Print
Email
This summer's stealth issue, a critical subject that's been flying under the local radar, is the greening of Seattle's taxis and a much-needed overhaul of the local taxicab industry. Proposed legislation now before the Seattle City Council has not received a lot of press. But for all its obscurity, the taxicab overhaul matters a great deal for the public, for the environment, for those who drive the cabs, and for those license holders who have invested in the industry. The issue, vital to the livelihoods of several hundred owners and several thousand drivers, has generated plenty of controversy at City Hall.
Issues address by the proposed legislation, along with a companion ordinance passed earlier this month:
- Requiring new cabs to go green and meet higher per gallon mileage standards by 2013.
- Allowing for more licenses — up to 35 per year — with provisions that the new licensees must drive those cabs at least 30 hours a week, 40 weeks a year, for five years before licenses can be sold.
- Issuing of "lease caps" that set maximum lease rates and thus protect drivers from being forced to pay for expenses that, fairness dictates, should be covered by taxicab license owners, rather than by drivers who frequently average only $10-$12 an hour.
- Increasing annual city license fees, which have not been raised for a decade, to cover the cost of regulating the industry.
- Raising drop and per-mile rates to capture increasing fuel costs in a way that is fairer to customers.
- Working with the Port of Seattle to resolve the issue of "deadheading" between the city and Sea-Tac Airport, so that trips to the airport would be able to pick up passengers there, rather than returning empty.
The cab business in Seattle is a mostly male industry that attracts new immigrants and refugees to its ranks. It is estimated that 89 percent of Seattle drivers were born outside the U.S.; many licensees also are relative newcomers. There are 643 licensed Seattle cabs, adding up to a $70 million a year industry. But despite a city office devoted to taxi regulation, not a lot of data have been collected. One of the goals of the new legislation is to capture solid information and to report back to the Seattle City Council about industry conditions.
Taxis are a regulated monopoly, so oversight is important. No industry can regulate itself fairly; self-regulation inevitably errs on the side of self interest. Too often, low-income cab drivers have been subjected to high lease rates and terms by taxicab owners. While information on the balance between owners and drivers is mostly anecdotal, the stories that council members have heard during hearings are compelling. It has taken considerable courage for taxi drivers to stand up publicly and tell their stories, perhaps risking their careers.
The legislation now before the council, which likely will be voted on next month, would provide for the city's taxicab regulators to hold public hearings and, relying on cost-of-living figures, set maximum lease rates for cabs. Seattle would not be the first city to use lease caps to ensure excessive costs are not passed along to drivers. Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Minneapolis, and San Francisco are among the cities that use them.
Our goals should be to reduce our carbon footprint and better serve the public and the taxi industry. That road to a greener, more customer-friendly industry is wide open, and the city ought to take decisive action, soon.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Aug 1, 11 a.m. Inappropriate
More bogus 'greenery'.: Taxicabs should be 'de-regulated' as much as possible and encouragement to upgrade vehicles toward limo and town car standards is a better idea. Safety and trunk size should not be compromised in a mandated green push toward smaller, weenie, dip cars. More competition, please. A cap on daily or weekly airport roundtrips per vehicle should be explored. More private transportation and less dependence upon governmental monopolies of busses and light rail is the way to go.
Posted Fri, Aug 1, 2:27 p.m. Inappropriate
A superb idea. I have never understood the STITA monopoly. I hope they're also working to allow STITA cabs to pick up passengers in the city. Deadheading goes both ways.
Posted Fri, Aug 1, 9:34 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Airport taxis: We definitely need to cut the dead-heading, but people should know that when STITA was formed a lot them had Seattle licenses. They transferred them and sold them off because they did not want to deal with seattle and Seattle fares.
Posted Sat, Aug 2, 10:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Legislation Misrepresents Industry: There are about 617 taxicab license owners in Seattle and King County. Most are owner/operators; a few own more than two taxicabs. Councilmember Godden's comments, however well intentioned, mischaracterize the industry, how it operates, and the solution---having the City of Seattle take control of the industry and dictate the terms of what are now freely negotiated agreements between taxicab owner or owner/operator and lease driver, represents a threat to any business trying to operate in Seattle. The legislation mandates that an individual taxicab owner who now invests about $7500 in a taxicab vehicle buy a Prius or its equivalent for about $27,500--a four fold increase or about $13 million, as a whole, across the industry. This cost will be born nearly entirely by small businesses--each taxicab is an independent, franchise business. While doing this, the legislation will have the City set the rates and terms under which those taxicabs can be leased to drivers---most are driven by owner/operators for up to 12 hrs per day, and leased the other 12 to offset costs to lease drivers under mutually agreed-upon terms. It is a free market, with agreements freely entered into by grown-ups. Some owners place their taxicabs in cooperatives for the purpose of leasing--and the data shows cooperative rates have hardly increased in ten years. We have asked the City for documentation that shows otherwise; none, according to the City, exists. Thus, as noted in the article, the City is attempting to solve a problem that it does not have data to show exists. The legislation is based on rumor and innuendo, and false accusations. The legislation is particularly bad in that it will grant significant pricing power and control to a regulatory agency that consists of just one regulator---a situation that is ripe for abuse and error--no matter how good or well intentioned that individual city employee might be--at its best, this legislation is an irresponsible concentration of power, a usurpation of free market activity, and certainly not appropriate for a country that values free markets. At a time when the City wants and needs to attract private capital to effect the greening of the taxicab industry, this legislation states bluntly that it neither likes or respects the ability of the owners of that capital to operate fairly, and with due consideration for the people who are its customers--the taxicab lease drivers to whom the taxicab equipment is leased. That is far from the truth, as is attested to by the fact -- as is noted in the article -- that some 2500 people lease taxicabs in Seattle, and have done so daily for years without complaint that the City can document. As one of the City's larger employment centers, the taxicab industry does not merit or deserve regulation by anecdote, rumor and innuendo. The Seattle City Council can, and most often does, do better. The legislation should be amended, at the least, to gather accurate data before making policy affecting the lives and investments of so many people.
