I happened to be driving past City Hall a few minutes ago and caught sight of the MV-1 manufactured by Vehicle Production Group.

I was able to speak with John Gaydash a former GM executive.

Here are the important details:

  • Given its pricing and options, the vehicle is intended to compete directly with ramp (disabled) taxi vans, not regular cabs.
  • Production cost should be less than $40k
  • Expected MPG of 17 city 22 highway (not officially EPA rated yet)
  • Based on a V6 GM truck engine of some sort
  • Understandably, John et al. are hitting up City Halls across the country to get their regulatory foot in the door. If they can get municipalities to code this as standard disable cab equipment they’re looking at some real cash.
  • This will be the only built-for-purpose taxicab in the North American market.

Thanks John and the VPG crew for stopping by SF!


My mother’s father, Boris Drucker, passed away last week in Philadelphia.

My Aunt sent me a link to a nice obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I’m sad over his passing, but I’m happy that over Christmas vacation I was able to see him along with my immediate family. We had a great visit and together enjoyed our family company and the Philadelphia center city.

Link


snapshot-2008-12-15-19-52-03

San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency absorbs the Taxi Commission in March, but SFMTA Chief Nathaniel Ford says progress will be slow.


When the Chronicle ran a story about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s idea for “Sunday Streets” I was a bit skeptical.

I wasn’t so sure that we needed another street closure, especially on a Sunday when so many tourists rely on the Embarcadero to come downtown or to the piers to spend money in our City.

So I’ll admit I was surprised to find so many people participating in the second iteration of the Mayor’s “Sunday Streets” program when I went out yesterday to shoot this quick story. I wasn’t surprised, however, to find folks in their cars a bit peeved about the closure.

As I concluded in the piece, it’s a tough balance to meet the needs of all transportation modes in a shared City.

I’m happy that the City was able to pull this off without too many problems. I’ll be interested to see what happens next year — will they do it again? Will they extend the hours? Will they perhaps have better signage warning incoming visitors and regulars to avoid the Embarcadero?


Another video, this one was a bit more fun and easier than the taxi story…


I’m still new at this whole ‘reporting’ thing. This was my attempt at figuring out what was going on with Yellow’s contract change.

It’s rather long, and it’s rather boring unless you’re involved with the industry, but my goal was to be as objective as possible in presenting everyone’s viewpoints.


Good news! Steve and I finally released our website, VidSF.com, to the public.

More good news! We had a great initial meeting with content producers. We recruited them via craigslist and we made absolutely clear that a) we are unfunded and can’t pay, and b) we can’t provide equipment.

But, after this great meeting I am left with a tough puzzle. Given that we’re unfunded and can’t yet pay content producers a cut of ads that we don’t have, how can we treat them fairly? How can we encourage the vital sense of ownership that drives projects like these to succeed?

When I started a student TV station at Indiana University Bloomington, the idea of ownership was very, very different. The IUSTV entity was never intended to be for-profit. And, the IUSTV entity was a natural extension of the university system.

IUSTV’s non-profit and university affiliation gave each and every member a strong level of inherent ownership. An important fact to note, however, is that nobody, not even me — the founder, had any real ownership of IUSTV. Instead, this ownership was perceived given the organizational entity’s association with the University.

So, how can we achieve that degree of perceived or actual ownership with VidSF? Although VidSF isn’t an incorporated entity, Steve and I have personal intellectual property ownership of the platform code and design. The team members retain IP ownership of their video content.

But, how can we mix this together to achieve the nirvana of collective perceived entity ownership achieved with IUSTV? Could we offer partial ownership of a yet-to-be-formed for-profit incorporated VidSF entity? Perhaps, but it’s difficult to offer ownership when the yet-to-be-formed entity has no agreed upon valuation. Even if we know the value of a member’s hourly contribution, how can we convert that into a percent of a company with no real valuation?

What are other ways that real and perceived member ownership can be established in an organization?

  • Clear, honest and consistent communication from organization leaders. Check.
  • Shared community – physical or social. We’re working on this via frequent in-person meetings. Check.
  • Shared mission definition. Collaborative input on strategic direction. Check.
  • Honest and straightforward revenue share agreements. We’re working on this: We don’t have any revenue to share. We don’t yet know costs for increased traffic loads, which makes it difficult to peg an exact revenue share percentage. What if we have to go with a CDN and video delivery costs jump through the roof? This is scary.

