|
Taxicab Task Force Final Recommendations
Regulation
1. Issue: Establish a commission
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City Council appoint an independent body to meet as necessary but not less than annually to review taxi rates, the ordinance and other ongoing issues and advise the City Council. The membership of the body should be balanced. This recommendation was adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: At its March 14 meeting, some Task Force members expressed the belief that it is important to establish a body for the specific purpose of addressing issues impacting the taxi industry in San José. However, other members felt that the Task Force should first review the other items on its issues list before making a recommendation on the need for a commission or other standing body to address taxi industry issues. At his meeting Task Force member Lind distributed a document containing recommended revisions to the current City taxi ordinance. Some of the revisions related to the purpose and composition of a taxi commission. The Task Force agreed to return to this issue at a later point in its review process.
At its April 4 meeting a proposal was made to establish a commission to review rates, fines, infractions, etc. However, at one member felt that there were not issues to require a commission that met monthly and suggested a body that meets annually. Other members said it was important to input into whatever body was established. There was a suggestion that taxi issues could be brought to a Council Committee (a committee of Councilmembers), such as the Transportation and Environment Committee. However, one Task Force felt a Council Committee is not in a position to take informal information on a specific subject on an annual basis. The body should a commission composed of members who would be ready to respond to taxi-related issues.
One member suggested there are three reasons to establish a commission:
- to review industry-specific information (e.g., how rates, fines, and fees are set, etc.);
- to establish checks and balances on infractions (currently, the department that identifies and imposes sanctions is also the only avenue of appeal);
- to review ongoing issues (e.g., living wage issues, etc.)
Taxis are highly regulated by the City. The City should have some forum to discuss issues related to the industry. It should be an independent group to review annual rates, fees, and fines, and review the ordinance and other ongoing issues. There was also some discussion about how such a committee would actually function, who would staff it, how issues would be identified, when and how often it would meet, etc. However, no specific recommendations were offered on these items.
2. Issue: Limit the number of cabs
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the public convenience and necessity provision remain in the City ordinance but the purview for determining necessity and convenience be transferred from the Police Department to the City Council or an appointed body thereof with the opportunity for public input. This recommendation was adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.230 currently provides that the Chief of Police with the authority to grant permission to add additional vehicles under an issued license. At its March 14 meeting, members of the Task Force expressed concern regarding the relationship between the number of taxis authorized to operate and the income of drivers. Some Task Force members believe that the unregulated growth in the number of taxis drives down the income of taxi drivers. It was stressed that the goal was not to reduce the size of the current taxi fleet but to consider the impact on the income of drivers in adding taxis in the future. However, other members expressed concern that limits would inhibit the ability of existing companies to grow to meet customer service demands or opportunities or to compete for concessions where expansion is necessary. The Task Force agreed to return to this issue at a later time in its review process.
At its April 26 meeting, a recommendation was proposed that there should be Council review and public input whenever a company wants to add more vehicles to its fleet over a certain percentage over a certain time period. City staff stated that the convenience and necessity experience has been that there not enough taxis to meet the demand for service and thus the City has not been a barrier to adding more cabs to the fleet. Despite this, because vehicles are being retired as well as added, only about 25 more cabs a year are being added to the entire taxi fleet. A Task Force replied that the current approach allows cab companies to add more vehicles and collect more fees with no justification.
Some members believe there should be an annual analysis of service need in a process open for public comment and review. The current approach does not consider the impact of adding more taxis on the income of current taxi drivers nor is there an opportunity for public comment. The need for service must be balanced with the income needs of the drivers. Another member said input from the disabled community, particularly on the type of vehicles needed, should also be considered. A member of the public said the nature of the taxi business is very unpredictable and difficult to staff. Another Task Force member said the problem is there is a need for more drivers and not more vehicles. If drivers shared vehicles, there would be adequate day and night coverage and customer service would improve. Another member responded that independent drivers want to set their own hours. It becomes makes it difficult to share vehicles when drivers want to set their own hours. Any solution proposed by the Task Force should be based on solving regulatory need and not solving business management or social problems. One member suggested the way to increase the number of drivers who work at night would be to allow higher rates for night service than day service.
3. Issue: Clarify who is responsible for the regulatory oversight of the industry
Recommendation: The Task Force agreed by consensus that the recommended independent body should have principal responsibility for making industry-related regulatory recommendations to the City Council.
Discussion Highlights: No significant discussion on this item took place.
4. Issue: Establish a process to evaluate demonstrated need and necessity for new taxi applicants
Recommendation: The Task Force agreed by consensus that its recommendation that an independent body should be responsible for recommending for City Council adoption of a process with public input, measurement and methodology to evaluate need and necessity.
Discussion Highlights: At its March 14 meeting, some Task Force members stated that any new company applying to operate in the City should have to demonstrate a need for its services before it is approved for operation. A need standard would maintain the economic viability of existing companies. Other members said that the City does not require other businesses to show need and necessity before authorizing their operation. The Task Force agreed to return to this issue at a later time in its review process.
At its April 26 meeting, the Task Force agreed that developing the process, measurements and methodology for evaluating demonstrated need should be assigned to the recommended independent body. There was little discussion on this item.
