaday: We’re talking about the English videos.
Richard Lazar: At the risk of getting in trouble, my understanding was English was required in Seattle. What does the code say?
Frank Dufay: The code doesn’t require English language, but it’s the only language we offer testing in. That’s our backhanded way of testing for English skills.
Richard Lazar: I have no memory of non-English testing.
Joan Plank: [Clarified that they were talking about testing for English by using English videos in the Seattle test] . . . that was their backhanded way of testing English comprehension.
Raihana Ansary: So . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: We want testing in English.
Mike Greenfield: However the requirements for an ability to speak effectively in a cab may be lower than the requirements that prove the ability to take a test.
[Resolution unclear]
Raihana Ansary: What is meant by English language?
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear, something about translating training materials] . . . into commonly spoken languages.
Richard Lazar: I’m not recalling this.
Bryan Hockaday: We’re talking about the English videos.
Richard Lazar: At the risk of getting in trouble, my understanding was English was required in Seattle. What does the code say?
Frank Dufay: The code doesn’t require English language, but it’s the only language we offer testing in. That’s our backhanded way of testing for English skills.
Richard Lazar: I have no memory of non-English testing.
Joan Plank: [Clarified that they were talking about testing for English by using English videos in the Seattle test] . . . that was their backhanded way of testing English comprehension.
Raihana Ansary: So . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: We want testing in English.
Mike Greenfield: However the requirements for an ability to speak effectively in a cab may be lower than the requirements that prove the ability to take a test.
[Resolution unclear]
CAPS ON HOURS
Jim Owens: Caps on hours . . .
Richard Lazar: The only caveat is combined hours for any company for safety.
Frank Dufay: I recommend 12 hours. Honestly, 14 hours is an awful long time to drive.
Mike Greenfield: Let’s hold it for phase two.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . consensus
Mike Greenfield: [We could use] this as a research phase.
Richard Lazar: The only caveat is combined hours for any company for safety.
Frank Dufay: I recommend 12 hours. Honestly, 14 hours is an awful long time to drive.
Mike Greenfield: Let’s hold it for phase two.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . consensus
Mike Greenfield: [We could use] this as a research phase.
PERMITS
Jim Owens: Next on to permits, fees and the interim structure.
Mike Greenfield: I distributed a proposal of fees in lieu of [meeting] accessibility.
City Lawyer: Michael Jacobs is working on that.
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . no competitive advantage inherent in code requirements to permitted . . . [Unclear] . . . fees are never directly addressed [unclear] . . . types of permits?
City Lawyer: Company, vehicle, driver.
Bryan Hockaday: Seattle and other jurisdictions have . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: Company, vehicle, driver. Staff is working on recommendations. Would these extend to other types of [transportation providers]?
Bryan Hockaday: It’s a matter of how, not what.
Jim Owens: Are we transferring to the commissioner in charge?
Raihana Ansary: What would that look like for PBOT?
Bryan Hockaday: We need to think more. It needs to be approved by council, unless the commissioner has executive approval.
Jim Owens: For phase two we could suggest making a separate advisory committee to include the disabled and others?
Richard Lazar: I would question if that is even needed.
Mike Greenfield: So the recommendation is?
Raihana Ansary: You’ll get inundated.
Bryan Hockaday: The commissioner can delegate to PBOT staff.
Joan Plank: This is a big jump. Doesn’t council need to do the approval? Do we wait [unclear]?
Richard Lazar: The makeup of the PFHT board is a concern. Decision . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear] . . . these changes need to be more fleshed out. This is going to make the city vulnerable.
Bryan Hockaday: It wouldn’t be so radical.
Richard Lazar: Who are vehicle caps and permits are currently handled by?
Bryan Hockaday: They’re handled by the PFHT staff. Well, permits for existing companies are.
Jim Owens: There are a variety of sub-issues.
Richard Lazar: My concern is, depending on the PFHT board if TNCs are permitted, I’m concerned that the PFHT board has the authority to approve or deny them [long diatribe about his perception of the inadequacy of the PFHT board, how the city should do away with it, etc.]
City Lawyer: Currently they can approve or deny.
Richard Lazar: But we’re recommending no caps.
Joan Plank: Are you saying, “Let’s suspend the committee?”
Bryan Hockaday: PBOT staff would be responsible for it.
[NOTE: No mention of the long-existing status of the PHFT board, the fact that the PFHT board is largely responsible for existing code designed to protect passengers and drivers, and the fact that it’s an advisory board, not a decision making board. Also, no mention of the fact that only TWO members on the board represent the taxi industry. The other voting members represent the disabled, the tourism community, the medical transportation and town car industries, the airport, and other stakeholder groups]
City Lawyer: Richard, phase one is TNCs . . . [unclear] . . . just answered a question about gatekeeping. The answer is no. For phase two you can ask . . . [unclear].
Mike Greenfield: I’m not comfortable with this limit for taxis, not TNCs. We need consistency.
Richard Lazar: So no caps for all. Might have current implications, but until we know the moving parts we need more feedback.
Mike Greenfield: I want everyone playing with the same deck of cards.
Joan Plank: My understanding was no caps for no body. So cabs just got 400, but if they want 100 more, they can have them now.
Mike Greenfield: So no caps for no body. Could staff come back with how to deal with that?
Jim Owens: No caps, but we need some data that informs the members making decisions, regarding saturation and other issues.
