B2B cuts through many varied City neighborhoods, starting with SOMA, briefly touching the edge of the Tenderloin on the way through Hayes Valley, Western Addition, straddling the panhandle around NOPA/Upper Haight and concluding through Golden Gate Park which separates the westernmost Richmond and Sunset districts.

Here’s a map:

B2B is more than a run. It attracts a large party crowd drawn primarily from the City’s ample yuppie supply. Party goers slowly trail the legit runners dressed in costumes and fueled solely by alcohol despite the race’s early start time.

Last year I ran the race (unofficially) to see what all the hoopla was about. It was a blast. I woke up late but caught the race halfway through the City around Hayes Valley. I continued to run westward past and through the crowds of partiers. I was amazed at two things: a) the size of the crowd, and b) the important streets which the City closed completely during this event. Returning this year as a cab driver on the race day, I was hit hard by the impact of point b.

Between 8 and 10am the north and south ends of the City were completely severed save for Park Presidio on the far west side of the City and (eventually) the Embarcadero on the far east side of the City. This caused a great deal of frustration for non-race goers attempting to go about their normal Sunday business.

• Having worked a number of City event days in the past, I knew a van would be a big asset. I was lucky to get a van as I requested from the cashier.
• Before the race began, therefore before street closures, my passengers were a mix of hung-over partiers returning to their places after spending a night with a ‘special friend’ and folks going to work annoyed at the lack of Muni service on some key lines. (A normal Sunday crowd.)

  Soon after 6am I started taking a number of people from their homes to other homes for ‘pre-partying’ and soon after I took many more groups to the start of the race course. Between 6 and 7am the City’s aggregate demand for cabs exceeded available supply. Demand did not return below supply at any point during my shift — an exceedingly rare event for a Sunday day shift.

• After the race began, I was ‘stuck’ on the north side of the City. Given the extremely high demand for cabs, either side would be an okay side to be ‘stuck’ on. But, the north side of the City holds the majority of housing for the yuppie contingency, so this was a good place to be.
• While stuck on the north side of the City, I picked up an older lady with very limited English from the St. Francis Hospital. She asked me to go south of Market a few blocks further south than would be possible given the race street closings.

  I did my best to clearly explain to her that this would simply not be possible. I even used a nice visual aid provided by the cab company — a map of the race route like above. This didn’t phase her. Oh well, I thought, as soon as we get closer she’ll get the picture.

  We crossed Market on 5th and approached Mission at which point the crowds and street closure at Howard was plainly visible, if for no other reason than the haze of red brake lights blocking our path.

  I stated the obvious, “This is as far as we can go. I’ll have to let you out here.”

  She was not happy. “I need to go to Folsom!” I first tried polite reasoning which soon escalated into more blunt statements. “Look, lady, it’s not going to happen. You have to get out here and walk the rest of the way.” (It was just 2 blocks south.) I figured her sole human form would have a significantly higher chance of crossing the path of running humans than a blue hulk of taxi metal crashing through police barriers.

  She protested for about a minute. I’ll let you know that a minute is a very long time in a City where there were hundreds of street hails calling out to me at this very second. (Like Superman’s super-ability to hear dames in distress, I could hear calls of ‘Taxi’ crying out in pain across the City.) She finally accepted her fate and I moved on.

• I found my next street hail in less than 10 seconds. A nun urgently needed to get from 5th and Mission to 30th and Mission, far south of our present location, to be the church representative for some sort of concrete pouring on a construction project.

  Despite her niceness and her lifelong dedication to God, her reasoning skills were questionable which became more and more evident as we attempted to get around the race. “You want me to drive the entire length of the race course until we find an opening?” I said. I thought, this may not be a good idea.

  “I think the only opening right now is Park Presidio on the far, far west side of the City.” I thought, do you have an understanding of the cost of this circuitous cab ride? About 3 minutes into the ride she revealed she only had $10 to pay me. By this time we were at Van Ness.

  What was she thinking? In retrospect I don’t think she was thinking very clearly at all. I had to call this off. We stopped near the race path at Hayes. I suggested she attempt to walk across the race path and hail a cab or find a continuing Muni line at that point.

  She thanked me and paid me for the fare. I was on autopilot — the meter read a fare and I accepted payment for that fare. In retrospect I feel quite shameful that I took her money. Obviously, the best thing for her to do would have been to take BART. Why didn’t I think of that before? She seemed very clear in her intent to have me find a magical break in the race that was obviously not there.

  I should have been more forceful in my initial questioning of her questionable plan. I should not have accepted her payment. She should not have asked to go on a cab ride significantly above her ability to pay. We’ll do it better next time.