Note:
There was consensus that it is the intent of the Task Force to consolidate the aforementioned three issues (establishing a commission, limiting the number of taxis and clarifying who is responsible for the regulatory oversight of the industry) so that:
- Council appoints an independent to meet as necessary to advise the Council on taxi issues. That independent body should have the principal responsibility for making industry-related recommendations to the Council.
- The independent body would be charged with reviewing taxi rates, the taxi ordinance and other ongoing industry-related issues.
- The independent body would have the principle responsibility for making recommendations to the City Council regarding necessity and convenience of expanding the number of vehicles in current taxis fleets available to provide service to the public. Review of service expansion would be conducted in a public forum with opportunity for public input.
- The independent body would have responsibility to recommend to the City Council the adoption of a process with public input, measurements, and the methodology for evaluating the service need and necessity for new taxi company applicants.
5. Issue: Require new cab companies to be approved by the City Council
Recommendation: The Task Force agreed by consensus that its recommendation to establish a process with public input to evaluate need and necessity addresses the objective of this item.
Discussion Highlights: No significant discussion took place on this item.
6. Issue: Review the process for how infractions are handled
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City review the process for how infractions are handled and provide more clarity around what constitutues an infraction. The Task Force also recommends the City amend Section 6.64.640C of the current ordinance to clarify that that suspension or revocation will not take affect until all administrative appeals have been exhausted, except in cases where there is an immediate hazard to public safety, health or welfare.
In addition, the Task Force recommends the City include fairness and appropriateness of fines in the review of how infractions are handled.
Both recommendations adopted by strong consensus.
Discussion Highlights: There is concern that the manner in which the City has determined infractions in the past has been at times arbitrary. An item determined to be an infraction in one instance by one police officer may warrant only a warning or not be considered an infraction in another instance by a different officer. The Task Force believes further clarity around what specifically constitutes an infraction should result in more consistent application of the regulations.
The full Task Force also wanted clarifications of Section 6.64.640 to reflect current City practice that a driver may continue to driver while a suspension or revocation order is being appealed, except in cases where it is clearly not in the interest of public safety to allow a driver to continue to work.
7. Issue: Allow union insignias/stickers to be displayed on taxis
Recommendation: The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on this issue. A motion against allowing only union insignias/stickers to be displayed on taxicabs was defeated 5-4. A motion allowing only union insignias/stickers to be displayed on taxis was defeated on a 5-5-tie vote with one abstention.
Discussion Highlights: Currently, no insignias, stickers or decals are allowed on taxicabs. Drivers would like to display their union affiliation on their vehicles by use of an insignia, a decal or a sticker. Some Task Force members believe that if displays are allowed for one purpose, they should be allowed for all purposes (e.g., sports insignias, advertising, etc.). City staff indicated the City Attorney has taken that position as well. After some discussion, the Task Force was unable to reach consensus.
8. Issue: Change rule on daily trip-sheet reports/Do not require the daily turn in of trip sheets
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that section 6.64.590 of the current taxi ordinance be amended to require the submission of trip sheets by a driver directly to the Police Department only upon request. (The ordinance currently requires trip sheets to be to taxi owners submitted daily. The current practice of the City encourages trip sheets to be turned in weekly.)
The Task Force also recommends the current ordinance be amended to eliminate the requirement that taxi companies be required to retain trip sheets records for five years.
Both recommendations adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.590 of the current ordinance requires drivers to submit daily trip sheets showing the starting and destination points of each trip and the fare collected. There is concern that turning in trip sheets on a daily basis creates an undue administrative burden on drivers. In response to that concern, the current City practice is to require trip sheets to be turned into owners weekly. Still some Task Force members believe the owners have sufficient information to respond to any City request on vehicle activity that it is no longer necessary to turn in trip sheets on a regular basis. Some members are also concerned about the potential use of trip sheets to determine individual driver incomes. City staff responded that the City is not interested in driver incomes and that trip sheets contain information that other owner records do not have. Accordingly, it remains important for owners to keep complete and ongoing records.
9. Issue: Require owners and drivers to maintain current records
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that section 6.64.420 of the current taxi ordinance be amended to require drivers and owners to maintain current contact records for a period of five years. Recommendation adopted by strong consenus.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.420(A)(1) of the current ordinance requires owners to maintain “(t)he names, addresses and termination of employment or engaged under contract by the owner.” However, for a variety of reasons, the information maintained by owners may not be always current.
10. Issue: Clarify when a customer is permitted in the front seat of a taxi
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that section 6.64.310(B) of the current taxi ordinance be amended to provide greater clarity on the circumstances when a passenger may sit in the front. Recommendation adopted by strong consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.310(B) of the current ordinance prohibits passengers from riding in the front seat except for passengers “who, for physical reasons, can ride with greater comfort in the front seat.” There was interest in clarifying the definition of the phrase “for physical reasons” as well as clarifying any other circumstances under which passengers allowed to ride in the front seat.