Richard Lazar: More fully, we need two data reports, from TNCs and taxis, and on all categories and we might down the road decide to reimpose caps or not.
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: And emissions.
Mike Greenfield: Does staff feel they have a clear assignment?
[Laughter, presumably about the lack of clarity]
Mike Greenfield: I distributed a proposal of fees in lieu of [meeting] accessibility.
City Lawyer: Michael Jacobs is working on that.
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . no competitive advantage inherent in code requirements to permitted . . . [Unclear] . . . fees are never directly addressed [unclear] . . . types of permits?
City Lawyer: Company, vehicle, driver.
Bryan Hockaday: Seattle and other jurisdictions have . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: Company, vehicle, driver. Staff is working on recommendations. Would these extend to other types of [transportation providers]?
Bryan Hockaday: It’s a matter of how, not what.
Jim Owens: Are we transferring to the commissioner in charge?
Raihana Ansary: What would that look like for PBOT?
Bryan Hockaday: We need to think more. It needs to be approved by council, unless the commissioner has executive approval.
Jim Owens: For phase two we could suggest making a separate advisory committee to include the disabled and others?
Richard Lazar: I would question if that is even needed.
Mike Greenfield: So the recommendation is?
Raihana Ansary: You’ll get inundated.
Bryan Hockaday: The commissioner can delegate to PBOT staff.
Joan Plank: This is a big jump. Doesn’t council need to do the approval? Do we wait [unclear]?
Richard Lazar: The makeup of the PFHT board is a concern. Decision . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear] . . . these changes need to be more fleshed out. This is going to make the city vulnerable.
Bryan Hockaday: It wouldn’t be so radical.
Richard Lazar: Who are vehicle caps and permits are currently handled by?
Bryan Hockaday: They’re handled by the PFHT staff. Well, permits for existing companies are.
Jim Owens: There are a variety of sub-issues.
Richard Lazar: My concern is, depending on the PFHT board if TNCs are permitted, I’m concerned that the PFHT board has the authority to approve or deny them [long diatribe about his perception of the inadequacy of the PFHT board, how the city should do away with it, etc.]
City Lawyer: Currently they can approve or deny.
Richard Lazar: But we’re recommending no caps.
Joan Plank: Are you saying, “Let’s suspend the committee?”
Bryan Hockaday: PBOT staff would be responsible for it.
[NOTE: No mention of the long-existing status of the PHFT board, the fact that the PFHT board is largely responsible for existing code designed to protect passengers and drivers, and the fact that it’s an advisory board, not a decision making board. Also, no mention of the fact that only TWO members on the board represent the taxi industry. The other voting members represent the disabled, the tourism community, the medical transportation and town car industries, the airport, and other stakeholder groups]
City Lawyer: Richard, phase one is TNCs . . . [unclear] . . . just answered a question about gatekeeping. The answer is no. For phase two you can ask . . . [unclear].
Mike Greenfield: I’m not comfortable with this limit for taxis, not TNCs. We need consistency.
Richard Lazar: So no caps for all. Might have current implications, but until we know the moving parts we need more feedback.
Mike Greenfield: I want everyone playing with the same deck of cards.
Joan Plank: My understanding was no caps for no body. So cabs just got 400, but if they want 100 more, they can have them now.
Mike Greenfield: So no caps for no body. Could staff come back with how to deal with that?
Jim Owens: No caps, but we need some data that informs the members making decisions, regarding saturation and other issues.
Richard Lazar: More fully, we need two data reports, from TNCs and taxis, and on all categories and we might down the road decide to reimpose caps or not.
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: And emissions.
Mike Greenfield: Does staff feel they have a clear assignment?
[Laughter, presumably about the lack of clarity]
DRUG, ALCOHOL AND CONDUCT
Jim Owens: Moving on to drug, alcohol and driver conduct prohibitions such as no smoking.
Bryan Hockaday: And they must use hands-free devices.
City Lawyer: The law already says that. Salzman is concerned and wanted to [unclear] . . . regardless of what leg [unclear] . . .
Jim Owens: Will you distribute?
Frank Dufay: They can’t refuse a ride? One of the sticking points is they pick and choose.
Richard Lazar: When the app is on they can’t refuse, when the app is off they’re not in the system, so how can they refuse a ride?
City Lawyer: I’m going to push back on that, and I’m just channeling what some might say. You should prepare for council’s questions about refusing a ride, because refusing a ride can be interpreted as happening in all cases where someone has no cell phone. So you may get a question about how that is refusing a ride.
Raihana Ansary: Maybe we need to define what refusing a ride is?
City Lawyer: Think about the kinds of questions you’ll get. This is all I’m saying. How are you placing their business model against taxis? There’s no call-in. There’s no cash. Those situations will be of keen concern to city council. Issues of refusal have to be addressed.
Richard Lazar: To the extent that a fare doesn’t have a phone they wouldn’t be able to request a ride, so Uber is not able to refuse service. So phase two has to do with testimony . . . [unclear] . . . so one of the differences might be cabs can sit on stands and take street hails . . . [unclear].
[Someone]: How do they get their fares?
[Someone]: I think the way the system works is it broadcasts out to multiple, and one takes it.
City Lawyer: It geo-locates and the driver has 15 seconds to respond, or it goes to the next.
Richard Lazar: These are all subtleties, but as a general recommendations, I’d like, in general the refusals to . . . [Unclear]
Mike Greenfield: It has to be consistent.
