6 ms·

Bad example. I've never seen a city in more need of stiffer regulation than Bangkok. The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or i

Bad example. I've never seen a city in more need of stiffer regulation than Bangkok. The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers. They break traffic laws and block lanes looking for fares. The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public transport. It does not reduce the total number of cars on the road. It's useful from a consumer standpoint but the low cost means people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity. "Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars." Possibly in other cities -- though I doubt it -- but it certainly didn't help in Bangkok. People don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them. The number of news cars sold in the country per day is astounding (though the number escapes me) and that's despite the fact that they cost 50% - 350% more than the same cars in the US. Bangkok needs to regulate the shit out of the taxi industry and make it more expensive to drive in the city if it wants to sort out its remaining traffic issues. Uber can probably work in US cities that have the traffic capacity, but it's a horrible idea in congested areas.

wilfra 14y ago
"The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers." That method of driving is not unique to taxi drivers - and those issues exist in several other Asian countries, regardless of the number of taxis on the road. I'll leave it at that. "people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity." That's not accurate. Taking the BTS from Thonglor to MBK is faster than driving or taking a taxi at nearly all times. Thats an extreme example but traffic is so bad that its faster in a lot of cases. That's why both the BTS and MRT are always packed, with people of all classes. You make some good points otherwise, some I disagree with like whether Bangkok is an example of an unregulated market failing or thriving, but I don't want to get too off into the weeds of a political discussion :)
- maguay 14y ago
  I'm enjoying seeing all the Bangkok locations mentioned on HN. We should have a Bangkok HN meetup sometime!
blake8086 14y ago
I don't understand why you make the claims that you do. Why is it bad that people are "less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway"? Is it because they're "state of the art"? That hardly seems compelling. Is it because the train and subway are faster or cheaper? Sounds like they're not, otherwise more people would take them. Why is train and subway usage important if no one wants to use them? It sounds like you're advocating forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and I don't understand why you're advocating that.
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the city needs. The trains are faster in many cases (provided you're starting / ending close the line) but they're not cheaper. Making cabs more expensive would change this. Take a look at what Singapore does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing to keep cars off the road. It might seem a bit draconian but it's effective.
  - blake8086 14y ago
    Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? It sounds like the city has as many cars on the road as the city wants to have. If the trains aren't cheaper, why should that be the cars' problem? Why not make the trains a better alternative instead of making cars worse? Why would you advocate something that "seems draconian" to you?
    - yread 14y ago
      Pollution? Safety? Things that unregulated free market isn't all that good at handling.
    - mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
      Pretty clear case of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The shared resource in this case is traffic capacity. It's proved ineffective to regulate traffic by making cars expensive in this market. That's because cars are not profit centers for people -- they give mostly intangible benefits (increased comfort, status, etc). Taxis on the other hand are cars that are used for profit and therefore will respond efficiently to regulation (if that regulation increases capital or operating costs).
rmc 14y ago
People don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them Or to show that they can afford them. "Oh you take the taxis? Poor you. I actually own my own vehicle, I don't have to share"
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Same situation in Beijing (and most of China actually). But then I rely on taxis heavily and avoid the over-capacity subway (different from Bangkok) unless I'm despearate, so I'm kind of a hypocrite. Taxis do not really improve traffic, and only help preserving parking spaces (which we have precious little of).
rdl 14y ago
Bangkok has many problems with taxis. Part of it is that the fares are set unreasonably low, so drivers try to drive >100h/wk and are very poorly trained. Market pricing would probably be higher for at least some taxis. (it was bad enough that whenever I didn't want to be seriously hassled, I'd use a hotel car, at a negotiated rate. I'm fine with spending $20/hr for an S320 with driver and then tipping him 100%.) The big problem with regulation in general is that it sets a single value, static in time and across preferences, as both floor and ceiling. For some things, that might make sense ("levels of acceptable poison in baby formula"), but for other things it doesn't make sense ("housing"). For Bangkok, I think the right thing would be to encourage public transit over taxis, but to encourage taxis over private cars. Charging a per-day fee to have a vehicle inside the city (similar to London), combined with actual traffic law enforcement, open access to getting a taxi medallion once you pass minimum qualifications, and either market rates or at least fair rates for taxi rides, would probably go a long way. If taxis substitute for several cars, increasing taxis should decrease congestion. That is the London model, but London taxi drivers are kind of the polar opposite of Bangkok taxi drivers. Other SE Asian taxi drivers are fine, though -- Hong Kong and Singapore -- and it's easy to convert taxi fleets to NGV or Electric compared to private vehicles. While I'm pro drug legalization, testing for meth in drivers would probably be worthwhile too. I always checked the eyes of any driver I used, since so many of them were tweaked out of their minds and thus even more unsafe than usual. (I actually had one driver assault me, too, which was kind of funny afterward).
yason 14y ago
The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public transport. Public transport suffers because of prioritising cars in general. It doesn't particularly matter if cars are privately owned or taxis but as long as the city infrastructure has been designed more for automobile traffic than pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit, then these other forms of transport suffer. To make public transit relatively more efficient, the streets must be put on a diet and narrowed down. This frees more space for pedestrians and while car travel is still possible it's more cumbersome so it effectively taxes out all but truly necessary car traffic. Try driving through Central London versus taking the tube: you can do that but you don't want to.
to3m 14y ago
Surely usefulness from a consumer standpoint is a GOOD thing?! Just what else is the economy there for?

