Annie sang: “Tomorrow, Tomorrow, you’re always a day away!”
And so it is with the Taxi of Tomorrow.
The planed rollout has been delayed again by a ruling by the New York Court of Appeals. The court, the state’s highest, granted a stay in a continuing appeal over the vehicle.
The puts efforts to phase in the Nissan NV200 as the only acceptable New York yellow taxi on hold while the court decides an appeal brought by a a prominent taxi owners group. The NYC TLC had April 20 as the date after which most taxi owners would have to switch to the new vehicle when they retire their cabs.
The Greater New York Taxi Association has opposed the NV200, arguing that the Bloomberg administration exceeded its authority by trying to force drivers to buy a certain vehicle. Traditionally, the TLC had established standards for taxicabs, but allowed any car that met those standards to be used as a yellow cab. The TLC’s long-delayed plan does not apply to livery cabs or black cars, which now outnumber yellow cabs.
The NYC TLC has suspended five of the six Uber-owned dispatch bases in the City. But just as quickly, it lifted the suspension when Uber appealed (or perhaps simply said it would appeal).
Two days ago the TLC suspended the bases after the company refused to submit their electronic trip records to the Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Uber has refused to comply with a TLC directive that it turn over the data, saying it would violate their constitutional rights and share trade secrets. The agency needs the data to make decisions that will affect the taxi industry, as well as investigate passenger complaints.
According to TLC flak Allan Fromberg, as quoted by New York Business Journal: “The suspension wasn’t technically lifted, but I’m now told that Uber submitted an appeal request very late yesterday, and our policy is to issue them a temporary permit allowing them to operate until the appeal is decided…. We had mentioned that this would be the case if they appealed the … decision.”
One Uber base remained open which apparently allowing Uber operations to continue unaffected in the meantime.
Taxi medallion prices, after rising continually for many years, are continuing to fall, with app-based hailing services like Uber taking the blame. The New York Times reports that in NYC individual taxi medallions, whose owners must drive a taxi for roughly 180 shifts per year, fell to $805,000, down 23 percent from 2013’s peak of $1.05 million. Corporate medallions, which may be owned in fleets, traded on average at $950,000, down 28 percent from their peak.
In New York, yellow taxi business has been cut not just by Uber but by the green or outer borough taxis. There is a strong feeling among owners of yellow medallions that the TLC is failing to enforce rules that protect their traditional and investment-backed expectation that they will have the exclusive right to street hails, at least in Manhattan.
The Times reports that medallions are barely selling at all in Chicago and Boston as financing has dried up.
There has certainly been a lot of talk about taxi apps on smartphones, and with that talk there is much confusion. An app is just a way of hailing a vehicle. The real question is what vehicle is being hailed and who is driving it. Some apps hails cars licensed as taxi driven by licensed taxi drivers. Others hail anyone but.
Lyft, a major player in the taxi app space (to borrow a word from the heyday of the tech bubble) calls itself a “ride sharing” company. Its drivers are not licensed as cabdrivers; they drive their own cars, which are also unlicensed, at least not licensed as taxis. Because they are not taxis, the don’t need taxi licenses. It says its drivers take “donations,” not fares. That’s the theory at least.
But when Lyft announced plans to launch in Gotham, the TLC had a cow.
Earlier this month, Lyft said it would move forward with its New York City launch despite threats from taxi regulators, not just the TLC, but state regulators. That assertion prompted the TLC to declare Lyft an “unauthorized service” in New York City.
“Lyft has not complied with T.L.C.’s safety requirements and other licensing criteria to verify the integrity and qualifications of the drivers or vehicles used in their service, and Lyft does not hold a license to dispatch cars to pick up passengers,” the TLC said in a statement.
“Unsuspecting drivers who sign up with Lyft are at risk of losing their vehicles to T.L.C. enforcement action, as well as being subject to fines of up to $2,000 upon conviction for unlicensed activity,” it added.
In short, the TLC said it would seize Lyft cars, which is not an idle threat because the TLC seizes close to 30 cars a day.
Later, Lyft backed down in the face of cease and desist letter from New York’s Department of Financial Services, joined by the NY attorney general.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission seizes more than 9000 cars per year– all without a hearing and without a warrant. The TLC will give the car back to those who quickly plead guilty and pay $600. If you want to plead not guilty, you can get your car back if you pay $2000.
Now it has been revealed by reports in DNAInfo by James Fanelli and others and in the New York Post by Rebecca Harshbarger and Kathleen Cullito that the TLC lost almost 1,500 court hearings in 18 months in which TLC inspectors seized cars and falsely claimed they were illegal cabs. The TLC’s own tribunal dismissed 20 percent of the 7,187 cases involving illegal-cab violations, according to a TLC tribunal spokeswoman. The 20 percent figure almost certainly overstates the true error rate because many drivers plead guilty because they are told that doing so is the quickest and easiest way to get their car back.
The increase in rogue seizures, the Post says, came about because chiefs and captains bullied officers to seize as many cabs as possible. Many examples of inspectors making bonehead plays under pressure have been in the news, as have reports of inspectors being hounded to seize cars often on flimsy evidence.