11. Issue: Clarify the maintenance requirements for vehicles/equipment and visible damage standards (“visible from 5 feet” rule)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that section 6.64.360(B)(3) of the current taxi ordinance be amended for clarification and a written warning process put in place before an infraction is levied. Motion adopted by strong consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.360(B)(3) of the current ordinance requires that taxis have no damage or poor maintenance conditions that “discernable from five feet of the taxicab.” There is concern that the description in the current ordinance of damage that is visible within “five feet” of a taxicab can be arbitrarily applied. There is also concern that fines can be levied without providing the driver or owner an opportunity to correct the condition. The Task Force recommendation is to provide more specificity to what constitutes poor condition or damage and to provide the driver or owner an opportunity to correct before incurring fines or penalties.
12. Issue: Eliminate unannounced office inspections and clarify general rules for inspection
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends this issue be dropped from further Task Force consideration. Recommendation adopted 7-2 with two abstentions.
Discussion Highlights: After discussion, a majority of the Task Force concluded that unannounced inspections are not a major problem or issue.
13. Issue: Eliminate behind-the-wheel testing requirements
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the current behind-the-wheel testing requirements remain in place. Recommendation adopted 9-2.
Discussion Highlights: After discussion, a majority of the Task Force felt that behind-the-wheel testing of drivers should remain in place to help ensure drivers are operating their taxis in a safe manner.
14. Issue: Require mandatory training for new drivers
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends a provision be added to the City ordinance that establishes a mandatory training program for new drivers similar to the program in San Francisco. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: One member requested the Task Force consider a revision of the ordinance to require new drivers to go through a training program. A member of the public inquired why taxi companies could not enact such a program now? The reply was some companies will and others will not. Those companies that will implement a training program for new drivers will be at a disadvantage with those companies that do not have training programs, presumably because new drivers will be more attracted to companies that do not require such training. City staff said required training would be good. A member of the public replied that a required training program will be an additional cost to the either the company or the new driver.
A member of the public suggested that taxi companies establish communication training for drivers. Perhaps San José police could also provide safety training. The Task Force Chair replied the new independent body could address the issue of additional training.
15. Issue: Allow meter inspections to be valid for one year
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the City accept the one-year validity of inspections by County Weights and Measures. Recommendation adopted 5-2 with 4 abstentions.
Discussion Highlights: Currently taxi owners are required to obtain documentation for their annual City safety inspection and their annual County meter inspection within a 90-day period. Some Task Force members believe 90 days is not enough time to get the City and County documentation validated. The County meter inspection is valid for one year. Some Task Force members believe that the City should recognize the County inspection for one year from the date of issuance, regardless of when the City inspection takes place. City staff believes the 90-day window reduces the possibility of tampering or poor calibration and has not been a compliance problem for vehicle owners.
16. Issue: Review liability insurance requirements
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the ordinance be amended to identify what City document contains the current minimum insurance coverage (a document currently prepared by the City’s Risk Manager). Recommendation adopted strong consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Some Task Force members said it is easier to get insurance if the required amount is in the ordinance. There was concern that this could require the City ordinance to be amended every time the insurance amount must be changed.
17. Issue: Eliminate 25% surcharge for any distance 10 miles outside of the county
Recommendation: Apply the surcharge for mileage beginning at the countyline and lower the surcharge rate to 15%. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: The current fee structure (adopted by Council through resolution each year) allows drivers to add a 25% surcharge on any distance beginning 10 miles beyond the County line. In practice, the application of this charge is at the discretion of the driver. Sometimes the surcharge is levied; sometimes it is not. Drivers lose money if it not charged. Part of the problem is that drivers are not always able to identify when a fare has gone 10 miles outside the county. There is consensus to maintain the charge but use the County line as the point of application. In exchange, the surcharge rate would be lowered to 15%.
18. Issue: Make retired city vehicles available to cab companies throughsale/disposition process
Recommendation: Make retired city vehicles available through a sale/disposition process to taxicab companies and independent taxi owners licensed to do business in the City of San José. Recommendation passed 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: The current sale disposition process allows taxi companies for anywhere to obtain retired City vehicles. The Task Force believes it will benefit taxicab companies serving customers living in or coming to San José if retired vehicles could first be available to companies licensed to do business in San José before making them available to other taxicab companies.
19. Issue: Establish reciprocal recognition of neighboring cities’ permit and inspection processes
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends this item be dropped from further consideration by the full Task Force. Recommendation adopted by strong consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Currently there is no mutual recognition of inspection permits among Santa Clara County cities except Santa Clara, which recognizes San José inspection permits (San José does not recognize Santa Clara’s inspection permits). There was consensus that the County is not interested in establishing and administering a countywide permit and licensing process but the Task Force would like to see a process that requires all taxis to be inspected on the same day or at least the same month. In addition, the Task Force wanted to see agreement among the County’s cities to recognize each other’s inspection permits so that an inspection passed in one city would be recognized by all cities. It was suggested that the City should work with other County cities to at least coordinate their inspections on similar dates at similar times.
City staff stated that the City does not want to use other County cities’ inspection permits because some cities have lower inspection standards than San José. In addition, City staff stated that the City does not have the resources to inspect a large number of vehicles in a compressed period of time (same day or same month). That is why inspections are spread out throughout the entire year.
20. Issue: Establish an age limit for taxi service vehicles
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends this item be dropped from further consideration by the full Task Force. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: City staff stated that old vehicles are difficult to maintain for a variety of reasons. City staff supports a 10-year age limit on vehicles. Some Task Force members expressed the belief that mileage of a car can sometimes be more important than its age. For example, an older vehicle could have low miles while a newer vehicle could have high mileage, depending on their uses. Staff suggested a combination of age and miles while some Task Force members supported a mileage limit only. The Task Force did not support a limit based on age only.