• Continued on the next post…

San Francisco cab drivers face two recent cost pressures: a recent gate fee increase combined with the recent climb in gas prices.

Fortunately, these cost pressures come at a time when aggregate demand for taxis in the City is increasing. More tourists, outdoor City festivals, and frequent conventions bring in more and more cab passengers as the summer approaches.

However, I paint a bleak picture for this winter. As seasonal demand for taxis wanes in November, this winter could be the toughest yet for City cab drivers and companies. Qualified, skilled cab drivers will seek new income opportunities as average take-home pay dips to new lows this winter. Cab companies will likely have a more difficult time than ever filling shifts, putting pressure on hiring managers to accept drivers with less stringent requirements for clean driving records, English proficiency or general City knowledge.

Given this bleak outlook, I think my cab driving may come to an end (or break) at the end of October.

I point your temporary attention to a Flash website produced by UC Berkeley j-school grad students Eric Zassenhaus and Amy Jeffries.

The video clips thumbnailed along the bottom are accurate and colorful paintings of a typical taxi shift. Well worth a view.

But wait, there’s more. The site also features insightful interviews with Heidi Machen, the SF Taxi Commission Executive Director; Jim Gillespie, Yellow Cab President; and Thomas George-Williams, United Taxicab Workers member.

Since I drive a cab in the City and can’t shut up about local politics, I have some pointed reactions:

I don’t know who Heidi Machen is or how she got to be Executive Director of the SF Taxi Commission, but she doesn’t seem to have an accurate grasp of the industry over which she regulates. This is a bit scary.

When asked about the recent gate-fee increase, Ms. Machen responds with a bubbly response. “In many ways it’s very positive,” she starts, repeating again for emphasis, “in many ways it’s very positive, because, if indeed the taxi companies needed money to purchase the alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles San Francisco is looking at a clean taxi fleet in 3-4 years. Wow! That’s phenomenal!”

“If indeed?” If indeed? Ms. Machen, your job, for which you are paid a bulbous salary of some sort, is to be Executive Director of the Taxi Commission. There should be no “if” in your response. You should know whether or not taxi companies need money to purchase alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles BEFORE implementing fee increases.

Continuing, “On the other hand you look at the controller’s report and the controller said this would have an immediate detrimental effect on taxi drivers’ incomes. So, that can be a negative, obviously, because taxi drivers, a lot of them, may be hanging on marginally. On the other hand, maybe it encourages taxi drivers to become more efficient. Some would fear it would make taxi drivers more reckless.” Ponderously she summarizes, “I think there are some positives and some possible negatives that we’re looking at.”

My fear is she doesn’t seem to “get it.” A key sticking point: taxi companies need CPI gate increases but drivers also need correlated revenue increases. The discussion of green cabs is a sideshow distracting from this core issue.

On the other hand, Mr. Gillespie in his role as General Manager of Yellow Cab understands the situation perfectly. Unfortunately, his role is not an advocate for drivers but instead for revenue maximization for Yellow Cab. (This is not a judgment of his motivation, just a recognition thereof.) But, at least he “gets it.”

Thomas George-Williams, an active member of the local United Taxi Worker union “gets it” too. But, as most drivers are not members of the Union, its influence, regardless of Mr. George-Williams “getting it,” is unfortunately questionable.

Link

I drove 3 shifts in the past 3 days. One of them starts early at 5 am, the other two are graveyard shifts starting at 1 am. Each lasts 11 hours.

During my shifts

• I picked up two young, professional nice guys downtown on Market Street. They wanted to go out to the Golden Gate Bridge. I politely warned them that it might be a bit pricey, $15 or so, but they didn’t seem to mind.

  One of them held dual American and Japanese citizenship, the other was a Japanese national. They both worked for a Japanese company in the City doing IT work.

  We had a long chat about Nova, a former “big four” private English teaching school in Japan. My one visit to Japan was to visit a girlfriend who at the time worked for Nova in a suburb of Tokyo.

  My passengers summed up the drama of Nova — in short Nova used sleazy tactics forcing students to pay for gigantic class packages with steep cancellation fees. The Japanese government stepped in and stopped this sleaze, but, of course, as a result Nova didn’t earn enough revenue to cover costs. Instead of warning their employees, customers and other stakeholders, Nova kept operating business as usual until they simply ran out of money, unable to pay employee wages.

