INNOVATION TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING SESSION TRANSCRIPT 3/25/15
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. [ABT], a former journalist, communications studies professor, ethnographic researcher, and current Portland taxi driver for Green Cab. Any factual or interpretive errors in these notes may be emailed to wyndedyer@gmail.com for consideration.
- Jim Owens (Moderator, Cogan Owens Greene, LLC)
- Rihana Ansary (Portland Business Alliance)
- Dan Lenzen (Venture Hospitality and Real Estate)
- Joan Plank (Former ODOT Executive)
- Richard Lazar (Technology Association of Oregon)
- Jim Owens (Moderator, Cogan Owens Greene, LLC)
City Staff Present:
- Bryan Hockaday (Policy Advisor to Commissioner Novick) bryan.hockaday@portlandoregon.gov
- Frank Dufay (Private-For-Hire Transportation Manager) Frank.Dufay@portlandoregon.gov
- City Lawyer, (Name and title unknown)
- Michael Jacobs (Smart Park General Manager) michael.jacobs@portlandoregon.gov
- Francesca Patricolo (PBOT) francesca.patricolo@portlandoregon.gov
- Jody Yates (Interim Parking Group Manager)
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)
- Mike Greenfield (retired, former State of Oregon executive
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. [ABT], a former journalist, communications studies professor, ethnographic researcher, and current Portland taxi driver for Green Cab. Any factual or interpretive errors in these notes may be emailed to wyndedyer@gmail.com 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
STARTING OUT
Joan Plank: As an approach, let’s start with going through and seeing what we agree on.
Jim Owens: Let me walk through some changes. There are some variance issues. If we could jump to page 3, I took the definition approved by council and put it in the glossary. And then on page 4 in the framework I did a little consolidation of inspections and aesthetics with regards to safety. And I added a section on fare rates because we may want to make a recommendation. I also dropped the airport access as a topic.
Joan Plank: Thank you. I also suggested in an email to Jim I thought what the Lewis & Clark students did was really good. They did such a nice job of capturing the issues, so we might change some things based on their recommendations. One change to consider is the part under principals where it says, “Disabled passengers have reliable and timely access . . . “ on page 2. I’m not sure we need “vehicle.” What I think we need is “service” not just “vehicle.”
Jim Owens: I propose dropping that bullet all together and making it “reliable and timely service for all” including the disabled.
Richard Lazar: How many bullets up is that?
Joan: Okay, so where are we going next?
Jim Owens: Into insurance.
Jim Owens: Let me walk through some changes. There are some variance issues. If we could jump to page 3, I took the definition approved by council and put it in the glossary. And then on page 4 in the framework I did a little consolidation of inspections and aesthetics with regards to safety. And I added a section on fare rates because we may want to make a recommendation. I also dropped the airport access as a topic.
Joan Plank: Thank you. I also suggested in an email to Jim I thought what the Lewis & Clark students did was really good. They did such a nice job of capturing the issues, so we might change some things based on their recommendations. One change to consider is the part under principals where it says, “Disabled passengers have reliable and timely access . . . “ on page 2. I’m not sure we need “vehicle.” What I think we need is “service” not just “vehicle.”
Jim Owens: I propose dropping that bullet all together and making it “reliable and timely service for all” including the disabled.
Richard Lazar: How many bullets up is that?
Joan: Okay, so where are we going next?
Jim Owens: Into insurance.
INSURANCE
Jim Owens: One thing I incorporated into there with connects . . . [unclear] . . . the comments on insurance are . . . [unclear] . . . so on insurance we’re still waiting for staff recommendations to deal with the three periods.
Bryan Hockaday: Definitely all PFHT drivers need full coverage from the request to the exit of the passenger. What is unique is the period 1 time where the TNC may have the app on but they haven’t accepted a ride. Similarly for period 1 is when a taxi vehicle is at a taxi stands, but before a ride request or hail comes. Insurance companies widely consider that no commercial activity is happening, and they couple that with a contingency clause.
[NOTE: This assumes all vehicles who are waiting for a ride are parked. Vehicles are often times in transit during this time. For example, if a taxi or an Uber driver takes someone from downtown to Hillsboro, they may be on app but not in transit to a new passenger on the way back to downtown. Likewise, Uber drivers would not be covered while “cruising” to other areas in search of more lucrative fares. Period one SHOULD include full coverage for TNCs. Otherwise the public is at risk of these drivers hit pedestrians, cyclists, property, or other vehicles while in motion during period one]
Richard Lazar: Ken, did you get a chance to look at the revised comments on page 1 and page 2 with the different limits? Are they consistent with the current code?
City Lawyer: Well for period 1 they're at $50K per person. That is not consistent with current codes. If you want to lower it for taxis, you could do it that way.
Richard Lazar: The question is, “Is there a product that will provide that coverage?”
Dan Lenzen: That would be commercial, right?
Richard Lazar: Commercial contingent is what Bryan described. This is not viewed as a high risk time, they’re on standby.
[NOTE: See my comments above. A driver can be in motion and still in standby]
Bryan Hockaday: That’s right, it’s not in commercial use.
Richard Lazar: What I’m trying to get at is City Council’s level of comfort of adopting the layered approach. They have to either adopt it or change it.
Joan Plank: We want to adopt it, but there will be some back and forth with council. We can’t bait it on their likelihood of agreeing with our recommendations.
Jim Owens: I wouldn’t go there.
Richard Lazar: [What we’re proposing] is different from Lewis & Clark recommends.
Joan Plank: It’s different from what we recommended, too.
Jim Owens: We hadn’t really gotten into it.
Joan Plank: But Lewis & Clark recommended across the board coverage.
Richard Lazar: No other jurisdictions have done that.
[NOTE: Other jurisdictions HAVE done this, and Uber has left those jurisdictions. Richard Lazar has tunnel vision focused only on the jurisdictions that have embraced Uber. He fails to account for the many cities, counties, states and countries that have blocked Uber, or those that tried to find a middle ground with Uber only to have Uber leave because said jurisdictions would not budge on serious safety concerns.]
Frank Dufay: As of July 1st in California they must have coverage limits of $500K, but it’s commercial, not contingent.
Richard Lazar: And that’s carried by the companies?
Joan Plank: That’s the key.
Richard Lazar: Given what other jurisdictions have done, other than California, I suggest we need $500K for period 1. And will the insurance industry adopt $500K for period 1? [Unclear] . . . Can it be contingent that a private driver won’t be cancelled, and the products will evolve?
[NOTE: Until these products evolve, the city should require every TNC driver to disclose their commercial activity to their insurance agency and receive a statement from the insurance agency promising the city that the driver will be covered if there’s an accident]
Jim Owens: It’s commercial vs. contingent now. So then would we require the TNCs to purchase a different policy?
Bryan Hockaday: Ideally one that acknowledges they’re not in commercial activity at that time.
Dan Lenzen: I’m wondering if this is economically feasible for the drivers?
[NOTE: As a taxi driver, my full commercial coverage costs me $300 a week. I only drive part-time. If part time Uber drivers are able to evade these costs, so too should taxis]
Richard Lazar: The TNCs provide it, not the driver.
Raihana Ansary: Can you restate it, Richard?
Richard Lazar: Instead of $100K it would be $500K per incident.
City Lawyer: Period 1 is $50K per person, $100K per death, and $30K for property.
Richard Lazar: That’s what’s proposed? So it’s not $500K. And right now Uber and Lyft are at $100K per incident.
Bryan Hockaday: Never . . . [unclear] . . . how they explain.
Richard Lazar: Do we push it up to $500K?
City Lawyer: It doesn’t look like it.
Raihana Ansary: Based on other jurisdictions, I would say we maintain the $100K.
[NOTE: $100K is NOT sufficient. I would like to ask Raihana if the value of her life or the life of a loved one is only worth $100K? If an Uber driver hits her while she’s crossing a street in downtown Portland, her medical bills alone would likely be over $100K]
Jim Owens: What about if the taxi driver has not accepted? So looking at that, it would be a decrease.
Richard Lazar: Do you know when . . . [unclear, something about California insurance].
Frank Dufay: There’s an additional $200K, and the key is, it’s primary commercial.
City Lawyer: Yes, it’s primary.
Richard Lazar: Which makes sense.
Joan Plank: I’d like primary, which is what the cab companies have.
Richard Lazar: I will ammend my recommendation.
Jim Owens: So are we saying $100K, but commercial, not contingent?
Richard Lazar: That’s what I’m suggesting.
Raihana Ansary: So when the driver has not accepted but the app is on?
City Lawyer: Yes, they call it “app on in wait” or something.
Richard Lazar: Are we good? I’ll recommend we stick with once the ride is accepted it’s absolutely primary.
Frank Dufay: One small wrinkle here. We currently require A1 or 8, so we better take that out if you want. They’re not the only ratings . . . [unclear something about the kind of insurance the city accepts, all very much over my head] . . . must be approved by the city.
Joan Plank: I don’t disagree but maybe we wait for staff recommendations for phase two.
Richard Lazar: We’re not wedded to A1.
Bryan Hockaday: Definitely all PFHT drivers need full coverage from the request to the exit of the passenger. What is unique is the period 1 time where the TNC may have the app on but they haven’t accepted a ride. Similarly for period 1 is when a taxi vehicle is at a taxi stands, but before a ride request or hail comes. Insurance companies widely consider that no commercial activity is happening, and they couple that with a contingency clause.
[NOTE: This assumes all vehicles who are waiting for a ride are parked. Vehicles are often times in transit during this time. For example, if a taxi or an Uber driver takes someone from downtown to Hillsboro, they may be on app but not in transit to a new passenger on the way back to downtown. Likewise, Uber drivers would not be covered while “cruising” to other areas in search of more lucrative fares. Period one SHOULD include full coverage for TNCs. Otherwise the public is at risk of these drivers hit pedestrians, cyclists, property, or other vehicles while in motion during period one]
Richard Lazar: Ken, did you get a chance to look at the revised comments on page 1 and page 2 with the different limits? Are they consistent with the current code?
City Lawyer: Well for period 1 they're at $50K per person. That is not consistent with current codes. If you want to lower it for taxis, you could do it that way.
Richard Lazar: The question is, “Is there a product that will provide that coverage?”
Dan Lenzen: That would be commercial, right?
