From the Chicago Dispatcher, December 2008
Commissioner's Corner
Maximizing the placement of cabstands in Chicago.
By: Norma Reyes
Because Chicago is continually changing and growing, the need for and placement of cabstands also changes. Cabstand locations may need to be changed due to construction in an area; new construction, particularly of hotels, results in the need for new cabstands; and demographic shifts make some stands obsolete while leaving other areas with an overwhelming need for a new cabstand. A number of taxi drivers as well as City Departments approached the Department of Consumer Service (DCS) to review the existing cabstands and to propose new locations.
DCS, in partnership with the City Council Transportation Committee, the Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Office of Emergency Management and Communication (OEMC) and taxi drivers, examined the placement of taxi cabstands in the 42nd ward. This ward includes most of downtown and River North, where there are currently 77 active cabstands. As a result of the review, we propose 19 additional locations.
Together, DCS and CDOT are in the process of finalizing the plan to install 13 cabstands at new locations, including two that are proposed to be “Alternative Fuel Taxi Only” cabstands located at the northeast corner of Clark and Randolph and at 181 East Lake Shore Drive, near the Drake Hotel. Six additional locations have been identified to re-install cabstands that are not currently operating.
Three criteria were used to review each proposed cabstand location:
(1) Does a cabstand in this location impede the flow of traffic? Is there a bus stop or turning lane present?
(2) Does the location allow for easy and safe use by passengers? Is the passenger required to cross any lanes of traffic unsafely?
(3) Does the location support the need for a cabstand? Are there enough potential passengers to make a viable cabstand?
The 19 proposed locations meet all of these criteria. Cabstands, if placed correctly, are not only convenient for passengers seeking cabs and drivers seeking fares, they also serve as a potential solution for two main transportation issues common in the Loop area:
– Congestion - Cabs circling for fares clog up roadways. Cabs darting curbside or stopping in the travel lane to pick up a passenger are both dangerous and disruptive to smooth traffic flow.
– Pollution - Cabs, which are traditionally heavy sedans with large engines, burn more fuel. Emissions created by circling for fares are unnecessary. A cabdriver waiting in a stand could turn off the engine. Cabstands placed in prominent and busy spots reduce engine idle time due to the shortened wait time for fares.
It must be noted, however, that cabstands are only effective if cabdrivers use them as they are intended. Cabstands are demarcated by signage. These signs clearly indicate the number of cabs that can legally wait there for fares. These numbers are based on the available amount of curb space and the perceived demand at that particular location. Any cab that is waiting illegally - either by exceeding the indicated number of cabs or by idling in an area not within the cabstand demarcation, can be ticketed.
Also, drivers must obey the Public Chauffeur Rules and Regulations as they pertain to cabstands. Specifically, Rule 5.01 requires:
– Taxicabs entering a cabstand shall take the rear position.
– Taxicabs discharging passengers at hotels, depots, or wherever cabstands are designated, shall not accept passengers for service unless there are no standing taxicabs in the established cabstand.
– No cruising taxicab shall pick up or accept a load alongside of, in front of, adjacent to, or on the same side of the street on the same city block where there is an established cabstand and the cabstand is occupied by standing cabs.
– Diving - picking up or attempting to pick up passengers by means of by-passing a cabstand - is prohibited at all times.
– However, a passenger can indicate his or her preference for a particular taxicab standing or waiting in an established cabstand provided that the chauffeur of the vehicle exercises extreme caution when exiting the cabstand and entering traffic lanes.
We received suggested locations for cabstands in addition to these 19, but they did not meet the criteria and/or were in areas where there is ample curb space for passengers hailing cabs. While the current and proposed locations together will increase the number of stands by 25 percent, we understand that not all of the proposals were included and drivers may be disappointed if their suggested locations are not part of the proposal. We will continue to monitor the need for additional cabstands, particularly in areas currently under construction and make additional changes if necessary.
DCS is excited to increase the number of cabstands in the downtown area. We are happy to work in collaboration with the industry and other City Departments on this project. Working with CDOT, we hope to have the new cabstands in place by Spring 2009, prior to the summer tourist season. Once the locations are finalized and new signs are installed, we will provide a list of cabstand locations on our Web site and to the tourism outlets, making it easier for passengers and drivers to know where the stands are located.
including two that are proposed to be “Alternative Fuel Taxi Only” cabstands located at the northeast corner of Clark and Randolph and at 181 East Lake Shore Drive,
This is the kind of discrimination that needs to be addressed in the courts. Another example of the city breaking the laws of this country. If the city was really interested in serving the public this restriction wouldn't be in place.
