President, International Association of Transportation Regulators Distinguished Lecturer, University Transportation Research Center, Region 2 Contact: mdaus@windelsmarx.com 156 West 56th Street | New York, NY 10019 T. 212.237.1106 | F. 212.262.1215

Click on the Message/Update heading to view details:

• DECEMBER 2011 -Daus Introduces Best Practices to European Regulators in Amsterdam
• JULY 2011 - Daus speaks at Australian Taxi Industry Conference
• JULY 2011 - Daus Represents IATR for First Time Ever At the New York Public Transit Association
• MAR 2011 - Daus asked by Senator Golden to resolve Civil Rights Lawsuit against M.T.A. brought by disabled & senior passengers involving bus line service cuts
• TLC & New TLC Chair David Yassky honor Matthew Daus - November 2010
• Monthly Column - Regulatory travels and adventures in the State of Pennsylvania with
  spotlight on the City of Philadelphia - July 2010
• Message to Members about AGTA (Air Ground Transportation Association) Conference - April 2010
• Post Conference Message from the President - September 2009
• IATR in Focus - by IATR President, Matthew Daus

IATR Co-Hosts First European Conference with Taxi Research Network I am honored and pleased as the President of the International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR) to have helped host our first conference overseas in Amsterdam. Joined by the Taxi Research Network (TRN) and European regulators including the Netherlands and Belgium, North American IATR regulators had a meeting of the minds with our brethren on the other side of the Atlantic. The topics focused on technology, modeling and deregulation to name but a few. The IATR-TRN conference coincided with and was held on the premises of the RAI Convention Center, where the industry’s Taxi Expo took place. Among other showcased products and services, the seminal event was the first unveiling of the V1 prototype taxicab by Karsan, where regulators and attendees viewed the vehicle and engaged in a focus group designed to recommend changes in vehicle design. I was very impressed, among other things, with the electronic rooflight design, a piece of equipment which is important for passengers that is in need of drastic improvement. Many thanks go to Wim Faber and James Cooper of TRN, as well as Wim’s partner Katie Challans, for being such wonderful hosts. The festivities started with a canal boat cruise where vendors and regulators noshed and discussed the incredible history of Amsterdam and its country’s experiment in deregulation – which has now led the central government to delegate taxi regulation to its municipalities, as is done in the U.S. and Canada. The boat was the easiest and safest part of the trip as getting around Amsterdam is quite tricky from a transportation point of view. The chaotic mix of taxis, bicycles, trams, electrified buses, subways, trains, pedicabs, mopeds and small pint sized vehicles, was an experience to behold; and I am happy to live another day to tell the story. The novice pedestrian not accustomed to dodging grates, uneven pavement and speeding cyclists, could become quickly overwhelmed and trip.

I must say, there are good and bad transportation ideas that come from visiting Amsterdam. The culture of cycling is deeply engrained, and this city is held up as a model for sustainable transportation by experts and government transport officials including NYC. But if NYC is looking to turn its streets into Amsterdam, it needs to really focus on safety. In my view, I never felt safe crossing a street or walking on the sidewalk, with over 10 near misses in just 2 days. At all hours of the day and night, people of all ages and all types of bicycles ply the street in no orderly way whatsoever, at very high speeds. I must ask the question as to whether a sustainable city from an environmental perspective is truly sustainable if it does not feel safe? Maybe I was just not used to it, but there are so many tourists in the same boat who are not, and therein lies the problem. I did feel much safer and at home in Amsterdam taxicabs, where many accept credit cards using Verifone or other handheld equipment. One unique rule that was a positive experience was that taxis are allowed to use bus lanes, which in many instances cut rush hour traffic in half.

The Taxi Expo itself showed that Europeans are just as progressive as our colleagues in North America, with no shortage of vehicle displays, technology and other products designed to improve the taxi experience for passengers, and increase profitability for business owners and drivers. The educational program at the conference covered topics from project management, sustainable taxicabs, paratransit trends, airport regulation and taxi deregulation, with speakers that included academics, regulators and industry members from Paris, Sweden and the United Kingdom. A lot of discussion focused on the failed experiment of deregulating the Netherlands taxi system, and all of the resulting challenges of picking up the pieces. The City of Amsterdam ended up obtaining more control of taxi regulation at a local level after the country abandoned its nationwide regulatory system, and conference host Jeanette Mica of Amsterdam’s Department of Infrastructure, Traffic and Transport discussed application of a reregulation model employed in New Zealand after massive deregulation in the 1980s caused many service and oversupply problems there as well.