Richard Lazar: Commercial contingent is what Bryan described. This is not viewed as a high risk time, they’re on standby.
[NOTE: See my comments above. A driver can be in motion and still in standby]
Bryan Hockaday: That’s right, it’s not in commercial use.
Richard Lazar: What I’m trying to get at is City Council’s level of comfort of adopting the layered approach. They have to either adopt it or change it.
Joan Plank: We want to adopt it, but there will be some back and forth with council. We can’t bait it on their likelihood of agreeing with our recommendations.
Jim Owens: I wouldn’t go there.
Richard Lazar: [What we’re proposing] is different from Lewis & Clark recommends.
Joan Plank: It’s different from what we recommended, too.
Jim Owens: We hadn’t really gotten into it.
Joan Plank: But Lewis & Clark recommended across the board coverage.
Richard Lazar: No other jurisdictions have done that.
[NOTE: Other jurisdictions HAVE done this, and Uber has left those jurisdictions. Richard Lazar has tunnel vision focused only on the jurisdictions that have embraced Uber. He fails to account for the many cities, counties, states and countries that have blocked Uber, or those that tried to find a middle ground with Uber only to have Uber leave because said jurisdictions would not budge on serious safety concerns.]
Frank Dufay: As of July 1st in California they must have coverage limits of $500K, but it’s commercial, not contingent.
Richard Lazar: And that’s carried by the companies?
Joan Plank: That’s the key.
Richard Lazar: Given what other jurisdictions have done, other than California, I suggest we need $500K for period 1. And will the insurance industry adopt $500K for period 1? [Unclear] . . . Can it be contingent that a private driver won’t be cancelled, and the products will evolve?
[NOTE: Until these products evolve, the city should require every TNC driver to disclose their commercial activity to their insurance agency and receive a statement from the insurance agency promising the city that the driver will be covered if there’s an accident]
Jim Owens: It’s commercial vs. contingent now. So then would we require the TNCs to purchase a different policy?
Bryan Hockaday: Ideally one that acknowledges they’re not in commercial activity at that time.
Dan Lenzen: I’m wondering if this is economically feasible for the drivers?
[NOTE: As a taxi driver, my full commercial coverage costs me $300 a week. I only drive part-time. If part time Uber drivers are able to evade these costs, so too should taxis]
Richard Lazar: The TNCs provide it, not the driver.
Raihana Ansary: Can you restate it, Richard?
Richard Lazar: Instead of $100K it would be $500K per incident.
City Lawyer: Period 1 is $50K per person, $100K per death, and $30K for property.
Richard Lazar: That’s what’s proposed? So it’s not $500K. And right now Uber and Lyft are at $100K per incident.
Bryan Hockaday: Never . . . [unclear] . . . how they explain.
Richard Lazar: Do we push it up to $500K?
City Lawyer: It doesn’t look like it.
Raihana Ansary: Based on other jurisdictions, I would say we maintain the $100K.
[NOTE: $100K is NOT sufficient. I would like to ask Raihana if the value of her life or the life of a loved one is only worth $100K? If an Uber driver hits her while she’s crossing a street in downtown Portland, her medical bills alone would likely be over $100K]
Jim Owens: What about if the taxi driver has not accepted? So looking at that, it would be a decrease.
Richard Lazar: Do you know when . . . [unclear, something about California insurance].
Frank Dufay: There’s an additional $200K, and the key is, it’s primary commercial.
City Lawyer: Yes, it’s primary.
Richard Lazar: Which makes sense.
Joan Plank: I’d like primary, which is what the cab companies have.
Richard Lazar: I will ammend my recommendation.
Jim Owens: So are we saying $100K, but commercial, not contingent?
Richard Lazar: That’s what I’m suggesting.
Raihana Ansary: So when the driver has not accepted but the app is on?
City Lawyer: Yes, they call it “app on in wait” or something.
Richard Lazar: Are we good? I’ll recommend we stick with once the ride is accepted it’s absolutely primary.
Frank Dufay: One small wrinkle here. We currently require A1 or 8, so we better take that out if you want. They’re not the only ratings . . . [unclear something about the kind of insurance the city accepts, all very much over my head] . . . must be approved by the city.
Joan Plank: I don’t disagree but maybe we wait for staff recommendations for phase two.
Richard Lazar: We’re not wedded to A1.
VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
Joan Plank: We said we weren’t going to deal with this except to maintain the no smoking thing, but the task force at large has some issues and wanted us to revisit the safety issues.
Jim Owens: At least we need to be addressing the question of what would be different for TNCs from taxis, for example the spare tire, first aid kit, and fire extinguishers?
Raihana Ansary: Spare tires?
Richard Lazar: I’ll address this. I don’t think if there’s a fire, they’re either going to be scrambling to get out or incapacitated. Most people call 911 and wait.
Raihana Ansary: I think this fire extinguisher stuff really applies more towards antiquated cars that have engine failures. With new cars it’s not so much of an issue.
Richard Lazar: Chris felt strongly about it, so I’m channeling.
[NOTE: Chris is correct in feeling strongly about this. Car fires are surprisingly common, in new and old cars alike, and they happen for a number of reasons. In February there were 13 reported car fires in Portland alone. Fire department officials nationwide advocate for all vehicles to carry extinguishers, as they can literally save lives and property while waiting for emergency responders. Furthermore, they are very affordable, in the range of $15-$30, certainly an expense a $40-billion company can afford]
Joan Plank: The heating and cooling issues are serious. Defrost relates to being able to see out the windows. I’d propose we add that. Perhaps it makes some sense to base inspections on mileage. The DEQ does that for the first four years, because new cars never fail.
Jim Owens: But it’s 10 years.
Joan Plank: But a brand new car doesn’t need inspections.
Raihan Ansari: That’s assuming mileage is the only indicator of safety.
Frank Dufay: Right now new vehicles only have to get inspected at 1 year.
Jim Owens: So we’re proposing the same standards?
Frank Dufay: Well, if it’s less than 1,000 miles we don’t inspect, but that’s sort of a house standard, not a code issue.
Joan Plank: What about first aid kits?
Jim Owens: I think they’re relics for everyone. We all have cell phones now.
[NOTE: First aid kits and bloodborne pathogen kits are surprisingly affordable ($6-$30), surprisingly small, and surprisingly useful in the transportation industry, particularly in dealing with individuals who are intoxicated, ill, or otherwise incapacitated. A cell phone does not help you safely clean up a mess or a person when you have someone bleeding uncontrollably in your car, a first aid kit and rubber gloves do. I use the first aid kit in my cab at least monthly, if not more frequently. Please reconsider first aid kits]
Richard Lazar: We’re suggesting three be deleted?
Joan Plank: We’re revisiting what else to include? So what about 2, under repair, 3 kept in a safe position . . . [unclear] . . . so let’s include . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: So we’re suggesting . . . [unclear]
Jim Owens: We’d be adding spare tire and functioning heating and cooling.
Bryan Hockaday: That’s already in the code.
Joan Plank: I don’t see the spare tire as important.
Raihana Ansary: Do they have some kind of roadside contract, the TNCs?
Joan Plank: The issue is if I blow a tire, I call AAA, and if I have a spare, they put it on and I’m on my way. If not, they have to tow me somewhere to get a new tire.
Richard Lazar: But the rider is not going to wait for that.
Raihana Ansary: I think we should uniformly apply it.
Michael Jacobs: With regards to aesthetics inspections we do regularly, I suggest we pull back and say we have the right to inspect within 48 hours.
Jim Owens: We already did that.
Michael Jacobs: We were going beyond the code. We maintain the right instead of doing it regularly, we have the right to inspect. So it’s no change of code, just an administrative thing.
Richard Lazar: The code is fine the way it is.
Joan Plank: I want to be transparent with all staff.
Dan Lenzen: [unclear question about inspections] How many shops are there?
Bryan Hockaday: There are 50 Blue Seal shops and 16 Master Mechanics.
[NOTE: Thank you, Mr. Hockaday, for correcting the misinformation you provided the Task Force last week about the number of Blue Seal and Master Mechanic shops]
Raihana Ansary: So we’re creating a whole new market for Blue Seal?
Jim Owens: That’s my new business.
Jim Owens: At least we need to be addressing the question of what would be different for TNCs from taxis, for example the spare tire, first aid kit, and fire extinguishers?
Raihana Ansary: Spare tires?
Richard Lazar: I’ll address this. I don’t think if there’s a fire, they’re either going to be scrambling to get out or incapacitated. Most people call 911 and wait.
Raihana Ansary: I think this fire extinguisher stuff really applies more towards antiquated cars that have engine failures. With new cars it’s not so much of an issue.
Richard Lazar: Chris felt strongly about it, so I’m channeling.
[NOTE: Chris is correct in feeling strongly about this. Car fires are surprisingly common, in new and old cars alike, and they happen for a number of reasons. In February there were 13 reported car fires in Portland alone. Fire department officials nationwide advocate for all vehicles to carry extinguishers, as they can literally save lives and property while waiting for emergency responders. Furthermore, they are very affordable, in the range of $15-$30, certainly an expense a $40-billion company can afford]
Joan Plank: The heating and cooling issues are serious. Defrost relates to being able to see out the windows. I’d propose we add that. Perhaps it makes some sense to base inspections on mileage. The DEQ does that for the first four years, because new cars never fail.
Jim Owens: But it’s 10 years.
Joan Plank: But a brand new car doesn’t need inspections.
Raihan Ansari: That’s assuming mileage is the only indicator of safety.
Frank Dufay: Right now new vehicles only have to get inspected at 1 year.
Jim Owens: So we’re proposing the same standards?
Frank Dufay: Well, if it’s less than 1,000 miles we don’t inspect, but that’s sort of a house standard, not a code issue.
Joan Plank: What about first aid kits?
Jim Owens: I think they’re relics for everyone. We all have cell phones now.
[NOTE: First aid kits and bloodborne pathogen kits are surprisingly affordable ($6-$30), surprisingly small, and surprisingly useful in the transportation industry, particularly in dealing with individuals who are intoxicated, ill, or otherwise incapacitated. A cell phone does not help you safely clean up a mess or a person when you have someone bleeding uncontrollably in your car, a first aid kit and rubber gloves do. I use the first aid kit in my cab at least monthly, if not more frequently. Please reconsider first aid kits]
Richard Lazar: We’re suggesting three be deleted?