wilfra 14y ago

"The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with agressive or incompetent taxi drivers." That method of driving is not unique to taxi drivers - and those issues exist in several other Asian countries, regardless of the number of taxis on the road. I'll leave it at that. "people are less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which run under capacity." That's not accurate. Taking the BTS from Thonglor to MBK is faster than driving or taking a taxi at nearly all times. Thats an extreme example but traffic is so bad that its faster in a lot of cases. That's why both the BTS and MRT are always packed, with people of all classes. You make some good points otherwise, some I disagree with like whether Bangkok is an example of an unregulated market failing or thriving, but I don't want to get too off into the weeds of a political discussion :)

maguay 14y ago
I'm enjoying seeing all the Bangkok locations mentioned on HN. We should have a Bangkok HN meetup sometime!

blake8086 14y ago

I don't understand why you make the claims that you do. Why is it bad that people are "less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway"? Is it because they're "state of the art"? That hardly seems compelling. Is it because the train and subway are faster or cheaper? Sounds like they're not, otherwise more people would take them. Why is train and subway usage important if no one wants to use them? It sounds like you're advocating forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and I don't understand why you're advocating that.

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the city needs. The trains are faster in many cases (provided you're starting / ending close the line) but they're not cheaper. Making cabs more expensive would change this. Take a look at what Singapore does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing to keep cars off the road. It might seem a bit draconian but it's effective.
- blake8086 14y ago
  Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? It sounds like the city has as many cars on the road as the city wants to have. If the trains aren't cheaper, why should that be the cars' problem? Why not make the trains a better alternative instead of making cars worse? Why would you advocate something that "seems draconian" to you?
  - yread 14y ago
    Pollution? Safety? Things that unregulated free market isn't all that good at handling.
  - mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
    Pretty clear case of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The shared resource in this case is traffic capacity. It's proved ineffective to regulate traffic by making cars expensive in this market. That's because cars are not profit centers for people -- they give mostly intangible benefits (increased comfort, status, etc). Taxis on the other hand are cars that are used for profit and therefore will respond efficiently to regulation (if that regulation increases capital or operating costs).

rmc 14y ago

People don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them Or to show that they can afford them. "Oh you take the taxis? Poor you. I actually own my own vehicle, I don't have to share"

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

Same situation in Beijing (and most of China actually). But then I rely on taxis heavily and avoid the over-capacity subway (different from Bangkok) unless I'm despearate, so I'm kind of a hypocrite. Taxis do not really improve traffic, and only help preserving parking spaces (which we have precious little of).

rdl 14y ago

Bangkok has many problems with taxis. Part of it is that the fares are set unreasonably low, so drivers try to drive >100h/wk and are very poorly trained. Market pricing would probably be higher for at least some taxis. (it was bad enough that whenever I didn't want to be seriously hassled, I'd use a hotel car, at a negotiated rate. I'm fine with spending $20/hr for an S320 with driver and then tipping him 100%.) The big problem with regulation in general is that it sets a single value, static in time and across preferences, as both floor and ceiling. For some things, that might make sense ("levels of acceptable poison in baby formula"), but for other things it doesn't make sense ("housing"). For Bangkok, I think the right thing would be to encourage public transit over taxis, but to encourage taxis over private cars. Charging a per-day fee to have a vehicle inside the city (similar to London), combined with actual traffic law enforcement, open access to getting a taxi medallion once you pass minimum qualifications, and either market rates or at least fair rates for taxi rides, would probably go a long way. If taxis substitute for several cars, increasing taxis should decrease congestion. That is the London model, but London taxi drivers are kind of the polar opposite of Bangkok taxi drivers. Other SE Asian taxi drivers are fine, though -- Hong Kong and Singapore -- and it's easy to convert taxi fleets to NGV or Electric compared to private vehicles. While I'm pro drug legalization, testing for meth in drivers would probably be worthwhile too. I always checked the eyes of any driver I used, since so many of them were tweaked out of their minds and thus even more unsafe than usual. (I actually had one driver assault me, too, which was kind of funny afterward).

yason 14y ago

The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public transport. Public transport suffers because of prioritising cars in general. It doesn't particularly matter if cars are privately owned or taxis but as long as the city infrastructure has been designed more for automobile traffic than pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit, then these other forms of transport suffer. To make public transit relatively more efficient, the streets must be put on a diet and narrowed down. This frees more space for pedestrians and while car travel is still possible it's more cumbersome so it effectively taxes out all but truly necessary car traffic. Try driving through Central London versus taking the tube: you can do that but you don't want to.

to3m 14y ago

Surely usefulness from a consumer standpoint is a GOOD thing?! Just what else is the economy there for?