November 28, 2007
More SF Cabs: Nothing Could Be Finer Than Doing a 69er
There's some big news out there, folks. But before we begin, we recommend you sit down first. We'll wait. Good. Because the taxi commission announced today that they will add 69 more cabs to the street of San Francisco! [Insert Beavis-like giggles here.]
Earlier, the cab commission did a study and discovered that -- get this -- it's really hard to find a cab in the city. Really. Who knew? In fact, the study showed that 50% who called for a cab during the week couldn't get one, and on Friday evenings, 95% of the people who call for one never see any. See, whiny taxi drivers, we told you so. Just saying is all.
Anyway, the commission decided to add 50 more cabs, but some staff members (including Mayor Newsom) asked for delightful 100 newly circulating cabs in total. 69 was the compromise. The number was opposed by cab drivers (of course) who felt that less cabs on the streets will create more opportunities to not go to the Sunset or pick people up when the cab is empty. But thankfully, we have a few more cabs on the streets, which is all anyone ever wanted. So, now instead of never being able to catch a cab, you can tell your people that you almost caught one. Yay!
Image credit: SFCovers
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
To be honest, I am on the cabbies side here. Unless the bars have just let everybody out at 2:00am, or it is raining at 7:00pm on a Friday evening, it is not difficult for me to get a cab in the city. What neighborhoods are difficult to get one in?
judging from personal experience and the commission's own findings, along with a raft of SFist comments, it's interesting that things were as bad as they were for so long.
As is typical for SFist there are almost no facts cited just a lot of conjecture. It's often easier to find a cab in the City than it is a police officer. There are certainly rush hours but the argument that there needs to be more cabs so that a drunk at 48th and Noriega can get to Fillmore and Filbert in time to meet his friends is lame or that because Oracle is here once a year cab drivers shouls starve for the other 360 days of the year. Outside of the City's core there is almost no consistent demand for cabs, especially during the day. This is still California, the land of the automobile. Almost every household has at least one car. Cab drivers can't make a living just sitting and waiting. The study which you cited includes in it's conclusions cab companies that do not respond to radio orders. The study concluded that when a person called a cab company such as DeSoto, Arrow or Yellow they got a cab in less than 10 minutes, most of the time. Keep in mind that radio calls are not the majority of taxi business in the City. Most people catch cabs on the street. Many drivers don't even take radio calls or they only take calls from "regulars" or corporate clients. Often times if you can't get a cab at your address it is because you have been blacklisted. Cab dispatchers will blacklist an address for a variety of reasons, especially at the smaller companies. Cab drivers almost always have to refuse street hails in order to arrive at a radio order. Think about that. For those of you who can think for yourself, there is a handy Google map recommending locations and streets in the City that are usually better for finding empty cabs @ "http://sftaxicab.blogspot.com/2007/11/find-cab-in-san-francisco.html"
I've only tried hailing a cab in SF twice. Once was easy. The second took forever. (These were both on the same day, too -- getting to a Giants game and leaving it.)
"it is not difficult for me to get a cab in the city"
Daithi, are you kidding?
Seriously. Walk to your local bar-restaurant-corner-whatever and say those words aloud. Count the number jaws that clench.
No, it's not difficult to get a cab in San Francisco. Neither is it difficult to catch a bus. Or build a bridge. PROVIDED YOU'RE PREPARED TO WAIT AN ETERNITY.
The timeliness and frequency with which cabs circulate throughout the city is the issue here.
Sorry Sangfroid, that just is not my experience, and I am a taxi whore, i live near the castro, work downtown, and do not have much of a problem.
One ditto for Sangfroid -- timeliness and frequency ARE the issue. Daithi lives near the Castro -- lucky him/her for taxi hailing. (In my experience), 18th & Castro is the only RELIABLE intersection outside of a hotel taxi line to get a cab in less than 15-20 min.