Thoughts?


A recent episode of Russ Roberts’ EconTalk podcast featured a wonderful intersection of interests: economics, public policy and public transit.

One of Russ’ academia friends, economist Michael Munger, speaks at length on the program about the public transportation system quality in Santiago, Chile before and after nationalization of their bus network.

Prior to 2007 Santiago’s surface transit was made up of a patchwork of thousands of independent, private bus operators. Operators specialized in niches ranging from neighborhood local busses which stopped at every block in a town to luxury express busses providing direct to city center service.

Since nationalization circa February 2007 the masses have expressed widespread complaints about the poor quality of the system. Wikipedia’s article on Transantiago sums up these complaints well:

The major complaints are the lack of buses and their inconsistent frequencies, missing or poor infrastructure (such as segregated corridors, prepaid areas and bus stops), the network’s coverage, and the number of transfers needed for longer trips.

I agreed in spirit that market based solutions can offer better outcomes than public, centralized planning in some situations. But, we shouldn’t get rid of public transit and city planning.

  • I do agree that in controlled situations, a market solution is better. San Francisco’s publicly owned and operated transit system is largely a failure, spurring reactions identical to those of Santiago’s newly nationalized bus system. Here, Munger and Roberts are spot on in their complaints of the stupidity of nationalizing a once private resource. (Remember, SF had a patchwork of completely privately owned transit lines until around the 1910’s. Everything I’ve read says these competing systems provided excellent service, especially given available technologies.)
  • But, I do not share Munger and Roberts’ idyllic view that free markets are the holy grail of public transport policy. Two reasons:
    • Just look at our suburban car-based communities. These communities are real life experiments in market based, unplanned transport and city zoning policies. These communities are a dismal failure.
    • While bus systems can arguably run with no government intervention, most other high-capacity transit systems need exclusive, government granted corridor rights-of-way, whether that be below ground subways, above ground rail corridors, or even fantastical elevated monorails. Like utilities, physical constraints necessitate government involvement to some degree.

Like many EconTalk podcasts, even if you don’t agree with everything, the discussion points a great alternative spotlight on conventional public policy views.

My favorite viewpoint: the entire concept of central transportation planning is communist at its core — an odd anomaly in a nation proud of its free-market ideology. Why should transportation “planners” dictate the best transportation routes? Our publicly owned and operated Muni is blind to the most powerful natural “planner” in the world: market feedback.

This viewpoint strikes me especially hard in the context of the impending Transit Effectiveness and the Geary BRT projects in the planning faces. With the TEP, the City is spending millions of dollars and years of research to accomplish what free market forces could do everyday, instantly, for free.

Link to podcast page (direct mp3 link)


Here’s a summary of my cab shifts from last weekend.

  • I picked up an older guy from the Kaiser. I’d guess he was 60+. I have a hard time judging ages, especially those +/-5 years from mine.

    He was heading back to his home in the Castro near the Seward Street slides.

    He’s gay. We talked a bit about that, especially about the recent hubbub surrounding legalization of gay marriages in California. “What’s the big deal?” he responded. “I lived with my partner for 40 years until he recently passed away. We didn’t need marriage to consummate our partnership.”

    He was still very affected by the recent passing of his partner. I acknowledged this sadness, but worked around it so it didn’t dominate our conversation.

    I prodded him and he spoke at length about the history of the Castro and gay bars around the City. Much to my surprise he mentioned the Castro as a gay neighborhood is a relatively recent invention. 50+ years earlier he remembered the Polk gulch as being the centerpiece of gay nightlife in the City.

    I live near the middle Polk neighborhood, so the rather prevalent gay venues I noticed in the area started to make more sense. From the Cinch gay bar to a gay photographer’s retail outlet near the Walgreen’s, Polk street still retains a lot of its gay heritage.

    My passenger continued to explain that upper Haight was the next stop on the tour, hosting a number of gay bars up through the 70s. The Castro as a gay haven developed most recently.