Richard Lazar: I want to avoid the cherry-picking, too.
[Someone]: By only receiving fares from smartphones it is already cherry-picking.
City Lawyer: That and several thousand eyes of needles . . . [unclear]
[Someone, I think Lazar]: We appreciate your warning, but we’re not going to heed to it.
[Laughter amongst group]
Jim Owens: This will come up with the whole task force. We might come up with something like, “You can take calls only from apps, but you can’t go to the airport.”
Mike Greenfield: These are all markers of phase two.
Raihana Ansary: Or it could be the cab companies will have a competitive advantage over non-smartphone users?
Jim Owens: What does the city code say about refusing requests?
Richard Lazar: What’s the language.
Bryan Hockaday: Frank?
Frank Dufay: Refusal to transport . . . [lengthy code language].
[Unclear resolution]
Bryan Hockaday: And they must use hands-free devices.
City Lawyer: The law already says that. Salzman is concerned and wanted to [unclear] . . . regardless of what leg [unclear] . . .
Jim Owens: Will you distribute?
Frank Dufay: They can’t refuse a ride? One of the sticking points is they pick and choose.
Richard Lazar: When the app is on they can’t refuse, when the app is off they’re not in the system, so how can they refuse a ride?
City Lawyer: I’m going to push back on that, and I’m just channeling what some might say. You should prepare for council’s questions about refusing a ride, because refusing a ride can be interpreted as happening in all cases where someone has no cell phone. So you may get a question about how that is refusing a ride.
Raihana Ansary: Maybe we need to define what refusing a ride is?
City Lawyer: Think about the kinds of questions you’ll get. This is all I’m saying. How are you placing their business model against taxis? There’s no call-in. There’s no cash. Those situations will be of keen concern to city council. Issues of refusal have to be addressed.
Richard Lazar: To the extent that a fare doesn’t have a phone they wouldn’t be able to request a ride, so Uber is not able to refuse service. So phase two has to do with testimony . . . [unclear] . . . so one of the differences might be cabs can sit on stands and take street hails . . . [unclear].
[Someone]: How do they get their fares?
[Someone]: I think the way the system works is it broadcasts out to multiple, and one takes it.
City Lawyer: It geo-locates and the driver has 15 seconds to respond, or it goes to the next.
Richard Lazar: These are all subtleties, but as a general recommendations, I’d like, in general the refusals to . . . [Unclear]
Mike Greenfield: It has to be consistent.
Richard Lazar: I want to avoid the cherry-picking, too.
[Someone]: By only receiving fares from smartphones it is already cherry-picking.
City Lawyer: That and several thousand eyes of needles . . . [unclear]
[Someone, I think Lazar]: We appreciate your warning, but we’re not going to heed to it.
[Laughter amongst group]
Jim Owens: This will come up with the whole task force. We might come up with something like, “You can take calls only from apps, but you can’t go to the airport.”
Mike Greenfield: These are all markers of phase two.
Raihana Ansary: Or it could be the cab companies will have a competitive advantage over non-smartphone users?
Jim Owens: What does the city code say about refusing requests?
Richard Lazar: What’s the language.
Bryan Hockaday: Frank?
Frank Dufay: Refusal to transport . . . [lengthy code language].
[Unclear resolution]
VEHICLE SIGNAGE AND USAGE
Jim Owens: Decals and things. The goal is to have adequate identification for customers and enforcers.
Mike Greenfield: Taxis have all kinds of identification to tell it’s a cab. TNCs need that if we’re putting this out to law enforcement. There has to be magnetic signs, intended to be visible so the customer can see it coming and so that enforcers can see them.
Raihana Ansary: When customers request an order they see the car and driver and plates. Isn’t that sufficient?
Mike Greenfield: Law enforcement needs to know, too.
Bryan Hockaday: They have products available to identify them.
[NOTE: No mention from Hockaday of the fact that the Lyft’s little tiny glowing mustache on the dash and Uber’s little tiny U’s in the window are barely visible to customers, and invisible to law enforcement driving behind. These are for customers, not for enforcers. Fortunately, Jim Owens, the moderator, brings this up later. This is key because 90% of complaints against for-hire drivers come from the non-passenger public]
Richard Lazar: That’s between the driver and the rider.
Mike Greenfield: Can we say they need to have notices of stuff like rates online rather than placed inside?
Jim Owens: Lyft has no pink mustache anymore, and the decals are relatively small. You can’t tell it’s a for-hire vehicle on the streetscape.
Mike Greenfield: Staff needs to consult with law enforcement about a removable thing that works.
Mike Greenfield: Taxis have all kinds of identification to tell it’s a cab. TNCs need that if we’re putting this out to law enforcement. There has to be magnetic signs, intended to be visible so the customer can see it coming and so that enforcers can see them.
Raihana Ansary: When customers request an order they see the car and driver and plates. Isn’t that sufficient?
Mike Greenfield: Law enforcement needs to know, too.
Bryan Hockaday: They have products available to identify them.
[NOTE: No mention from Hockaday of the fact that the Lyft’s little tiny glowing mustache on the dash and Uber’s little tiny U’s in the window are barely visible to customers, and invisible to law enforcement driving behind. These are for customers, not for enforcers. Fortunately, Jim Owens, the moderator, brings this up later. This is key because 90% of complaints against for-hire drivers come from the non-passenger public]
Richard Lazar: That’s between the driver and the rider.