21. Issue: Establish a mandatory uniform or dress code for drivers (shirt with company name and name tags)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City issue drivers two permits (at no additional charge); one for drivers to wear or carry on their person while operating their vehicles and a second, larger document to be placed in a prominent location inside the taxi for passengers to see. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.580 of the ordinance discusses a driver’s appearance. However, the ordinance does not require drivers to wear a uniform. However, the ordinance does not preclude a taxi owner from establishing a dress code or similar rules to regulate the appearance of their drivers. City staff cited reasons why passengers need to be able to identify a driver as an employee and suggested uniform dress and name tags would accomplish this objective. Some Task Force members felt a uniform would make passengers feel safer. However, some Task Force members opposed a mandatory uniform dress code for economic reasons (the cost needed to purchase sufficient clothing to always wear the required dress).
22. Issue: Improve City monitoring of “bandit” cabs that illegally take fares
Recommendation: The Task Force would like to see greater City resources dedicated to monitoring illegal taxis and higher fines for violations. Recommendations adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: Several Task Force members stated that taxis that not licensed to operate in San José that operate in San José looking to pick up customers should more aggressively monitored by the City. Staff responded that the City currently does monitor illegal taxis and that police officers do stop taxis that do not appear to have a permit to operate in the City.
Definitions
1. Issue: Define the terms “owner,” “employee” and “contractor”
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends no revision to the City ordinance on this item. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: There are tax issues related to who is considered an owner, an employee and an independent contractor. There is confusion about who has responsibility to do what. Some Task Force members expressed concern with the current City ordinance and practice that owners are responsible for everything. Owners believe they should not be responsible for actions of independent contractors. City staff responded that the tax issues are state and federal issues and not issues for the City. In addition, all drivers, whether owners, employees or independent contractors, operate under the license of the owner and therefore the City considers the owner as the ultimate responsible party for how taxis operate under their license.
2. Issue: Address refusals to pay fares and options for fare payment (checks/credit cards, etc.)
Recommendation: Amend the ordinance to require taxi companies to post notification identifying acceptable methods of payment in a location visible to the customer upon entry into the vehicle. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.330 of the current ordinance addresses refusal to pay fares. Some Task Force members believe the ordinance is unclear on what circumstances constitute a refusal to pay a fare. Should the police be asked to intervene when a customer can pay only with a credit card or check? Other Task Force members said not all taxis are equipped to take credit cards or the customer will not want to wait while the driver confirms the credit card is valid. Most companies do not want to take a personal check. The City should identify what methods of payment are acceptable. City staff responded that identifying acceptable methods of payment is a business decision and that the City has no compelling reason to codify what method of payment is acceptable, particularly when not all companies will accept credit cards and/or personal checks, which can be acceptable forms of payment and represent a good faith effort on the part of the customer to pay a fare.
3. Issue: Clarify issues related to the refusal to take fares/duty to provide service
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends no revision to the City ordinance on this item. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.290 of the City ordinance requires taxi service be provided to any customer with a destination in City of San José. Some Task Force members identified a problem of independent contractor drivers refusing to pick up fare calls from a dispatcher that may not be significant fares (short trips, the disabled, etc.) or because they have taken a personal call to pick up a more profitable fare trip. This means the customer will wait until another taxi becomes available. Some Task Force members believe owners are not in a position to take action against independent drivers who refuse to pick up dispatched fare calls. One Task Force felt there was an especially high amount of discrimination against the disabled. Other Task Force members felt independent drivers, who are paying to lease a taxi from the owner, should be able to take calls for more profitable fares. Some Task Force members also said there was no conscious effort to discriminate against the disabled.
4. Issue: Clarify “customary baggage” and what is a reasonable charge for customary baggage
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends no revision to the City ordinance on this item. Recommendation adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.270 of the City ordinance allows drivers to reasonably charge for “personal service” in assisting customers in the transport of customers or items of personal property “other than customary baggage or luggage” to and/or from the taxicab. Task Force members stated the ordinance is not clear on what constitutes “customary baggage.” Drivers currently have discretion over when to charge for baggage that exceeds “customary baggage.” Further discussion revealed a range of possible baggage combinations that passengers carry that could be considered “customary.”
5. Issue: Review information required on taxi receipts (fare receipts)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the current City ordinance be revised to require that a receipt be given to each customer, whether or not requested. Recommendation passed 10-0 with one abstention.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.340 of the current ordinance requires taxi drivers to provide a receipt to any passenger who requests it. It was unclear why the issue had been identified for consideration so the Task Force focused the discussion upon the issuance of receipts. Some members believe the receipt should changed to include the cab number instead of the license plate number because it makes it easier to find a cab in the event of lost items. Staff responded that if two taxi companies have the same cab number, it makes it difficult to identify a specific car in problem situations.
6. Issue: Establish a full use requirement for taxis (What is the minimum number of passengers that required to use a taxicab?)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the current City ordinance be revised to define full use as a 4-door vehicle or van that is capable of accommodating three passengers comfortably in the rear seat. This recommendation was adopted 11-0.