    We talked a bit about politics too. He was a huge Hillary supporter and rather worried about the seemingly ubiquitous Obama mania taking hold of young folks in the City.

    I was most impressed with his involvement in the gay community. He founded and continues to volunteer as a coach for a gay softball league. He did a few other community service things which I can’t remember now since I procrastinated a week to write this damn post.

    He admitted he was quite lonely with the recent passing of his partner, but his community involvement provides a wonderful and much needed regular social connection.

    I enjoyed our conversation and his willingness to openly share his emotional state and his knowledge of City history, especially with regards to gay culture.

    Thanks, guy.

  • I took a Chinese family to the Excelsior/Outer Mission district. As is usual with fares heading this way, I had no idea where I was going. Their limited English was effective, but difficult to parse at times. I had a few good natured laughs to myself as I asked things like, “Should I turn right up here?” only to be answered with, “No! No! Turn this way!” as they pointed right.
  • I took a bunch of lawyers from the Hall of Justice to their office in the Financial District.

    A couple things struck me as funny: as I was driving a van, the lawyers piled in. Thus, the vehicle held passengers whose combined yearly salaries most likely exceed $2,000,000. Yet, they entrust their expensive earning potential lives in the hands of unknown drivers. This is yet another good argument in favor of permitting of taxi drivers.

    I also found it worth noting that this $2 million taxi headed back through the Tenderloin, where we pass by pedestrians who make less in a year than the lawyers make in a day.

  • I picked up another older guy from the Kaiser. He was in a happy, happy mood, having just been let ‘out of jail’.

    He was in the Kaiser for 12 days. He complained at length about the TVs in the hospital, claiming they only featured Spanish speaking channels. It seemed odd to me, but he insisted it was all over the hospital — all Kaiser hospital TVs only have Spanish speaking channels. Who knew?

  • Sometimes I really, really have to pee, but I see people hailing. “I can’t pass up a fare!” I say.

    So I take them to their destination. Then I really, really, really have to pee. If I again encounter someone hailing before I can find a restroom, I’ll pick ‘em up.

    Then, I really, really, really, really have to pee.

    I reached the four-’really’-pee-alert level, but luckily no one was hailing as I sped toward the nearby Hyatt Regency and felt much better.

  • I picked up a Dutch family who had called for a vancab at their Fish Wharf hotel to head toward the airport.

    Funny enough, they had just come from Indiana. The younger son of the family had just finished a yearlong exchange program at a high school in Fort Wayne.

    We shared tales of our enjoyment and frustrations with Indiana life. We compared transportation options in Indiana, San Francisco and the Netherlands. The Netherlands win. SF is runner-up. Indiana didn’t even get an honorable mention.

  • I picked up a lady Tuesday mid-morning heading to her downtown job with a large piece of luggage. She mentioned she was heading toward the Oakland Airport later, what time should she get a cab? Did I want to take her? Based on her flight time, I thought she probably wouldn’t leave before my shift was over, so I told her to call dispatch and arrange a cab. But, when she called dispatch they suggested she get a cab quite early, early enough for me to have taken her.

    Hmm, I thought, this sucks. I could have gotten an easy $60 fare. So, I noted the cab appointment time in my head and planned on swinging by her office around that time when it was dispatched over the radio.

    Unfortunately I was a bit late from another fare. Another cab from our company was loading her luggage as I approached.

    But, here’s the funny thing: I ended up making more money in the 1 hour that remained in my shift than if I had gone to OAK. I wondered, does this happen more often than I realize? Maybe airport runs aren’t as lucrative as I thought? Closer to the truth, perhaps since it often takes so long to get BACK from the Oakland Airport it’s not really a super-great deal. Sure, if it’s early and quiet in the City, and traffic isn’t bad, an OAK run is great. But, late-morning, midday OAK runs may not be as lucrative as expected. Noted.

  • I picked up a couple at the top of Nob Hill heading out to a performance of the Stern Grove Festival. They were fun.

    After a few blocks, the guy asked me if he could open a beer in the cab. Of course! (It’s legal in San Francisco for passengers to drink alcohol in taxicabs.) He knew it was legal, but was politely asking as some drivers still frown on the practice. I don’t care unless the passengers are openly drunk already.

