The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREDwalterph3COUNCIL HEHO gAN i Date : January 15, 201 0 TO : City Counci l VIA : Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manage r FROM : Jay Walter, Public Works Directo r SUBJECT : Public Hearing Item PH3 - Surf Cab Company RED FILEtJHMEETINGAGENDA DATE !i 2 /0 ITEM #_1~ /14x,U 6 fryr ~L `rC0LINCIL COD €DI R ICAO iip2FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIE F 'ATTORNEY PW LAI R .(~CLERK/ORIf POL-ICECH F DEPT ADS f O D I ''')Pic f~r~3v~.c%'UTIL CI R cc E Public Hearing Item #3 on the January 19, 2010 Council agenda recommends approval of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a new taxi operator (Surf Cab Company ) within the City of San Luis Obispo . The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) reviewed th e application at their regular meeting on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 and recommended approva l by unanimous vote . Taxi Vehicle Safety Concern s Discussion at the meeting also raised concerns with some of the proposed Surf Cab Compan y fleet vehicles because of safety issues (see Attachment) relating to the design of Ford Crow n Victoria, Lincoln Town Car or Grand Marquis models manufactured in the 1990's . The concern with the vehicles is over the placement of their fuel tanks, which can be subject to puncture i n rear end collisions . The action by the MTC directed staff to provide the Council with informatio n about the safety concerns that was the subject of discussion at the meeting . A staff review of th e current taxi operators indicate that eleven (11) taxis similar to these models are already part o f approved fleets and in operation within San Luis Obispo . Before a vehicle can be operated as a taxi in the City, it must pass a mechanical inspection . All vehicles currently operating hav e passed the necessary inspection . Proposed Wait Time Concern s The MTC also had concerns that the proposed Surf Cab Company rate of $35 per/hour for wai t time was higher than the existing operators . In order to fairly consider the proposed rates, staff ha s calculated a comparative cost of each taxi service for a sample trip . Table 2 analyzes the cost s associated with a trip from the San Luis Obispo Airport to Motel Row (Monterey and Garfield ) which is about five miles long. The analysis assumes the trip takes place at 10 AM with th e passenger using a credit card as payment . Table 2 Fare Compariso n trip Curren t Beach Cities Cab Curren t 234 Taxi Current Green-Go Taxi Proposed Surf Ca b Company Pick Up Charge $ 3 .00 each $ 3 .50 each $3 .00 each $4 .00 eac h Per Mile Charge 5 mi .$15 .00 @ $3 .00 per mile $ 17 .50 @ $3 .50 per mi $ 12 .50 @ $2 .50 per mi $15 .00 @ $3 .00 per mile Wait Time Per/Hr 5 min.$2 .10 @ .42 per min $2 .10 @ .42 per min $1 .25 @ .25 per min $2 .90 @ .58 per min Surcharg e (2 :30 am-6 am) None $3 .00 (not used) None None Credit Card Use Yes None None None None Minimum Charge None None None None TOTAL FARE $20 .10 $23 .10 $16 .75 $21 .90 As seen in Table 2, the total fare costs for this sample trip would result in a fare variance betwee n $16 .75 (Green-Go) and $23 .10 (234-Taxi). Staff believes that rates should be as consistent a s possible among all operators licensed within the City of San Luis Obispo . The proposed Surf Cab rates are not significantly different so as to create a hardship for San Luis Obispo taxi passengers o r cause great discrepancies in fare expectations . Correction to Table 1 In reviewing Table 1 of the agenda report staff discovered a typographical error in regards to th e 234-Taxi per mile rate . The revised table also includes a Surcharge rate of $3 .00 that was approved by Council but 234-Taxi representatives have stated they are no longer charging thi s fee to their customers . The table below reflects the revised rates (including 234-Taxi corrections ) and should be exchanged for Table 1 in the report . Revised Table 1 Fee Type Curren t Beach Cities Cab Company Current 234 Taxi Current Green Gol Proposed Surf Ca b Company Pick Up $ 3 .00 $ 3 .00 $ 4 .00 $ 4 .0 0 Per Mile $ 3 .00 *$3 .50*$ 2 .50 $ 3 .00 * Wait Time Per/Hr $25 .00 $25 .00 $15 .00 $35 .0 0 Surcharge (2 :30 am-6 am)None *$3 .00*None None Credit Card Use None None None None Minimum Charge None None None None I Taxi Permit was suspended from October 23, 2009-January 18, 2010 for failure to provide proof of insuranc e coverage Attachmen t Article describing Crown Victoria Safety concern s T :\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2009\Transit\SURF CAB TAXI CERTIFICATE 01-19-2010\RED FILE COUNCI L MEMORANDUM draft-MTC CONCERNS 01-15-2010 .doc olice Interceptor DESIGN PROBLEM Page 1 iGt2: C '•,n r,,,nt l'1I :1m :Ed: 1'aa 1;1•rc6 r.ty s'Ini_.a , It .r ..::r-G ..f :tfAal ;. TIMEIIJNE VE MCtt RATES FACT SHEET ATOM Dit The Design Problem ON THIS PAGE FIND'fuel tank location,axial bolt head tank Integrity test s * Ford's Panther line of cars, which consists of the Crown Victoria , Lincoln Town Car and Grand Marquis, is designed with the fue l tank located outside the protection of the rear axel and within th e car's "crush zone."No other passenger cars manufactured in Nort h America have retained this fuel tank position because it has bee n considered too dangerous . At least five million of these unprotecte d vehicles are estimated to be in use on roads today . Ford began offering safety shields to Crown Victoria police cars in 2003 after police agencies demanded greater protection following a dozen police deaths . Ford offered this same protection to owners and dealers of Town Car limousines in September 2005, followin g several the high-profile burning deaths . Ford has not told th e general public about the defect,or about the availability of shields , despite calls by advocacy groups and government officials to do so . The most recent call came from U .S . Sen . Charles Schumer, D-Ne w York, in December 2005, following the fiery death of a New Yor k City cab driver,in a Crown Victoria taxi . (Ford claims a letter to dealers in 2003 saying dealers could sell th e shields to the public constitutes an offer . However, Ford has neve r publicly disclosed either the problem or the availability of shields t o anyone other than dealers). The problem is this : high speed rear collisions cause the back of th e car to absorb the impact by collapsing . In these cars, the impact ca n rupture the tank or can drive surrounding parts or even items in th e trunk into the tank, puncturing it . The fuel leaks and sparks create d by the collision can ignite the fuel . Unfortunately, the force o f impact often jams the cars' doors shut, trapping occupants . The safety shields cover mechanical parts that could serve as puncture sources . Ford also has offered trunk protectors to police depattinents to help keep trunk items, such as jacks, from becoming fuel tan k puncturing projectiles in a collision . Below are comparisions of fuel tank locations in the Ford Tauru s and Ford Crown Victoria : Fuel tank location - For d Taurus ENLARGE IMAGE Taurus "Crush Zone';(approx . 20 sec . download on DSL ) Fuel t n an / k location - For d ttli :l/crownvict9asae aiR .co gable iehtml SITE INDEX . The video and animatio n clips on this site require Qu cktime and Quicklim e for Windows to view . CLICK HERE to download the FREE player . This site.requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.DOWNLOAD In 1968,the University of California at Los Angeles did a major research study showin g that the gas tank should not be located behin d the rear axle . Later research determined that it should be placed forward of the axle as in the Ford Taurus . 1/12/2010 1 :46 :17 PM tea Page 1 Page 1