Daithi, I don't think anyone is disputing the notion that it's easy to get a cab downtown. Or even at a centrally located, dense, predominantly white, gentrified, tourist destination like the Castro. Of course you can get a cab.
But there are a great many neighborhoods in SF where catching a cab within the hour is laughable. I'm not even talking about Ingleside here. I'm talking about the Inner Sunset, I'm talking about Western freaking Addition (where I waited for 45 minutes last week before being told by the dispatcher that he hadn't even assigned to my call to a driver yet.) Pretty much anything west of Divisadero is half-hour wait, minimum. That's ridiculous.
We're one of the densest cities in the nation for population per square mile. Taxis shouldn't be a difficulty. The city is only 7 miles square. What exactly is the obstacle here? Newark, Miami, Philly, Boston, none of them have this problem. Why?
As taxi driver Athan upthread has mentioned, many drivers don't even take radio calls. They don't like the neighborhood. Or the route. Or the clientele. Or the weather. Which is bullshit.
The city discourages residents from driving a car. Fine.
The public transportation sucks. Not fine.
We have the money. We need to get from Point A to Point B. The very least we could do is allow the free market to do its thing.
I am a habitual user of cabs, mostly on weekends, and I can tell you nightmare stories of not being able to get cabs after 9PM on a Friday or Saturday night, or during the evening on Sunday. I have had to walk from Guerrero and Market up to Polk and Clay on a Friday at 9.30 PM because there were NO cabs; on the Saturday before Halloween at 8.30 I tried to call for a cab in the Presidio, and likewise had to hoof it to Fillmore, catch a bus to the Castro, and finally was able to get a cab.
The current cab situation may be fine during the weekdays, but on weekends it is absolutely intolerable. If you leave a bar or club at 2AM you are in competition with the entire city for a ride home.
Calling for a cab should be a simple matter; there's no reason why I should have to walk blocks on a rainy night to find a corner where I can get a cab. The fact that the typical response is "I'll see if I can get a cab there," when you get an answer at all, shows how broken this system is.
The lack of reliable transportation during the evening has a real impact on the city's entertainment industry; if a club or bar is not easily reachable by public transportation it will die, because no one wants to try and catch a cab there and back. That an entire sector of our economy can be so affected by the lack of one essential service is something that the city should deal with aggressively.
Finally, more cabs on the streets at night is also a matter of safety; do you really want all those people leaving bars between midnight and 2AM to be driving?
There is really no argument that anyone can put forth that will convince me, a regular taxi user, that more cabs shouldn't be put on the streets. Are taxis a service industry, or a protectionist racket for those who hold medallions?
I'd like to add that despite it being really hard to find a cab in MOST of the City, it is really easy to get run over by a taxi cab careening around Rincon Hill in the late evening hours.
While it is difficult to find a cab in MOST parts of San Francisco, it should also be noted that it is quite easy to get run over by one moving at excessively fast speeds in Rincon Hill or the FiDi in the later evening hours. Not to mention the evil facial gestures and intimidating driving you may receive for daring to cross a street in the crosswalk when you as a pedestrian have the right of way.
Yes, I hate taxi drivers.
Oh ... and folks living west of Twin Peaks still won't see an increase in cabs. They just want quick pick-ups and drop offs ... no long range crap.
The dispatch companies suck beyond belief.
RinconHillSF is right, no matter how many cabs are added you just won't see consistent service in certain neighborhoods because, the level of demand is not consistent. Starbucks isn't going to open a store where someone might want a coffee every once in awhile. Cab drivers are going to go where they know they will make a living.