About time! I'd like to see the underground cab stand at Union Station returned to use for hybrid cabs only. The Canal Street stand is always overcrowded and the stand west of Canal on Jackson that should feed into the Canal Street stand is ignored by cabs, fares, and even police. The underground stand worked well and as originally intended.
I have had several conversations about the pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion challenges of Canal Street and others surrounding Union Station and the possibility of re-opening the Taxi Court in the tunnels underneath.
The man I spoke with was a high-ranking Amtrak official. If you would like his contact information to show your further support for this idea to him, e-mail me and I will send you his contact information.
The "hybrid-only" aspect of it would be novel, and I am sure it would be of interest to him to hear from you.
-Mike Foulks, chinatownmike@yahoo.com
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
About time! I'd like to see the underground cab stand at Union Station returned to use for hybrid cabs only. The Canal Street stand is always overcrowded and the stand west of Canal on Jackson that should feed into the Canal Street stand is ignored by cabs, fares, and even police. The underground stand worked well and as originally intended.
Mr. Foulks almost all of Chicago taxis are gasoline fueled/ non electric. Why would you like to see stands that only a handful of city licensed vehicles could serve? This would not be in the general publics best interest. Sure why not have people waiting for a day or two lined up for service since the only vehicles allowed to serve the train station customers can be counted on your own two hands.
James J.,
I haven't stated any opinion about hybrid-only cabstands. I haven't even formed an opinion about them yet. Please continue with yours. We're reading respectfully.
I would like to see the Taxi Court underneath Union Station opened once again to allow taxicabs to pick up passengers there, especially during inclement weather which affects the elderly the most.
The older and more frail Amtrak passengers or those with any considerable luggage would also be better served by the Taxi Court tunnels.
I hate seeing the unemployed drug addicts virtually extort what little spare money some have for "helping" carry bags a short distance to the trunks of our cabs on the surface streets around Union Station.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Foulks almost all of Chicago taxis are gasoline fueled/ non electric. Why would you like to see stands that only a handful of city licensed vehicles could serve? This would not be in the general publics best interest. Sure why not have people waiting for a day or two lined up for service since the only vehicles allowed to serve the train station customers can be counted on your own two hands.
You haven't formed an opinion yet? Discrimination is what we're talking about here. I paid the same medallion fees as a hybrid owner. A lawsuit is in order if any hybrid only stands open. JJ
James J.,
I still haven't formed an opinion. Nothing you've said so far leads me to conclude or suspect that a hybrid-only cabstand is illegal.
So you paid the same medallion fees as a hybrid owner. What's preventing you from purchasing a hybrid vehicle if you want to use a hybrid-only cabstand?
You are not being discriminated for the color of your skin, which isn't a choice. You would be "discriminated" for the type of vehicle you choose to use as a cab. You have a choice.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You haven't formed an opinion yet? Discrimination is what we're talking about here. I paid the same medallion fees as a hybrid owner. A lawsuit is in order if any hybrid only stands open. JJ
Ok, I have a choice. How many hybrid vehicles are available for lease when you lease from Mike? Would the answer be zero? Well yes it would. Key word available. How would a restriction like this help the general public? Say what you want, this is an illegal practice being attempted to put into use here in Chicago. The first sign that goes up will result in a lawsuit and a temporary order halting the practice until the case can be heard.
Now for another question since you say I have a choice. Do you have a choice Mike? Do you have the 200K or the down stroke and credit to buy a hybrid cab and medallion? Clear out your eyes and you'll see this discriminates against Foulks also.
James J.,
I have a regular cab I lease. My daytime partner and I discussed the opportunity and possibility of leasing a hybrid. We decided not to.
So, no, the availability answer is not "zero" as you want to believe.
Sometimes the nearby public complains about the fumes generated by idling taxis. Hybrid-only cabstands would mitigate this problem.
I can lease a hybrid cab if I want. I agree with you that not all, nor would 100% of cabdrivers have that option, including buying a hybrid cab and medallion if that's what they wished...
...I would point out that not 100% of cabstands are going to be hybrid-only, either. Only one or two are mentioned so far.
If you intend to sue, I say good luck. I still don't understand what's illegal about a hybrid-only cabstand. I invite you to continue to try to explain it to the readers of this forum, if you can.
