3 ms·

It's interesting to me that the main defenders of the status quo with respect to taxi regulation tend to invoke themes of social justice and egalitarianism (and

It's interesting to me that the main defenders of the status quo with respect to taxi regulation tend to invoke themes of social justice and egalitarianism (and criticize, either overtly or covertly, their opponents' privileged perspective). This is interesting to me because none of the studies I have come across concerning taxi regulation emphasize these arguments; they mention them only in passing, if at all. Take this paper from the November 2007 issue of Transport Policy, "Entry Controls in Taxi Regulation: Implications of US and Canadian experience for taxi regulation and deregulation": http://schallerconsult.com/taxi/entrycontrol.pdf http://schallerconsult.com/taxi/entrycontrol.pdf In its discussion of the rationale for taxi regulation (section 3), these reasons are given: - economies of scale may disproportionately favor larger companies - regulations guarantee availability of off-peak and low-density service - many aspects of taxi service cannot be examined prior to consumption - insufficient barrier to entry may lead to oversupply Or take this OECD Policy Roundtable debating taxi regulation from 2007: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/41472612.pdf http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/41472612.pdf The reasons given there (p.22) are: - lack of regulation leads to "excess entry" into the market - high taxi supply could take people away from more "economical" transport options - arguments about pollution and congestion - cyclical demand could lead to wage downturn when demand subsides - cyclical demand could harm service quality, since long-term players can't become established. So out of all of those arguments, maybe one has anything to do with these egalitarian concerns that Uber/Lyft critics invoke. And many of these arguments are very directly obsoleted by Uber/Lyft-like business models (particularly the ones concerning incomplete information prior to the hail). So why suddenly are taxis the champions of the underprivileged, and their competitors the tools of young rich person oppression? If protecting the underprivileged is "the entire point of taxi regulation in the first place," why are these social arguments missing from pre-2009 (when Uber was formed) literature?