sangfroid826 wrote, "We're one of the densest cities in the nation for population per square mile. Taxis shouldn't be a difficulty. The city is only 7 miles square. What exactly is the obstacle here? Newark, Miami, Philly, Boston, none of them have this problem. Why?" We aren't Boston, Newark, Miami or Philly. How many cabs do you notice bringing fares outside of the City's busiest areas? The taxi demand is not in the outer areas. Most everyone has a garage for a car in the outer areas. The demand does not exist. sangfroid826 also wrote, "But there are a great many neighborhoods in SF where catching a cab within the hour is laughable. I'm not even talking about Ingleside here. I'm talking about the Inner Sunset, I'm talking about Western freaking Addition (where I waited for 45 minutes last week before being told by the dispatcher that he hadn't even assigned to my call to a driver yet.) Pretty much anything west of Divisadero is half-hour wait, minimum. That's ridiculous." Why didn't you just walk to Divis and hail a cab? This is my point. People seem to want the best of both worlds. Everyone wants to call a cab and then hail one. Why would a cab driver, regardless of how many cabs are on the road, pass up a street hail to chase a radio order that probably won't be there by the time he gets there anyway?
Also in San Francisco the same number of cabs are out every shift. Especially at the large fleets. The cab companies make money from leasing shifts to drivers who are independent contractors. In order for a driver to have a busy shift on their schedule they have to drive some of the slow shifts.
The City also has an immense ebb and flow of population throughout the day. Only 10% of the Bay Area's populace lives in the City. All of those people who come in for the day to spend money and work also use cabs. They come in at 9:am and leave by 11:pm. Drive through the City on Tuesday night at 11:30pm. You could roll a balling ball from one end of Geary Blvd. to the other and hit nothing.
PhilG wrote, "The current cab situation may be fine during the weekdays, but on weekends it is absolutely intolerable. If you leave a bar or club at 2AM you are in competition with the entire city for a ride home." So what? What's your hurry? How about leaving the bar at 1:15 instead of 2? Maybe you could go soemwhere and eat until 2:30? You're out, you're drunk and I can't imagine that it's imperative you be somewhere. Really, how is it anyone else's problem that you are too drunk to drive? Why is it the City's responsibility to get drunks home? Why don't you end your night of drinking closer to home? Isn't being drunk in public a crime anyway? Seriously, the "drunks need to get home" argument is futile.
I go to the corner and have a cab within two minutes at my place in North Beach. Who the hell calls a cab?
Athan, that is rich. Very good. Great stuff.
(Slaps knee. Wipes tear.) Let's play those greatest hits back.
Most everyone has a garage for a car in the outer areas.
What are you smoking? *cough* (data) *cough* Do you know the stats on in-laws, rooms & apartments in the Inner & Outer Sunsets?
Why didn't you just walk to Divis and hail a cab?
Because circumstances prevented it. Not that it requires any explanation, but ...
I had groceries.
Or luggage.
Or a pet to take the vet.
Or a sick person to take to the doctor.
Or I was disabled.
Or I was elderly.
Or any reason whatsofreakingever.
My justification as to why I neglected to walk to an area more convenient for you is immaterial. The issue is why your union thinks I'm not entitled to the service within a reasonable amount of time. Or at all.
People seem to want the best of both worlds. Everyone wants to call a cab and then hail one.
Yes, yes we do. Just like other major cities. They, you see, have solved this problem. They provided more cabs. Demand, meet Supply.
Framing the debate as forced consumer choice between 1) hailing or 2) calling for a cab is fairly lame strategy, one that you will continue to lose, particularly from former residents of Boston, Newark, Miami or Philly (or DC or Chicago or Dallas, etc, etc.) The residents of San Francisco want both. And we can have both. Much in the same way we can get our food hot and fast. The only ones who disagree are those making money on the market shortage: yourself.
Why would a cab driver, regardless of how many cabs are on the road, pass up a street hail to chase a radio order that probably won't be there by the time he gets there anyway?
Indeed, why would he? Again, you're missing the point ... It's Not About You. Ignoring the obvious reasons why the radio orders disappear (the person gets tired of waiting and uses another transport option) the basic point still stands. In other less crowded, more spacious municipalities, drivers answer calls AND are available in sufficient numbers to be hailed on the streets.
The taxi demand is not in the outer areas.
