Opinion: Garcetti’s response to Uber: smarter rules for cabs, not necessarily equal ones

As much as taxi companies hate the likes of Uber and Lyft, the upstarts may lead Los Angeles officials to provide cabbies some unexpected relief.

The Times’ Laura Nelson reported Friday that Mayor Eric Garcetti urged the city’s Board of Taxi Commissioners to take another look at the city’s 64 pages (!!!) of rules imposed on cab companies and their drivers. The board agreed, increasing the likelihood that some outdated and unnecessary burdens may be lifted.

According to Garcetti’s office, Los Angeles is the first to try to modernize its rules for taxis in response to the disruption caused by the smartphone-based ride-summoning services, rather than simply treating the latter as if they were cab companies. But while the review is overdue, it’s important that the board not misinterpret what Garcetti has invited it to do.

The mayor called on the board to “take all steps necessary to ensure equal competition.” That suggests the city should regulate taxis based on how the state regulates their new competitors. That’s not Garcetti’s intent, and even if it were, it’s the wrong frame of reference.

Cabbies have complained bitterly that smartphone-based ride-summoning services such as Uber have an unfair competitive advantage because they don’t have to abide by all the mandates and standards that taxis do. While taxis are regulated by cities, the latter must follow a streamlined set of rules dictated by the state Public Utilities Commission for “transportation network companies.”

It’s certainly true that Uber, Lyft, Sidecar and their ilk compete in the same market as cabs, namely providing local transportation at a rider’s direction. But their approach is different in crucial ways, as the PUC recognized in 2013 when it claimed jurisdiction over transportation network companies.

From a consumer-safety standpoint, the most important difference is that taxis can legally be hailed from the street, while the new services can only offer rides through appointments made via smartphone. The former accepts cash, the latter only electronic payments. And the new services have rating systems for drivers and riders that offer an extra layer of protection. Users of Lyft, for example, can use the ratings to block drivers who serve them poorly from ever picking them up again.

Cabbies also tend to be full-time drivers using cars that are used solely for commercial transportation. Drivers for companies such as Lyft, Sidecar and Summon, by contrast, provide rides part-time or even just between tasks, and they use their personal cars.

In short, there’s a good reason to have a less-intense regulatory scheme for the new companies than for taxis. Still, the goal should be the same for both: safety and accountability for riders and drivers.

Garcetti is less concerned about lowering taxis’ compliance costs than giving them more freedom to adapt to the changing market.

“While TNCs present an exciting approach to increased mobility,” the mayor states in his letter to the board, “their existence requires an update of rules and regulations to create better service for passengers in terms of availability, cost, ease of use and more. Regulatory reform will ensure the ability for taxicab companies to compete and will best serve passengers’ transportation needs.”

That means re-examining the rules that dictate, in sometimes excruciating detail, how cab companies must operate. For example, the city requires cabbies to wear socks that are the same color as their trousers. With mandates such as that one, it’s a wonder the rulebook is only 64 pages long.

Having tried in vain to achieve regulatory parity by raising the burdens on their new competitors, the taxi companies may now argue for regulatory parity in the other direction. The board should resist that impulse, however, and focus instead on the operational restrictions that deter taxis from offering customer service that matches what the transportation network companies are doing.

Any rule changes sought by the board would require the City Council’s approval. Garcetti asked the board to complete its review by the end of the year.

Follow Healey’s intermittent Twitter feed: @jcahealey