Joan Plank: We’re revisiting what else to include? So what about 2, under repair, 3 kept in a safe position . . . [unclear] . . . so let’s include . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: So we’re suggesting . . . [unclear]
Jim Owens: We’d be adding spare tire and functioning heating and cooling.
Bryan Hockaday: That’s already in the code.
Joan Plank: I don’t see the spare tire as important.
Raihana Ansary: Do they have some kind of roadside contract, the TNCs?
Joan Plank: The issue is if I blow a tire, I call AAA, and if I have a spare, they put it on and I’m on my way. If not, they have to tow me somewhere to get a new tire.
Richard Lazar: But the rider is not going to wait for that.
Raihana Ansary: I think we should uniformly apply it.
Michael Jacobs: With regards to aesthetics inspections we do regularly, I suggest we pull back and say we have the right to inspect within 48 hours.
Jim Owens: We already did that.
Michael Jacobs: We were going beyond the code. We maintain the right instead of doing it regularly, we have the right to inspect. So it’s no change of code, just an administrative thing.
Richard Lazar: The code is fine the way it is.
Joan Plank: I want to be transparent with all staff.
Dan Lenzen: [unclear question about inspections] How many shops are there?
Bryan Hockaday: There are 50 Blue Seal shops and 16 Master Mechanics.
[NOTE: Thank you, Mr. Hockaday, for correcting the misinformation you provided the Task Force last week about the number of Blue Seal and Master Mechanic shops]
Raihana Ansary: So we’re creating a whole new market for Blue Seal?
Jim Owens: That’s my new business.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Jim Owens: There’s nothing in code, so is if just an administrative issue?
City Lawyer: It’s admin.
Joan Plank: One question I have is the whole FBI check thing. What I was hearing is there’s probably an FBI requirement under the TNC process where they get info similar to what the FBI provides in their checks.
Bryan Hockaday: The scope includes a multistate check.
Joan Plank: You don’t have to have the FBI unless you can’t get the multistate. So if LEDs is used, then you need the FBI check [if there’s a trigger]. But the way we had it in the recommendations was redundant for TNCs.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes, either LEDs, or if there are multistate flags, then FBI, or a 3rd party check.
Joan Plank: I’m comfortable with that.
Richard Lazar: Are you clear enough to craft that?
City Lawyer: Yes, code says must [insert lengthy code statement here]
Richard Lazar: So that’s already provided, but the other open issue is the 7 or 10 years.
City Lawyer: I had an inclination, which I whispered about, that it’s a fair credit reporting issue. So these are the checks they are already running for landlord-tenant stuff and employment. [Unclear] . . . for convictions those will pull from any time period, it could be 10 or 15 years, but it doesn’t pick up for arrests or things with other issues, but LEDs picks up everything. There’s an equity issue council is currently struggling with around whether arrests are a disqualifying factor.
Richard Lazar: So I think you have a sense of what’s happening?
City Lawyer: Equal to or better, yes, and what I’m telling you is it’s different. LEDs comes up with everything.
Richard Lazar: The question is does an arrest come up as a disqualifying factor?
Bryan Hockaday: What are disqualifying factors is in the code, but the code . . . [unclear]
City Lawyer: The code is written ambiguously. It says, “Has a felony,” which I interpret to mean “has a felony conviction.”
Richard Lazar: So the real change is taxis and TNCs can use 3rd party checks.
Bryan Hockaday: And we’ll stick with felony convictions.
Raihana Ansary: That’s good with the Ban the Box thing.
City Lawyer: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: 3rd party is okay and cab companies and TNCs can have them certified.
Bryan Hockaday: And we maintain the right to audit.
Richard Lazar: We going to use the same disqualifying criteria and companies are required to do them via LEDs or a 3rd party that is national in scope.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear] . . . Taxi and TNCs says accurate.
Raihana Ansary: And the 7 years? Are we maintaining that?
Richard Lazar: We’re saying 3rd party, which is 7 years.
Bryan Hockaday: But the code requires 10.
Raihana Ansary: The 3rd parties can only do 7.
City Lawyer: But convictions are shown for all times.
Joan Plank: I propose changing 10 to 7.
Lawyer: [unclear, I believe he said, “No,” but it doesn’t make sense in context]
City Lawyer: It’s admin.
Joan Plank: One question I have is the whole FBI check thing. What I was hearing is there’s probably an FBI requirement under the TNC process where they get info similar to what the FBI provides in their checks.
Bryan Hockaday: The scope includes a multistate check.
Joan Plank: You don’t have to have the FBI unless you can’t get the multistate. So if LEDs is used, then you need the FBI check [if there’s a trigger]. But the way we had it in the recommendations was redundant for TNCs.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes, either LEDs, or if there are multistate flags, then FBI, or a 3rd party check.
Joan Plank: I’m comfortable with that.
Richard Lazar: Are you clear enough to craft that?
City Lawyer: Yes, code says must [insert lengthy code statement here]
Richard Lazar: So that’s already provided, but the other open issue is the 7 or 10 years.
City Lawyer: I had an inclination, which I whispered about, that it’s a fair credit reporting issue. So these are the checks they are already running for landlord-tenant stuff and employment. [Unclear] . . . for convictions those will pull from any time period, it could be 10 or 15 years, but it doesn’t pick up for arrests or things with other issues, but LEDs picks up everything. There’s an equity issue council is currently struggling with around whether arrests are a disqualifying factor.
Richard Lazar: So I think you have a sense of what’s happening?
City Lawyer: Equal to or better, yes, and what I’m telling you is it’s different. LEDs comes up with everything.
Richard Lazar: The question is does an arrest come up as a disqualifying factor?
Bryan Hockaday: What are disqualifying factors is in the code, but the code . . . [unclear]
City Lawyer: The code is written ambiguously. It says, “Has a felony,” which I interpret to mean “has a felony conviction.”
Richard Lazar: So the real change is taxis and TNCs can use 3rd party checks.
Bryan Hockaday: And we’ll stick with felony convictions.
Raihana Ansary: That’s good with the Ban the Box thing.
City Lawyer: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: 3rd party is okay and cab companies and TNCs can have them certified.
Bryan Hockaday: And we maintain the right to audit.
Richard Lazar: We going to use the same disqualifying criteria and companies are required to do them via LEDs or a 3rd party that is national in scope.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear] . . . Taxi and TNCs says accurate.
Raihana Ansary: And the 7 years? Are we maintaining that?
Richard Lazar: We’re saying 3rd party, which is 7 years.
Bryan Hockaday: But the code requires 10.
Raihana Ansary: The 3rd parties can only do 7.
City Lawyer: But convictions are shown for all times.
Joan Plank: I propose changing 10 to 7.
Lawyer: [unclear, I believe he said, “No,” but it doesn’t make sense in context]
TRAINING AND TESTING
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: I would like to spend more time in phase two, not sure if there’s a lot to be gained now. CPR, yes, that makes sense, but some of the other things don’t.
Dan Lenzen: Phase 2.
Jim Owens: So we’re either waiving it for everyone or applying the current code.
Joan Plank: I can live with that for now but I’d like to return to it later.
Michael Jacobs: Staff is considering, if we allow exams to be done, we allow it similarly to the training programs. They can have until 6 months after the permit to do it, versus before. Or we issue temporary permits, then once the exam and training is passed, a permanent permit.
[NOTE: Thank you, Michael Jacobs, for proposing this interim solution, which makes a lot of sense for both taxi companies and TNCs alike. I sincerely appreciate it].
Richard Lazar: There is a question in my mind about about whether the individuals versus the companies handle this.
Joan Plank: I would like to spend more time in phase two, not sure if there’s a lot to be gained now. CPR, yes, that makes sense, but some of the other things don’t.
Dan Lenzen: Phase 2.
Jim Owens: So we’re either waiving it for everyone or applying the current code.
Joan Plank: I can live with that for now but I’d like to return to it later.
Michael Jacobs: Staff is considering, if we allow exams to be done, we allow it similarly to the training programs. They can have until 6 months after the permit to do it, versus before. Or we issue temporary permits, then once the exam and training is passed, a permanent permit.
[NOTE: Thank you, Michael Jacobs, for proposing this interim solution, which makes a lot of sense for both taxi companies and TNCs alike. I sincerely appreciate it].
Richard Lazar: There is a question in my mind about about whether the individuals versus the companies handle this.
ADA COMPLIANCE
Jim Owens: There are two things here. One is data, the other is service. So I talked to Sue at length, and she was confused, so I explained to her that we don’t have the ability to require it now. What we can do it so at the beginning of April we begin collecting data in July, and then based on that data we put in a requirement for companies to provide ongoing data so we can develop performance metrics. Sue didn’t like that, but . . . [unclear] . . . she recognized we’d be wrestling with it in phase 2. [Unclear] . . . want interim phase in place that requires everyone to provide. Interim thoughts include referrals via independent contractors or existing companies. TNCs have something on the app that allows them to request an accessible vehicle, so that’s not a problem.
[NOTE: There are two very serious errors in reasoning here. The first is the Task Force is making the assumption there are independent contractors and agencies with the ability and capacity to accept contracts from Uber. There do not. The medical transportation companies and the taxi companies are at capacity for wheelchair rides. The vehicles themselves are on backorder nationally. If you had industry representation on your board, perhaps Kirk Foster, the SAT rep on the PFHT board, you would know these key pieces of information before making recommendations that are unfeasible. Secondly, no, Uber does not, at present have something on the app that allows for an ADA ride. In fact, their assistive technology for the vision impaired has not been working since January, so individuals within limited vision have not been able to use their service in three months. For three months Uber has said, "We're working on correcting this problem," but so far, no fixes.]
Richard Lazar: It’s software. It’s not a problem.
Jim Owens: Looking at the Lewis & Clark language it seemed the cleanest and simplest.
Joan Plank: Is there no time frame?
Jim Owens: We don’t have a baseline.
Richard Lazar: And there’s no enforcement mechanism.
Jim Owens: Companies will be tallying data.
Richard Lazar: I think that’s a great interim solution, but data reporting we all feel strongly about. If you want to play, you provide data. I’ll suggest all companies report by April to July. But I’ll ask staff, can you at the April meeting require cab companies to provide historic data?
Bryan Hockaday: We can require, but we might not get it.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: Ask PFHT board . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: It ought to be in the code so that the task force and city council can require it.