Your notion of "demand" and the consumer's notion of "demand" are different. If the demand is so weak, an easing of your monopoly on the market should have little effect, nu? Of course we both know that's not true. These extra cabs are going to poach the same small districts and routes. But at least it will force your radius a little wider, and increase your frequency to less preferable routes. Capitalism is a bitch, I know.
Only 10% of the Bay Area's populace lives in the City.
And what does that have to do with price of eggs in China? It's the 10% we're talking about. I know you care about the conventioneer going back and forth from his hotel to the Oracle convention. The rest of us? Not so much.
Having just moved here from Boston I can tell you the situation isn't any better there. Taxi dispatchers take forever to dole out the calls and many won't even venture into certain neighborhoods. They queue up in the touristy/business areas and get pissy if you give them a cheap fare - one end of downtown to the other - when what they really want are the expensive trips out to the airport or the burbs. And the public transportation situation is non-existent when the pubs close. I've had to resort to walking home from a club at 2:30 AM because I couldn't get a cab only to see a slew of them idling outside a 24 hour drugstore that still had a coffee counter. Maybe some more cabs will cause them to hustle more for the fares and stop being so picky.
Didn't Prop A eliminate the taxi commission?
sangfroid826 writes, "Capitalism is a bitch". Thank you. Capitalism is in play and it is why you cannot get a cab. According to the MTC there were 1.07 vehicles per San Francisco household in 1990, 1.21 in 2000 and they are forecasting 1.30 in 2010. The city's taxi fleet has increased by more than 600 cabs (including the new 69 medallions and ramp vans) since 1990. Livery services (car services) are legitamate and they take orders exclusively. They face very little regulation. There are the airport vans competing with cabs and there is more frequent MUNI service and BART service. All these services directly compete with San Francisco's taxi fleet yet some people still can't get a ride. Capitalism is a bitch. Ask yourself why these livery services, who have lower overhead than taxis, aren't rushing to service the neighborhoods if there is such demand for service and money to be made.
It costs $15,000 - $25,000 for a new taxi that can by law only operate for three years. Additional costs include hacking up the vehicle, a one million dollar liability insurance policy, permits and fees, maintenence (cabs acquire 75,000 - 110,000 miles per year and workers compensation insurance (one cab typically employs at least five drivers). Should the taxi be badly wrecked, it is a loss. Should a crime occur inside the taxi and the vehicle is impounded as evidence, it is a loss. Should a driver be injured, it is a loss. If the streets are flooded with empty cabs, banks and insurance companies will not finance the cabs or the infrastructure for such a high risk, low profit business. Capitalism is a bitch.
If there is money to be made, cab drivers and cab companies would want to make it. The money just does not exist. Capitalism is a bitch.
Conjecture and antecdotal information are good talk radio but they do nothing to cure an ailment.
Wow. Where to start.
Are you really going to put forth the position that holding a taxi medallion in San Francisco is a low-profit venture? Ho, ho. I'll just take that risky business off your hands then, thanks.
Your conflation of livery services (limousines) with taxi cabs is cute, but a red herring. Grandma calling a limo to go grocery shopping works in Vegas, but for a very specific set of reasons, none of which apply here. Specious arguments are to be avoided.
Similarly, your definition of the taxi shortage in San Francisco as "captitalism" resembles an open market about as much as a Soviet soup line. A tightly controlled monopoly licensed only to one trade union? Your competition with Muni (a rickety government service hamstrung by another trade union) and BART (fixed stops along an already highly-serviced corridor) is the only reason anyone without a car can get anywhere. Which is sad beyond words.
Capitalism is in play and it is why you cannot get a cab.
And yet, here we stand, on the street corners of San Francisco, with money in our hands ... waiting. Odd, that. If only there was some sort of magical device that could notify the taxi drivers to come take our money. Maybe we could devise a system whereby businesses and residents could dispatch taxicabs to our specific locations. A flare gun? No, that wouldn't work. You're right. Best to walk to where the cabs already are. Because that doesn't defeat the purpose of hiring an automobile at all. In fact, why even hire the cab? Why don't I just walk to my destination and mail you a check? What's that? Cash only?