Mike Greenfield: Can we say they need to have notices of stuff like rates online rather than placed inside?
Jim Owens: Lyft has no pink mustache anymore, and the decals are relatively small. You can’t tell it’s a for-hire vehicle on the streetscape.
Mike Greenfield: Staff needs to consult with law enforcement about a removable thing that works.
SAFETY CAMERAS
Joan Plank: What about the camera requirement?
Bryan Hockaday: What do you want?
Richard Lazar: I would suggest there’s a cost requirement that is prohibitive.
[NOTE: Nevermind that Uber is a $40-billion company who most certainly can afford cameras if it can afford to give its drivers iPhones on loan. Nevermind that small mom-and-pop locally-owned taxi companies can afford these cameras, so Uber can, too. There is absolutely no reason not to require them to have cameras, which can be switched out, just like the phones, when old drivers leave and new drivers join the fleet]
Mike Greenfield: Is it in a code? Why don’t we apply the code?
Frank Dufay: It’s important to mention we haven’t had a driver fatality since they were installed. There’s been no killings against cab drivers since we got cameras.
Bryan Hockaday: It’s also documentation of the passenger and the driver.
[NOTE: Great to mention. It would also be great to be a bit more explicit here. These cameras are tamper-proof, only accessible by law enforcement, so their documentation can be used to confirm or dispute the rape, assault, and other unsavory behaviors]
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: They’re not requiring them in other jurisdictions.
Mike Greenfield: Shall we push to phase two?
Joan Plank: If we agree cabs can have other options . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: I wouldn’t recommend cameras in cars.
Bryan Hockaday: What do you want?
Richard Lazar: I would suggest there’s a cost requirement that is prohibitive.
[NOTE: Nevermind that Uber is a $40-billion company who most certainly can afford cameras if it can afford to give its drivers iPhones on loan. Nevermind that small mom-and-pop locally-owned taxi companies can afford these cameras, so Uber can, too. There is absolutely no reason not to require them to have cameras, which can be switched out, just like the phones, when old drivers leave and new drivers join the fleet]
Mike Greenfield: Is it in a code? Why don’t we apply the code?
Frank Dufay: It’s important to mention we haven’t had a driver fatality since they were installed. There’s been no killings against cab drivers since we got cameras.
Bryan Hockaday: It’s also documentation of the passenger and the driver.
[NOTE: Great to mention. It would also be great to be a bit more explicit here. These cameras are tamper-proof, only accessible by law enforcement, so their documentation can be used to confirm or dispute the rape, assault, and other unsavory behaviors]
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: They’re not requiring them in other jurisdictions.
Mike Greenfield: Shall we push to phase two?
Joan Plank: If we agree cabs can have other options . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: I wouldn’t recommend cameras in cars.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Jim Owens: This is things like 24/7 dispatch, serving all locations 24/7, and specific taxi things.
Richard Lazar: Does staff have any thoughts?
Bryan Hockaday: Their abilities to meet the minimums would be different. For 24/7 city service I don’t see any obvious reasons to require it . . . [something about the part-time labor force].
City Lawyer: Acceptance of any requests in the city applies here, too.
Jim Owens: Direction?
Mike Greenfield: Apply current standards or something different?
Bryan Hockaday: There’s also the fleet of at least 15, with at least ⅔ of the vehicles utilized. This is difficult to impose upon the TNCs.
Mike Greenfield: Is there a problem with lifting it for the other companies?
Jim Owens: Is this a phase two?
City Lawyer: [Unclear, something about current code] . . . dispatch by telephone, are we adopting and modifying this temporarily?
Richard Lazar: I will recommend redoing 270 for the interim.
Mike Greenfield: Is everyone okay?
[Consensus reached]
Richard Lazar: Does staff have any thoughts?
Bryan Hockaday: Their abilities to meet the minimums would be different. For 24/7 city service I don’t see any obvious reasons to require it . . . [something about the part-time labor force].
City Lawyer: Acceptance of any requests in the city applies here, too.
Jim Owens: Direction?
Mike Greenfield: Apply current standards or something different?
Bryan Hockaday: There’s also the fleet of at least 15, with at least ⅔ of the vehicles utilized. This is difficult to impose upon the TNCs.
Mike Greenfield: Is there a problem with lifting it for the other companies?
Jim Owens: Is this a phase two?
City Lawyer: [Unclear, something about current code] . . . dispatch by telephone, are we adopting and modifying this temporarily?
Richard Lazar: I will recommend redoing 270 for the interim.
Mike Greenfield: Is everyone okay?
[Consensus reached]
REPORTING
Mike Greenfield: What kinds of reporting?
Richard Lazar: Arrests or convictions, accidents reported to the state, filing of lawsuits, bankruptcies . . . [lengthy list of code]
Mike Greenfield: Are there any problems or issues for TNCs?
Bryan Hockaday: Should we go farther?
Mike Greenfield: Numbers of trips, miles traveled, revenue?
Jim Owens: This only addresses personal or financial misbehavior.
Mike Greenfield: So the others fall under data collection?
[Resolution unclear]
Richard Lazar: Arrests or convictions, accidents reported to the state, filing of lawsuits, bankruptcies . . . [lengthy list of code]
Mike Greenfield: Are there any problems or issues for TNCs?
Bryan Hockaday: Should we go farther?