I delivered a presentation on “How technology changed the NY taxi industry”, which was followed by my participation in a panel discussion with European regulators on their use of technology. When people around the world think about the role of technology in NYC taxicabs, they automatically associate NYC with the Taxi Passenger Enhancement Program (T-PEP), which included GPS, credit cards and rear seat screens; but the history and future potential goes much further than that. Of the many accomplishments involving technology at the NYC TLC over the years I highlighted how we: upgraded the taximeters to include anti-zapper and anti-overcharging technology; installed some of the first in-vehicle security cameras; were one of the first inspection facilities anywhere to deploy On-Board Diagnostics (OBD II) computerized taxi safety and emissions inspection systems; deployed digital advertising displays; introduced hybrid-electric taxicab technology and the Taxi of Tomorrow project; and virtually automated the government agency itself from top-to-bottom, with website applications to convey critical public information and process transactions, GPS based enforcement and violation issuance, digital fingerprinting (Livescan), electronic driver examinations and other improvements that expedited the licensing process dramatically while preserving its integrity. We also engaged in a discussion on what technology applications are expected in the industry in the coming years, which in my view includes: smart phone applications to reserve and dispatch cabs directly to passengers; the use of in-vehicle data recorders or “black boxes” to record accident or “near accident” information; and bringing the antiquated taximeters around the world into this century by improving their function, design and integrity.

The IATR is looking forward to hosting its next European conference in 2012, to build on the success of this first venture. Happy New Year everyone!

I was pleased and privileged to speak at the 2011 Australian Taxi Industry Association (ATIA) annual conference in Hobart, Tasmania.  Hobart is the beautiful Capital city of Tasmania – which lies to the far Southeast of the continent – located right above Antarctica.  Aside from the natural beauty of the island, this paled in comparison to that of the hospitality and friendliness of the Australian people.   

So far on the other side of the world, it was not surprising to see taxi industry and regulators alike face similar issues encountered elsewhere in my travels – including wheelchair accessibility, clean air vehicles, credit card acceptance, and license processing times.  One major issue which appears to be unique to Australia right now is a significant nationwide driver shortage.   When the Australian exchange rate was better in past years, this country was a prime destination for students, many of who would work as part-time taxi drivers.    There are primarily two reasons causing the current problem: (1) new restrictive immigration laws which dried-up the driving licensing pool; and (2) regulations that require one to hold an Australian driver’s license for over a year before being able to obtain a taxi license.  Due to national politics, this situation does not show any sign of being reversed by changes to the immigration laws.  The only potential solution appears to be a relaxation of the driving experience restrictions, to streamline and speed-up the licensing process, and/or provide drivers with significant wage increases so that workers from other professions may be attracted to the taxi industry.  

Australia is regulated on a state level and deregulation is an issue in some states, with some regulators intentionally seeking to devalue taxi permits.   For instance, in Tasmania, after issuing taxi permits for monetary value, the government later passed a policy allowing drivers to purchase unlimited wheelchair accessible taxi permits – at no monetary cost.   This obviously has created some animosity among existing permit holders in Hobart.

At the conference I delivered an extensive presentation on the advantages and disadvantages of regulation and medallion systems in the U.S.  I also enjoyed serving on a panel discussion regarding international taxi industry trends with my friend and colleague, Taxi, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA) President Robert McBride as well as an industry operator from New Zealand.  While in Australia, I also addressed the National Transportation Regulators Group (NTRG), a regulator-only gathering of all Australian state Transport Control Departments and Ministries.   Additional members of the NTRG agreed to become more involved in the International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR) and attend our 2011 Toronto conference.  Many thanks and kudos go out to ATIA Chairman John Bowe and Executive Director Blair Davies, who did a fantastic job of hosting a thought provoking educational program and a wonderful conference overall.   

 Daus Speaks at New York Public Transit Association:  Unveils New “Parataxi” Transportation Service to Reform Access-A-Ride and Paratransit Systems Worldwide

I am very pleased and honored to have been invited to speak at the New York Public Transit Association (NYPTA) conference in Buffalo, New York this June.   I delivered a presentation on a new concept we have dubbed “Parataxis”, along with my colleague and co-author Dr. James Cooper from Napier University in Scotland on behalf of the IATR (International Association of Transportation Regulators), UTRC (University Transportation Research Center, Region 2), the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and the Taxi Research Network.

      NYPTA is an organization of government and quasi-government public transit agencies and authorities which educates public servants and industry vendors on best practices and innovative methods to deliver safe and efficient transportation services – similar to the IATR’s mission involving taxi regulation. The theme of this NYPTA conference was “Collaborative, Collective Cost-Cutting” and the title of our presentation is “Maintaining and Improving Rural Transit Supply in an Era of Cost-Cutting – Parataxis: Intermodal Solutions for Rural Communities and Beyond.” 

      The theory behind our presentation and the paper we are authoring and presenting before the Transportation Research Board (of the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences) next January is to use taxicabs and for-hire vehicles to deliver more efficient, accessible, environmentally sustainable and safe transportation at significantly reduced government subsidy costs, while enhancing service for both disabled and non-disabled passengers in rural and urban communities throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. 