Bryan Hockaday: Wait time, ADA, originating zip code, distance traveled, destination zip?
Joan Plank: Not every disabled person is in a wheelchair, so we need data on other accommodations, as well.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . all fares or accessible? We need all to calculate percentages.
City Lawyer: Yes, the types of requests.
Joan Plank: That’s needed to update the code.
Raihana Ansary: [Unclear] . . . binds for non-compliance?
Richard Lazar: I don’t think the city has a mechanism for performance. Once there’s data in the system, that can account for response time . . . [unclear].
[NOTE: In a perfect world, response time for an ADA accommodated specialty vehicle would be close to that of a regular vehicles. In the real world, most taxi companies that operate at 20% are at capacity all day long because they have contracts with agencies to provide wheelchair rides. These rides are usually--at least at Green Cab--scheduled in advance, the night before or morning of, which makes it challenging for these drivers to pick up on-demand wheelchair rides from the public or other agencies. Let me be really clear when I say the taxi industry wants to provide better service, and we are willing to work hard to improve our response time and customer service. Uber does not want to have anything to do with providing service to this protected class of individuals]
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . sounds like we’re expanding the scope of that, so we’re expanding the existing code?
Michael Jacobs: What was the code number?
City Lawyer: It says “upon request” but requiring reporting, I’d say quarterly, in general, but monthly for phase 1.
Joan Plank: Under “goals” we have something about a competitive advantage, but we should add to that.
Raihana Ansary: Equal?
Richard Lazar: It may not be equal.
Joan Plank: But it is a goal, not a requirement, for it to be equal.
Frank Dufay: Some apps fo through dispatch, but it goes directly to the driver, if there’s nobody out there, how do they respond and report?
Richard Lazar: They refer, so actually, that’s a really good question, and I think we should tell Uber and Lyft we require data and to have it in their contracts with the agencies they work with.
Joan Plank: That’s good enough.
Raihana Ansary: So we’re not requiring a charge per ride?
Jim Owens: That’s my recommendation.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear] . . . pays for research of data.
Jim Owens: Recommendation?
Bryan Hockaday: Per fare requirement.
Joan Plank: For everyone if they’re not providing it.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes.
Raihana Ansary: 10-cents?
Joan Plank: That’s a good place to start. We need cost recovery.
[NOTE: Speaking of cost recovery, several of the taxi companies have shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the new wheelchair accessible vehicles required in order to build out their sedan fleets to fill the 240 new permits. Will the taxi companies get any of this “cost recovery” money back for following the rules?]
Jim Owens: So Sue Stahl wants it to go into effect immediately.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes . . . [cites lengthy code]
Dan Lenzen: For app accessibility we should put a timeline on the apps.
Joan Plank: Before they start. Only government takes this long.
[NOTE: Again, I will remind you, when Uber deprioritizes something, it takes a long time, longer than government, to change. Individuals with vision impairment have been hounding the company since early January to fix its software so they can have access to Uber’s services. Currently, only portions of their app are able to be voice-activated. It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t read the links I forward, so feel free to google it yourself]
Richard Lazar: I would be shocked if it was a problem.
[NOTE: There are two very serious errors in reasoning here. The first is the Task Force is making the assumption there are independent contractors and agencies with the ability and capacity to accept contracts from Uber. There do not. The medical transportation companies and the taxi companies are at capacity for wheelchair rides. The vehicles themselves are on backorder nationally. If you had industry representation on your board, perhaps Kirk Foster, the SAT rep on the PFHT board, you would know these key pieces of information before making recommendations that are unfeasible. Secondly, no, Uber does not, at present have something on the app that allows for an ADA ride. In fact, their assistive technology for the vision impaired has not been working since January, so individuals within limited vision have not been able to use their service in three months. For three months Uber has said, "We're working on correcting this problem," but so far, no fixes.]
Richard Lazar: It’s software. It’s not a problem.
Jim Owens: Looking at the Lewis & Clark language it seemed the cleanest and simplest.
Joan Plank: Is there no time frame?
Jim Owens: We don’t have a baseline.
Richard Lazar: And there’s no enforcement mechanism.
Jim Owens: Companies will be tallying data.
Richard Lazar: I think that’s a great interim solution, but data reporting we all feel strongly about. If you want to play, you provide data. I’ll suggest all companies report by April to July. But I’ll ask staff, can you at the April meeting require cab companies to provide historic data?
Bryan Hockaday: We can require, but we might not get it.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: Ask PFHT board . . . [unclear]
Richard Lazar: It ought to be in the code so that the task force and city council can require it.
Bryan Hockaday: Wait time, ADA, originating zip code, distance traveled, destination zip?
Joan Plank: Not every disabled person is in a wheelchair, so we need data on other accommodations, as well.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . all fares or accessible? We need all to calculate percentages.
City Lawyer: Yes, the types of requests.
Joan Plank: That’s needed to update the code.
Raihana Ansary: [Unclear] . . . binds for non-compliance?
Richard Lazar: I don’t think the city has a mechanism for performance. Once there’s data in the system, that can account for response time . . . [unclear].
[NOTE: In a perfect world, response time for an ADA accommodated specialty vehicle would be close to that of a regular vehicles. In the real world, most taxi companies that operate at 20% are at capacity all day long because they have contracts with agencies to provide wheelchair rides. These rides are usually--at least at Green Cab--scheduled in advance, the night before or morning of, which makes it challenging for these drivers to pick up on-demand wheelchair rides from the public or other agencies. Let me be really clear when I say the taxi industry wants to provide better service, and we are willing to work hard to improve our response time and customer service. Uber does not want to have anything to do with providing service to this protected class of individuals]
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . sounds like we’re expanding the scope of that, so we’re expanding the existing code?
Michael Jacobs: What was the code number?
City Lawyer: It says “upon request” but requiring reporting, I’d say quarterly, in general, but monthly for phase 1.
Joan Plank: Under “goals” we have something about a competitive advantage, but we should add to that.
Raihana Ansary: Equal?
Richard Lazar: It may not be equal.
Joan Plank: But it is a goal, not a requirement, for it to be equal.
Frank Dufay: Some apps fo through dispatch, but it goes directly to the driver, if there’s nobody out there, how do they respond and report?
Richard Lazar: They refer, so actually, that’s a really good question, and I think we should tell Uber and Lyft we require data and to have it in their contracts with the agencies they work with.
Joan Plank: That’s good enough.
Raihana Ansary: So we’re not requiring a charge per ride?
Jim Owens: That’s my recommendation.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear] . . . pays for research of data.
Jim Owens: Recommendation?
Bryan Hockaday: Per fare requirement.
Joan Plank: For everyone if they’re not providing it.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes.
Raihana Ansary: 10-cents?
Joan Plank: That’s a good place to start. We need cost recovery.
[NOTE: Speaking of cost recovery, several of the taxi companies have shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the new wheelchair accessible vehicles required in order to build out their sedan fleets to fill the 240 new permits. Will the taxi companies get any of this “cost recovery” money back for following the rules?]
Jim Owens: So Sue Stahl wants it to go into effect immediately.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes . . . [cites lengthy code]
Dan Lenzen: For app accessibility we should put a timeline on the apps.
Joan Plank: Before they start. Only government takes this long.
[NOTE: Again, I will remind you, when Uber deprioritizes something, it takes a long time, longer than government, to change. Individuals with vision impairment have been hounding the company since early January to fix its software so they can have access to Uber’s services. Currently, only portions of their app are able to be voice-activated. It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t read the links I forward, so feel free to google it yourself]
Richard Lazar: I would be shocked if it was a problem.
RATES
Jim Owens: Where it sits right now we’re not going to regulate.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear] . . . bring for discussion, considering drunk passengers, do the drivers have the capacity to negotiate fares, we have drivers with different language capabilities, that’s why we’re requiring it.
Richard Lazar: Without regulating fares, we can have fare transparency. We can require it to be fully disclosed before the ride. Suggestions? I propose prospective disclosure.
Bryan Hockaday: How would taxi disclosure work?
Richard Lazar: There would be no regulation of TNCS and continue the meter rates for taxis.
Mike Greenfield didn’t want that disparity.
Joan Plank: Disclosing of how it’s calculated . . . [unclear] . . . they also require a receipt delivered, but they don’t do a receipt.
Richard Lazar: They do. It’s emailed. It’s the cabs that have a problem.
[NOTE: Now Richard, let’s not make sweeping generalizations based on the one or two times you didn’t get a receipt from a cab. You tried to pull this on us once before when you mentioned the cab with torn up seats you were in. You tried to let us think it was in Portland until Dan Lenzen called you on it. Now you’re trying to do it again. Cabs most certainly can and do issue receipts. Our meters print receipts even for cash calls, if requested, and they spit out receipts for credit-card transactions automatically. We also have business cards on which we are able to write out a detailed itemized receipt. Those of us who do not have electronic card readers--which are also on backorder--have manual processors with three carbon copies, one for the company, client and bank]
Joan Plank: PBOT director should have the authority to declare emergencies.
Raihana Ansary: How have rates be determined historically?
Frank Dufay: By incorporating gas surcharges, beyond that I don’t know if it’s that scientific.
Joan Plank: Now that gas prices have gone down, haven’t they been changed?
Frank Dufay: They’ve been in place since 2009, but no new surcharges.
Joan Plank: I’m not getting much bite on this, can we move on?
Jim Owens: We have three options. We can have a variable system where taxis are regulated and the TNCs have an app. We can remove the fare requirements. We can preclude peak pricing.
Joan Plank: I don’t want to do that. Let’s move that for phase 2.
Richard Lazar: I suggest we remove the fare regulations across the board, require prospective disclosure, whether they’re drunk or not, and receipts are required at the time of trip completion so there’s no, “I woke up and at 3 a.m. I got a charge,” issue. No surge regulations, but the dynamic pricing model is not permitted during abnormal market conditions, like riots, hurricanes, etc. I found that to be a perfect definition. I think we should authorize PBOT do declare it. Dynamic pricing is not a problem.
[Resolution unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear] . . . bring for discussion, considering drunk passengers, do the drivers have the capacity to negotiate fares, we have drivers with different language capabilities, that’s why we’re requiring it.
