Taxi drivers irritated by local Uber standards.

The rise of Uber has frustrated cab drivers around the globe, and in Monterey County, taxi drivers claim the app-based transportation service isn’t held to the same standards of transparency.

“I’m all for competition, but Uber feels it doesn’t have to play by the same rules as other taxi services,” says Alec Stefan, a local Yellow Cab driver. “There’s no transparency with Uber. The name of every cab driver is public information, but we know nothing about who’s driving for Uber.”

Last year, Uber negotiated an agreement with the Monterey Regional Airport that went into effect Oct. 1 allowing Uber drivers to operate at the airport. Both taxi drivers and Uber drivers are subject to a $3 per trip fee, but individual cab drivers must register with the airport and pay $250 annually for the right to park and ferry passengers to and from the airport.

Uber, meanwhile, negotiated a flat $1,000 annual fee for all of its drivers, none of whom have to register with the airport. Uber drivers are not allowed to park on airport grounds.

The Monterey Peninsula Airport District’s emails about negotiations with Uber, acquired by Stefan through a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request, show earlier drafts of the contract required Uber drivers to register. Uber representatives took issue, and the requirement was removed.

Another sticking point in the negotiations was that of real-time tracking. Currently, taxis are electronically monitored at the airport. Uber said it was not providing real-time data to any airport and that it was unable to provide “near real time data” using its current software.

The airport uses electronic tracking to monitor traffic flows and revenue. Uber believes the airport can obtain that information through monthly billing reports.

The final contract also stipulates that any Public Records Act requests received by the airport that may include confidential information about the company must be vetted by Uber so it can seek “judicial intervention” if necessary.

“This sort of arrangement is controversial, but not uncommon,” Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, writes by email. The clause sets the stage of what is called a reverse CPRA suit, meaning Uber could sue to prevent the release of records.

In November there were 2,334 traditional taxi trips, compared to 1,196 Uber trips in the same month, according to reports released by Michael La Pier, executive director of the airport.

Uber did not respond to multiple requests for interviews.