ALL CABBIES ASK IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

Why is Chicago so perplexed as to how to regulate and collect revenue from private companies such as Uber? That’s the big question.

It may seem counterintuitive, but cabdrivers are not against ridesharing companies such as Uber or new technology. We welcome the challenge to the traditional taxi industry, which has resisted change. We love ridesharing technology so much that we proposed a similar Universal Dispatch App last year for every taxi in the city, serving all citizens of Chicago, including those without credit cards and bank accounts. We are still waiting for the city to implement it.

We welcome competition, but we object to a lack of parity that clearly favors the rideshare industry. Some points:

◆ Commercial insurance is mandated for taxis, but not for services such as Uber, technically called “transportation network providers” by the city.

◆ Twice yearly safety inspections by regulators are required for taxis, but not for transportation network providers.

◆ Taxis must be newer than five years, but rideshare vehicles can be 12 years old.

◆ Licensing, which includes fingerprints and background checks by regulators, is required for taxis but not for transportation network providers.

◆ A new fare increase proposal would hike average taxi fares by 20 percent but increase fares for Uber vehicles by only 2 percent.

◆ Owners pay an estimated $2,500 yearly per cab as compared to a $10,000 yearly license fee for the 20,000 Uber fleet— essentially a fee of only 50 cents per vehicle.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s budget proposal includes a host of changes that would hit taxi drivers and owners hard. But granting access to the rideshare services would be the worst hit for an already wounded industry.

But our main concern is the safety of the public.

Taxis and taxi drivers are visible and known to the regulators through our chauffeur’s license screening process. We come under heightened scrutiny at airports when there are terror alerts— bomb-sniffing dogs, TSA inspections and requirements to open our trunks when approaching the terminals are par for the course. And we are a known entity.

To open access to vulnerable airports to a fleet of largely invisible vehicles driven by persons unknown to the regulators, carrying a lack of commercial insurance yet considered “public vehicles” while working, seems highly irresponsible of our city officials.