3 ms·

> These purposes aren't, on their face, unreasonable. Taxis generate undesirable congestion, and establishments that serve liquor tend to create undesirable dru

> These purposes aren't, on their face, unreasonable. Taxis generate undesirable congestion, and establishments that serve liquor tend to create undesirable drunk people. If you don't believe me, take a walk through Wrigleyville in Chicago on a Friday night, where you can see an endless parade of taxis picking up an endless parade of drunk students. I agree that sometimes this setup (licenses to restrict supply) make sense, but taxis are not a good example of where this provides a net benefit. I'd rather have a bunch of taxis than a bunch of drunk college students driving. Furthermore, from a city planning perspective the most efficient use of both road space and real estate (parking) is to have cheap, on-demand taxis instead of personal car ownership. If public transportation is fairly extensive and always available (as it is in NYC), it makes sense to eschew personal ownership of cars and use taxis for the rare case when public transportation isn't enough. Overall, this reduces congestion, and is one of the reason that taxis are oftentimes taxed less (or pay less in tolls) than personal, non-commercial vehicles. In fact, I posit that a significant reason that services like Hailo and Uber exist in NYC specifically is that the supply of on-demand taxis is heavily restricted[0]. If the supply were left up to the free market[1], Uber and Hailo would be able to provide some added value (the convenience of the mobile app and the "premium" feel), but not the level that they are now. [0] Since the 1970s, the number of medallions available has not increased commensurately with the increase in population [1] but with the same laws regarding nondiscrimination of service with respect to destination, credit cards, etc.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sethrin 12y ago
Counterpoint: Panama City, Panama. You're not wrong in what you say regarding the necessity of public transportation and the benefit of taxis instead of personal vehicle ownership, but the free market will have no incentives to reduce congestion until such point as people would rather walk. Panama City has less incentives to clog the roads in that taxis are universally unmetered; where taxis are paid per-minute, congestion is profitable. Despite the lack of metering and a recently-introduced subway, Panama City has terrible congestion. There's always a taxi when you want it, but a lack of regulation means that it will almost certainly be in a barely-roadworthy condition, and if you are traveling at peak hours you may as well walk. I'm told it used to be worse, that taxis would not even take you if your destination were more than a short distance away; I've only encountered this a few times. Also, while many drivers are honest, any sign that you are not a local is liable to result in your being asked to pay several times the going rate. This is the free market at work. If you are going to invoke market forces, you need to make sure there are sufficient incentives to not wind up with a worse problem than not having a taxi when you want it. What springs to mind would be taxing taxis in proportion to your congestion problems. I am not sure that would be an improvement.
- mhb 12y ago
  You could also have more neighborhood bars so that drunk people could walk home instead of driving or being driven.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- autokad 12y ago
  i think the quality of the taxis and the medallion system are two different issues solved by different means. There doesnt seem to be any suggestion here that the congestion of panama would go down if taxis were replaced with vehicle ownership.
- danudey 12y ago
  None of those points have anything to do with the number of taxis and everything to do with regulation of the taxis that exist; perhaps that's a limitation of their ability to regulate and enforce, but that should be the bottleneck preventing taxis from staying on the road. That is to say, the answer to 'we can't enforce all these taxis' isn't 'let's enforce no taxis'.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sethrin 12y ago

Counterpoint: Panama City, Panama. You're not wrong in what you say regarding the necessity of public transportation and the benefit of taxis instead of personal vehicle ownership, but the free market will have no incentives to reduce congestion until such point as people would rather walk. Panama City has less incentives to clog the roads in that taxis are universally unmetered; where taxis are paid per-minute, congestion is profitable. Despite the lack of metering and a recently-introduced subway, Panama City has terrible congestion. There's always a taxi when you want it, but a lack of regulation means that it will almost certainly be in a barely-roadworthy condition, and if you are traveling at peak hours you may as well walk. I'm told it used to be worse, that taxis would not even take you if your destination were more than a short distance away; I've only encountered this a few times. Also, while many drivers are honest, any sign that you are not a local is liable to result in your being asked to pay several times the going rate. This is the free market at work. If you are going to invoke market forces, you need to make sure there are sufficient incentives to not wind up with a worse problem than not having a taxi when you want it. What springs to mind would be taxing taxis in proportion to your congestion problems. I am not sure that would be an improvement.

mhb 12y ago
You could also have more neighborhood bars so that drunk people could walk home instead of driving or being driven.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
autokad 12y ago
i think the quality of the taxis and the medallion system are two different issues solved by different means. There doesnt seem to be any suggestion here that the congestion of panama would go down if taxis were replaced with vehicle ownership.
danudey 12y ago
None of those points have anything to do with the number of taxis and everything to do with regulation of the taxis that exist; perhaps that's a limitation of their ability to regulate and enforce, but that should be the bottleneck preventing taxis from staying on the road. That is to say, the answer to 'we can't enforce all these taxis' isn't 'let's enforce no taxis'.