Discussion Highlights: The discussion focused on the minimum number of people that should constitute “full use” of a taxi.
Fares/Income
1. Issue: Review meter rates: cost of living vs. hours worked (wage/income)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the current ordinance be amended to contain provisions that meter rates be tied to the cost-of-living and other industry factors. In addition, the meter rates should be reviewed on at least an annual basis and there be “emergency criteria” (e.g., gas prices) for reviewing rates in between annual reviews. On basis for review would be the cost of competitive transportation. Recommendation adopted strong consensus.
Discussion Highlights: The discussion focused on equitable meter rates and how often rates are reviewed. One member suggested every driver and stakeholder should have a say in whether rates should be raised. Another member said the issue is that people cannot make a living. A third member said the meter rates should be reviewed regularly to make sure drivers can have a reasonable income. The intent of the Task Force’s recommendation is to ensure there is a relationship between meter rates and the drivers’ ability to earn a reasonable living.
2. Issue: Establish minimum fares at the Airport for short fares
Recommendation: There should be a minimum fare of $10 out of the Airport.. Recommendation adopted 9-1 with one abstention.
Discussion Highlights: This issue was also reviewed by the Customer Service Task Force, which was unable to reach consensus. However, the Ordinance Review Task Force believes the minimum fare at the flag drop is too low when the customer is travelling only a short distance.
Fees
1. Issue: Review fees the City charges to drivers for permits and inspections
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the Council review taxi-related fees. This recommendation was adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Some members believe the fees charged by the City are too high. City staff replied that the fees are set to recover actual costs. Staff currently sends out notices on the City’s fees to all cab companies licensed to operate in San José. Staff was requested to provide the information to the appropriate unions so that they can help disseminate the information to drivers.
2. Issue: Regulate the fees charged by owners to independent drivers
Recommendation: the Task Force recommends no further action be taken on this issue. Recommendation adopted 9-0 with two abstentions.
Discussion Highlights: Based on the discussion concerning the review of City fees, the Task Force believes it has already reviewed this issue.
3. Issue: Include fees charged by the City in meter increases to allow drivers to recoup the costs of City fee increases.
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends no further action be taken on this issue. Recommendation adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Based on the discussion concerning the review of meter rates, cost of living and hours worked, the Task Force believes it has already reviewed this issue.
Drug and Alcohol Issues
1. Issue: Specify the grounds for denial of permits for failing to maintain a drug testing program
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends no action be taken on this item. Recommendation adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: The Task Force believes this issue was adequately addressed in the item related to the administration of the drug-testing program (see item below).
2. Issue: Review the administration of the drug testing program (who should monitor and how it should be implemented)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the current City ordinance be amended to include a provision that requires taxi companies to review drug-testing guidelines with their drivers until the drivers are clear about the testing procedures. Recommendation adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: State law now requires each taxicab company to have a drug-testing policy. The Police Department currently monitors taxi company implementation of drug-testing guidelines established by the state and federal governments. There were comments that drivers do not know or understand the drug-testing rules and procedures, what their rights are under those rules and procedures, etc. Staff replied that the state requires 50% of each company’s drivers to be drug tested throughout the year. Testing occurs on a quarterly basis.
Because the testing is done on a random basis each quarter, and because the name of each driver is returned to the random testing pool after each test, some drivers are tested more than once a year. The random selection and testing is not done by the taxi companies but by a consortium of testing labs authorized by the state and/or federal governments to administer the tests. Selection is done by social security number. In 1998 the City took steps to implement the state required drug-testing guidelines. The City has no discretion over the requirements of the state and federal programs. The City is prepared to incorporate provisions into the City ordinance to codify what is now required and how the City and taxi companies implement those requirements.
Currently, the Police Department is notified by the consortium if a test is positive or the driver fails to appear for the test. The Police then contacts the taxi company. There were comments that there should be some checks and balances to make sure taxi companies notify drivers when they are selected. However, there was consensus that there is no reason to conclude that company failure to notify drivers of required tests is currently a problem area.
Customer Service
1. Issue: Require animals, other than service animals (seeing eye dogs, etc.) to be caged while in cabs
Recommendation: Recommend City ordinance be amended to reflect the current City practice of allowing the driver to decide if an animal should be caged based on safety considerations. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Current City practice is to allow the driver to determine when animals should be caged. The Task Force would like to see the current practice codified in the ordinance.
2. Issue: Address cleanliness of cabs
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City significantly increase its enforcement of Section 6.64.360.B of the current ordinance provision. Recommendation adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.360 of the City ordinance requires taxis to be neat and clean condition. Some drivers put personal papers, files, briefcases, etc. on the front seats of their vehicles. Some Task Force members believe this should not be allowed and wanted the ordinance amended to provide more detail on what constitutes a clean vehicle. City staff believes the issue is sufficiently covered in the current language of the ordinance but the City may need to focus more on enforcing the current provision.