mikeyouse 12y ago
> Why are these social arguments missing from pre-2009 (when Uber was formed) literature? Potentially because you only cited two studies when discussing a massive industry and are probably purposefully ignoring all of the work done to support the point you claim is ignored? There are decades of research on the very points you claim are ignored. A small sample: * Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Taxi Deregulation (http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf) > Because taxis are more expensive than other transit services, they must offer something that other transit modes do not. In particular, taxi services are important to certain segments of the population. Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982). * Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicaps by Lower Income Groups (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=92135 http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=92135) > Previous studies and our data suggest that the poor often choose taxis because they are the principal option when an automobile is not available. Taxis appear to be chosen over conventional transit (when it exists) because they offer greater service flexiblity, convenience, and duration of service, as well as better meeting the security demands of the poor. Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor. * Subsidized Taxi Programs for Elderly and Handicapped Persons in the SFBay Area (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=70030 http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=70030) > The objectives of the report are: (1) to describe six programs which deliver transportation service to elderly and handicapped persons utilizing the subsidized taxi mode; (2) to identify the essential similarities and differences among these programs; (3) to illustrate, in qualitative terms, the nature of the costs, efficiencies and impacts on taxi operators, subsidizers, and users of the six approaches; and (4) to interpret this information and identify those findings which appear to be transferable to planners in other localities. The subsidized taxi programs are successfully delivering transportation service to elderly and handicapped residents in all locations as evidenced by rising client enrollment and ridership volumes. Overall, response to the programs has been and continues to be extremely favorable. * The determination of acccessible taxi requirements (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/2284 https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/2284) > This report describes the results of a programme of ergonomic research undertaken to provide a scientific basis for the generation of regulations concerned with the introduction of accessible taxis in the UK. * Modeling urban taxi services with multiple user classes and vehicle modes (http://front.cc.nctu.edu.tw/Richfiles/22015-Wong-Wong-Yang-Wu-2003-02-20.pdf http://front.cc.nctu.edu.tw/Richfiles/22015-Wong-Wong-Yang-W...) > One of the main issues is the provision of several modes of taxi services in many large cities. For instance, there has recently been a concern about the provision of easily accessible taxis for the handicapped, whose travel characteristics are very different from those of other customers. * Compromise & constraint: Examining the nature of transport disability in the context of local travel (http://invent.newmobility.org/library/wt8-2.pdf#page=42 http://invent.newmobility.org/library/wt8-2.pdf#page=42) > While major advances have been made over the last twenty years in the planning and provision of transport that is accessible to all, the links have not yet been effectively made between applied work on transport planning and the major developments in theoretical understandings of disability which have been taking place during a similar period. Existing studies have attempted to measure transport disability, but have generally failed to link it to wider theoretical or structural concerns, or to explore disabled people’s responses to transport disability. * Taxi - Why Hailing a New Idea about Public Accommodation Laws May Be Easier Than Hailing a Taxi (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/valur37&div=25&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/v...) > Municipal policies have also been developed to combat the problem, some demanding automatic confiscation of the cab if a complaint is alleged, others requiring cab drivers to take at least one fare a day to underserved neighborhoods or face suspension.
- haberman 12y ago
  > probably purposefully ignoring Thank you for the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, but you are wrong about this. My process was: Google for articles about taxi regulation, and see what percentage of them make the argument that regulation protects the underprivileged. In my sample of 3 or 4, the answer was 0%, which seemed a clear argument against the sweeping claim that protecting the poor is "the entire point of taxi regulation in the first place" (note: not taxis, taxi regulation). Furthermore, your links (or the few that I had time to investigate) do not support the central thesis that taxi regulation specifically protects the poor and underprivileged. In fact, many of them are specifically contrary to your shallow analysis. > Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982). This says nothing about taxi regulation benefiting the poor. And in fact much of this paper is criticizing regulation; it even cites evidence arguing that regulation hurts the poor (emphasis mine): > Others (such as Eckert 1970, Beesley and Glaister 1983, and Frankena and Pautler 1986 advocate removing entry restrictions and eliminating monopoly rents. Beesley and Glaister (1983, 611) estimated that entry and price restrictions lead to nearly $10 million per year in welfare losses in the city of London alone. Embedded in those welfare measures are the poor without cars, the elderly, the disabled, and others who now and then need affordable door-to-door transportation services and would benefit from a more competitive market. They are on the wrong side of the political calculus, with their dispersed costs overlooked in a regulatory process dominated by the concentrated benefiaries (Taylor 1989). > Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicaps by Lower Income Groups The abstract of this paper specifically argues that the poor would benefit from reduced market entry restrictions! "Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor." I have to run and don't have time to see if any of your other evidence is any better. But maybe you can narrow it down to a more compelling list. To prove your point, you can't just show that taxis are good for the poor, you have to show that taxi regulation is good.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    I apologize, I didn't mean to imply dishonesty, but my initial Google search showed very different results than yours and the tone of your last paragraph didn't exactly confer respect. I actually do largely agree that most taxi regulations only serve to increase costs to consumers without much benefit but that's not really the end of the story. You really need to define 'taxi regulation' in order to have a productive conversation. Handicap-accessible vans are much more expensive than the typical Prius. The handicapped market is small enough that no Homo Economicus would buy a van to serve the handicapped population without a subsidy or mandate. It's a big enough problem that just about every jurisdiction on earth has defined the issue and worked on their own solutions (UK for example: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100104171434/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/consulttaxis/consulttaxitaggedpdf.pdf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100104171434/htt... or Houston: http://www.houstontx.gov/ara/regaffairs/Houston_Taxi_Study_Results_20140120.pdf http://www.houstontx.gov/ara/regaffairs/Houston_Taxi_Study_R...). No matter what some people would have you believe, regulations aren't just enacted to entrench power. They're almost always in response to some continuing problem. There's probably a way forward that largely deregulates the existing taxi industry, but acknowledging the reasons for the existing regulations will greatly limit the 'unforeseen' side effects.
aetherson 12y ago
I note that at least in theory, "guaranteeing availability of off-peak and low-density service" is indeed at least partly about providing transit to the "underprivileged" -- that is, to people who live in unpopular/poor parts of town or the elderly who want taxi transit during low-demand parts of the day. That said, I've never seen a lot of signs that taxi regulation was effective in providing service in low density areas and off-peak times. Indeed, it seems pretty clear to me that the main purpose of taxi regulation is either: a. Sincere concerns about "oversupply" b. A revenue generation device with a fig leaf about a nonsensical "oversupply" problem. c. A corrupt institution to guarantee the profits of politically connected people with a fig leaf about a nonsensical "oversupply" problem. d. Or most likely, some mixture of the above. Note that c. is probably not the principal answer here. In any case, I think that there's a terribly high bar of evidence required to imagine that taxi regulations save us from the scourge of oversupply, and I've never seen the slightest whiff of such evidence. Why exactly is the taxi industry uniquely prone to oversupply?