Richard Lazar: Without regulating fares, we can have fare transparency. We can require it to be fully disclosed before the ride. Suggestions? I propose prospective disclosure.
Bryan Hockaday: How would taxi disclosure work?
Richard Lazar: There would be no regulation of TNCS and continue the meter rates for taxis.
Mike Greenfield didn’t want that disparity.
Joan Plank: Disclosing of how it’s calculated . . . [unclear] . . . they also require a receipt delivered, but they don’t do a receipt.
Richard Lazar: They do. It’s emailed. It’s the cabs that have a problem.
[NOTE: Now Richard, let’s not make sweeping generalizations based on the one or two times you didn’t get a receipt from a cab. You tried to pull this on us once before when you mentioned the cab with torn up seats you were in. You tried to let us think it was in Portland until Dan Lenzen called you on it. Now you’re trying to do it again. Cabs most certainly can and do issue receipts. Our meters print receipts even for cash calls, if requested, and they spit out receipts for credit-card transactions automatically. We also have business cards on which we are able to write out a detailed itemized receipt. Those of us who do not have electronic card readers--which are also on backorder--have manual processors with three carbon copies, one for the company, client and bank]
Joan Plank: PBOT director should have the authority to declare emergencies.
Raihana Ansary: How have rates be determined historically?
Frank Dufay: By incorporating gas surcharges, beyond that I don’t know if it’s that scientific.
Joan Plank: Now that gas prices have gone down, haven’t they been changed?
Frank Dufay: They’ve been in place since 2009, but no new surcharges.
Joan Plank: I’m not getting much bite on this, can we move on?
Jim Owens: We have three options. We can have a variable system where taxis are regulated and the TNCs have an app. We can remove the fare requirements. We can preclude peak pricing.
Joan Plank: I don’t want to do that. Let’s move that for phase 2.
Richard Lazar: I suggest we remove the fare regulations across the board, require prospective disclosure, whether they’re drunk or not, and receipts are required at the time of trip completion so there’s no, “I woke up and at 3 a.m. I got a charge,” issue. No surge regulations, but the dynamic pricing model is not permitted during abnormal market conditions, like riots, hurricanes, etc. I found that to be a perfect definition. I think we should authorize PBOT do declare it. Dynamic pricing is not a problem.
[Resolution unclear]
PERMIT FEES
Jim Owens: The goal is full cost recovery.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes, ideas for that.
Michael Jacobs: We’re working with three concepts. The first is the status quo, permits across the board. That would bring in more revenue than is needed for full cost recovery. The second is leaving the status quo for taxis, and moving to a flat rate for new companies. The goal would be to make the flat fee comparable to what the large taxi companies pay. The third idea is a little out of the box. It’s two pieces, which would combine company and vehicle permits, based on the size of the company. We could do it for a fleet of up to 5 cars, 6-30, and 50+ would be the third rate. In addition to a regular per year fee, all drivers could get permitted. Whether the permits are done through the company or the city is unclear.
[Someone]: Of these three concepts, I’m not aware of anyone who’s done the third one.
Joan Plank: Number two sounds like when I vote I’m thinking it’s equal but different.
Richard Lazar: Philosophically I believe permitting should happen at the company level. It decreases the city’s burden, and I’d like to see it across the board. I like the tiered option, but I’d like to see it centralized at the company level. They need to be insured, have background checks and inspections, but companies would handle it and certify them to the city. Fees would go through the companies.
Dan Lenzen: [Unclear]
Michael Jacobs: Administratively I have great concerns about . . . [unclear] . . . we already have a setup. Frank and I would have to think about how this would affect the schedule. Currently permits are issued every month.
Richard Lazar: But it’s not possible to issue 2000 permits, and that’s what they’re talking about having for both Uber and Lyft.
Michael Jacobs: We have to think about how to convert to a different system.
Richard Lazar: All in phase 1?
Bryan Hockaday: That’s why the third option can still allow for permitting of drivers.
Richard Lazar: Would it still be $100?
[NOTE: I would like to remind you of my testimony at the Public Listening Session. When I became a cabbie I was homeless, living in my car, while paying off $6800 of vet bills for my now-retired service dog. My situation was FAR more desperate than any of these part time Uber drivers who want to make a little extra cash. I paid the $100. They can pay the $100. I sponsored another now formerly-homeless individual into the industry, paying for his testing and background check ($100), permit ($100), drug test ($60), contract fee ($50), spare-driver fee ($40), CPR/First Aid ($48). If I could support another individual in rising out of homelessness on my supposedly $6.99-per-hour cab driver salary, I’m pretty sure the $40-billion Uber can, too]
Bryan Hockaday: We’d reduce it. If we’re able to get a certified list from the TNCs, we could, I believe, issue temporary permits for 90-120 days. This gives companies time to test and train, and it gives us time to process through drivers. Some drivers only do 1-2 trips before they leave the platform, so they might not come back for their official permits.
Richard Lazar: That sounds like a framework. Can you give us the suggested approach, and have it so it all goes through the companies? Can you give us a proposal quickly so we can come up with a permanent solution?
Jim Owens: I’ll work with you guys.
Joan Plank: Thanks for your work.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes, ideas for that.
Michael Jacobs: We’re working with three concepts. The first is the status quo, permits across the board. That would bring in more revenue than is needed for full cost recovery. The second is leaving the status quo for taxis, and moving to a flat rate for new companies. The goal would be to make the flat fee comparable to what the large taxi companies pay. The third idea is a little out of the box. It’s two pieces, which would combine company and vehicle permits, based on the size of the company. We could do it for a fleet of up to 5 cars, 6-30, and 50+ would be the third rate. In addition to a regular per year fee, all drivers could get permitted. Whether the permits are done through the company or the city is unclear.
[Someone]: Of these three concepts, I’m not aware of anyone who’s done the third one.
Joan Plank: Number two sounds like when I vote I’m thinking it’s equal but different.
Richard Lazar: Philosophically I believe permitting should happen at the company level. It decreases the city’s burden, and I’d like to see it across the board. I like the tiered option, but I’d like to see it centralized at the company level. They need to be insured, have background checks and inspections, but companies would handle it and certify them to the city. Fees would go through the companies.
Dan Lenzen: [Unclear]
Michael Jacobs: Administratively I have great concerns about . . . [unclear] . . . we already have a setup. Frank and I would have to think about how this would affect the schedule. Currently permits are issued every month.
Richard Lazar: But it’s not possible to issue 2000 permits, and that’s what they’re talking about having for both Uber and Lyft.
Michael Jacobs: We have to think about how to convert to a different system.
Richard Lazar: All in phase 1?
Bryan Hockaday: That’s why the third option can still allow for permitting of drivers.
Richard Lazar: Would it still be $100?
[NOTE: I would like to remind you of my testimony at the Public Listening Session. When I became a cabbie I was homeless, living in my car, while paying off $6800 of vet bills for my now-retired service dog. My situation was FAR more desperate than any of these part time Uber drivers who want to make a little extra cash. I paid the $100. They can pay the $100. I sponsored another now formerly-homeless individual into the industry, paying for his testing and background check ($100), permit ($100), drug test ($60), contract fee ($50), spare-driver fee ($40), CPR/First Aid ($48). If I could support another individual in rising out of homelessness on my supposedly $6.99-per-hour cab driver salary, I’m pretty sure the $40-billion Uber can, too]
Bryan Hockaday: We’d reduce it. If we’re able to get a certified list from the TNCs, we could, I believe, issue temporary permits for 90-120 days. This gives companies time to test and train, and it gives us time to process through drivers. Some drivers only do 1-2 trips before they leave the platform, so they might not come back for their official permits.
Richard Lazar: That sounds like a framework. Can you give us the suggested approach, and have it so it all goes through the companies? Can you give us a proposal quickly so we can come up with a permanent solution?
Jim Owens: I’ll work with you guys.
Joan Plank: Thanks for your work.
DRIVER CONDUCT
Jim Owens: We did mention firearms and weapons, do we include that in prohibitions?
Joan Plank: You can say with the no weapons things, you can’t come into a building with that.
City Lawyer: I don’t know, honestly, but as a permitted regulation it may have legs.
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: The NRA won’t be happy.
Dan Lenzen: Can you briefly explain?
Joan Plank: Well, right now you can’t smoke but you can have a gun.
City Lawyer: But does that apply to the driver or the passenger?
Richard Lazar: Could you apply it to the passenger? I doubt it.
Joan Plank: Has there ever been a problem? Are the drivers attacking passengers? Is it a problem?
Jim Owens: This is a cameras in vehicles aside.
Richard Lazar: Give us an out. Is it constitutional?
City Lawyer: I’ll ask someone in the office.
Joan Plank: Maybe we make it a phase two?
Richard Lazar: I move to push it to phase two unless it’s easy. I’ve gotta go back, though, and I’m channeling Kasey’s concerns. Lifting the fares code doesn’t speak to dealing with low-income folks, some languages issue . . . [unclear] . . . encouraging companies to address income for drivers. Kasey was concerned about the cash versus credit thing, low incomes, and this mode of kitty payment, is it’s an equity placeholder I’d like to hold for phase two.
Dan Lenzen: Other means of payment?
Richard Lazar: I just want to go on record as requesting a placeholder.
[NOTE: The lack of sincerity is astounding. This is lip-service, soon to be followed by bait-and-switch to Sue, Kasey, Leslie, and JoAnn. Lazar decimates their ideas with his notions of the libertarian free-market economy, market-driven supply-and-demand, and statements like, “It’s not the responsibility of the task force to solve global warming,” when the environmental impact of potentially 4,000 new vehicles on the road is questioned.]
Joan Plank: The way to pay slash low income fares and permits . . . [unclear] . . . make sure drivers are not charged a huge amount.
Bryan Hockaday: Right now, with kitty, there is a moratorium in place on raising it, but we don’t specify what companies can charge.
[NOTE: I compiled an extensive matrix of what every cab company charges for every type of vehicle, time-of-day, day-of-week, for both owners and spares alike, as well as all the services offered by each company. Broadway was the only company that would not contribute data to this matrix. I was told not to release this information because it was proprietary business knowledge, which should not be in the public record. I am happy to release this information to individual Task Force members so long as it is not published. The matrix I compiled is accurate, verified by all GMs and their drivers, except Broadway]
Joan Plank: Sounds like a phase two issue.