Maybe you should talk to some lawyers about it and get their opinions to report here.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Ok, I have a choice. How many hybrid vehicles are available for lease when you lease from Mike? Would the answer be zero? Well yes it would. Key word available. How would a restriction like this help the general public? Say what you want, this is an illegal practice being attempted to put into use here in Chicago. The first sign that goes up will result in a lawsuit and a temporary order halting the practice until the case can be heard.
Now for another question since you say I have a choice. Do you have a choice Mike? Do you have the 200K or the down stroke and credit to buy a hybrid cab and medallion? Clear out your eyes and you'll see this discriminates against Foulks also.
If I go over to where you lease Mike and tell the powers that be I need a hybrid, what do you think they would say to me? You and I both know the availability is zero. Pretend that its not so you are the one thats right if you need to. In fact I'll gladly give you 100.00 cash if you can be seen driving a hybrid in the next twenty four hours with a lease paper for the vehicle in your hand.
I have recently invested in a gasoline only vehicle. I do not like or want a camera and since I have another driver a safety device is needed. The hybrid vehicles do not have the room needed for the divider. Now that I have invested in a new vehicle I am being discriminated by the city. In other words the city is taking potential fares away from me without warrant. This is illegal. I believe the federal government is the one that sets the requirements for vehicle fuels and MPG, not Chicago. A lawsuit is in order here.
James J.,
Why should you expect a hybrid cab on your first day as a cabdriver or at a new company?
My first day at Yellow, I got an older cab with an MPG less than that of newer cabs, which went to the long-term customers of the cab company - veteran drivers.
Your $100 isn't worth the effort to drop my current cab and re-lease a hybrid, if that was even possible.
Besides, I don't even know who you are. How would I collect my $100?
So you recently invested in a gas-only vehicle. That's your choice. You could choose to sell it and invest in a hybrid if those particular cabstands are that important to you.
There are hybrids which have dividers in them. Again, you are making a choice to install a divider instead of a camera. You aren't being "discriminated". You are given the opportunity to purchase a hybrid to use a hybrid-only cabstand and you choose not to. The divider or camera issue isn't that relevant.
Still, your lawsuit might have some legal ground to stand on. I just don't see it yet.
The federal rules pertain to fuel-efficieny mandates. I think the purpose of a hybrid-only cabstand wouldn't be fuel-efficiency - it would be no-emissions.
I wish you luck in your lawsuit. I think it's probably a waste of energy, no pun intended.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
If I go over to where you lease Mike and tell the powers that be I need a hybrid, what do you think they would say to me? You and I both know the availability is zero. Pretend that its not so you are the one thats right if you need to. In fact I'll gladly give you 100.00 cash if you can be seen driving a hybrid in the next twenty four hours with a lease paper for the vehicle in your hand.
I have recently invested in a gasoline only vehicle. I do not like or want a camera and since I have another driver a safety device is needed. The hybrid vehicles do not have the room needed for the divider. Now that I have invested in a new vehicle I am being discriminated by the city. In other words the city is taking potential fares away from me without warrant. This is illegal. I believe the federal government is the one that sets the requirements for vehicle fuels and MPG, not Chicago. A lawsuit is in order here.
The DCS gave me an incentive to purchase a certain gasoline only vehicle. I am to get an extra year of service. I invested extra money to acquire this vehicle. Now that there is a hybrid itch by DCS, I am going to have some of my business taken away by the same guys that got me to buy a gasoline only vehicle. And you don't "see" my case?
At last you half hartedly admit there really aren't any hybrid vehicles available for lease.
Toyota does not recommend that their hybrid vehicles be used for any sort of commercial use, this means taxi's too.
The Ford Escape Hybrid's have been involved in many roll over accidents in NYC. Injuries have occured.
The city has no right mandating or even letting on the streets any taxi vehicle that is not certified for commercial use by its manufacturer.
I'll bet you still drive a vehicle with lower MPG than some at your garage. At least you're not rolling over or catching on fire. I can live with lower MPG and safety. Those that have died in vehicles that were used for purposes they were not designed for can't.
James J.,
What "certain vehicle" did DCS give you an incentive to purchase?
I will address your other comments in a different thread.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The DCS gave me an incentive to purchase a certain gasoline only vehicle. I am to get an extra year of service. I invested extra money to acquire this vehicle. Now that there is a hybrid itch by DCS, I am going to have some of my business taken away by the same guys that got me to buy a gasoline only vehicle. And you don't "see" my case?
At last you half hartedly admit there really aren't any hybrid vehicles available for lease.
Toyota does not recommend that their hybrid vehicles be used for any sort of commercial use, this means taxi's too.