      There are three types of paratransit services that include mandated public subsidized accessible transportation programs (such as Access-A-Ride in NY City), non-emergency medical transportation subsidized by social service funding or government programs (e.g., Medicare), and a variety of Federal Transit Administration (FTA), State and Locally funded programs to provide wheelchair accessible service in a variety of ways (e.g., non-profits, private taxi companies, local government vehicles, etc..).   Most of these systems throughout the U.S. involve vans or shuttle buses which are designed to accommodate several disabled passengers, including wheelchair users that use “bus-like” vehicles which provide non-fixed route prearranged service. 

We must start by acknowledging that the Access-A-Ride and paratransit system is broken, and in fact, was inherently flawed from its inception; being inefficient by design and continuing to waste billions of dollars nationwide each year in subsidized funding.  Prearranging service for multiple passengers on non-fixed routes dramatically increases travel and waiting times for disabled customers and senior citizens, making for a system with inconsistent and erratic service due to unpredictable usage and the juggling of varied destinations.  Also, one could argue that the spirit of “equivalent service” as envisioned by the Americans with Disabilities Act and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations is not being met as non-disabled passengers can board mass transit on demand while disabled passengers must make reservations days in advance.  This inequity is compounded by the drastic service reductions taking place due to government funding issues caused by the Great Recession and other variables.   

      The system needs to be dramatically reformed and reengineered, and there is no better time than now to do so to address the fiscal crises public transit agencies are facing around the country.  The key is to create a new transportation paradigm by phasing in “Parataxis”, private taxicabs that would receive government subsidies to retrofit smaller minivans with wheelchair ramps and cover other costs (such as training and increased insurance premiums) to operate via a centralized dispatch system.   My vision for a “Parataxi” system is to phase-out paratransit vans or shuttles, so that individualized prearranged for-hire or taxi service can be provided through a centralized dispatch system using Global Positioning Systems (GPS).  Rather than disjointed and uncoordinated funding, the Federal government should consolidate all disabled transport funding streams (mass transit, social services and other ancillary discretionary grants and “New Freedom” lines) to require recipient States to designate only “one” agency to coordinate all services for both public transit and non-emergency medical transport by using wheelchair accessible and standard taxicabs.  Service would improve in terms of reduced travel time and government costs would be significantly reduced.  In addition, the Federal government could require such vehicles to be alternatively fueled or environmentally sustainable and to be operated in accordance with standards to ensure savings and efficiency to be monitored closely by a State Transportation Agency as part of its mandated planning processes.  Once we get over the government agency turf wars and resistance to change from existing van manufacturers and service providers, everyone can become part of the solution in terms of still being economically viable and saving money.  This solution could involve private contractors to provide centralized dispatch services and the subsidies would instead go to dispatch companies as well as private taxi businesses to offset vehicle retrofitting costs for wheelchair ramp installation, insurance and training costs.  Not only does this benefit urban environments, but such subsidies would have the result of adding taxi service to rural environments where additional taxicabs will enhance sorely needed intermodal transit for all passengers across more expansive geographic territories.

      Similar programs are being piloted in New York City as we speak which have elements of a total “Parataxi” solution.  When I was Taxi and Limousine Commissioner in New York City, several years ago I learned that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) had contracts with a value of more than $60 million with limousine companies to pick-up passengers stranded by Access-A-Ride appointments.   I had a meeting with my friend and then MTA Chief Executive Officer Lee Sander and we both put the ball in motion culminating in today’s Manhattan pilot program where disabled Access-A-Ride subscription service users can use debit cards issued by the MTA to use yellow taxicabs instantly via street hail.  This cuts the cost per trip down from about $50-60 per van ride to around $15-20 per taxi ride.  We combined the successful T-PEP program elements with the 311 dispatch system and the “Parataxi” concept –and now I am pleased to learn that one of the largest and most successful car service conglomerates – Corporate Transportation Group – will be serving as the lead dispatcher to use livery vehicles in the “other boroughs” of the City in the next few months to expand this pilot program to everyone in New York City. 

Matthew W. Daus, Esq., counsel and head of the Transportation Practice Group at Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, was retained to attempt to settle a legal dispute between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and passengers claiming that bus service cuts in Brooklyn have a discriminatory impact on the disabled and senior citizens in violation of New York State and City Human Rights Laws.  At a press conference in front of the New York State Supreme Court held on October 21st in downtown Brooklyn, joining various passengers are - left to right - Council Member Vincent Gentile, Professor Daus (speaking) and State Senator Marty Golden.

MATTHEW DAUS ASKED BY SENATOR GOLDEN TO RESOLVE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AGAINST M.T.A. BROUGHT BY DISABLED & SENIOR PASSENGERS INVOLVING BUS LINE SERVICE CUTS

 Happy New Year everyone!  With the coming year comes new, higher subway fares – and lots of snow.  I thought this would be a good time to talk about a very unique and interesting civil rights lawsuit involving disabled and senior citizen bus and subway passengers against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), known as Ryan, et al., v. NYCTA (Index #15768/2010).