  Nova’s English teaching employees were American or from Commonwealth countries. Their Japanese was often limited, some spoke next to none. This vulnerable immigrant population was left with up to 2 months unpaid wages and eviction notices from their company owned housing with little or no resources to find alternate employment or housing. The Nova Wikipedia entry nicely summarizes this debacle.

• The Golden Gate Bridge is far from prime ‘pickup’ points. Most of the time after dropping at the Bridge I’ll head back on Doyle Drive, an expressway of sorts, until I get back to civilization. This time, I decided to loop through the slower, scenic route via the Presidio to Crissy Field and then the Marina Green. Although these aren’t normally good ‘cruising’ streets for cabs, sometimes it pays off to take this slower route. On a nice, sunny day there are many walkers, bikers, runners and tourists along the road. Since most cabs don’t come by very often, a stranded tourist or tired hiker can be very glad indeed to see a vacant taxi.
• My scenic route back from the Golden Gate Bridge paid off well.

  An older French lady hailed my cab. She had walked all the way across the Bridge and was in the process of walking back but the journey was proving a bit too much. I was amazed she had made it so far.

  Her English wasn’t great, a trait that seems common among the older French, while the younger Frenchies seem to have English injected in their bloodstream at an early age.

  I lived in France the summer of 2000 on a sort of exchange program while I was in high school. I lived with a host family, the matriarch of which was a retired nurse who spent her free time as an elected official on the local town board of governors. She and her husband were gracious hosts, offering as much love and care as could my own family. So, when I found out this lady in my cab was a French nurse, my warm memories of that summer in France came flooding back and I naturally projected a lot of these same feelings toward her. This helped lower my guard of embarrassment that usually surrounds my self-critical attempts at speaking French as my grammar and accent have disintegrated faster than I could have ever imagined.

  We had a great conversation, some in English and some in French as our skills in each other’s language were roughly matched. I rattled on at length about the City, we chatted at length about the shared climate of Bretagne where I stayed and the San Francisco Bay Area, and talked a bit about where she lives in Nice.

  I really enjoyed my time with her. Thanks, French lady. You really made my day.

• I keep asking myself what makes me continue to drive a taxi. This is the longest I’ve ever held a job. The answer is, in part, the freedom. I choose how much and which days I wish to drive (although not the hours).

  But a deeper answer is probably closer to this: each time someone gets in my cab a god of some sorts throws cosmic dice. Will it be a man, a woman, an American, a drunk, a druggie, a murderer, a mother, a father, friends, lovers, a gabby student, a mute commuter, a gracious tipper, an elderly grandmother, or even a friend of mine? Will they head down the street, across town, through rush-hour traffic, to the neighborhood bar, to SFO, OAK, or even Cupertino? Perhaps it’s the same core addiction faced by gamblers, but deeper and more insidious, as it’s a gamble for personal connections and not simply the fare.

• I had more than the recent usual number of international young tourists in my cab. While nothing more than unsupported conjecture, it appears that the low value of the dollar is really drawing people to come visit the USA. The young travelers spoke at length about the amount of shopping they have planned in the City during their stay.
• After dropping one of my three fares to Pier 33, I picked up a father and son who were waiting for a cab. They were heading to a hotel downtown. They were planning to move to the City. The mother of the family was being transferred to the City from Iowa. We talked about about my midwest roots (always a winner, by the way) and my transition to San Francisco life. They were bristled by the high cost of real estate. Their expectations for Iowan quality of life won’t be directly translated to the same level in San Francisco. They seemed to have smelled their first whiff of this already in their short stay. Good luck, Iowans.

Mayor Newsom signed a bill last week that increases gate fees for most cab drivers by $5 (effectively a $.50/hr paycut) and increases the gate fee for Compressed Natural Gas and hybrid cab drivers by $13.50 (effectively a $1.35/hr paycut).

I first learned of the gate fee increase when I showed up for work this weekend. All around the cab yard there were signs posted alerting drivers of the gate fee increase which clearly identified the Mayor and Board of Supervisors as the culprit, not the cab company itself.

The Mayor’s office issued a press release that would, in theory, summarize this news. It does not. In fact, it paints a rosy picture that this legislation makes the City’s cab fleet more green and that cab drivers will jump for joy like leprechauns at the end of the rainbow to the news that we’ll all be driving Prius cabs.

What follows is the actual press release and a bit of cynical discussion, as usual.

Mayor Newsom Signs Alternative-Fuel Taxi Legislation

3/6/08 – Today, Mayor Gavin Newsom signed legislation that will enable the purchase of more alternative-fuel taxi cabs for use on San Francisco streets. The legislation will help the City meet its commitment to reducing green house gas emissions with a higher gate fee, which will allow taxi cab companies to purchase new alternative fuel vehicles and supply them to drivers. Taxi drivers also benefit with lower gas costs associated with more efficient vehicles that get better gas mileage, or use less expensive alternative fuels.