    They were Frenchies from Paris and we chatted a lot. Even with their prodding I was to embarrassed to speak much in French, but I understood them well enough. They were very encouraging and suggested I check out a wine bar on Polk where Frenchies regularly congregate.

    We also realized that we’re both neighbors — we both live in Nob Hill.

    This got me thinking: do I serve my neighborhood more than other cabbies? Probably yes. Is this a bad thing? Probably not.

    In the mornings Nob/Russian Hills are good spots for fare roaming. Radio orders and street hails are frequent. Many other cabbies hunt there as well.

    After 9 or 10am the Hills aren’t as busy. Sure, there are still orders, but other sections of the City start to light-up too, like downtown and even outer neighborhoods like the Richmond and Sunset. But, there’s something alluring to come back to my home neighborhood. It’s comfortable; I can dash in and go pee or get something to drink at home; I know the streets very well; I know where people queue for Muni lines off the beaten path; I know which Muni stops are likely to coagulate with annoyed, waiting passengers; I know where the rich folk are likely to hail; I know where tourists defect from the cable car mid-line stops.

    Perhaps most rewarding, it’s nice to meet my neighbors.


As a form of advanced procrastination, I did a great deal of research on Flash video codecs this morning. I was spurred by reaction to a presentation I made last night where a young lady quite bluntly said, “You can do better [quality Flash video compression].”

The short answer: yes, one can do better than the status quo, but it costs money.

The superstar of Flash video compression is On2’s proprietary VP6 codec.

Adobe’s Flash 6+ players support the standard “YouTube” quality Sorenson Spark (Sorenson H.263) codec. Most YouTube videos (and, for that matter, most online video sites) use a derivation of this codec.

Starting with Flash 8, Adobe’s Flash team decided to support On2’s VP6 codec. On2’s proprietary VP6 codec is a beauty when compared to files of same bitrate encoded with Sorenson. Here are some examples.

Here’s the rub: it costs nothing to implement a site using ffmpeg to convert media files into FLV video files using the older Sorenson codec. But, if you want to use VP6 On2 charges upwards of $3,500/year to use their codec via the command line which would support automatic server side encoding of videos.

There is, however, quite a complicated hack around this restriction. On2 used to release a free, personal version of the VP6 encoder for Windows which included vp6vfw.dll — a Video for Windows encoding library. Using some fancy hacks described here you can get mencoder to use the vp6vfw.dll on any platform, even via the command line.

Yes, it would work. But would On2 come a-knockin’?

And, why did Adobe agree to this arrangement? Is VP6 really the best format? (It does look nice!) Or did On2 work out a lucrative agreement with Adobe so they both get a nice chunk of that $3,500/year?

A nice link from VP6’s Wikipedia page shed light on some of these questions. Flash Player Principal Engineer Tinic Uro openly discusses why VP6 was chosen over H.264. (Many saw H.264 as a natural, open successor to Sorenson/H.263.)

Some choice quotes:

  • Quality. This is the first thing we looked at and our target was to eat least cut the bandwidth in half while keeping the same visual quality.
  • Legacy hardware support. It’s nice to have a new shiny video codec, but if it does not run on an older Macintosh what’s the point? Flash is about ubiquity, not forcing people to upgrade hardware or even require specialized hardware. Our target was a Pentium III 500Mhz and a Mac G3 running at 800Mhz.

It’s a pain to consider having to pay $3,500/year for a video codec. (Completely out of the question for now.) But, VP6 sure does deliver a beautiful product.

[EDIT 6/20/08]: After the below comments, and reading this thread which links back to this post, I think the headline should instead read, “Adobe hands On2 a fat wad of cash. On2 throws it away.”

On2, you have a pricing problem. A fixed cost ($3,500/yr) for your server product is silly. Here’s a better answer: let me use the codec for free, we’ll call this a “development version,” and come back and charge me if I’m actually able to make a successful website using your product.

If I’m successful, then I would be happy to pay MORE than $3,500/yr, especially if your codec is responsible for building a multimillion dollar business. Instead, given your current pricing structure, I’ll develop my website with H.264. If the site is a success, you won’t see a dime.