On June 27, 2010, the MTA instituted what has been called its “Doomsday Budget Cuts”, driven by an unprecedented fiscal crisis which led to the agency’s implementation of massive bus and subway service reductions, line consolidations and even the elimination of certain bus lines.  These cuts have affected virtually everyone, but some passengers protected by the civil rights laws, as well as certain neighborhoods, have felt the pain more than others.  New York State Senator Marty Golden asked me last year to arrange for settlement talks with the MTA to attempt to resolve legal claims by passengers who are disabled wheelchair users and senior citizens against the MTA and NYCTA. 

In the geographically and demographically unique neighborhood of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, these plaintiffs, including Jean Ryan, Pamela Talkovsky and Jen Halbert, and many thousands of other affected senior and disabled passengers, have been denied public accommodations, and now have more unequal service and less access to buses and subways than more ambulatory younger and non-disabled passengers.  The plaintiffs have commenced a lawsuit that seeks an injunction to restore bus line service to various lines in Bay Ridge, so that they may again have access to hospitals, government buildings and various points in Manhattan and beyond.  In particular, some of the bus lines involved in the lawsuit include the elimination of X27/X28 weekend express bus service, elimination of the B37 extension to Lutheran Hospital and Downtown Brooklyn, as well as changes to the weekday Midtown/Downtown express bus service and B64 and B16 lines.

 Given my extensive experience in transportation policy as well as civil rights law, I accepted this assignment to try and help the community and the city, especially since I happen to reside in Bay Ridge and see firsthand the unfortunate impact of these service cuts.  In addition to teaching transportation policy to graduate students at City College, of the City University of New York, I have also served in government as the Commissioner and General Counsel of the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and dealt with the MTA for over 14 years while a public servant.  I have extensive experience in the field of civil rights law, having worked as a Prosecutor for the New York City Human Rights Commission, published extensive law related articles, and having been awarded an advanced legal degree (Master of Laws) in this area from N.Y.U. Law School. 

What is legally unique about this case is that it is a true case of first impression in New York that seeks to enforce State and Local Civil Rights Laws that have never before been interpreted or applied to similar facts.  Rather than commence an action under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an action was commenced in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, alleging violations of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.  These State and City laws are intended to provide more legal protection than the ADA and define the term “disability” more broadly than Federal law.  See Burton v. MTA, 244 F.Supp.2d 252, 258 (S.D.N.Y 2002). Both laws provide that it is discriminatory for any person to be denied a public accommodation who is a member of a protected class, and case law supports the application of these legal requirements to the MTA.  See Bogdan v. NYCT, WL 1161812, 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005);  Staten Island Alliance for the Mentally Ill v. Mercado, 273 A.D.2d 36, 37 (1st Dept’t 2000); and Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Assoc. v. MTA, 79 A.D.2d 516, 517 (1st Dept. 1980). 

The causes of action under Local Law include claims pursuant to Administrative Code §8-107(4) that the plaintiffs were denied a public accommodation (bus and subway service) due to their disability and age, and under §8-107(17)(a)(1) in that there is a “disparate impact” upon plaintiffs, as well as the unique neighborhood where they reside.  Bay Ridge, Brooklyn does not have any wheelchair accessible subway stations, and various bus lines that have been impacted and/or eliminated are more than five (5) long city blocks from the nearest subway station.  Unlike other communities around the city, this neighborhood is a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) with high levels of senior and disabled residents. 

 Jonathan Peters, Ph.D., a colleague and Professor affiliated with the City University of New York’s Transportation Research Center (Region 2), who teaches at the College of Staten Island, provided affidavits and expert testimony on a pro bono basis.   Professor Peters is an expert in Census analysis, Social Equity, Urban Economics, Public Finance and Transportation Policy, and he concluded that the Bay Ridge service cuts did involve discrimination and have a disparate impact on seniors and the disabled in violation of State and Local Human Rights Laws.  He pointed out that 18% of seniors reside in Bay Ridge as compared to the citywide average of 12%, and 25% of Bay Ridge residents are disabled as compared to other parts of the city (e.g., the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which has only 11% of disabled residents –but a plethora of wheelchair accessible subway stations when compared to all other boroughs of the City). 
 The disparate impact claim alleges that instead of making service reduction decisions based on “general ridership” statistics, as the MTA did in 2010, it had a legal obligation under civil rights laws to analyze senior and disabled ridership, as well as demographic information to ascertain whether certain communities with higher levels of persons in protected classes did not receive disproportionate service cuts when compared to other communities and transit lines where there are less members of protected classes.  Relevant to the disparate impact claim is whether the MTA had other options or alternatives to the cuts in question, and Professor Peters has pointed out to the court that, when balancing the equities of the situation, even a cash strapped organization like the MTA, with its multi-billion dollar budget, has options to reallocate operating budget funds to prevent discriminatory impacts – while plaintiffs have few options to get around, if at all. For example, certain projects could have been discontinued and certain programs, such as Access-A-Ride (AAR) – the MTA’s subsidized paratransit service - could have been tailored or improved to provide more equal service for disabled and senior citizen passengers in Bay Ridge. 