Mike Greenfield: Numbers of trips, miles traveled, revenue?
Jim Owens: This only addresses personal or financial misbehavior.
Mike Greenfield: So the others fall under data collection?
[Resolution unclear]
DATA COLLECTION
Jim Owens: This is a high-level topic. We talked about it specifically for taxi and TNCs to submit data at some frequency to see how they’re doing . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: What is the data requirement?
Bryan Hockaday: Initial pick-up address and time, final drop-off address and time.
City Lawyer: Additional financial in 430.
Bryan Hockaday: PBOT is interested in the length of the trip, miles traveled and time, accessible service. PBOT staff said Uber . . . [unclear].
Richard Lazar: Should data reporting happen now or in phase two?
Bryan Hockaday: Data is needed from phase one to move to phase two.
Mike Greenfield: In order to collect any fee or tax, we have to get what we base it on into the reporting stream.
Jim Owens: Can we come back with what to collect in the interim?
Bryan Hockaday: I’ll come back with something.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . 450 sub C of ordinance not admin . . . [unclear].
Mike Greenfield: Vehicle accessibility?
Raihana Ansary: Pick-up, drop-off miles, dates time, this is all admin stuff.
Jim Owens: And data on disabled populations, and the other part was privacy and service.
Richard Lazar: Right now, if I read it right, the requirement is collected and made available, not submitted. So is there a duty to report as opposed to collect?
Mike Lazar: That’s a good assignment for staff.
Jim Owens: And what about enforcement?
Bryan Hockaday: Staff does enforce regulations, there’s a whole fee schedule.
City Lawyer: And we can suspend or revoke permits.
Mike Greenfield: Is there sufficient enforcement authority?
Bryan Hockaday: We have good tools.
[NOTE: No mention of exactly how shoddy Portland’s day-to-day enforcement is in general--take Airbnb, for example--but specifically within the taxi industry. Almost all large-scale enforcements--for example, of gipsy cabs, out-of-town limos, or drivers bribing doormen--have been conducted with assistance of local taxi drivers, and the PFHT staff has proven largely ineffectual when it comes to enforcing Uber because Uber disables their cell phone and credit cards. The PFHT staff is overworked, and enforcement often takes second seat. I’m not sure what “tools” Hockaday is referring to, but they’ve not proven to be “good” thus far and I suspect they will not improve, given Commissioner Novick’s and Mayor Hales’ suddenly open-armed embrace of Uber]
Richard Lazar: What is the data requirement?
Bryan Hockaday: Initial pick-up address and time, final drop-off address and time.
City Lawyer: Additional financial in 430.
Bryan Hockaday: PBOT is interested in the length of the trip, miles traveled and time, accessible service. PBOT staff said Uber . . . [unclear].
Richard Lazar: Should data reporting happen now or in phase two?
Bryan Hockaday: Data is needed from phase one to move to phase two.
Mike Greenfield: In order to collect any fee or tax, we have to get what we base it on into the reporting stream.
Jim Owens: Can we come back with what to collect in the interim?
Bryan Hockaday: I’ll come back with something.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . 450 sub C of ordinance not admin . . . [unclear].
Mike Greenfield: Vehicle accessibility?
Raihana Ansary: Pick-up, drop-off miles, dates time, this is all admin stuff.
Jim Owens: And data on disabled populations, and the other part was privacy and service.
Richard Lazar: Right now, if I read it right, the requirement is collected and made available, not submitted. So is there a duty to report as opposed to collect?
Mike Lazar: That’s a good assignment for staff.
Jim Owens: And what about enforcement?
Bryan Hockaday: Staff does enforce regulations, there’s a whole fee schedule.
City Lawyer: And we can suspend or revoke permits.
Mike Greenfield: Is there sufficient enforcement authority?
Bryan Hockaday: We have good tools.
[NOTE: No mention of exactly how shoddy Portland’s day-to-day enforcement is in general--take Airbnb, for example--but specifically within the taxi industry. Almost all large-scale enforcements--for example, of gipsy cabs, out-of-town limos, or drivers bribing doormen--have been conducted with assistance of local taxi drivers, and the PFHT staff has proven largely ineffectual when it comes to enforcing Uber because Uber disables their cell phone and credit cards. The PFHT staff is overworked, and enforcement often takes second seat. I’m not sure what “tools” Hockaday is referring to, but they’ve not proven to be “good” thus far and I suspect they will not improve, given Commissioner Novick’s and Mayor Hales’ suddenly open-armed embrace of Uber]
STREET HAILS AND AIRPORT ACCESS
Jim Owens: Regarding airport and street hails the issues I see are if I’m a TNC I cannot go to the airport, and I cannot sit in a taxi stand.
Joan Plank: I’m okay with that, but what if I’m in the cell phone waiting area and I get a call?
City Lawyer: PORT has its own regulations.
Bryan Hockaday: They historically mirror the city requirements.
Joan Plank: So we keep them off?
Frank Dufay: They’re planning their own space for them.
Joan Plank: And for hotels, if they’re not in line, but what if they’re near?
Jim Owens: The interim is not changing restrictions.
Richard Lazar: But imposing . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: We’ll submit names to PORT’s advising committee.
Joan Plank: So it’s just like Gresham?
Richard Lazar: I don’t know anything about Gresham. Unless we want to not have them, which is inconsistent.
Raihana Ansary: No airport.
Richard Lazar: We have no control over the airport.