The Ford Escape Hybrid's have been involved in many roll over accidents in NYC. Injuries have occured.
The city has no right mandating or even letting on the streets any taxi vehicle that is not certified for commercial use by its manufacturer.
I'll bet you still drive a vehicle with lower MPG than some at your garage. At least you're not rolling over or catching on fire. I can live with lower MPG and safety. Those that have died in vehicles that were used for purposes they were not designed for can't.
Perhaps it would be best for me to print out the vehicles that the DCS gives an incentive for the owner to buy. Anyway vans and extended wheel base vehicles have been given an extra year of service even if they are operated by more than one driver.
Common sense says that if a manufacturer does not recommend that one of its vehicles be used for commercial use then it shouldn't be allowed. Not only does this city say to use hybrids now, they are planning on giving them more than a fair share of the business. All of this is to earn green points with the environmental groups. The same ones that awarded this city a green award even though the blue bag recycling plan was a total bust and isn't even being used anymore.
Remember the vans and extended vehicles were encouraged by the city before hybrids were. Now those that took the encouragement from the city and invested in them are stuck with a loss of business due to the new preferences being planned for hybrid vehicles. This is illegal. A lawsuit will follow if the city goes through with these plans. Go ahead George and spill the beans to Norma. I will be glad to see her and Tom Allen on the stand.
James J.,
Wouldn't your "legal logic" suggest that those medallion owners who didn't have "vans or longer-wheelbase" vehicles are being "discriminated against" by not being allowed to keep their vehicles on the street for the extra year?
Just a question. Can you answer it?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Perhaps it would be best for me to print out the vehicles that the DCS gives an incentive for the owner to buy. Anyway vans and extended wheel base vehicles have been given an extra year of service even if they are operated by more than one driver.
Common sense says that if a manufacturer does not recommend that one of its vehicles be used for commercial use then it shouldn't be allowed. Not only does this city say to use hybrids now, they are planning on giving them more than a fair share of the business. All of this is to earn green points with the environmental groups. The same ones that awarded this city a green award even though the blue bag recycling plan was a total bust and isn't even being used anymore.
Remember the vans and extended vehicles were encouraged by the city before hybrids were. Now those that took the encouragement from the city and invested in them are stuck with a loss of business due to the new preferences being planned for hybrid vehicles. This is illegal. A lawsuit will follow if the city goes through with these plans. Go ahead George and spill the beans to Norma. I will be glad to see her and Tom Allen on the stand.
Sure I can. The city offered an extra year if someone bought a special vehicle. If I bought a regular vehicle I wouldn't get an extra year. THIS WAS MADE KNOWN BEFORE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE. WHAT WASN'T SAID IS THAT AFTER THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE THAT I WOULD BE LOSING SOME OF MY BUSINESS SINCE MY SPECIAL VWEHICLE WASN'T A HYBRID. Do you now understand? Every gas only vehicle in use today is going to have its rights taken away by the new hybrid only stands.
Do you know anything about football Mike? Do the rules of the game change after the first quarter is over? Lets not get personal here. I am not always right. However, about these issues. I'm certainly not wrong.
James J.,
Couldn't those who invested in vehicles not on the "extended use" list complain that they were suddenly "discriminated against" the way you want to say that allowing hybrid-cabstands "discriminates against" you and your vehicle with similar special incentives granted by the City?
Yes, they could. You would both be wrong. There is no "illegal" discrimination here. Talk to a lawyer about it if you think you are right.
Report back when you do. I don't really see the "discrimination" or the "illegality" of allowing certain types of vehicles preferred positions.
Maybe a talk with a lawyer could better express the possible "illegal discrimination" you are discussing here. I don't see it. I am open-minded, though.
Vans and wheelchair-accessible vehicles get all kinds of incentives, especially with regards to business at the airports.
Is that "illegal" or "discriminatory"?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Sure I can. The city offered an extra year if someone bought a special vehicle. If I bought a regular vehicle I wouldn't get an extra year. THIS WAS MADE KNOWN BEFORE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE. WHAT WASN'T SAID IS THAT AFTER THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE THAT I WOULD BE LOSING SOME OF MY BUSINESS SINCE MY SPECIAL VWEHICLE WASN'T A HYBRID. Do you now understand? Every gas only vehicle in use today is going to have its rights taken away by the new hybrid only stands.
Do you know anything about football Mike? Do the rules of the game change after the first quarter is over? Lets not get personal here. I am not always right. However, about these issues. I'm certainly not wrong.
