4 ms·

It is an attempt to prevent a tragedy of the commons. NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market

It is an attempt to prevent a tragedy of the commons. NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. Therefore they limit the number of taxis to ease congestion.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. // Are you sure it will increase the overall number of vehicles on the roads? There can only be more taxis if there is sufficient demand to pay for them and their drivers. If there are more taxis then there's a downward pressure on prices which, yes, creates the possibility of more demand. But reality doesn't follow that simple a model - it's probably chaotic - as more taxi availability will potentially reduce car and bus usage. If it doesn't reduce car usage then who's getting in the taxis? Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership. Perhaps people who normally use a bus or walk can now afford a cab - can't have poor people using our transportation /s. Some people will switch to buses from cars because a bus is fine for many journeys and now it's affordable to do bus+cab journey or to do buses mostly and get a cab occasionally. Suppose there are so many people who have a clean driving license, can pass an advanced motorist test and pass a hospitality test (eg good enough language skills) and pay for a car that passes the necessary road-fitness and emissions tests and thus those people can get a city taxi license. There are so many licensed cabs that the road traffic gets slowed down. Then people will take the bus or walk; there will be less demand and drivers will have to do other jobs. If there are still too many cabs then the barrier for entry can be increased - add your cities second language to the hospitality requirements, add a skid-pan test, increase the ecological requirements on the cars used. Isn't that the free market at work?
- potatosareok 12y ago
  I can't speak to this as a subject I've done a lot of research on, but this reminded me of a story I heard on NPR a few years ago. The story argues that taxis actually spend a disproportionate amount of time on the street, relative to other cars, and so have a disproportionately large effect on the overall city congestion. This is because cars drive point-to-point but taxis stay on the street all day. The conclusion drawn is that this increased congestion will actually cost tons of money. This point is directly opposed to your statement that "Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership". I can't argue that either point is right or wrong, but I'd like to know if you had any information I can read supporting your point about taxis being better optimized for cities. In any case, I just wanted to contribute this story as another data point along the way. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new-york-city-need-more-taxis http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    You got me, it was more assertion than science! Taxis here don't drive around without fares generally. [Private] Cars often park on the street too. Cars are most often used for 2-4 journeys per day making the cost of resources per day quite large - taxis are used for ... well I don't know the statistics but a lot more than 4 journeys in a day and they do far more people miles. So, just looking at street space, if instead of parking my car on a road all day a taxi occupies that space occasionally whilst also doing far more people miles ... the taxi gets more efficient use of space and the resources locked up in the vehicle get more people-miles per unit time. Of course private cars park in lots too, as do taxis here. Private cars don't often do one way trips in a way that is possible to get a proximal one-way journey in the other direction. Thanks for the link - I've only read the summary but it doesn't say what the $500million of lost time is compared against? If instead of doing those journeys by taxi everyone walks will they really save enough time to create $500million of benefit? Or, will it just be $500million benefit to the richer folks (their delivery will cost 5¢ less or whatever) vs. $5 work time lost to a poorer person who relies on public transport [blind, hand-wavy, analysis!!].

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

>NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. // Are you sure it will increase the overall number of vehicles on the roads? There can only be more taxis if there is sufficient demand to pay for them and their drivers. If there are more taxis then there's a downward pressure on prices which, yes, creates the possibility of more demand. But reality doesn't follow that simple a model - it's probably chaotic - as more taxi availability will potentially reduce car and bus usage. If it doesn't reduce car usage then who's getting in the taxis? Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership. Perhaps people who normally use a bus or walk can now afford a cab - can't have poor people using our transportation /s. Some people will switch to buses from cars because a bus is fine for many journeys and now it's affordable to do bus+cab journey or to do buses mostly and get a cab occasionally. Suppose there are so many people who have a clean driving license, can pass an advanced motorist test and pass a hospitality test (eg good enough language skills) and pay for a car that passes the necessary road-fitness and emissions tests and thus those people can get a city taxi license. There are so many licensed cabs that the road traffic gets slowed down. Then people will take the bus or walk; there will be less demand and drivers will have to do other jobs. If there are still too many cabs then the barrier for entry can be increased - add your cities second language to the hospitality requirements, add a skid-pan test, increase the ecological requirements on the cars used. Isn't that the free market at work?

potatosareok 12y ago
I can't speak to this as a subject I've done a lot of research on, but this reminded me of a story I heard on NPR a few years ago. The story argues that taxis actually spend a disproportionate amount of time on the street, relative to other cars, and so have a disproportionately large effect on the overall city congestion. This is because cars drive point-to-point but taxis stay on the street all day. The conclusion drawn is that this increased congestion will actually cost tons of money. This point is directly opposed to your statement that "Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership". I can't argue that either point is right or wrong, but I'd like to know if you had any information I can read supporting your point about taxis being better optimized for cities. In any case, I just wanted to contribute this story as another data point along the way. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new-york-city-need-more-taxis http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  You got me, it was more assertion than science! Taxis here don't drive around without fares generally. [Private] Cars often park on the street too. Cars are most often used for 2-4 journeys per day making the cost of resources per day quite large - taxis are used for ... well I don't know the statistics but a lot more than 4 journeys in a day and they do far more people miles. So, just looking at street space, if instead of parking my car on a road all day a taxi occupies that space occasionally whilst also doing far more people miles ... the taxi gets more efficient use of space and the resources locked up in the vehicle get more people-miles per unit time. Of course private cars park in lots too, as do taxis here. Private cars don't often do one way trips in a way that is possible to get a proximal one-way journey in the other direction. Thanks for the link - I've only read the summary but it doesn't say what the $500million of lost time is compared against? If instead of doing those journeys by taxi everyone walks will they really save enough time to create $500million of benefit? Or, will it just be $500million benefit to the richer folks (their delivery will cost 5¢ less or whatever) vs. $5 work time lost to a poorer person who relies on public transport [blind, hand-wavy, analysis!!].