If there is money to be made, cab drivers and cab companies would want to make it. The money just does not exist.
Zipcar is an exploding business in SF, charging $9.00/hr and $68/day. Try again, please.
... and I noticed Flexcar was bought out by ZipCar recently (or something to that effect). Darn ... less competition.
make the cabbies take cabs to and from work for a week. they'll see how miserable it is to rely on them for any sort of transportation. it's no secret. they all wait at the hotels for airport fares and ignore all the radio dispatch calls you hear anytime you are lucky to get inside one of them.
we need to stop thinking we are so special as a city and just replicate whatever works in a real town like nyc.
they have fixed fees for a cab ride to and from the airport.
they have centralized dispatch.
they have a single commission for limos and taxis managing all of their issues.
Huh, I just assumed they abolished cabs once I moved away from Fell @ Divisadero, since lord knows I haven't been able to get one to show up in Parkside.
(If you call from Bayview you can practically hear the laughter)
sangfroid826 wrote, "Your conflation of livery services (limousines) with taxi cabs is cute, but a red herring. Grandma calling a limo to go grocery shopping works in Vegas, but for a very specific set of reasons, none of which apply here. Specious arguments are to be avoided."
Cab drivers are business people, they want money. Grandma and her $5.50 for 15 minutes of a cab driver's time is a community service, not a business.
Again, conjecture. Many livery vehicles are 10 - 15 year old sedans who often charge the same or less than a taxi. Also there is nothing preventing you or anyone else from starting a livery service made up of 1974 Dodge Darts. You're such a capitalist and it's such an easy buck, what's stopping you? Grandma needs you.
There are services using standard sedans like the Crown Vic, one is actually owned by Luxor Cab. There is another that has been started by members of Green Cab. The services are there and they aren't limos. The biggest problem they face is that they are only busy an average of one day a week.
SFist overall is great with conjecture and anectdotes but there are no facts.
BART isn't competition? BART to SFO is about $7, a taxi is $35 - $40. Shuttle vans aren't competition? There are many options available, just because one person doesn't like them doesn't mean they aren't viable or they aren't competing with each other.
sangfroid826 wrote, "Zipcar is an exploding business in SF, charging $9.00/hr and $68/day. Try again, please."
That's competition. How can you not understand this? You can use a Zipcar for two hours to do your grocery shopping, it will be $18.00. The Zipcar fills a niche. Some grocery stores run shuttle buses. According to you everyone's business is booming but somehow cab companies and cab drivers don't want any part of it. We are refusing to participate in this shower of cash. Cab drivers show up with an umbrellla so they can stay dry.
There are 24 hours in a day. Again, it takes money to run a business. If it is busy for six hours on Friday and five hours on Saturday, that does not pay the drivers for the other 157 hours of the week. What is suggested here is that cab drivers are refusing to make money. This is absurd.
The transportation here is inconsistent because the ridership is inconsistent.
suckafree wrote, "we need to stop thinking we are so special as a city and just replicate whatever works in a real town like nyc."
This is not NYC! We are in California. Very, very different. There is one NYC and one SF. We're in SF. What works in NYC has nothing to do with us. Again, SF has 1.21 vehicles per household. That's in the City, not the Bay Area, only in the City. Step outside of your world.
suckafree wrote, "they have centralized dispatch".
No, they do not. Medallion cabs in NYC are not dispatched at all, they only take fares off the street and from cab stands. Livery services (car services) handle all the radio calls. NYC's cabs are forbidden by law from taking radio orders, since the 80's.