With regard to the New York State law claims, various provisions of the Executive Law consider it discrimination to deny a public accommodation to a passenger due to their disability [§296(2)(a)], to refuse to make “reasonable modifications” to policies necessary to provide services to the disabled [§296(2)(c)(i)], or to segregate or separate disabled passengers [§292(19)].  In addition to the overlap between the State and City laws, plaintiffs claim they are basically segregated from the non-disabled population in that they formerly chose to ride the bus, and are now either entirely denied service or “more inconvenienced” than non-disabled passengers.  Plaintiffs who otherwise qualify for AAR service previously chose to ride buses with wheelchair lifts, and now they must make reservations days in advance, or simply use a new “feeder service.”  According to the “feeder service,” instead of transporting a disabled passenger point-to-point from the beginning to the end of their trip, disabled passengers must instead take one AAR vehicle to an accessible subway stop, then take the subway to the nearest station to their destination, and then again take another AAR vehicle that will meet the passenger at that subway stop and transport them to their final destination.  Also, under both City and State law claims, there are those passengers who do not meet the definition of being “disabled” under the ADA and who do not qualify for AAR service, but who meet the broader definition of “disability” under New York laws.  For these passengers, there unfortunately are no options, and they are basically “stranded” and segregated from the rest of the riding public.

While everyone realizes that the MTA has a very difficult task at hand in resolving its budget challenges, this lawsuit is about “everyone feeling the pain equally” – not some more than others – especially those who are a member of a legally protected class under the civil rights laws.  I have arranged for and had several meetings with the plaintiffs, local elected officials (Senator Golden and City Council Member Vincent Gentile), and MTA and NYCTA officials at the highest levels, and to date, no settlement has been reached as the case progresses.  We believe the MTA did make modifications to the Downtown/Midtown express service (where Bay Ridge residents formerly had more expeditious service directly to Midtown without needing to stop in Downtown Manhattan), but thee changes are neither satisfactory to the plaintiffs, the community nor to Senator Golden.  Meanwhile, legal briefs, arguments and evidence were submitted to the court and a decision on the preliminary injunction motion will be issued in the near future.  The case was originally assigned to Judge Ken Sherman, and now has been reassigned to Judge Sylvia Ash, who will hopefully be rendering a decision on this potential landmark case very soon.  A successful legal outcome here for the plaintiffs would change the way public transportation policy decisions are made forever in New York, and possibly around the country.  However, I still am holding out hope that reasonable minds will prevail, and that a settlement or resolution may still be able to be reached.  

This month I would like to spend some time talking about my regulatory travels and adventures in the State of Pennsylvania, and to focus the spotlight on the City of Philadelphia. It is apropos that I am writing this column on the 4th of July, having just witnessed many regulatory fireworks displays involving the City of Brotherly Love, where the industry and government have not been getting along too well lately.

The cause of the controversy stems from the transfer of jurisdiction for the regulation of various forms of Philadelphia for-hire ground transportation from the Pennsylvania State Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) on April 10, 2005. The industry has sought to declare their independence from regulation, both in the courts and before the legislature. It comes as no surprise that as the PPA seeks to institute reforms, by enhancing licensing standards and customer service initiatives such as GPS and credit cards, that there would be push-back from the industry. However, much of the recent opposition is not revolutionary, but a series of skirmishes that will most likely be won by the regulator when the dust settles.

First there was an eye-opening decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on April 28, 2010, invalidating all of the PPA’s rules and regulations due to an alleged failure to follow the proper administrative rule promulgation procedures. Germantown Cab Corp., a limited rights taxicab company, received a routine PPA summons for picking-up a passenger outside the scope of its authorized area, and filed a lawsuit challenging the entire regulatory structure. The Court, analyzing the plain language of the State Commonwealth Documents Law, held that since the PPA failed to obtain the required public comment, Attorney General approval, and to file the regulations with the Legislative Reference Bureau – none of the PPA rules were valid. However, the PPA immediately sought and obtained a stay of the ruling as it appeals the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This is a Pyrrhic victory for the industry, however, as all the PPA needs to do is simply re-promulgate its rules to render the lawsuit ruling moot. Meanwhile, cooler heads have prevailed and industry leaders have stated that they intend to continue to follow the PPA rules for now for the sake of maintaining order. Stability is especially important for the PPA as Capital One Bank (a significant lender and IATR sponsor),under the leadership of Executive Vice President Richard Antonacci, recently entered the Philadelphia market. The silver lining here is that this may be an opportunity to further improve the PPA’s rules, and to work with the industry to possibly compromise and resolve some issues of contention outside the courts.