Raihana Ansary: Since we’re lifting the cap I think we need to address driver wages.
Richard Lazar: Let’s do it in phase two.
Bryan Hockaday: Data collection could include wages for drivers.
Richard Lazar: I thought what we were interested in was kitty and what it covers. Does the city want to get into wage wars?
Bryan Hockaday: Novick asked for us to look into working conditions, so we want to track the effects of deregulation on wages.
[NOTE: Thank you, Bryan]
Joan Plank: The key is to track, not control.
Richard Lazar: I want to know what the kitty is and what services are offered.
Joan Plank: You can say with the no weapons things, you can’t come into a building with that.
City Lawyer: I don’t know, honestly, but as a permitted regulation it may have legs.
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: The NRA won’t be happy.
Dan Lenzen: Can you briefly explain?
Joan Plank: Well, right now you can’t smoke but you can have a gun.
City Lawyer: But does that apply to the driver or the passenger?
Richard Lazar: Could you apply it to the passenger? I doubt it.
Joan Plank: Has there ever been a problem? Are the drivers attacking passengers? Is it a problem?
Jim Owens: This is a cameras in vehicles aside.
Richard Lazar: Give us an out. Is it constitutional?
City Lawyer: I’ll ask someone in the office.
Joan Plank: Maybe we make it a phase two?
Richard Lazar: I move to push it to phase two unless it’s easy. I’ve gotta go back, though, and I’m channeling Kasey’s concerns. Lifting the fares code doesn’t speak to dealing with low-income folks, some languages issue . . . [unclear] . . . encouraging companies to address income for drivers. Kasey was concerned about the cash versus credit thing, low incomes, and this mode of kitty payment, is it’s an equity placeholder I’d like to hold for phase two.
Dan Lenzen: Other means of payment?
Richard Lazar: I just want to go on record as requesting a placeholder.
[NOTE: The lack of sincerity is astounding. This is lip-service, soon to be followed by bait-and-switch to Sue, Kasey, Leslie, and JoAnn. Lazar decimates their ideas with his notions of the libertarian free-market economy, market-driven supply-and-demand, and statements like, “It’s not the responsibility of the task force to solve global warming,” when the environmental impact of potentially 4,000 new vehicles on the road is questioned.]
Joan Plank: The way to pay slash low income fares and permits . . . [unclear] . . . make sure drivers are not charged a huge amount.
Bryan Hockaday: Right now, with kitty, there is a moratorium in place on raising it, but we don’t specify what companies can charge.
[NOTE: I compiled an extensive matrix of what every cab company charges for every type of vehicle, time-of-day, day-of-week, for both owners and spares alike, as well as all the services offered by each company. Broadway was the only company that would not contribute data to this matrix. I was told not to release this information because it was proprietary business knowledge, which should not be in the public record. I am happy to release this information to individual Task Force members so long as it is not published. The matrix I compiled is accurate, verified by all GMs and their drivers, except Broadway]
Joan Plank: Sounds like a phase two issue.
Raihana Ansary: Since we’re lifting the cap I think we need to address driver wages.
Richard Lazar: Let’s do it in phase two.
Bryan Hockaday: Data collection could include wages for drivers.
Richard Lazar: I thought what we were interested in was kitty and what it covers. Does the city want to get into wage wars?
Bryan Hockaday: Novick asked for us to look into working conditions, so we want to track the effects of deregulation on wages.
[NOTE: Thank you, Bryan]
Joan Plank: The key is to track, not control.
Richard Lazar: I want to know what the kitty is and what services are offered.
VISIBILITY AND SIGNAGE
Joan Plank: Section two.
Jim Owens: Several issues here. The question is whether to get through it in the interim, or push cameras and signage requirements in now, or waive them across the board?
Joan Plank: Cameras are a verifiable way to determine who was in the vehicles. For TNCs it makes no sense because they have a log of the passengers.
Dan Lenzen: I’d like to get some feedback on why cameras are important, as a rhetorical question.
Joan Plank: To protect drivers.
[NOTE: They are not just for driver safety. They are also important for passengers in situations where sexual harassment, assault, inappropriate anger, etc., are in play. In these situations it is often the passenger’s word against the driver, and these tamper-proof cameras offer verifiable evidence of what happened during the incident]
Jim Owens: With the TNCs the passengers are recorded.
Dan Lenzen: Not all passengers. If I’m with you, they don’t know me, what if I’m the crazy one?
[NOTE: Dan makes a very good point here. Many times taxis are hailed by groups, with each party returning to a different location. There is not always a witness, besides the camera, when the first three passengers have exited. Sometimes it’s the first person to exit who orders the cab or pays for the vehicle. Sometimes it’s the last one who’s bad.]
Joan Plank: But there’s a witness.
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . goes into play immediately.
Dan Lenzen: Who brought it into play?
Joan Plank: Yeah, who asked for cameras?
Frank Dufay: A driver was killed. The city set a standard. On record, we’ve been an industry leader on the camera front.
[NOTE: This needs to be emphasized further. Portland set a standard that has been followed nationally and internationally and attacks on taxi drivers are down as a result. Cameras have been found to be more effective in deterring attacks than the glass partitions used in NYC and elsewhere. They are the gold standard of protection]
Dan Lenzen: How much are they?
Frank Dufay: They’re around $800 to install, for the good ones.
[NOTE: The companies pay for the equipment and the drivers pay for the installation. Mine cost $100 to install. Radio just spent $30,000 on new cameras for its new fleet vehicles. Is the city planning on reimbursing Radio for that purchase? Furthermore, Uber would be doing itself a service by installing cameras. They would have verifiable tamper-proof documentation in the event of an assault, rape, or other incident, which, as we see, there are many claims of. Lastly, this is a $40-billion company. If the tiny cab companies can afford the cameras, Uber can, too, and they can recirculate the cameras that are no longer in use by drivers who’ve left the platform. Cameras are a must.]
Richard Lazar: Some, not all.
Jim Owens: An alternative is that in place of cameras . . . [unclear].
Bryan Hockaday: I think that recommendation is reasonable.
Richard Lazar: So we need some language.
Jim Owens: Signs and language . . .
Richard Lazar: They have their mustaches and decals, so the concern is really for enforcement. I think we should follow other jurisdictions.
[NOTE: Lazar forgets that in some jurisdictions Uber vehicles are required to have full company branding on both doors of the vehicle, as well as vehicle numbers on the back. These are magnetic, easily removable, and would not be an exorbitant cost]
Dan Lenzen: [unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: No, we have specific requirements.
Joan Plank: Could it be it sticks to windows or doors?
Bryan Hockaday: Should we change it for taxis?
Joan Plank: Maintain it, I would say.
Jim Owens: Further discussion is needed. We’re setting two different standards. It may be the new standards applies to the new companies.
Richard Lazar: Current for phase one, decalling to be determined during phase one and phase two we look at long-term issues.
Joan Plank: [Unclear] Might get new cabs in service faster. The 242 new plates, if we relax the requirements it might help cab companies. The existing cabs can be painted, and the new ones decalled.
Richard Lazar: That’s not what I suggested.
Joan Plank: In phase two, not phase one.
Raihana Ansary: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: Joan brings up a good point. Taxis bringing new vehicles, do we insist they paint them?
Dan Lenzen: It costs $600 or more.
[NOTE: Dan is correct. I payed $600 to paint my brand new PriusV green last July. I was told by Maaco, “You know we are devaluing your car by several thousand dollars, right?” So you can bet the city will be hearing from me about reimbursement for that $600 and the depreciation of my vehicle’s value if new companies do not require branding. I do not see paint as a competitive advantage. I would prefer to work stealthily, serving dispatch-based calls, medical clients, and private clients, as opposed to flaggers, although I do all of the above. The paint only helps me with the last category of client]
Bryan Hockaday: Let’s revisit this.
Richard Lazar: Meter requirements and equipment for new cabs, how will that be addressed?
Jim Owens: That’s under fares and equipment. I would think taxis are visually distinctive intentionally, so they would continue to be, but . . . [unclear]
Joan Plank: They’re easy to see.
Jim Owens: In the interim I suggest we waive it . . . [unclear].
Richard Lazar: So new vehicles would apply?
Dan Lenzen: Yep.
Raihana: I lean towards Richard’s original statement about the competitive advantage for existing cab companies with visibility.
[NOTE: Visibility has as much to do with safety--being visible to other drivers--as it has to do with having a competitive advantage due to visibility]
Joan Plank: Phase two. We might in phase two decide it was a dumb idea.
Raihana Ansary: I’d like to avoid confusion. We don’t want to relax the regulations then bring them back up.
Jim Owens: May be confusing. Does code call for decals and taxi plates.
City Lawyer: It does.
Frank Dufay: And a top light.
Dan Lenzen: It is a competitive advantage because they can take street hales and be seen.
Richard Lazar: I’m waffle-y on this one. For 3-5 months, I think the cab companies have already budgeted for painting and visibility. Let’s keep the current requirements for cabs, then get into it for phase two. That seems the least confusing, Dan.
Dan Lenzen: I’m processing.
Joan Plank: And TNCs can’t have . . . [unclear]
Dan Lenzen: They’re at a competitive disadvantage by expense or income. It costs more for a cab, but they can recuperate the costs in income.
Richard Lazar: Looking at things online, they’re not rushing to get these new cabs on the road. They’re waiting and evaluating the cost and demand with the idea of TNCs entering the market.
[NOTE: The taxi company’s failure to deploy new cars quickly has nothing to do with paint, equipment, or decals, as Joan Plank suggested, and it has nothing to do with taxis surveying the market in anticipation of TNCs. Please check your assumptions, Mr. Lazar, before you propagate misinformation. It has to do with the city requiring us to have one wheelchair vehicle, followed by four sedans, another vehicle, another four sedans. Paint, vinyl and equipment installation takes in less than a week and costs about $1500, which the driver-owners pay. A shortage of purchasable wheelchair vehicles are the source of the delay. Safe and reliable specialty vehicles are on backorder nationwide.]
City Lawyer: So we’ll have a decal showing the name of the company so we know it’s a TNC vehicle, or do we want a back decal showing it’s permitted.
Richard Lazar: Not on back.
[NOTE: Absolutely on back! Remember, 90% of complaints against private for hire drivers come from the non-passenger public. The vehicle number--not the licence plate number--and the company name are how these complaints are made. Without visible branding and absent a vehicle number Uber and Lyft will be operating in stealth mode.]
