Giocare Alla Roulette Gratis Online | all info here!

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking on
)
Regulations Relating to Passenger
)
Carriers, Ridesharing, and New Online- )
Enabled Transportation Services
)
________________________________)
Docket No. R.12-12-011
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO CAB DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
TO THE APPLICATION OF THE TAXICAB PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA (TPAC) FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 13-09-045
The San Francisco Cab Drivers Association agrees wholeheartedly with the Taxi Paratransit
Association of California (TPAC) that TNCs are providing taxicab service and therefore fall under
the jurisdiction of local cities and counties and not the California Public Utilities Commission.
We also agree that this Decision is in violation of the Equal Protection clauses in the U.S. and
California Constitution, as TNCs are providing the same service and competing for the same
customers, yet are given exemptions from the same laws and regulations licensed taxi drivers must
adhere to.
TNC vehicles provide “on demand” and “on call” transportation in the same manner as
taxicabs. Smartphone apps such as Cabulous (now Flywheel), Taxi Magic and Hailo were used by
taxicabs before the emergence of Uber, Lyft or Sidecar, so the use of this technology does not
distinguish them from taxicabs.
We agree with TPAC that the CPUC Decision’s interpretation of “prearrangement” is incorrect and
ignores the intent of this distinction. Prearrangement, when applied to passenger transportation, is
meant to distinguish “on call” or “on demand” service, e.g. when someone is ready to go and needs
transportation right away, from transportation that is “chartered” or arranged for a specified time in
the future. In the taxi business, these are referred to as “time calls” or advanced orders. Other calls,
either by telephone or smartphone app, which requires immediate service, are considered “on
1 demand” and constitute the majority of taxi orders. As we have pointed out in previously submitted
comments, TNCs even advertise that their service is “on demand”.
On demand, on call transportation requires vehicles to make themselves constantly available by
cruising neighborhoods and downtown areas. This causes more congestion, pollution and wear and
tear on the roads than chartered vehicles operating on a prearranged basis only.
Different city and counties have different needs concerning these issues. For this and other
important reasons such as enforcement ability, California law places jurisdiction of taxicabs under
local cities and counties and not the State. For example, San Francisco is concerned about added
congestion and pollution caused by taxicabs, so all new taxi vehicles have been required to comply
with a reduced emissions goal since 2008. As a result, more than 97% of SF taxis are hybrids or
alternative fuel vehicles. The city also has a process to determine if more cabs are needed before
adding them to the streets. This effort has been rendered meaningless now that an unlimited number
of virtually unregulated vehicles are allowed to provide taxi service by this CPUC Decision and the
secretive agreements signed at the onset of the proceeding on this matter.
Our organization has been collecting plate numbers and photos of vehicles providing this
alternative taxi service and so far we have collected over 2,300 plate numbers of “TNC” vehicles,
the actual number is much higher and is expanding daily. Even with a significant margin of error,
they far outnumber the approximate 1,850 permitted taxicabs in San Francisco. As TPAC points
out, this Decision was made with no environmental impact report, in violation of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
There is no functional difference in the service TNCs and taxicabs provide. In this Commission’s
own words, “Taxis may provide transportation ‘at the curb’, that is, a customer may ‘arrange’ taxi
transportation by simply hailing a cab from the sidewalk.”1 It is important to note that hailing does
not have to be done with one’s hand. Hotel doormen hail cabs that are blocks away and out of sight
by blowing a taxi whistle. Flashlights are also used to hail cabs, as are smartphones apps such as
Flywheel, Taxi Magic or Hailo. A New York judge ruled in April 2013 that an “e-hail” was the
1 Transportation License Section, State of California Public Utilities Commission Basic Information for Transportation
Network Companies and Applicants: TCP/TNCs and Taxicabs Distinguished 2 essentially the same as a street hail. This decision was upheld in October 2013.2 According to the
American Heritage dictionary, a ship can also be electronically hailed. As technology advances, we
must also adjust our language. An “e-hail” with a smartphone in this context, does not constitute
prearrangement.
In San Francisco, the only California city where street hails are a significant portion of taxi business,
we are seeing more and more passengers waiting on the sidewalk, watching empty licensed taxicabs
pass by while they hail an unpermitted personal vehicle a few blocks away to provide them taxi
transportation. These people are not using these services because there are no licensed taxis
available, they use them because personal vehicles can charge less, having fewer requirements
and restrictions than city permitted taxicabs.
We would like to reiterate that San Francisco is the only California city where street hails are
common, so prohibiting TNCs from taking street hails creates absolutely no difference between
taxicab service and that of TNCs in the rest of California. In San Francisco, there has been no
enforcement by the CPUC against TCP operators staging in front of nightclubs and hotels or
soliciting passengers on the street, so who will stop TNCs from picking up traditional street hails as
well?
We agree with TPAC that the Commission should withdraw its Decision, grant TPAC’s application
for rehearing and conduct further evidentiary hearings. A cease and desist order should be reissued
to these rogue companies and their taxis, unless and until any laws are changed.
__________________________
Dated: November 7, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barry Korengold
Barry Korengold
President
San Francisco Cab Drivers Association
1874 24th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
415-602-1180
[email protected]
2 Black Car Assistance Corp v. City of New York – 2013 NY Slip Op 30824(u), 2013 NY Slip Op 06988 3 4