It comes as no surprise that industry advocates have been feeling their oats in light of the Germantown decision and have ramped-up their offensive against the PPA. This time, the limousine industry had its turn on the legislative front, courtesy of the Philadelphia Regional Limousine Association. At the request of the Philadelphia government, I testified, as President of the International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR), before the State of Pennsylvania General Assembly, in opposition to House Bill No. 2434 - which sought to diminish the licensing standards of the limousine industry by transferring jurisdiction from the PPA back to the PUC. My testimony was heard on June 24, 2010 by the House Committee on Consumer Affairs, and according to Philadelphia officials including PPA Director James Ney, was instrumental in helping to halt the progress of this bill.

The IATR Board of Directors felt it was important to support the efforts of the PPA. While we took no position on whether either a State or a locality can more effectively regulate specific industries, we did express our view that it would be more effective and practical for “all” for-hire ground transportation services to be regulated by a single entity – not multiple entities. House Bill 2434 would have transferred jurisdiction to the PUC without further review, regressing to its old regulations that would have the effect of diminishing customer service and public safety safeguards for the passengers of the City of Philadelphia. For example, the PUC regulations could lead to older vehicles being on the road, no driver training program and less frequent criminal background checks without any government verification.

Under current PPA regulations, a car with 350,000 miles or more would be taken off the road and fail inspection, while PUC regulations would allow vehicles with unlimited mileage to stay in service. With regard to driver training, the PPA offers a 5 day course which requires a passing grade on a test before a driver certificate is issued while no training is required under PUC rules. Finally, and of the most concern from a public safety standpoint, a return to the PUC regulations would require the limousine company, and not the government, to conduct criminal background checks – which raises the concern that some companies may neglect to conduct those important checks or share them with the PUC. Also, PPA regulations not only require that the government perform the background checks, but that all felons are excluded from having a license until 5 years have passed from sentencing, including probation or parole – whereas under PUC regulations, convicted felons may be immediately placed on the road pending a review.

As to the issue of having all for-hire service regulated under one roof, no compelling reasons were offered for the IATR to support having limousines regulated separately. No different level of expertise, inspection equipment or any other reason has been established that would justify transfer of jurisdiction from the PPA to the PUC. Absent such justification, the common regulatory standards that are applied to drivers and owners of both taxicabs and limousines would make uniform licensing and enforcement more efficient, fair and practical from an administrative point of view. It is a waste of government resources to pay for anddevelop different systems, hire additional staff and carry out identical functions in two locations many miles apart.

The IATR was happy to come to the assistance of the PPA on this important local matter, at a time of instability and unrest. While the IATR usually focuses on national and international policy matters, it does endeavor to support its members where broader principles are at stake. While the IATR is proud to have both the PPA and PUC as our members, we were grateful that both government agencies opposed the legislation in question.

This month, I was asked to speak about the IATR’s legislative initiatives at the Air Ground Transportation Association (AGTA) in Washington, DC. We have had a reciprocal arrangement with AGTA and other organizations where we attend each other’s conferences to share information and work together on common goals and initiatives.

AGTA’s Executive Director, Dr. Ray Mundy, ran a fantastic and informative program for airport operators, which included many taxi and for-hire vehicle related issues. Over the years, airport operators have become increasingly involved in the issuance of permits and setting of high customer service and safety standards for for-hire vehicles and taxicabs as part of airport rules and franchise or concession arrangements. I believe this trend will continue over time and that airports will continue to sometimes operate as quasi–Taxi Commissions, independently of the local regulators and licensing agencies.

I delivered a presentation on the IATR’s legislative agenda for 2010, which included two key Federal bills – namely, the Green Taxis and the ALERT Drivers Acts. Al LaGasse, the Executive Director of the Taxi, Limousine and Paratransit Association (TLPA), provided an insightful update on his group’s legislative activities – which included the RIDE Act, the new Federal health care legislation, accessible transportation, climate change and distracted driver legislation. The session was moderated by TLPA President Victor Dizengoff, whose work for the industry over the years has helped to improve service internationally as well as in his hometown of NY City. While we did not agree on everything, I believe our presentations did provide areas of compromise where both the industry and government regulators can work together to achieve common goals – especially on the distracted driving legislation.

The first legislation I discussed was the Green Taxis Act, sponsored by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (S.1741) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (H.R. 3711), which would seek to amend the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Clean Air Act to allow local governments to regulate fuel economy and emissions standards for taxicabs. This proposed legislation was also included as an amendment to the comprehensive climate change legislation introduced by US Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. The Green Taxis Act would clarify that cities are not Federally preempted, in effect rendering moot the interpretations of two Federal Court decisions (MTBOT v. City of New York and Ophir v. City of Boston). The terms of this proposed legislation would apply only if vehicles are commercially available or manufactured pursuant to government contract. Manufacturers would not be required to produce clean air vehicles and taxi operators would not be required to use vehicles not readily available. The bill would not apply to vehicles which carry more than 10 passengers or to airport buses or shuttles. The IATR fully supports the efforts commenced several years ago by New York City to provide incentives to green its taxi fleet. Several major cities followed suit, including Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Seattle to name a few. The IATR supports the provisions of the Green Taxis Act without any reservation. Of course, the TLPA respectively disagreed with the IATR’s viewpoint.