City Lawyer: It’s got company branding, but nothing that says it’s a vetted driver.
Raihana Ansary: It’s the responsibility of the TNCs, they’re not going to put unvetted drivers out.
[NOTE: And yet, news report after news report shows that TNC drivers are often driving in friends’ or family members’ vehicles, using someone elses’ Uber account.]
Richard Lazar: And we’ve got executives who certify to the city properly permitted companies, so they’re on the hook.
Jody Yates: I could be signed up as a driver, they turned me off, but I didn’t give the decals back.
Bryan Hockaday: But you wouldn’t be able to pick up without the app.
Jody Yates: What about, “Give me $20 and I’ll take you across the river?”
Dan Lenzen: It happens.
Richard Lazar: I thought they couldn’t hail.
Dan Lenzen: It’s been going on for decades.
City Lawyer: This isn’t much push back. What’s the issue of city stickers on the back?
Michael Jacobs: The stickers help with enforcement.
Richard Lazar: This sounds like an admin issue. Give us a suggestion.
Michael Jacobs: We would give them to the companies to put on.
Jim Owens: Several issues here. The question is whether to get through it in the interim, or push cameras and signage requirements in now, or waive them across the board?
Joan Plank: Cameras are a verifiable way to determine who was in the vehicles. For TNCs it makes no sense because they have a log of the passengers.
Dan Lenzen: I’d like to get some feedback on why cameras are important, as a rhetorical question.
Joan Plank: To protect drivers.
[NOTE: They are not just for driver safety. They are also important for passengers in situations where sexual harassment, assault, inappropriate anger, etc., are in play. In these situations it is often the passenger’s word against the driver, and these tamper-proof cameras offer verifiable evidence of what happened during the incident]
Jim Owens: With the TNCs the passengers are recorded.
Dan Lenzen: Not all passengers. If I’m with you, they don’t know me, what if I’m the crazy one?
[NOTE: Dan makes a very good point here. Many times taxis are hailed by groups, with each party returning to a different location. There is not always a witness, besides the camera, when the first three passengers have exited. Sometimes it’s the first person to exit who orders the cab or pays for the vehicle. Sometimes it’s the last one who’s bad.]
Joan Plank: But there’s a witness.
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . goes into play immediately.
Dan Lenzen: Who brought it into play?
Joan Plank: Yeah, who asked for cameras?
Frank Dufay: A driver was killed. The city set a standard. On record, we’ve been an industry leader on the camera front.
[NOTE: This needs to be emphasized further. Portland set a standard that has been followed nationally and internationally and attacks on taxi drivers are down as a result. Cameras have been found to be more effective in deterring attacks than the glass partitions used in NYC and elsewhere. They are the gold standard of protection]
Dan Lenzen: How much are they?
Frank Dufay: They’re around $800 to install, for the good ones.
[NOTE: The companies pay for the equipment and the drivers pay for the installation. Mine cost $100 to install. Radio just spent $30,000 on new cameras for its new fleet vehicles. Is the city planning on reimbursing Radio for that purchase? Furthermore, Uber would be doing itself a service by installing cameras. They would have verifiable tamper-proof documentation in the event of an assault, rape, or other incident, which, as we see, there are many claims of. Lastly, this is a $40-billion company. If the tiny cab companies can afford the cameras, Uber can, too, and they can recirculate the cameras that are no longer in use by drivers who’ve left the platform. Cameras are a must.]
Richard Lazar: Some, not all.
Jim Owens: An alternative is that in place of cameras . . . [unclear].
Bryan Hockaday: I think that recommendation is reasonable.
Richard Lazar: So we need some language.
Jim Owens: Signs and language . . .
Richard Lazar: They have their mustaches and decals, so the concern is really for enforcement. I think we should follow other jurisdictions.
[NOTE: Lazar forgets that in some jurisdictions Uber vehicles are required to have full company branding on both doors of the vehicle, as well as vehicle numbers on the back. These are magnetic, easily removable, and would not be an exorbitant cost]
Dan Lenzen: [unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: No, we have specific requirements.
Joan Plank: Could it be it sticks to windows or doors?
Bryan Hockaday: Should we change it for taxis?
Joan Plank: Maintain it, I would say.
Jim Owens: Further discussion is needed. We’re setting two different standards. It may be the new standards applies to the new companies.
Richard Lazar: Current for phase one, decalling to be determined during phase one and phase two we look at long-term issues.
Joan Plank: [Unclear] Might get new cabs in service faster. The 242 new plates, if we relax the requirements it might help cab companies. The existing cabs can be painted, and the new ones decalled.
Richard Lazar: That’s not what I suggested.
Joan Plank: In phase two, not phase one.
Raihana Ansary: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: Joan brings up a good point. Taxis bringing new vehicles, do we insist they paint them?
Dan Lenzen: It costs $600 or more.
[NOTE: Dan is correct. I payed $600 to paint my brand new PriusV green last July. I was told by Maaco, “You know we are devaluing your car by several thousand dollars, right?” So you can bet the city will be hearing from me about reimbursement for that $600 and the depreciation of my vehicle’s value if new companies do not require branding. I do not see paint as a competitive advantage. I would prefer to work stealthily, serving dispatch-based calls, medical clients, and private clients, as opposed to flaggers, although I do all of the above. The paint only helps me with the last category of client]
Bryan Hockaday: Let’s revisit this.
Richard Lazar: Meter requirements and equipment for new cabs, how will that be addressed?
Jim Owens: That’s under fares and equipment. I would think taxis are visually distinctive intentionally, so they would continue to be, but . . . [unclear]
Joan Plank: They’re easy to see.
Jim Owens: In the interim I suggest we waive it . . . [unclear].
Richard Lazar: So new vehicles would apply?
Dan Lenzen: Yep.
Raihana: I lean towards Richard’s original statement about the competitive advantage for existing cab companies with visibility.
[NOTE: Visibility has as much to do with safety--being visible to other drivers--as it has to do with having a competitive advantage due to visibility]
Joan Plank: Phase two. We might in phase two decide it was a dumb idea.
Raihana Ansary: I’d like to avoid confusion. We don’t want to relax the regulations then bring them back up.
Jim Owens: May be confusing. Does code call for decals and taxi plates.
City Lawyer: It does.
Frank Dufay: And a top light.
Dan Lenzen: It is a competitive advantage because they can take street hales and be seen.
Richard Lazar: I’m waffle-y on this one. For 3-5 months, I think the cab companies have already budgeted for painting and visibility. Let’s keep the current requirements for cabs, then get into it for phase two. That seems the least confusing, Dan.
Dan Lenzen: I’m processing.
Joan Plank: And TNCs can’t have . . . [unclear]
Dan Lenzen: They’re at a competitive disadvantage by expense or income. It costs more for a cab, but they can recuperate the costs in income.
Richard Lazar: Looking at things online, they’re not rushing to get these new cabs on the road. They’re waiting and evaluating the cost and demand with the idea of TNCs entering the market.
[NOTE: The taxi company’s failure to deploy new cars quickly has nothing to do with paint, equipment, or decals, as Joan Plank suggested, and it has nothing to do with taxis surveying the market in anticipation of TNCs. Please check your assumptions, Mr. Lazar, before you propagate misinformation. It has to do with the city requiring us to have one wheelchair vehicle, followed by four sedans, another vehicle, another four sedans. Paint, vinyl and equipment installation takes in less than a week and costs about $1500, which the driver-owners pay. A shortage of purchasable wheelchair vehicles are the source of the delay. Safe and reliable specialty vehicles are on backorder nationwide.]
City Lawyer: So we’ll have a decal showing the name of the company so we know it’s a TNC vehicle, or do we want a back decal showing it’s permitted.
Richard Lazar: Not on back.
[NOTE: Absolutely on back! Remember, 90% of complaints against private for hire drivers come from the non-passenger public. The vehicle number--not the licence plate number--and the company name are how these complaints are made. Without visible branding and absent a vehicle number Uber and Lyft will be operating in stealth mode.]
City Lawyer: It’s got company branding, but nothing that says it’s a vetted driver.
Raihana Ansary: It’s the responsibility of the TNCs, they’re not going to put unvetted drivers out.
[NOTE: And yet, news report after news report shows that TNC drivers are often driving in friends’ or family members’ vehicles, using someone elses’ Uber account.]
Richard Lazar: And we’ve got executives who certify to the city properly permitted companies, so they’re on the hook.
Jody Yates: I could be signed up as a driver, they turned me off, but I didn’t give the decals back.
Bryan Hockaday: But you wouldn’t be able to pick up without the app.
Jody Yates: What about, “Give me $20 and I’ll take you across the river?”
Dan Lenzen: It happens.
Richard Lazar: I thought they couldn’t hail.
Dan Lenzen: It’s been going on for decades.
City Lawyer: This isn’t much push back. What’s the issue of city stickers on the back?
Michael Jacobs: The stickers help with enforcement.
Richard Lazar: This sounds like an admin issue. Give us a suggestion.
Michael Jacobs: We would give them to the companies to put on.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Joan Plank: There’s a telephone issue, but we may want to broaden it.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . it looks like it came from Lyft and Uber raising concerns.
Joan Plank: [Unclear] . . . it was a telephone issue.
Richard Lazar: Also there is the requirement that TNCs operate 24/7.
Bryan Hockaday: If we have that for taxis, yes, otherwise we strike it for taxis.
Richard Lazar: But you’re not enforcing this, are you?
Bryan Hockaday: We require the existing companies to serve the entire city, yes.
Richard Lazar: But you’re not enforcing it today, are you going to monitor all areas? But for now do you want to dictate and not enforce, or do you want the market to decide? Supply will go where demand is. If you’re not enforcing it, why have it?
Joan Plank: Maybe leave it in for phase one, which provides city-wide taxi service, and avoid push back if we lax that, then get some data. The 24/7 thing is market driven for sure.
Raihana Ansary: The way the language is it wouldn’t apply to TNCs. The ⅔ of the fleet thing does not apply to TNCs.
Joan Plank: Are we keeping recommendations A, B, and C, or just A and B, and then we save C, D, and E.
Richard Lazar: D and E? Dan?
Dan Lenzen: Yes.
Bryan Hockaday: Sticking [or striking?] D and E.