3. Issue: Encourage greater driver attention to hygiene and courtesy
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City ordinance be amended to include the wording from paragraphs B and C of section 6.310.465 of the City of Seattle taxi ordinance. These sections provide more detailed descriptions of what constitutes driver hygiene. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
The Task Force also recommended the City ordinance be amended to include paragraph D of section 6.310.465 of the Seattle ordinance, which provides a more detailed description of courteous service. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Section 6.64.580 of the City ordinance requires drivers to be neat and clean in appearance. However, some Task Force members believe some drivers should be more aware of personal hygiene. Staff responded that addresses hygiene but the definition could be more specific to make drivers more aware of the City’s expectation.
Disabled and Senior Populations
1. Issue: Review senior citizen discounts and short fares
Recommendation: There are two recommendations because Task Force members believe these could be two different issues.
Senior Discounts – The Task Force recommends eliminating the City fare resolution wording allowing taxicab companies serving subsidized fares (e.g., clients of paratransit providers such as Outreach and Escorts) to provide a senior/disabled discount greater than 15% the total regular fare and place a discount ceiling of no more than 10%. Recommendation adopted 8-0 with one abstention.
Short fares – The Task Force recommends this item be dropped from further consideration. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Discounts - Some Task Force members argued that senior discounts are used against taxi companies in bidding for paratransit contracts. Since the paratransit operator awards only a limited number of contracts to taxi companies, to get a contract, a taxi company must be prepared to offer at least the 15% discount required by the City’s annual fee resolution. Often a deeper discount must be given to obtain a contract. The wording in City’s fee resolution encourages this practice. That wording should be deleted and the required discount be reduced.
Short fares – After a short discussion, the Task Force determined this was not an issue requiring Task Force recommendation.
2. Issue: Establish wheelchair requirements for taxi companies
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends amending the current ordinance to require that 5% of the fleet of each taxicab company be wheelchair-accessible and on the street at all times. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: There are not enough wheelchair accessible vehicles in the City to provide adequate on-demand service. Each taxi company licensed to do business in the City should be required to have a certain percentage of its fleet wheelchair-accessible.
3. Issue: Establish a program to waive City fees to encourage more wheelchair-accessible taxis
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the City waive fees (permit, vehicle inspection, driver permit, etc.) related to obtaining and maintaining wheelchair-accessible vehicles Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Same as above.
4. Issue: Encourage the free movement of wheelchair taxis within Santa Clara County and between Santa Clara County and other counties
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City Council direct staff to work with other Santa Clara County cities to encourage the ability of wheelchair-accessible taxis to operate freely throughout the County. This action may result in an amendment to the current ordinance. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Currently taxi companies not licensed in a given city cannot provide on-demand service. The Task Force would like the City to lead an effort to make it easier for wheelchair-accessible taxis to move throughout the County to provide on-demand service for the disabled. City staff expressed concern that wheelchair-accessible could also be used to provide on demand service to non-disabled customer, which could encourage increased “bandit” taxi activity.
5. Issue: Review overall taxi services to the disabled
Recommendation: Based on its previous recommendations on taxi service for the disabled, the Task Force recommends no further action on this item. Recommendation passed by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: There was no significant discussion on this item
6. Issue: Allow the use of disabled parking to pick up and drop off senior and disabled passengers
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends no action on this item. Recommendation adopted by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: There was no significant discussion on this item
7. Issue: Establish accessible and identifiable wheelchair pickup and drop off locations at the Airport
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City Council consider identifying locations at the Airport for disabled for drop off and pick up. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Parking for paratransit vehicles at the Airport for disabled passengers is inconvenient. It forces passengers to cross several lanes of traffic, putting them at risk for being hit by a vehicle. Staff responded that pick points at Terminal C is sometimes problematic but this problem should be remedied in the near future.
8. Issue: Encourage drivers to be aware of disabled issues and require drivers to take sensitivity training as well as training on the Americans with Disability Act
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the current City ordinance to require all cab drivers to receive sensitivity training on the Americans with Disability Act before driving a cab. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: The original motion was for all taxi companies to provide or contract to provide ADA sensitivity training. However, some Task Force members believe that while companies may offer the training, not all drivers may feel obliged to take it.
9. Issue: Make more taxis or van transportation services available to the disabled community
Recommendation: Based on its previous recommendations on taxi service for the disabled, the Task Force recommends no further action on this item. Recommendation passed by consensus.
Discussion Highlights: There was no significant discussion on this item.
10. Issue: Install raised and Braille lettering on all taxi vehicles identifying the taxi company and vehicle number.
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City ordinance be amended to require all taxi vehicles to contain raised and Braille lettering inside or on the door of all taxi vehicles. The lettering would identify the taxi company and number of the vehicle and would be installed to meet the appropriate standards of the Americans with Disability Act. Recommendation adopted 9-0.
Discussion Highlights: Task Force members agreed that for the benefit of blind customers, raised and Braille lettering (which are two different types of lettering) identifying the taxi company and vehicle number should be required on all taxi vehicles. The identification should be either on the door on or on the back of the driver’s and/or front passenger side seat of the vehicle.
Airport
1. Issue: Open the Airport concession to more/all companies
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the City Council appoint an independent body to evaluate the Airport concession service. The evaluation would include how other airports handle taxi concessions as well as the impact on taxi service to San José neighborhoods if the concession were broadened to include more companies. This recommendation was adopted 7-3.
