4 ms·

> a gimmick that's valuable only because of a government imposed monopoly is a sound investment City streets are a limited public good. Aside from ensuring qua

by chaz 12y ago

> a gimmick that's valuable only because of a government imposed monopoly is a sound investment City streets are a limited public good. Aside from ensuring quality and consumer protection, regulation & limiting the number of taxis ensures that traffic can actually flow. A traffic consultant says that NYC's plan to add 2,000 medallions could slow down all traffic by 12% because taxis don't park -- they roam the streets constantly. 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...

raverbashing 12y ago
The problem is not the regulation or limiting the available licenses per se, it's rather the ability to transfer or sell them. If the current license holder can't or won't use it for another year there's absolutely no reason he should be allowed to transfer his permit. The regulator should just keep a list of people interested in it and let the next one have his turn.
praxulus 12y ago
If you limit taxis, more people will drive their own cars. To make up some numbers, if you want to take 2000 cars off the road, you might have to eliminate 2500 or 3000 medallions. Instead, traffic-limiting measures should target all vehicles using congestion tolls, gas taxes, vehicle taxes, or something more innovative.
greenyoda 12y ago
I don't buy that analysis. In NYC, you don't need a medallion to operate a taxi - you only need one for a yellow taxi that can legally stop when hailed on the street. Having more medallion taxis just means that these taxis will take business away from the "black car" (reservation-driven) companies and from services like Uber (and those cars never park either - if they're not moving, they're not making money). Increasing the number of medallions won't magically increase the usage of taxis - the people who can afford them already use them, but for the vast majority of New Yorkers, the prices are way out of reach and they take public transit.

by chaz 12y ago

raverbashing 12y ago

The problem is not the regulation or limiting the available licenses per se, it's rather the ability to transfer or sell them. If the current license holder can't or won't use it for another year there's absolutely no reason he should be allowed to transfer his permit. The regulator should just keep a list of people interested in it and let the next one have his turn.

praxulus 12y ago

If you limit taxis, more people will drive their own cars. To make up some numbers, if you want to take 2000 cars off the road, you might have to eliminate 2500 or 3000 medallions. Instead, traffic-limiting measures should target all vehicles using congestion tolls, gas taxes, vehicle taxes, or something more innovative.

greenyoda 12y ago

I don't buy that analysis. In NYC, you don't need a medallion to operate a taxi - you only need one for a yellow taxi that can legally stop when hailed on the street. Having more medallion taxis just means that these taxis will take business away from the "black car" (reservation-driven) companies and from services like Uber (and those cars never park either - if they're not moving, they're not making money). Increasing the number of medallions won't magically increase the usage of taxis - the people who can afford them already use them, but for the vast majority of New Yorkers, the prices are way out of reach and they take public transit.