Joan Plank: I’m okay with that, but what if I’m in the cell phone waiting area and I get a call?
City Lawyer: PORT has its own regulations.
Bryan Hockaday: They historically mirror the city requirements.
Joan Plank: So we keep them off?
Frank Dufay: They’re planning their own space for them.
Joan Plank: And for hotels, if they’re not in line, but what if they’re near?
Jim Owens: The interim is not changing restrictions.
Richard Lazar: But imposing . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: We’ll submit names to PORT’s advising committee.
Joan Plank: So it’s just like Gresham?
Richard Lazar: I don’t know anything about Gresham. Unless we want to not have them, which is inconsistent.
Raihana Ansary: No airport.
Richard Lazar: We have no control over the airport.
BUSINESS PRESENCE
Jim Owens: This is for lost property.
Richard Lazar: So the confusion I see is between an agent of service, as opposed to a physical office. What would you like?
City Lawyer: I would like to see a physical office presence.
Richard Lazar: Other jurisdictions haven’t required it, but we can do an agent of service.
City Lawyer: For phase one an agent of service.
Richard Lazar: They need to file registration with all agencies [lists them].
Mike Greenfield: For lost property management?
City Lawyer: For staff complaints, holding property, whatever else.
Mike Greenfield: And requirements would be the same for taxis to have an agent of service?
Joan Plank: If I have a license plate and I left something, can’t I get it found?
City Lawyer: Maybe.
Richard Lazar: Austin or one jurisdiction did have a lost property agent of service, but no physical office address, but at least a 1-800 number or a process officer of some sort.
[NOTE: No mention that Austin blocked Uber from servicing during SXSW]
Mike Greenfield: I would like to get recommendations from staff.
Jim Owens: We’re almost out of time, I’d like to shift to ADA issues.
Richard Lazar: So the confusion I see is between an agent of service, as opposed to a physical office. What would you like?
City Lawyer: I would like to see a physical office presence.
Richard Lazar: Other jurisdictions haven’t required it, but we can do an agent of service.
City Lawyer: For phase one an agent of service.
Richard Lazar: They need to file registration with all agencies [lists them].
Mike Greenfield: For lost property management?
City Lawyer: For staff complaints, holding property, whatever else.
Mike Greenfield: And requirements would be the same for taxis to have an agent of service?
Joan Plank: If I have a license plate and I left something, can’t I get it found?
City Lawyer: Maybe.
Richard Lazar: Austin or one jurisdiction did have a lost property agent of service, but no physical office address, but at least a 1-800 number or a process officer of some sort.
[NOTE: No mention that Austin blocked Uber from servicing during SXSW]
Mike Greenfield: I would like to get recommendations from staff.
Jim Owens: We’re almost out of time, I’d like to shift to ADA issues.
ACCESSIBILITY
Mike Greenfield: I passed out something that might address the impact issue, provide revenue, and even out the competitive advantage. We could develop it now or in the future, that would fund accessibility. Can we take a minute to find that?
Richard Lazar: Can you describe how it would work?
Mike Greenfield: 20% is fairly variable, so making it equal when one has some or part or all, and the other isn’t interested. An in lieu of fee assumes you figure out the value of two variables. Either you provide up to 20% or you pay a per-trip charge which would fund subsidies for those vehicles.
Richard Lazar: The only quantitative variable is to provide 20%. There are no standards for quality of service, response times, etc. I have what is an interim approach to phase one . . . [unclear]. One thing that strikes me is the metrics imposed are arbitrary. So require the taxis or the TNCs to enter into a third-party agreement [with each other or with medical transportation companies] so they don’t have to accept accessible rides, they can refer out. That’s a simple interim solution. It worked in Seattle.
[NOTE: Lazar fails to understand both the law and the market here. ADA accessibility is non-negotiable, and Uber is currently in litigation with disability rights groups and, so far, judges have sided with the plaintiffs in saying that ADA accessibility issues cannot be contracted out. Uber does it anyway. Secondly, to suggest that the medical transportation companies have the capacity to handle Uber’s contracted-out services is woefully ignorant of the market conditions of that industry. If he were not so dismissive of the PHFT board, it would serve him well to speak to the SAT representative on that board. Kirk Foster of Wapato Shores will surely tell him the capacity is not there. Lastly, Uber’s app is currently disabled for the vision-impaired, and has been for three months, and there has never been a “select a wheelchair accessible vehicle” option in the app]
Mike Greenfield: Okay, but say company A has made a purchase of vehicles and you have TNC B making referrals, TNCs have a competitive advantage and can shed that responsibility. They have a competitive advantage over the taxis.
Richard Lazar: I don’t think so. TNCs shouldn’t have to pay the cost, but cab companies can use their own cars for the purpose of serving their clients and the TNCs. In that sense, the cab companies have the competitive advantage.
[NOTE: Once again this is a woefully ignorant and/or personal agenda-serving statement. Wheelchair vans cost, at minimum $30,000, and usually upwards of $50,000-$70,000. The less expensive ones deteriorate more quickly, and the more expensive ones are more expensive to fix--in the $20,000 for a new engine kind of expensive. They are not fuel efficient. Most wheelchair drivers do not profit on their investment. In fact, one Radio Cab wheelchair van owner I know grossed $60,000 last year but only netted $3,200.]
Mike Greenfield: There is the revenue generated we need to consider.