As I told you in my last post every gas only taxi vehicle currently in service would be discriminated against by the new hybrid taxi stands. My loss is greater since my vehicle is still good for several more years. Perhaps you read too quickly.
Its illegal to change the rules in the middle of the game. It might very well be legal to designate a hybrid only stand or stands but grandfather in any current vehicles that are gas only. This isn't what the city is planning on doing. By the way, the city of New York had a hybrid taxi rule that was struck down by the courts. The ruling was that only the federal government can set fuel mileage requirements. You're not an attorney Michael. The ones I have spoken to want the case.
I hope to live long enough to tell the industry "I told you so!" The current hybrid vehicles will fade out very quickly in favor of electric only, small gas only, and fuel cell vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will one day roam the city streets here. Hopefully before our downfall.
James J.,
You are the one who said "let's not make things personal" (inexplicably), but then you go on to suggest that I "read too quickly".
I have read and re-read every word you have said.
Rules and regulations get changed all the time. I don't know what "game" you are talking about. When is it "over" and when can the rules be changed in this "game"?
I have never said I was an attorney. I don't think that you are an attorney, either.
You've got several attorneys that want to take your case (money)? That's doesn't surprise me.
It also doesn't surprise me that you have yet to explain how a hybrid-only cabstand is "illegally discriminating" against you and your medallion.
You want to use a hybrid-only cabstand? Buy a hybrid vehicle. There's no discrimination against you or your medallion. Only your choice of vehicle.
You want to use an extended-year cab? Buy a vehicle on the list approved for an extended year of service. That's what you did. That doesn't discriminate against any other cabdriver or medallion owner. Only their choice of vehicle.
I don't see this to be as big a problem as you do.
Just how much money would you be losing if you couldn't enter one or two cabstands because you insist on using a vehicle which doesn't meet the requirements for posting in these one or two cabstands?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
As I told you in my last post every gas only taxi vehicle currently in service would be discriminated against by the new hybrid taxi stands. My loss is greater since my vehicle is still good for several more years. Perhaps you read too quickly.
Its illegal to change the rules in the middle of the game. It might very well be legal to designate a hybrid only stand or stands but grandfather in any current vehicles that are gas only. This isn't what the city is planning on doing. By the way, the city of New York had a hybrid taxi rule that was struck down by the courts. The ruling was that only the federal government can set fuel mileage requirements. You're not an attorney Michael. The ones I have spoken to want the case.
I hope to live long enough to tell the industry "I told you so!" The current hybrid vehicles will fade out very quickly in favor of electric only, small gas only, and fuel cell vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will one day roam the city streets here. Hopefully before our downfall.
The hybrid-only idea was because I think one reason the indoor cab stand hasn't been reopened is people complained about air quality from cabs in the tunnel. Hybrid cabs wouldn't have engines running at the low speeds that we drove under Union Station.
It's my understanding that at least parts of Union Station have been sold to people who plan to build condos on top.
I still have a chauffeurs license, but I haven't driven in over a year. I don't own a medallion or any cab, hybrid or otherwise. I expect there will be more in the future.
Blair Henderson,
The Taxi Court tunnels were closed due to security and safety concerns, not air-quality concerns.
They haven't been re-opened because some those concerns remain. There are also other more selfish reasons why.
The addition of condos presents another opportunity to argue for the re-opening of the Taxi Court tunnels, which were designed to accomodate a huge number of taxis and passengers conveniently.
Please e-mail me if you would like to communicate with somebody who could help make that happen - a high-ranking official at Amtrak.
-Mike Foulks, chinatownmike@yahoo.com
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The hybrid-only idea was because I think one reason the indoor cab stand hasn't been reopened is people complained about air quality from cabs in the tunnel. Hybrid cabs wouldn't have engines running at the low speeds that we drove under Union Station.
It's my understanding that at least parts of Union Station have been sold to people who plan to build condos on top.
I still have a chauffeurs license, but I haven't driven in over a year. I don't own a medallion or any cab, hybrid or otherwise. I expect there will be more in the future.
Mr. Henderson, Do you really believe the city will have a leg to stand on left after a lawsuit is filed against "hybrid only" cab stands. This is a clean cut, clear cut example of discrimination. This would be akin to telling someone of darker pigmentation that he/she isn't allowed to pick up in the gold coast. Just because you might have a hybrid doesn't mean I need to have one to pick up a fare.
If you can read please tell me why I'm wrong. That's right, you can't. I agree with Ahmed, it would be time to file a lawsuit if this goes through.