Discussion Highlights: Originally there were six taxi companies that operated at the Airport. Now there are only two. Some Task Force members believe that customer service suffers as a result. The largest companies focus on the Airport, leaving a vacuum of service in other parts of the City. Opening up the Airport concession to all companies licensed to operate in San José will increase competition and improve services. Companies which cannot operate at the Airport lose business opportunities which is discriminatory against the smaller companies that do not operate at the Airport. The concession should be restructured to allow all companies licensed to do business in San José to have a certain number of taxis available to provide on-demand service at the Airport. Staff responded that the current concession designed to make sure there is taxi service at the Airport when it is needed by obliging how service is provided. Any company can now drop off or pick up pre-arranged fares at the Airport. The concession only prohibits the providing on-demand service.
At its meeting of May 25th, the Task Force recommended that the owners of the current Airport concessions (United and Yellowcab) meet with the Airport staff regarding the issue of when to allow other taxi companies access to the Airport and reach agreement on how many people must be in line before other companies are allowed on the Airport to supplement available service. United and Yellowcab owners would subsequently meet with local labor and the other taxi companies to inform them of the results of the meeting with Airport staff. This recommendation was adopted 7-4.
However, at its meeting of June 7, the Task Force agreed to reconsider this recommendation and adopted the current recommendation by a vote of 7-3. Some members felt this issue should be assigned to the independent body recommended to meet at least annually to review taxi rates, the ordinance and other ongoing issues and advise Council.
2. Issue: Move free shuttles closer to taxi islands to encourage “short” fares to hotels to use free shuttles or allow taxi companies to charge a flat rate for short fares.
Recommendation: The Task Force adopted a recommendation that a minimum flat-rate of Ten Dollars ($10) be charged for short fares. This recommendation was adopted on a 7-2 with 2 abstentions.
Discussion Highlights: Task Force members said drivers lose money taking passengers on short trips from the Airport. Some members believe a flat fee would address that concern. City staff expressed concern that a flat fee penalizes the customer by charging more than the fare would actually cost.
The Task Force also believes this issue was satisfactorily addressed in the Task Force’s recommendation to establish minimum fares at the Airport (see page 13).
3. Issue: Review general traffic congestion at Airport
Recommendation: By consensus, the Task Force decided that no action needed to be taken on this item.
Discussion Highlights: City staff outlined current short-term and long-term steps being taken to relieve traffic congestion at the Airport. Task Force members asked questions and offered some comments on particular traffic issues that impact the ability of taxis to move easily onto, on and out of the Airport.
4. Issue: Review customer wait times at Airport in off-peak hours when a number of planes arrive all at once (including the number of complaints.)
Recommendation: By consensus, the Task Force decided that no action needed to be taken on this item since this issue was addressed in the recommendation for Airport issue number 1.
Discussion Highlights: Sometime when planes arrive late in the night, it results in many customers needing taxis at a time when there are very few available. There was concern that taxis were not available when there is an unexpectedly large number of late night arrivals. City staff responded that as soon as the City has word of late arriving flights , staff tries to alert taxi companies that there will be a need for taxi service for late-arriving customers. However, the airlines do not always provide the City with timely notice of late arriving flights. Communications between the airlines and the City are improving but it is still a problem.
Hotels/Attractions
1. Issue: Clarify convention time/peak time issues to transport customers between the Airport and destination locations
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that that City staff be responsible for the distribution of information regarding conventions and related downtown city events to all the taxi companies on a regular basis to reduce the potential of inadequate customer service.
Discussion Highlights: Task Force members pointed out that taxicab companies do not have reliable information on the start and finishing times of major events in downtown locations or hotel facilities (conventions, athletic events, etc.). Such information would make it easier for taxicab companies determine when and where taxis will be needed to serve customers. Task Force Chair Holt-Mclain said the Convention and Visitors Bureau could be helpful in providing information to the taxicab companies on major events through email notification.
2. Issue: Review long waits for cabs at hotels
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City Council direct Department of Streets and Traffic staff to look at opportunities to add taxi spaces at major downtown locations (e.g., the Arena, hotels, the Convention Center, Cesar Chavez Park, etc.) Recommendation adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: One Task Force member said that on Thursday mornings it is frequently difficult to obtain taxis, with some hotels claiming it can take up to two hours to get taxi service. Other members felt the 2-hour claim was exaggerated and pointed out that many hotels have few spaces for taxis to park and wait for customers. As an example, one Task Force member said the Fairmont Hotel has only two spaces for taxis, one of which is always used for valet parking. Parking lanes for taxis, adding more taxi stands or establishing a central location downtown for taxis where people can easily walk and find taxis would make it easier to serve customers at hotels and downtown. City staff said more taxi spaces near the Arena might be also possible but that would have to reviewed by the Department of Streets and Traffic.
3. Issue: Increase access to downtown locations (Arena, hotels, bars, etc.)
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City Council direct Department of Streets and Traffic staff to look at opportunities to add taxi spaces at major downtown locations (e.g., the Arena, hotels, the Convention Center, Cesar Chavez Park, etc.) Recommendation adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: See discussion highlights above.
4. Issue: Improve driver knowledge of downtown attractions, restaurants, etc.
Recommendation: The Task Force recommended that drivers require more training to become knowledgeable about downtown attractions, restaurants and on the whole. This recommendation was adopted 8-2 with one abstention.