“Transportation accounts for over half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions, and it is imperative that we look to this sector for commensurate emissions reductions,” said Mayor Newsom. “The legislation I am signing today complements the pledge I made in 2006 for an all-green taxi fleet and provides a mandate for cab companies to convert their vehicles.”

Mayor Newsom’s 2006 State of the City Address challenged the Taxi Commission to create a 100% “green” taxi fleet. Approximately 15% of today’s fleet is either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or hybrid vehicles. This legislation is expected to increase that percentage to 100% by 2011.

Last week, the Board of Supervisors passed legislation codifying the Taxi Commission’s policy and added a gate increase of $7.50 per vehicle. Specifically, the legislation amends the San Francisco Police code by raising the taxicab gate cap to $96.50 and ratifies gate fees previously charged up to $91.50 per shift for the period of January 1, 2003 to October 27 2006; to authorize a $7.50 surcharge on the gate cap for low emission vehicles; and to require taxi companies to reduce average per vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2012.

“This legislation came about because the status quo gate cap cannot continue,” said Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. “I’m pleased we found a way to green the taxi cab industry without bankrupting the companies and without doing so on the backs of cab drivers.”

The 2007 Taxi Emissions Resolution required that the San Francisco taxi industry reduce its total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 50% from current levels and 20% from 1990 levels by 2011. Under the resolution, the San Francisco Taxi Commission committed to work to achieve zero net carbon emissions by offsetting the total amount of GHG produced by the San Francisco taxi fleet with an equal amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency by 2015, and by 2020 will work to achieve zero gross GHG emissions by permitting only zero emission vehicles. Additionally, the Resolution urged the Board of Supervisors to enact legislation to raise the per-shift gate fee to subsidize the purchase of high-efficiency vehicles.

The magic of PR spin never fails to amaze me. Is it so hard for our elected officials to be honest? Do they actually believe the things they spin? They must not. They must understand the reality. Do we live in Disneyland? Are we on Mars?

The headline should read, “Mayor signs taxi gate fee increase, lowering pay for City workers.”

As the SF Taxi Live blog points out, the choice quote of this press release has to be Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s statement, “I’m pleased we found a way to green the taxi cab industry without bankrupting the companies and without doing so on the backs of cab drivers.”

“…without doing so on the backs of cab drivers?” Ms. Alioto-Pier, have you read the legislation you just passed?

Look, Mayor Newsom and Ms. Alioto-Pier, YES we need to match gate fees with inflation and increase gates slowly.

But, don’t pull bullshit like this and pass off a gate fee increase as green legislation. Your press release is dishonest and sidesteps discussion of an important issue: City taxi drivers will pay more for their cabs at a time when gas prices are already taking more money than ever out of their pockets. We should be discussing how drivers can ensure their take-home pay increases with inflation, just as cab companies’ gate fees do.

Mr. Newsom and Ms. Alioto-Pier, please be cognizant of the effects of legislation you pass. You may live in Disneyland, but your citizens do not.

Links

• SF Taxi Live Post
• Official Press Release

The Examiner has an update on the saga of supervisor Alioto-Pier’s original proposal to considerably increase gate fees. (A gate fee is the rental price of a taxicab charged to cab drivers.)

A much more reasonable $5 increase (compared to nearly $20) was put forward by supervisor Aaron Peskin. Supervisor Chris Daly opposed any increase, notably commenting, “To charge the lowest-earning segments of the taxi industry for a large share of cleaning up the industry is the wrong way to go.”

Another blogging cab driver had a bunch of posts related to this news.

Links:

• Examiner article
• Fellow blogging driver
• Original gate fee increase discussion

In some ways, blogs are great. They present frequently updated writing with a nice user interface that emphasizes recent postings first. But, most blog interfaces (including this one) bury old postings even if new, interesting and worthy comments are posted. I did my best to address this by adding some of the widgets you now see on the right that show recent comments and top viewed posts regardless of recency of writing.

But, I would like to specifically highlight an involved discussion taking place in the comment section of a post on a quiet topic whispering across the offices of some City politicians: a proposal to increase the amount City taxi drivers pay to the cab company for their cars, also known as gate fees. If you read this blog, which you do since you read the first part of this sentence, you might like to check out that discussion. If you like sentences like the previous one, you may like this Wikipedia article.