As DNAInfo notes, TLC inspectors often seize cars where the driver or the passenger doesn’t speak English and the inspectors don’t have a translator to help understand the situation. Often inspectors don’t know or can’t be bothered with the rules, such as those that allow New Jersey of Long Island cabs to make pick ups outside New York City for trips into the City. Another common mistake is to seize cabs driven by chauffeurs or cars serving a particular business, neither or which need TLC licenses.
The TLC seizes more than 9000 private cars annually, but apparently that’s not enough. According to an article in the New York Post. “TLC chiefs are threatening inspectors with summons quotas and other stiff punishments if they don’t take enough illegal cabs off the road.” The Post also says it has roll-call recordings to back up the inspector’s claims.
The chiefs of the TLC inspection unit pressure their officers by issuing a target number of summonses a day.
“You are going to be doing 15 summonses a day . . . I’ll ride you for a week. If you see that you’re not getting the seizures, you see you’re not getting enforcement . . . then start with the street hails,” one chief says to an office on one of the tapes. The chiefs also threaten other subtle punishments, such as assigning an officer a day-shift just after a night shift.
TLC officers have already charged that “many seizures [are] bogus” in that the officers don’t have reasonable cause, and grab the cars done to fend off pressure from higher-ups.
Just this month, there have been allegations that the TLC seized the car of a black man who was driving his white wife, the car of a Turkish-American who was taking his neighbors to the airport, and that of a driver who gives free rides to cancer patients.
TLC inspectors are being backed by their union, the Teamsters. Randy Klein, of Teamsters Local 237, told the Post: “The ideal situation is they treat them like human beings, they are trained well, and have the tools to protect themselves and the public.”
That would be ideal, too, for the drivers whose cars are nabbed by the TLC.
In another seizure gone awry, TLC inspectors ticketed a black man as an illegal cabbie after spotting him drop off a white passenger. That passenger turned out to be his wife, leading to a lawsuit in a Queens county court, according reports in the Daily News. and in DNAinfo.
The Queens couple, Dan Keys Jr., 66, and Symone Palermo, 53, filed a racial bias action (claiming a whopping $3 million in damages) against the city and the Taxi and Limousine Commission, claiming they were unlawfully targeted on May 2013 by agents who assumed that a black man dropping off a white woman must be a cabdriver, or, in this case an unlicensed cabdriver providing an illegal ride.
This is the third black eye in a week for the TLC aggressive car seizure program, the first being an claim by one of the TLC’s own inspectors that his agency acts recklessly in issuing summons, the second being a summons and car seizure of a driver who gives free rides to cancer patients.
in the latest case, the husband and wife both received summonses — the wife was ticketed as the registered owner of the car — and the agents allegedly continued the charade to cover up their mistake, according to court papers.
While the TLC-issued summonses were dismissed, the couple lost use of the car for a week.
TLC mouthpiece Alan Fromberg, who is rarely at a loss when denouncing drivers, refused comment.
In the past the TLC has boasted that it seizes 8000 cars annually, and that it is looking to increase that number.
000-017 000-080 000-089 000-104 000-105 000-106 070-461 100-101 100-105 , 100-105 , 101 101-400 102-400 1V0-601 1Y0-201 1Z0-051 1Z0-060 1Z0-061 1Z0-144 1z0-434 1Z0-803 1Z0-804 1z0-808 200-101 200-120 200-125 , 200-125 , 200-310 200-355 210-060 210-065 210-260 220-801 220-802 220-901 220-902 2V0-620 2V0-621 2V0-621D 300-070 300-075 300-101 300-115 300-135 3002 300-206 300-208 300-209 300-320 350-001 350-018 350-029 350-030 350-050 350-060 350-080 352-001 400-051 400-101 400-201 500-260 640-692 640-911 640-916 642-732 642-999 700-501 70-177 70-178 70-243 70-246 70-270 70-346 70-347 70-410 70-411 70-412 70-413 70-417 70-461 70-462 70-463 70-480 70-483 70-486 70-487 70-488 70-532 70-533 70-534 70-980 74-678 810-403 9A0-385 9L0-012 9L0-066 ADM-201 AWS-SYSOPS C_TFIN52_66 c2010-652 c2010-657 CAP CAS-002 CCA-500 CISM CISSP CRISC EX200 EX300 HP0-S42 ICBB ICGB ITILFND JK0-022 JN0-102 JN0-360 LX0-103 LX0-104 M70-101 MB2-704 MB2-707 MB5-705 MB6-703 N10-006 NS0-157 NSE4 OG0-091 OG0-093 PEGACPBA71V1 PMP PR000041 SSCP SY0-401 VCP550 300-135 350-060 300-206 200-125 , 300-075 AWS-SYSOPS 200-101 070-461 9L0-066 JN0-102 210-060 000-106 200-125 , 500-260 300-206 70-412 74-678 70-178 PEGACPBA71V1 210-260 CRISC EX200 70-413 220-902 ITILFND 100-101 LX0-103 400-051 70-410 70-417 JK0-022 70-413 352-001 AWS-SYSOPS ADM-201 300-115 640-692 000-080 ICGB 70-463 ICBB 70-410 70-487