Posted Mon, Aug 4, 1:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Suggested change for a green, traffic-free Seattle cab system: Three words: Local Tuk-tuk License.
Posted Tue, Aug 12, 3:16 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Airport taxis: This is untrue. Stita taxi had 11 city licenses. When the city council decided to make fewer cab companies. Made a rule of 15 city licenses in each association. Stita was force to sale or have them revoked. They could not get 4 more licenses to keep them.
Posted Tue, Aug 12, 3:34 a.m. Inappropriate
STITA verses CITY: The real talk is about deadheading. Now how is it. That this green city of seattle. Refuses to applaude the effort of STITA taxi (seattle tacoma international taxi association) for their efforts of becoming. The only taxi company in the state of washington. To have clean air standards. All STITA cabs are green. They have about 30-40 toyota prius that average 45 mpg. only prius allowed at this time 45 mpg is the rule for gas cars. The rest of the fleet is CNG (compressed natural gas). Which is cleaner than the prius which still uses unleaded fuel. Those deadheaded trips could be curbed with city licenses issued to STITA taxi. So they could pick up in the city. Without being fined up to $1000.
STITA taxi was formed by the PORT OF SEATTLE in 1989. The PORT OF SEATTLE has made it possible to reach and set standards for the industy. Differences are vehicles in the city are 8 years old. In STITA 6 years old (city will buy 6 year old STITA vehicles and rip out the cng and put regular gas for the remaining 2 years of the city age requirement). city no dress code. STITA dress code. city uses unleaded fuel. STITA has clean air standards of 45 mpg if running unleaded fuel and use of CNG vehicles. SEA-TAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT and THE PORT OF SEATTLE have went far beyond. The normal call of duty. As for THE CITY OF SEATTLE I cannot say the same.
Is it the fault of a owner. When a driver comes to him, and says. "ill give you 5 dollars more a day" ($150 more a month than he was getting from his previous driver) or "ill give you $200 more a month If i can drive you cab" Its the drivers who chose to pay a higher amount. Then cry about it when everyone else is paying less. Its too bad the next guy says the same darn thing. "i'll give ya more"
The cost of operating a taxi is outragious. For the city to allow a cap on leases is rediculious. Licensing, Insurance, Vehicle replacement is a owners responsibility. Where do you think the money comes from? The driver puts the miles on the car, wrecks the car, doesnt care about the car, or insurance rates. I know first hand how much money they make. And if they were not making a good living. They would not be driving cabs.
A cab driver works hard for a living. Driving long hours and risking their lives. Some cheat the system. Some are very honest. All cab drivers and owners make good money. There needs to be more cabs at the airport. The city needs to toughin the standards of City cabs. Until then STITA cabs lead the way. The city has turned the shoulder to STITA in favor of Yellow. The AIRPORT has space to park 150 taxis. STITA has 166 in their fleet. The airport has given other companies belled in stickers to allow them to come to the airport and pick up customers. Which come to the airport everyday and pick up. They just cant wait in line with STITA unless they are called into the garage for customer overflow. STITA taxi pays the airport a per trip fee. As part of their contract.
For all their achievements and standard settings. They should be praised.
STITA TAXI would love to renew the relationship with the city. But the city doesnt want STITA to exist(IMO). IF STITA loses the airport contract. Get ready to see one dominating company. YELLOW cab. Then who is a monopoly?
The city needs to open up their eyes. See that they are steps being made for cleaner air. See that playing big brother is not going to work only kill the industry. How to run a cab when every single dollar you make goes to keep the vehicle on the road to allow the driver to make all the money? Why own a cab. Alot of the city is doing in merited. The city needs to merge with the county, and make a regional plate system. Is how to The problem of deadheading. Its not just airport. Its a seattle cab going to bellevue and cant pick up in bellevue. Has to drive back to the city. A regional plate system is the only answer I see to Seattles Problem.
Posted Mon, Aug 18, 7:59 a.m. Inappropriate
When STITA was formed: When STITA was formed there were at least 25 to 40 Seattle Medallions in the fleet. I agree when the City Ordinance when into effect requiring 15 Cabs for an Association, STITA individual Owners had split their Medallions up and reduced the number to 11 in their fleet. The splitting of Medallions was not supposed to happen, but it did happen. Most of these Medallions are still owned by STITA Owners, so it would not be a major problem to return them to STITA. As to STITA's contract with the port, the Port required STITA to put on Green vehicles, it was not their choice. Though they should be applauded for doing it instead of fighting it. As to losing the Contract, I think the current thinking is a contract open to all fleets, not just one monopoly. The Belled in cabs are in response to Customers choice of Cab they wish to ride in and to the fact that STITA regularly runs out of Cabs several times a day. Hopefully every Cab in the County will be licensed to pick up anywhere in the County including at the airport. Ideally it would be a regional License extending from Pierce County to Snohomish County, perhaps though out Puget Sound. If we want to talk about deadheading one has to remember that the governmental lines do not truly reflect riders movements. Of course that and Town Cars are a whole can of worms.
Posted Tue, Oct 14, 11:16 p.m. Inappropriate
Pretty cool site that calculates the fare before your trip. http://www.taxifarefinder.com. It's definitely worth a look. I try to pass it on to visitors, so they have some idea of how much the fares should be.