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.