Discussion Highlights: Some members felt that taxi drivers should be more knowledgeable about downtown attractions and activities. The Task Force felt that companies could provide more training. Customer Service Subcommittee Chair Holt-Maclain said the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau would be willing to provide the taxi companies with more information attractions and activities. The Task Force subsequently adopted a recommendation for increased driver training.
5. Issue: Review payment options for hotel use of cabs when free shuttles are not available
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau facilitate a discussion between the taxi companies and hotels to resolve the issue of payment options. The recommendation was adopted on a 10-0 vote with one abstention.
Discussion Highlights: Hotels sometimes refer customers to taxis when their shuttles are not available. However, when the taxis arrive at the hotels, the drivers must go into the hotel and wait to receive payment. Hotels will often not wait on drivers until they have served their guests. This can result in long waits at the hotels for drivers. Task Force members say that how much a driver makes depends on how quickly he/she can receive payment after delivering the customer to their desired destination. Some Task Force members felt hotels needed to be paid on a timely basis to allow drivers to get back to work as quickly as possible.
6. Issue: Address policy of hotel doormen requesting a gratuity to direct customers to taxis
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City amend the current ordinance to prohibit anyone from offering, asking, or accepting any money as a condition for referral or the provision of ground transportation services. Recommendation adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: Task Force members said that hotel doormen often demand gratuities from taxi drivers to refers customers to their cab. Some drivers offer or are willing to pay gratuities; some are not willing to pay. Those who are not willing to pay may sometimes find it hard to get referral business from hotels. Some Task Force members said the hotels condone this practice. City staff recommended the current City ordinance be amended to prohibit doormen from asking for gratuities to direct business to a particular taxi or taxi company. The City of Seattle taxi ordinance contains such a provision. Other Task Force members said the prohibition should also prohibit drivers from offering a gratuity to doormen.
7. Issue: Review “advance payment” issue when hotels pay in advance for taxi service and individual drivers ask for additional fare
Recommendation: By consensus, the Task Force decided that no action needed to be taken on this item. The Convention and Visitor’s bureau is willing to facilitate a discussion between the taxi companies and hotels to resolve this issue.
Discussion Highlights: This issue is related to drivers receiving payment for taking hotel customers to the hotels on a pre-paid basis. Sometimes because of traffic or other factors, the actual fare may exceed an pre-agreed upon amount. When the driver attempts to collects the difference between the agreed upon amount and the actual fare, the hotels often refuse to pay the difference and driver feels he/she has lost revenue on a fare because he did not receive the actual cost to provide the service.
Convenience/Speed of Service
1. Issue: Allow taxicabs to use bus curbs to drop off passengers
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City work with the appropriate agencies to allow taxis to use bus curbs to pick up and drop off passengers. This recommendation was adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: Taxis cannot now use bus lanes to pick up and drop off passengers. Several Task Force members believe use of the bus curbs to pick up and drop off passengers would be a convenience for passengers. City staff responded that the Valley transportation Authority, not the City, regulates the use of the bus curbs and lanes and would have to approve any use of bus curbs by taxis.
2. Issue: Allow the use of bus lanes downtown to transport passengers, particularly on First and Second Streets
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City work with the appropriate agencies to allow taxis to use bus lanes to pick up and drop off passengers. This recommendation was adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: Some Task Force members believe it would be more convenient for and provide quicker service for passengers if taxis could use downtown bus lanes to transport passengers.
3. Issue: Make high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes available to pick up taxi passengers
Recommendation: The Task Force recommends the City work with the appropriate agencies to allow taxis to use HOV lanes to pick up and drop off passengers. This recommendation was adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: Some Task Force members suggested that taxis could provide quicker and convenient service if they could be allowed to use HOV lanes to pick up passengers. City staff responded that the HOV lanes were regulated by the State and there was little likelihood that the State would open up HOV lanes to allow taxis to pick up customers statewide or make an exception for taxis permitted to operate in San José.
4. Issue: Clarify issues around refusing to take fares from the “wrong side of town”
Recommendation: A motion was offered that the City Council direct staff to look at better enforcement of the section of the current ordinance addressing refusal to provide service (section 6.64.290). The motion failed on a 5-5 vote. After further discussion, the Task Force recommended no action be taken on this item. The recommendation was adopted 10-0.
Discussion Highlights: This item was related to previous discussions about refusal to take fares. Some Task Force members believe this is a small problem while others believe it is a big problem. City staff responded that any arbitrary or capricious refusal to pick up customers for because they lived on the “wrong side of town,” represented “short” fares, had disabilities, etc. should not be viewed as a small problem. The current City ordinance was clear that such refusals were a violation. Some Task Force members said that taxi owners do not have any ability to impose sanctions on independent drivers who violate the ordinance by refusing to pick up customers. Other Task Force members believed owners do have sufficient ability to impose sanctions on drivers, regardless of their status (employee or independent driver), who refuse to pick up customers for arbitrary reasons. One Task Force member felt that due process would best be served by requiring the City become involved in any complaints about refusal to provide service. Other Task Force members and some City staff expressed the belief that owners have the ability to set up due process for drivers who refuse to pick up customers.
|