Bryan Hockaday: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: [Unclear] . . . it looks like it came from Lyft and Uber raising concerns.
Joan Plank: [Unclear] . . . it was a telephone issue.
Richard Lazar: Also there is the requirement that TNCs operate 24/7.
Bryan Hockaday: If we have that for taxis, yes, otherwise we strike it for taxis.
Richard Lazar: But you’re not enforcing this, are you?
Bryan Hockaday: We require the existing companies to serve the entire city, yes.
Richard Lazar: But you’re not enforcing it today, are you going to monitor all areas? But for now do you want to dictate and not enforce, or do you want the market to decide? Supply will go where demand is. If you’re not enforcing it, why have it?
Joan Plank: Maybe leave it in for phase one, which provides city-wide taxi service, and avoid push back if we lax that, then get some data. The 24/7 thing is market driven for sure.
Raihana Ansary: The way the language is it wouldn’t apply to TNCs. The ⅔ of the fleet thing does not apply to TNCs.
Joan Plank: Are we keeping recommendations A, B, and C, or just A and B, and then we save C, D, and E.
Richard Lazar: D and E? Dan?
Dan Lenzen: Yes.
Bryan Hockaday: Sticking [or striking?] D and E.
DATA COLLECTION
Jim Owens: [Unclear] . . . changing the current recs.
Joan Plank: Are we?
Richard Lazar: It’s housekeeping, so let’s clean up the language.
Jim Owens: For data we haven’t developed requirements except in the context of other discussions around ADA, deregulating fares, kitty info, etc.
Richard Lazar: We need it for all rides.
Joan Plank: Is there anything else staff wants?
Richard Lazar: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: Average response times, to use as a benchmark. We can come up with a list.
Bryan Hockaday: We have that right now, say for the Hilton to the Airport.
Richard Lazar: Based on data . . . [unclear]
Jim Owens: We also have to think about cost recovery.
Joan Plank: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: We’re describing data that’s aggregated, not driver specific-right?
[NOTE: Currently taxi drivers provide driver-specific trip logs upon request. Shall we discontinue this practice?]
City Lawyer: All companies should tell us in advance what is proprietary.
Joan Plank: Are we?
Richard Lazar: It’s housekeeping, so let’s clean up the language.
Jim Owens: For data we haven’t developed requirements except in the context of other discussions around ADA, deregulating fares, kitty info, etc.
Richard Lazar: We need it for all rides.
Joan Plank: Is there anything else staff wants?
Richard Lazar: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: Average response times, to use as a benchmark. We can come up with a list.
Bryan Hockaday: We have that right now, say for the Hilton to the Airport.
Richard Lazar: Based on data . . . [unclear]
Jim Owens: We also have to think about cost recovery.
Joan Plank: [Unclear]
Richard Lazar: We’re describing data that’s aggregated, not driver specific-right?
[NOTE: Currently taxi drivers provide driver-specific trip logs upon request. Shall we discontinue this practice?]
City Lawyer: All companies should tell us in advance what is proprietary.
ENFORCEMENT
Jim Owens: Is it all administrative rule?
City Lawyer: Aside from the criminal and civil stuff, yes.
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: [Unclear]
Jim Owens: We can do this later.
Joan Plank: As long as its reasonable across the board.
City Lawyer: Aside from the criminal and civil stuff, yes.
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: [Unclear]
Jim Owens: We can do this later.
Joan Plank: As long as its reasonable across the board.
STREET HAILS AND TAXI STANDS
Jim Owens: We talked about it but not as a group. Since it was prohibited elsewhere that’s what was desired.
Joan Plank: The Lewis & Clark bullets make sense.
Raihana Ansary: Yes.
[NOTE: I would like to remind you of the decisions you've made here and how they impact the period one phase of insurance. If TNCs are not allowed to sit at taxi stands, and parking spots are full, as they usually are on Friday and Saturday nights, TNCs are going to be driving around during period one because there is no where to park. That means they will be actively engaged in "commercial business" while "in motion" so therefor this is not a "low-risk period." Just remember that.
Joan Plank: The Lewis & Clark bullets make sense.
Raihana Ansary: Yes.
[NOTE: I would like to remind you of the decisions you've made here and how they impact the period one phase of insurance. If TNCs are not allowed to sit at taxi stands, and parking spots are full, as they usually are on Friday and Saturday nights, TNCs are going to be driving around during period one because there is no where to park. That means they will be actively engaged in "commercial business" while "in motion" so therefor this is not a "low-risk period." Just remember that.
BUSINESS PRESENCE
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
City Lawyer: The agent of service, we agreed, needs to happen and they should be prepared. The physical office is another thing.
Joan Plank: Let’s have the service agent for phase one.
Jim Owens: Channeling Kasey, how do I retrieve lost belongings or make a complaint?
Richard Lazar: Filing complaints is done online and by a telephone number. With an agent of service to process it’s easy. The office need is linked to the lost property, but I’ve talked to them and they say they process millions of items per year, so they must have mechanisms in place for lost property management.
[NOTE: Uber customers report their phone number is impossible to find, is never answered, and rarely are calls returned. In fact, there is another non-transportation company also called Uber in NYC who receives the majority of their calls. This company refers the callers to the Better Business Bureau, where Uber has a F rating]
Jim Owens: Ken, you brought up, who is the city contact? Person or Agent? What’s the phone number of a real, life, person to connect to when there are problems?
City Lawyer: The agent of service is authorized.
Joan Plank: Has to be . . . [unclear]
Dan Lenzen: We gotta give the permits to someone.
City Lawyer: The agent of service, we agreed, needs to happen and they should be prepared. The physical office is another thing.
Joan Plank: Let’s have the service agent for phase one.
Jim Owens: Channeling Kasey, how do I retrieve lost belongings or make a complaint?
Richard Lazar: Filing complaints is done online and by a telephone number. With an agent of service to process it’s easy. The office need is linked to the lost property, but I’ve talked to them and they say they process millions of items per year, so they must have mechanisms in place for lost property management.
[NOTE: Uber customers report their phone number is impossible to find, is never answered, and rarely are calls returned. In fact, there is another non-transportation company also called Uber in NYC who receives the majority of their calls. This company refers the callers to the Better Business Bureau, where Uber has a F rating]
Jim Owens: Ken, you brought up, who is the city contact? Person or Agent? What’s the phone number of a real, life, person to connect to when there are problems?
City Lawyer: The agent of service is authorized.
Joan Plank: Has to be . . . [unclear]
Dan Lenzen: We gotta give the permits to someone.
WRAPPING UP
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Joan Plank: Does that work for staff?
Jim Owens: I propose to let staff flush out those, get some revised documents, circulate them, when we’re comfy, distribute and post.
Joan Plank: To the subcommittee first?
Jim Owens: Then we sign off.
Richard Lazar: Need to be specifically crafted . . . [unclear] . . . we’re getting lost.
Jim Owens: Can we do this electronically?
Richard Lazar: I think we should schedule a teleconference at the most inconvenient time.
Dan Lenzen: There’s never a time that’s inconvenient for me.
Richard Lazar: Are we looking for consensus?
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: You should think about how to present to the task force . . . [unclear].
Joan Plank: Helpful to us that first . . . [unclear] . . . we’re getting more clarity and we’re making more progress.
Richard Lazar: We’ve got resolution and consensus.
Joan Plank: They’re not in agreement but they have three hours on this, we have more than five.
[NOTE: That could be, or it could be the dissenting members have stronger moral compasses than some of the members of the subcommittee. It could be the dissenting members actually listened at the Public Listening session, where taxi-supporter/anti-Uber speakers outnumbered Uber supporters 3/1. It could be that these individuals care about equity, non-discrimination, accessibility issues for the elderly and the disabled, and about saving the environment rather than contributing to its demise. It could be that these dissenting members aren’t interested in bending over backwards to make way for a company that doesn’t care about the public, its passengers, or its drivers. A company that has a BBB rating of F. It could be that these dissenting members don’t need to be “corralled” as Jim Owens suggests. It could be they need to speak up for what’s right.]
Jim Owens: I’ll put together a matrix of phase one and phase to to see how it fits into the process of time.
Joan Plank: Did you do a press release.
Bryan Hockaday: It went out.
Raihana: Ansary: When can we see it?
Jim Owens: It depends on my success in corralling all these folks. Tell Mike Joan got us out early, twice.
Richard Lazar: He can aspire to that level of performance.
Joan Plank: Does that work for staff?
Jim Owens: I propose to let staff flush out those, get some revised documents, circulate them, when we’re comfy, distribute and post.
Joan Plank: To the subcommittee first?
Jim Owens: Then we sign off.
Richard Lazar: Need to be specifically crafted . . . [unclear] . . . we’re getting lost.
Jim Owens: Can we do this electronically?
Richard Lazar: I think we should schedule a teleconference at the most inconvenient time.
Dan Lenzen: There’s never a time that’s inconvenient for me.
Richard Lazar: Are we looking for consensus?
Jim Owens: [Unclear]
Bryan Hockaday: You should think about how to present to the task force . . . [unclear].
Joan Plank: Helpful to us that first . . . [unclear] . . . we’re getting more clarity and we’re making more progress.
Richard Lazar: We’ve got resolution and consensus.
Joan Plank: They’re not in agreement but they have three hours on this, we have more than five.
[NOTE: That could be, or it could be the dissenting members have stronger moral compasses than some of the members of the subcommittee. It could be the dissenting members actually listened at the Public Listening session, where taxi-supporter/anti-Uber speakers outnumbered Uber supporters 3/1. It could be that these individuals care about equity, non-discrimination, accessibility issues for the elderly and the disabled, and about saving the environment rather than contributing to its demise. It could be that these dissenting members aren’t interested in bending over backwards to make way for a company that doesn’t care about the public, its passengers, or its drivers. A company that has a BBB rating of F. It could be that these dissenting members don’t need to be “corralled” as Jim Owens suggests. It could be they need to speak up for what’s right.]
Jim Owens: I’ll put together a matrix of phase one and phase to to see how it fits into the process of time.
Joan Plank: Did you do a press release.
Bryan Hockaday: It went out.
Raihana: Ansary: When can we see it?
Jim Owens: It depends on my success in corralling all these folks. Tell Mike Joan got us out early, twice.
Richard Lazar: He can aspire to that level of performance.