Joan Plank: The report from staff said Seattle was requiring taxis to have access to wheelchair vehicles, or pay an additional 10-cents. It seems, Mike, with your argument we get both rides and revenue.
Raihana Ansary: With your proposal, I have a question. Do both taxis and TNCs get subjected to the charge? So for taxis, is it pro-rated based on ADA-compliance?
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear] . . . or pay.
Raihana: Some have 10%
Mike Greenfield: So they get charged.
Richard Lazar: Who provides the ride then?
Mike Greenfield: The idea is to put the two in service and create a revenue stream. There are a lot of questions. What is the need? Do we have too many? Not enough? Service time? There are 100s of questions we don’t have answers to. I want nobody to have a competitive advantage that comes from refusing service to a protected class, and to create revenue to study.
Richard Lazar: I’m struggling, without studying on a bigger scale . . . [unclear] . . . to amend but not planning to exempt.
Mike Greenfield: “Exempt” and “requiring” is different.
Richard Lazar: Seattle allows them to refer out.
Mike Greenfield: We need to put them on equal footing.
Raihana Ansary: What would the cost of this study be?
Jim Owens: Listening, it seems this proposal is part of a larger proposal for phase one.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes.
Joan Plank: But if needs are not being met, we need to enforce. To your comment . . . [unclear] what works to get us to the question is, if it worked in Seattle that’s what we want.
Mike Greenfield: That’s fine. But they may decide to shed it to a service contract.
Richard Lazar: I am striving for parity in fairness to companies who’ve invested in the infrastructure. They should be permitted to use what they have for revenue.
[The audience gasped, burst out in laughter, shaking heads, because operating a handicapped vehicle is a fairly unprofitable requirement of following ADA law. Richard Lazar scolded the audience with a statement about, “I realize you all may have different opinions but be respectful.”]
[NOTE: Typically it would be the chairman’s job or the moderator’s job to silence the audience. However, Richard Lazar has shown time and time again he’d like to have both of those jobs.]
Richard Lazar: If we’re not imposing performance standards . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: We have them, we just don’t enforce them.
Richard Lazar: Fleet allocation standards, not performance.
Mike Greenfield: How do you justify not providing service, and for taxis who made the quoted number? What do taxis do?
Bryan Hockaday: The commissioner talked about how he’s interested in a per fare charge, like Seattle, is one way to go. [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: The dot that didn’t connect is if we’re all complying with 10-cents, who would deliver the service?
Bryan Hockaday: They would contract with other providers.
Jim Owens: For the interim the Seattle model creates a comfort factor but indicates there is a lot of work to be done in phase two. We have lots of options.
Mike Greenfield: Studying and setting standards should come from the industry.
Richard Lazar: That’s a tricky questions since data does exist, but its data of locations of ADA requests, in aggregate, from zip codes, etc. That’s not unreasonable. It’d be very helpful.
[NOTE: In reality, it is a difficult request. While it varies from company to company--Radio, Green and Broadway can probably provide this data, but the man hours to produce it will be prohibitive--some of the smaller companies do not have computerized dispatch, so this data simply does not exist except anecdotally]
Bryan Hockaday: I’m not sure they’ll be able to get it.
Jim Owens: We have five minutes.
Mike Greenfield: Okay, I got some feedback that I was being too pushy, so I’ll dial it back.
Richard Lazar: Can you describe how it would work?
Mike Greenfield: 20% is fairly variable, so making it equal when one has some or part or all, and the other isn’t interested. An in lieu of fee assumes you figure out the value of two variables. Either you provide up to 20% or you pay a per-trip charge which would fund subsidies for those vehicles.
Richard Lazar: The only quantitative variable is to provide 20%. There are no standards for quality of service, response times, etc. I have what is an interim approach to phase one . . . [unclear]. One thing that strikes me is the metrics imposed are arbitrary. So require the taxis or the TNCs to enter into a third-party agreement [with each other or with medical transportation companies] so they don’t have to accept accessible rides, they can refer out. That’s a simple interim solution. It worked in Seattle.
[NOTE: Lazar fails to understand both the law and the market here. ADA accessibility is non-negotiable, and Uber is currently in litigation with disability rights groups and, so far, judges have sided with the plaintiffs in saying that ADA accessibility issues cannot be contracted out. Uber does it anyway. Secondly, to suggest that the medical transportation companies have the capacity to handle Uber’s contracted-out services is woefully ignorant of the market conditions of that industry. If he were not so dismissive of the PHFT board, it would serve him well to speak to the SAT representative on that board. Kirk Foster of Wapato Shores will surely tell him the capacity is not there. Lastly, Uber’s app is currently disabled for the vision-impaired, and has been for three months, and there has never been a “select a wheelchair accessible vehicle” option in the app]
Mike Greenfield: Okay, but say company A has made a purchase of vehicles and you have TNC B making referrals, TNCs have a competitive advantage and can shed that responsibility. They have a competitive advantage over the taxis.
Richard Lazar: I don’t think so. TNCs shouldn’t have to pay the cost, but cab companies can use their own cars for the purpose of serving their clients and the TNCs. In that sense, the cab companies have the competitive advantage.
[NOTE: Once again this is a woefully ignorant and/or personal agenda-serving statement. Wheelchair vans cost, at minimum $30,000, and usually upwards of $50,000-$70,000. The less expensive ones deteriorate more quickly, and the more expensive ones are more expensive to fix--in the $20,000 for a new engine kind of expensive. They are not fuel efficient. Most wheelchair drivers do not profit on their investment. In fact, one Radio Cab wheelchair van owner I know grossed $60,000 last year but only netted $3,200.]