Link

The Examiner reports Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier recently proposed a significant increase in taxi gate fees charged to cab drivers.

(Quick background: A ‘gate fee’ is the rental fee charged to a taxi driver for a shift. Taxi drivers pay the gate fee, plus gas and dispatcher/cashier tips. The current average gate fee for large companies — Yellow, Luxor and DeSoto — is $91.50. The proposed ordinance increases that average gate fee to $110.)

Obviously, most cab drivers, like all rational human beings, wouldn’t enjoy a 10% ($2/hr) pay cut. Are these gate increases necessary? Is this legislation desirable? Let’s discuss this a bit.

Does SF need a taxi gate fee increase?

Here are the facts as I know them:

• Cab companies operate on very thin margins. My gate fee (average $91.50) pays all of the following:
  • renting the use of the taxi medallion (artificially limited to about 1500 in SF)
  • the depreciation of the actual vehicle being driven
  • liability and workers’ compensation insurance
  • labor (dispatch, cashier, admin, gas men, maintenance/shop)
  • facilities (lease, physical plant, etc)
  • vehicle maintenance direct costs (spare parts, consumables such as oil, transmission fluid, window replacements, etc)
  • computer and telecommunication expenses (dispatch radios, multiple phone lines, computer dispatch systems)
  • misc admin overhead (accounting, waybill record keeping, legal, paratransit compliance)
  • surely more fees/costs that I’m forgetting or am not aware

  These costs add up very quickly. I am surprised I can get so much for my $91.50.

• The last significant increase in gate fees was in 2002 increasing to $91.50 from $83. The City appears overdue for a gate fee increase. Here is a chart:



• The City should peg gate fees with some sort of CPI. It is only reasonable to peg gate fees to some sort of cost of living index. Not doing so effectively reduces taxi company revenue each year the gate fee is not increased. This is a good aspect of the proposed ordinance.
• Increasing gate fees comes at the direct expense of cab drivers, not City residents. The proposed fee increase is an effective hourly cut of $2/hr. (Cab drivers currently earn between $10 and $20 per hour during 10 hour shifts; $15 is a reasonable mean.) This is a pay-cut for a vital City profession that provides safe, secure, and quick transportation to City residents and visitors.
• Lower pay rates for taxi drivers leads to lower quality of service, including more dangerous drivers. Lower hourly wages limits demand for the profession, lowering the bar for potential applicants to become licensed drivers. Less qualified applicants will then become drivers, including those with more questionable driving histories, unsafe driving practices and poor knowledge of City geography.
• The ordinance presents neither clear nor compelling evidence that cab companies need increased revenue. (PDF Link, ordinance on pages 3-7) Again, I feel a case can be made that companies DO need more revenue from gate fees (see above), but the ordinance as written presents an ambiguous need for increased funding.

A few reasonable requests before increasing taxi gate fees.

Taxi drivers, City residents and elected representatives should request the following before implementing an increased taxi gate:

• Clear and definitive evidence available to the public (perhaps audited financials) that points to a need for increased revenue through gate fees. I believe a case can easily be made for increased funding for cab companies, but the ordinance as written does not present such an argument, nor has one been made clear to the public.
• A gradual implementation of the proposed rate increase. As written, this ordinance would immediately decrease the salaries of essential City workers. The least the City can do is gradually increase the gate fees to soften the burden of this legislation.
• Seriously consider implementation of service quality improvements for residents. The City (via the Taxi Commission) has talked and talked about a peak medallion system to put more cabs on the road during high-demand evening times. If the Board of Supervisors can implement legislation to increase revenue to cab companies, they should also be able to implement legislation to improve quality of service to City residents. Increased service quality, especially on busy evening shifts, would also justify an increase in meter rates paid by the public for taxi rides, also helping to soften the blow of increased gate fees.

Link to Examiner article
Link to original SF City County ordinance (PDF)
Link to SF Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee Meeting Agenda (11/19/07)

UPDATE: Motivated by Hoopla Hattie’s comments below, I wanted to get a better idea of whether or not we are really due for a gate fee increase. I decided to calculate what the gates would be if they had increased according to the CPI to match inflation. (Of course, this assumes that the gates in 1998 were appropriate. We need financials to know for sure.)

It turns out the proposed gate fee increase puts gate fees at almost perfect parity with the CPI increase estimated for 2008. What’s more, the last gate fee increase in 2002 put gates at parity with inflation.

Assuming gates were reasonable in 1998, and of course this is a contested assumption, the City is due for an increase. And, the proposed rate seems in line with publicly available CPI data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.