I missed this by sangfroid826, "Similarly, your definition of the taxi shortage in San Francisco as "captitalism" resembles an open market about as much as a Soviet soup line. A tightly controlled monopoly licensed only to one trade union? Your competition with Muni (a rickety government service hamstrung by another trade union) and BART (fixed stops along an already highly-serviced corridor) is the only reason anyone without a car can get anywhere. Which is sad beyond words."
What trade union? There are 36 (last count) cab companies in the City, each is locally owned and operated. There is no monopoly of any sort. Anyone can start a cab company in the City. There are a limited number of medallions but the owner/drivers can move them from company to company at will.
The medallions by and large are individually held, there are still some corporate medallions out. The main difference between a corporate medallion and an individual medallion is that individuals must also drive their cabs. Corporate medallions do not require the owner's participation. Nearly every cab in the City employs at least 5 independent contractor drivers, most of which are not affiliated with any union or trade association. There is a small group that is mostly a political lobby called the United Taxicab Workers. They do not own any cabs, they are a trade organization affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Mostly they help to insure that cab drivers aren't pressured to work more than 10 hours per shift and that the driver's rights as workers are enforced. They have a voluntary membership and a representative at most of the cab garages.
No individual or group has control of the taxi medallions. Each one is it's own business entity with the exception of the corporate medallions (I believe corporate medallions make up less than 10% of the fleet). The facts will demonstrate that the taxi system in SF is one of the most capitalist based in the nation.
As a matter of fact, not only can someone start a cab company, they could lease large groups of corporate medallions (if they can outbid Yellow Cab, National or Arrow Cab) and not have to deal with individual medallion holders. It can be done but like I said before, the profit margin is low and the risks are high. If you can find the capital, knock yourself out.
Athan, I don't think the word conjecture means what you think it means. You lament the lack of facts cited, but when the Taxi Commission study shows the basic, widely-recognized fact (there aren't enough cabs on San Francisco, and those that we have are hard to get) you repudiate its findings.
What, you think Gavin Newsom lobbied for more cabs because he hates, hates, hates unions?
But we can do this all day. I have a lot of time on my hands, waiting for a taxi and all. Witness:
That's competition. How can you not understand this? You can use a Zipcar for two hours to do your grocery shopping, it will be $18.00. The Zipcar fills a niche.
Sure, I can rent a Zipcar. But perhaps I don't want to. Perhaps it's of no use to me. Why?
Maybe I don't have a driver's license.
Maybe I don't have a credit card.
Maybe a Zipcar is of no help because there's nowhere to park.
A Zipcar is also of no help if you can't get to a Zipcar. There is a simple, time-tested alternative, however. It's called a cab. If only there were more of them to go around.
BART isn't competition? BART to SFO is about $7, a taxi is $35 - $40.
And that's a good thing. Because the pubic welfare is not served by your bottom line. You're like the undertaker crying that a fantastic new medication is stealing your business.
Shuttle vans aren't competition? There are many options available, just because one person doesn't like them doesn't mean they aren't viable or they aren't competing with each other.
Again, this little game you're playing whereby you dictate what the consumer needs, always ends up nowhere. Riders know what we need when we want to be picked up and dropped off. It isn't BART. It isn't Muni. It isn't a meterless, unidentifiable sedan. It's a taxicab. We've been to other cities, and we've ridden in them. We know how they work.
Grandma and her $5.50 for 15 minutes of a cab driver's time is a community service, not a business.
Oh, but it is. It's just business that you don't want. Which is fine. But your racket is denying licensure to those who do want that business. It is raining money. You're just sniffing at the size of the denominations.
SF has 1.21 vehicles per household.
Blah blah definition of a household blah blah not a nuclear family blah blah.
San Franciscans require more taxis. No offense, (seriously, no offense) but it's not skilled labor. There's no reason to not have plenty of licensed cars to take us from departure to destination within a reasonable amount of time. And there's only one impediment to that goal. I'll give you three guesses.
Conjecture
noun
A statement or idea which has not been proven, but is thought to be true; a guess.