Mike Greenfield: There is the revenue generated we need to consider.
Joan Plank: The report from staff said Seattle was requiring taxis to have access to wheelchair vehicles, or pay an additional 10-cents. It seems, Mike, with your argument we get both rides and revenue.
Raihana Ansary: With your proposal, I have a question. Do both taxis and TNCs get subjected to the charge? So for taxis, is it pro-rated based on ADA-compliance?
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear] . . . or pay.
Raihana: Some have 10%
Mike Greenfield: So they get charged.
Richard Lazar: Who provides the ride then?
Mike Greenfield: The idea is to put the two in service and create a revenue stream. There are a lot of questions. What is the need? Do we have too many? Not enough? Service time? There are 100s of questions we don’t have answers to. I want nobody to have a competitive advantage that comes from refusing service to a protected class, and to create revenue to study.
Richard Lazar: I’m struggling, without studying on a bigger scale . . . [unclear] . . . to amend but not planning to exempt.
Mike Greenfield: “Exempt” and “requiring” is different.
Richard Lazar: Seattle allows them to refer out.
Mike Greenfield: We need to put them on equal footing.
Raihana Ansary: What would the cost of this study be?
Jim Owens: Listening, it seems this proposal is part of a larger proposal for phase one.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes.
Joan Plank: But if needs are not being met, we need to enforce. To your comment . . . [unclear] what works to get us to the question is, if it worked in Seattle that’s what we want.
Mike Greenfield: That’s fine. But they may decide to shed it to a service contract.
Richard Lazar: I am striving for parity in fairness to companies who’ve invested in the infrastructure. They should be permitted to use what they have for revenue.
[The audience gasped, burst out in laughter, shaking heads, because operating a handicapped vehicle is a fairly unprofitable requirement of following ADA law. Richard Lazar scolded the audience with a statement about, “I realize you all may have different opinions but be respectful.”]
[NOTE: Typically it would be the chairman’s job or the moderator’s job to silence the audience. However, Richard Lazar has shown time and time again he’d like to have both of those jobs.]
Richard Lazar: If we’re not imposing performance standards . . . [unclear]
Mike Greenfield: We have them, we just don’t enforce them.
Richard Lazar: Fleet allocation standards, not performance.
Mike Greenfield: How do you justify not providing service, and for taxis who made the quoted number? What do taxis do?
Bryan Hockaday: The commissioner talked about how he’s interested in a per fare charge, like Seattle, is one way to go. [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: The dot that didn’t connect is if we’re all complying with 10-cents, who would deliver the service?
Bryan Hockaday: They would contract with other providers.
Jim Owens: For the interim the Seattle model creates a comfort factor but indicates there is a lot of work to be done in phase two. We have lots of options.
Mike Greenfield: Studying and setting standards should come from the industry.
Richard Lazar: That’s a tricky questions since data does exist, but its data of locations of ADA requests, in aggregate, from zip codes, etc. That’s not unreasonable. It’d be very helpful.
[NOTE: In reality, it is a difficult request. While it varies from company to company--Radio, Green and Broadway can probably provide this data, but the man hours to produce it will be prohibitive--some of the smaller companies do not have computerized dispatch, so this data simply does not exist except anecdotally]
Bryan Hockaday: I’m not sure they’ll be able to get it.
Jim Owens: We have five minutes.
Mike Greenfield: Okay, I got some feedback that I was being too pushy, so I’ll dial it back.
WRAP UP
[Some discussion about the formatting of the next meeting]
Joan Plank: What I would suggest is you do a power-point.
Richard Lazar: It should be pretty straight forward.
Jim Owens: I’ll do a power-point and have existing code included.
Joan Plank: We should ask people to hold their questions, so we don’t get bogged down. We have to let Jim try to get through things, so people can write their questions and hold onto them.
Jim Owens: Is it two hours?
Bryan Hockaday: It’s three hours.
Joan Plank: Does that make sense? Then we’ll do questions one by one.
Raihana Ansary: Are we voting on the package or on items?
Jim Owens: We’ll see the presentation and then let it absorb.
Joan Plank: This is the draft straw man model to the group, and then the next meeting is when we vote? Do we have any public comment?
Bryan Hockaday: Public comment is closed but we are taking written testimony.
Raihana Ansary: And the draft recs will come when?
Jim Owens: It better not be sunny this weekend.
Joan Plank: What I would suggest is you do a power-point.
Richard Lazar: It should be pretty straight forward.
Jim Owens: I’ll do a power-point and have existing code included.
Joan Plank: We should ask people to hold their questions, so we don’t get bogged down. We have to let Jim try to get through things, so people can write their questions and hold onto them.
Jim Owens: Is it two hours?
Bryan Hockaday: It’s three hours.
Joan Plank: Does that make sense? Then we’ll do questions one by one.
Raihana Ansary: Are we voting on the package or on items?
Jim Owens: We’ll see the presentation and then let it absorb.
Joan Plank: This is the draft straw man model to the group, and then the next meeting is when we vote? Do we have any public comment?
Bryan Hockaday: Public comment is closed but we are taking written testimony.
Raihana Ansary: And the draft recs will come when?
Jim Owens: It better not be sunny this weekend.