The second legislative agenda item I lectured on was the topic of Distracted Driving and the ALERT Drivers Act (“Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act). The ALERT Drivers Act was introduced last year by US Senator Charles Schumer (S.1536) and U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (H.R. 3535), and mandates that States pass laws within 2 years banning texting while driving in accordance with minimum standards established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, or risk losing 25% of their Federal highway funding. Unfortunately, fewer than 20 States have text messaging bans in effect; and in 2008, over a half-million people were injured and over 5000 fatalities involved distracted driving. After presenting information to AGTA members about several studies establishing significant evidence of the dangers associated with the use of cell phones and texting while driving, I provided an overview of the most stringent rules in the nation governing distracted driving which were passed by the NYC TLC last December. These progressive rules can form a blueprint for the minimum standards that the US DOT would be required to pass. Both IATR and TLPA agree on the compromise that was reached on the NYC regulations which enhances safety for drivers, pedestrians and passengers, as well as allow for brief conversations to relay dispatch communication information in a safe manner (such as by mounted, non-hand-held, voice active, one-button devices). The IATR supports passage of the ALERT Drivers Act, but believes it needs to be amended to: (1) expand the definition beyond text messaging to include both hands-free and hand held cell phones, as well as other distractive portable electronic devices; (2) ensure that the minimum Federal standards hold licensed for-hire ground transportation vehicles to progressive penalties as well as preventive and remedial training; and (3) ensure that brief dispatch-related and emergency call exemptions are provided for in the law or US DOT regulations.

Overall, the AGTA members seemed to enjoy the lively discussion and to know that three progressive, influential and deliberative organizations are able to work together for common goals that will benefit airport operators and patrons as well as the industries that serve them.

First, I wish to thank everyone who came to New York City for the IATR’s 22nd Annual
Conference. By all accounts, our “technology” themed conference was everything we could have hoped for in terms of prominent speakers, interesting and useful topics, site visits, and practical management-related information. Also, I hope everyone had a great time enjoying our vibrant City, our conference events, and our music and entertainment! I would like to convey our appreciation to NYC TLC staff, Karen Cameron and our Education and Conference Planning Committee for orchestrating a seamless and successful conference.

I would also like to take a moment to thank everyone who shared their thoughts with me and our conference staff members about how to improve the conference and enhance our member services. It is gratifying to see so many of our fellow professionals sharing their vision of the IATR’s potential with us. It sends a clear message that they are on board with us, and that they are in it for the long haul. In the spirit of that positive and constructive feedback, you will be receiving a formal, post-conference survey in the coming weeks, and we very much look forward to reading your thoughts and impressions.

For all of you who could not attend due to the current economic climate or other reasons, you were most definitely missed! However, we did videotape the conference for the first time, and intend to make that available to our members who could not join us physically. Second, I am honored to assume the Presidency of the IATR, and thank the Board and our organization for its confidence in me and our team. For those members who were unable to
attend, I would like to bring you up to speed on the three (3) primary goals I would like to
accomplish as your new President:

1. To continue to expand our membership and membership services to make every
   day a virtual IATR conference – by exploring technology such as webinars, providing more information and studies via expanded Web site content that would provide “onestop shopping” for members for the hottest of regulatory topics (hybrids, credit card acceptance, etc.), links to various jurisdictions (rules, court decisions and other relevant data) and experimenting with the use of new media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc…) to both heighten IATR’s profile to reach new audiences as well as to more frequently communicate and educate our members year-round;
   
2. To continue our strategic partnerships and explore new educational and regulatory
   alliances to increase our membership beyond North America – by reaching out to
   new industry groups, government organizations and educational institutions with common goals to coordinate and facilitate helpful studies and mutual participation at conferences; and
   
3. To utilize the IATR to advocate for causes where we have common interests – by supporting or opposing legislation as an organization, lobbying for funding, or helping our fellow regulators in times of need (whether it be critical surveys, advice, letters of support, litigation defense, or references).
   

To accomplish these goals, we will need your help. Not only are we blessed with a dynamic
Board of Directors and Officers, but our members are knowledgeable, helpful and dedicated to their jobs as regulators. I would like to congratulate our new President-Elect, Susan Jones (Ottawa); our new Board Members: Leon Swain (Washington, DC); Norma Reyes (Chicago); and International Association of Transportation Regulators www.iatr.org Mark Cohen (Boston); as well as new Officers: Diane Bertolin (Windsor) as Treasurer, and Glenn Steeves (Toronto) as Vice-President.

In the knowledge that this will be a spectacular year of growth for the IATR, I would like to
acknowledge the efforts of our Past-President, Malachi Hull, for taking the IATR to the next level.

