My parents started driving cabs in Anchorage in 1976, and then invested their earnings in taxicab permits and taxicabs. I followed in their footsteps, and now run a fleet of taxicabs, which I lease out to drivers.
Our industry is highly regulated in Anchorage, and expensive to get into. Under a market system created and managed by the city, permits currently sell for about $140,000. The municipality also charges each of Anchorage's 188 permits $1,980 in annual fees. Taxicab vehicles are increasingly expensive to equip, under municipal codes. They feature regulated taximeters by which the customer can see the regulated fare (without Uber's mysterious "surge" pricing), two-way radios, silent safety alarm and GPS dispatch computer tracking, which connect each cab with dispatch, and most recently, video cameras capable of storing data. Each cab is also required to carry expensive liability and uninsured motorist insurance that cover the taxicab and its occupant driver and passengers at all times. Drivers must be trained and cabs are safety-inspected by the city, twice a year.
While these regulations and fees are burdensome, they do protect the safety of our customers and other drivers, and prevent price cheating and deception.
Uber's self-monitoring of its untrained, unchecked drivers, operating their personal cars has proven ineffective in other cities, and does not remotely compare to Anchorage's standards for its taxi industry. The insurance gap is particularly glaring. Uber's drivers' personal policies don't cover commercial activity, and Uber's vaunted (but secret!) insurance coverage may not be effective excess coverage if there is no effective underlying driver's policy.
Do those who accuse us of "fearing competition," including Andrew Halcro, really think it is fair for a heavily regulated local industry to compete with a mostly unregulated outside company that performs exactly the same service? Both taxicabs and Uber cars respond to requests to transport customers from one location to another. Both "dispatch" their drivers. Here, the "21st century technology" difference between them has disappeared, because the local taxicab dispatch companies also utilize smartphone app technology for customers to directly order and track a driver -- just as Uber does. Yet taxicabs must comply with extensive safety and consumer protection regulations, while Uber self-righteously claims to be exempt.
Halcro, noting that Uber has joined Anchorage's Chamber of Commerce, has called Uber a "poster child for regulatory reform." Really? It began its illegal Anchorage operations in the face of two city cease-and-desist orders. If I tried that, I would be off the street, perhaps permanently. Uber only shifted to a "free rides" program when a court order placed an injunction on them. Poster child? I would frankly be amazed that our chamber would favor disregarding the hundreds of small family Anchorage businesses whose livelihoods rely on the existing taxicab industry, in favor of an out-of-state company that funnels 20 percent of revenues (Uber's charge to drivers) outside of Alaska, that blatantly disregards our local laws, disclaims all responsibilities in their online customer contracts and shirks full insurance responsibilities, shifting the risks to Anchorage residents.
Halcro attacks the taxicab permit system, limiting the number of permits as though we, in the industry, invented it. The city adopted this system, as have nearly all American cities, to assure sufficient profit for continuation of a safe and stable transportation system. We, therefore, had to pay a lot for permits, because their limited number have value. Does Halcro really expect us to agree to a sudden change to a new system, where a company that performs exactly the same service as us gets to run an unlimited number of free permits, and to also do this free of the same regulations and fees? Halcro is a curious source for the mantra of free competition. When he was concerned that the national Avis company, in buying up the failing national Budget rental car company, would result in new local Budget dealerships competing with the Halcro family's Anchorage Avis dealership, Halcro objected, and was quoted as saying "You've taken an Avis system that my family has contributed to as a licensee for 50 years, and overnight you've given it to a major competitor." The Halcros sued Avis and, in 2009, received a judgment for more than $16 million. I am sure the Halcro family had valid reasons for asserting that it had a legitimate contractual right to certain protections against local rental car competition. The many Anchorage families who invested their earnings in taxicab permits have similar legitimate concerns: that competition with an unlimited number of new and little-regulated Uber cars would violate the terms of city laws under which they bought their permits.
As for supposed "deteriorating" taxi service in Anchorage, a recent study showed that Anchorage service was more responsive than taxis in average American cities. Halcro complains of our "old equipment." The city froze the ceilings on daily rates at which owners could lease taxicabs to drivers for 12 years, until 2013. Only after this artificial lid was finally lifted are we being able to upgrade our cabs; the Assembly's action to grant relief on this has already allowed me to upgrade a third of my fleet to newer, fuel efficient Priuses.
Uber's operations are becoming increasingly controversial elsewhere, for uninsured injuries; bizarre and offensive driver behavior, and disregard for local transportation laws. Anchorage should not offer itself up as a guinea pig for an experiment that may wipe out its local taxi industry.
Suzie Smith has been an Anchorage taxicab owner and operator for 20 years.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com