“Look at Miss America,” says Mariam Nwoko, president of the United Cab Drivers Association. It’s Tuesday evening, and on the eighth floor of city building One Texas Center, she’s elucidating the shortcomings of the city’s cab selection process. “They begin with 125 applicants. Once they reach the TV level, there’s only 50, but by the end of that same night, not but one can be Miss America. There’s no way all three can be qualified.”
What Ms. Nwoko was telling the assembled stakeholders, in her own colorful way, was that the current system of approving new taxi franchises – a lottery – is bogus. She’s not alone. The Tuesday night meeting was the first of several to be steered by members of the Urban Transportation Commission as they hope to come up with an alternate selection process. But time is running out: The lotto drawing is tentatively scheduled for next week’s council meeting, July 27. Almost unbelievably, a major urban transportation decision could be left to the luck of the draw.
The franchise debate springs from another contentious skirmish: the acquisition of Roy’s Taxi by Yellow Cab, a move that gives Yellow approximately 80% of the market. With many drivers unhappy to work for Yellow, and only a sprinkling of new permits going to Austin Cab, City Council proposed the formation of a third cab company. Three groups – Capital City Cab Company, Longhorn Cab, and Lone Star Cab Company – submitted applications, vying for the 55 new taxi permits. Cleared to enter the city’s lottery, they were found equally qualified.
But they weren’t found on equal footing after being graded and ranked against one another; the approval simply means they meet the city’s minimum set of qualifications. This bizarre system, which might appear archaic, was only adopted in 2003, another busy year for cabs: Yellow merged with competitor American Cab, and akin to today’s taxi shuffle, Lone Star Cab applied for a new franchise. Lone Star was turned down, but some say the lotto system was created with the little guy in mind. “One of the reasons the lottery was recommended was because of the suggestion it would give a smaller company an opportunity to compete in a situation like this,” says Morris Poe, a public works employee. “I think that’s why [council] put [it] in there at the time.”
Mike Martinez, a new council addition, doesn’t share his predecessors’ enthusiasm. Last week, he asked City Manager Toby Futrell for a legal opinion on changing from the lottery to a more merit-based system. “I’m not changing the rules in the middle of the game,” he says, believing the three applicants to be suitably qualified. “But we just do not do that with anything else I’m aware of. If we’re going to continue being in the regulatory industry … we need better policies than pulling a name out of a hat.”
Michelle Brinkman, chair of the Ground Transportation Subcommittee reviewing the possible changes, agrees. But she’s also quick to recognize her group’s limitations as an advisory group to council. “We do not mean to undermine the City Council, or anything like that at all. But our job is to advise them.” The Urban Transportation Commission actually denied the sale of Roy’s to Yellow, but council saw things differently. “We had passed on that back in May [Roy’s sale to Yellow],” Brinkman says. “In our view, that was probably not the best action. But we’re just trying to study the situation right now.”
And with the help of drivers, managers, and manager wannabes, her committee soldiered on Tuesday night. On a dry-erase board, she listed “the meat”: minimum qualifications to be considered, like experience, finance, and criminal history. But then she turned to “the gravy,” enumerating other considerations, like an accessibility service plan, environmental incentives, and cultural competence. “Now we’re starting to sound like Austin,” she said.
This article appears in July 21 • 2006.