Of course we will add more stairs to the staircase he and his predecessors have built. Under
Malachi’s tenure we introduced the first-ever “International Driver Recognition Ceremony”, that was an inspiring event which will continue as part of our annual conferences in the future. Malachi also helped to nurture new relationships, including IATR involvement with the National Limousine Association and the facilitation of NIOSH’s study on taxicab driver safety. I think I speak for all of us when I say that I am looking forward to our next Conference in Chicago, hosted by Consumer Services Commissioner Norma Reyes, with great anticipation! I can assure you that Chicago will be every bit as exciting and informative as NYC – but different of course – as every city is unique, and variety is the spice of regulatory life. For those of you who know Norma – who is as dynamic as her home City – our 23rd annual conference will be an event to remember. While on the topic of planning ahead, I am also pleased to announce that our Board of Directors has voted to hold its 2011 conference in Toronto and its 2012 conference in Washington, D.C.

In closing, I hope you will enjoy a recap of some of the uniformly positive media coverage
generated from the NYC Conference, which is on the IATR website at www.iatr.org. Click on the heading “2009 Conference Highlights” for all the media coverage, and all of the Power Point presentations from the conference.

Most regulators have found themselves in a struggle to maintain passenger safety in a world full of distractions that continues to evolve with never-ending technological developments.  In an attempt to put safety first, many regulators have responded by requiring taxicab drivers to put their cell phones down. 

In Chicago, rules have been enacted since 2000 which prohibit public chauffeurs from using either handheld or hands-free cellular devices while vehicles are in motion.  The cost of violating these laws can lead to the imposition of a gradation of fines and possible license suspension, along with mandatory training classes, a physical examination, and a drug test.  On the West coast, Seattle also prohibits the use of cell phones by taxicab drivers while passengers are in the vehicle with various levels of fines as well as points assigned to both the driver and the Taxicab Association.

As industry members, leaders or regulators, you may all have read of the New York City TLC’s recent proposal of enhanced actions to curb distracted driving in our regulated industries.  In brief, the proposal calls for a move from “five strikes and you’re out” to “three strikes and you’re out” license revocations, as well as mandatory safety courses, license suspensions and an outright ban on drivers wearing hands-free ear devices (e.g., Bluetooth devices). 


In the U.S., there is much attention recently being paid to the issue of distracted driving, including a major, multi-part series on the cover of the New York Times, various university and governmental studies equating even hands-free cell phone use with DUI (Driving While Under the Influence), proposed Federal legislation and State laws being passed around the country.  Although NYC’s approach has enjoyed great editorial support and has been embraced by passengers, the trend appears to be – both nationally and internationally – towards further safety regulations on this front.  At this point, sixteen (16) US states have banned the use of handheld cell phones for all motorists and nineteen (19) US states have banned all drivers from texting while the National Safety Council (NSC) has called on businesses, governors, and legislators in all fifty (50) states to pass laws banning cell phone use while driving.  Similar enforcement approaches were taken recently in Ontario, Canada’s most populated province, when Transportation Minister, Jim Bradley, called for new legislation which banned the use of hand-held cell phones and text messaging while driving at the cost of $500 for each infraction.  Newfoundland, Labrador, Quebec, and Nova Scotia also have analogous bans while Manitoba, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan are expected to follow shortly. 

Distracted driving also became a highly nationalized issue in the US when the Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, and the US Department of Transportation received high acclaim and an astounding amount of support for a Distracted Driving Summit that was held from September 30 through October 1, 2009.  The summit was an attempt to bring together senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety advocates, law enforcement representatives, private sector representatives, and academics to address this increasingly imminent issue.  On the European front, I am sure many of you saw the dramatic and frightening commercial released from the UK this summer as part of a recent government based public advisory campaign to highlight the dangers of texting while driving.  If not, here is the link -   [http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/26/video-uk-texting-while-driving-psa-is-a-return-to-blood-on-the] Using a handheld cell phone has been illegal since 2003 with a fixed penalty of 60 Euros and three points but if the case goes to court, you can have your license revoked and have an increased fine of up to 2,000 Euros.

It is for the reasons stated above that I found myself, almost literally, in a state of shock over the news from Korea that a court ruling has overturned Korean regulators’ prohibition of taxicab drivers watching television while driving, despite this practice being labeled as a factor in 200 accidents leading to three fatalities and 351 injuries last year.  The ruling was the court’s response to a challenge to a $507 fine brought by a single driver against the establishment.  Coverage suggests that drivers have flocked to install TV receivers to beat the boredom that comes with being stuck in the massive traffic congestion of Seoul, Korea.  In Reuters video reports, some cabbies swear that they do not watch TV while actively driving -- although they can -- while others admit to the practice while sharing concerns for their own safety.  I am sure there are many regulators that are subject to strange legal rulings, but with all due respect to Korean jurisprudence, this situation seems outright bizarre.

The takeaway from this, I think, is easy to see…..before you judge a regulator’s proactive efforts to put an end to distracted driving, take a moment to think about the consequences of ignoring this growing problem.  The mountain of evidence about distracted driving grows day-by-day ……dare we wait any longer?  I intend to discuss this issue more fully with our IATR members and look into whether any collective efforts or information sharing would be of interest to and benefit them in the near future.