TAXIS SUE REGULATORS TO BLOCK UBER, LYFT AND SIDECAR

Taxis sue state regulators to block "ride-sharing," names Uber, Lyft and Sidecar

The Taxicab Paratransit Association of California has filed two separate court actiions challenging the California Public Utilities Commission's decision last September that aimed to legalize and regulate new smartphone ride booking applications like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar,designating them as a new class of transportation carriers called Transportation Network Companies.

“TPAC has tried to explain the impact of these decisions on the proper functioning of the taxicab industry and the public interest, but I’m afraid the message has not gotten through,” said association President William J. Rouse in a prepared statement. “Hopefully, these appeals will help correct some of the practical problems we see and educate the PUC on how it can fix its current regulatory approach.”

Efforts to get comments from the CPUC, as well as UberX owner Uber Technologies, Lyft and Sidecar, which were named as real parties of interest in the claims, were unsuccessful Monday afternoon.

The taxi association, which had previously petitioned the PUC for reconsideration of its ruling, filed one appeal with the state Supreme Court alleging that the PUC failed to consider as required by state law the "serious environmental impacts created by the thousands of TNC vehicles that the PUC has unleashed onto California city streets," according to a press release.

The second action was filed in the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal in Sacramento and alleges that the PUC lacked jurisdiction over the on-demand transportation service provided by taxicabs. The PUC ignored clear statutory limits and decades of its own rulings and those of the California courts when it ruled that it had authority over the provision of on- demand services of the transportation network companies that compete with taxicabs. The group has argued previously that the PUC regulates charter party carriers such as limousine services and wrongly justified its regulation of peer-to-peer ride services such as UberX on the basis that they are “prearranged,” i.e. scheduled through a mobile application, according to the taxicabs’ appeal.

The authority to regulate such services, the taxi group says, was granted by the state Legislature to cities and counties, not the PUC.

The taxi group also argues that the PUC’s ruling is unsupported by adequate findings as required by the state Public Utilities Code, and it argues that the taxi industry’s constitutional rights were violated by the creation of a new, on-demand carrier classification that is almost entirely unregulated while the taxi industry is heavily regulated by local governments.

Concerning the need for an environmental evaluation, the taxi group said the PUC decision undermines the hybrid/clean-fuel taxi programs in San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities as TNCs are not required to participate in such programs most vehicles allegedly do not comply. The California Environmental Quality Act requires analysis of foreseeable environmental impacts, the group argues. Other likely environmental consequences of the decision include excessive traffic congestion, distracted or impaired driving, inadequately screened drivers, inadequate commercial liability insurance, inadequate carrier signage, and unsafe and inadequately maintained vehicles, the association alleges