mikeyouse 12y ago

> Why are these social arguments missing from pre-2009 (when Uber was formed) literature? Potentially because you only cited two studies when discussing a massive industry and are probably purposefully ignoring all of the work done to support the point you claim is ignored? There are decades of research on the very points you claim are ignored. A small sample: * Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Taxi Deregulation (http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf) > Because taxis are more expensive than other transit services, they must offer something that other transit modes do not. In particular, taxi services are important to certain segments of the population. Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982). * Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicaps by Lower Income Groups (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=92135 http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=92135) > Previous studies and our data suggest that the poor often choose taxis because they are the principal option when an automobile is not available. Taxis appear to be chosen over conventional transit (when it exists) because they offer greater service flexiblity, convenience, and duration of service, as well as better meeting the security demands of the poor. Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor. * Subsidized Taxi Programs for Elderly and Handicapped Persons in the SFBay Area (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=70030 http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=70030) > The objectives of the report are: (1) to describe six programs which deliver transportation service to elderly and handicapped persons utilizing the subsidized taxi mode; (2) to identify the essential similarities and differences among these programs; (3) to illustrate, in qualitative terms, the nature of the costs, efficiencies and impacts on taxi operators, subsidizers, and users of the six approaches; and (4) to interpret this information and identify those findings which appear to be transferable to planners in other localities. The subsidized taxi programs are successfully delivering transportation service to elderly and handicapped residents in all locations as evidenced by rising client enrollment and ridership volumes. Overall, response to the programs has been and continues to be extremely favorable. * The determination of acccessible taxi requirements (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/2284 https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/2284) > This report describes the results of a programme of ergonomic research undertaken to provide a scientific basis for the generation of regulations concerned with the introduction of accessible taxis in the UK. * Modeling urban taxi services with multiple user classes and vehicle modes (http://front.cc.nctu.edu.tw/Richfiles/22015-Wong-Wong-Yang-Wu-2003-02-20.pdf http://front.cc.nctu.edu.tw/Richfiles/22015-Wong-Wong-Yang-W...) > One of the main issues is the provision of several modes of taxi services in many large cities. For instance, there has recently been a concern about the provision of easily accessible taxis for the handicapped, whose travel characteristics are very different from those of other customers. * Compromise & constraint: Examining the nature of transport disability in the context of local travel (http://invent.newmobility.org/library/wt8-2.pdf#page=42 http://invent.newmobility.org/library/wt8-2.pdf#page=42) > While major advances have been made over the last twenty years in the planning and provision of transport that is accessible to all, the links have not yet been effectively made between applied work on transport planning and the major developments in theoretical understandings of disability which have been taking place during a similar period. Existing studies have attempted to measure transport disability, but have generally failed to link it to wider theoretical or structural concerns, or to explore disabled people’s responses to transport disability. * Taxi - Why Hailing a New Idea about Public Accommodation Laws May Be Easier Than Hailing a Taxi (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/valur37&div=25&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/v...) > Municipal policies have also been developed to combat the problem, some demanding automatic confiscation of the cab if a complaint is alleged, others requiring cab drivers to take at least one fare a day to underserved neighborhoods or face suspension.

haberman 12y ago
> probably purposefully ignoring Thank you for the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, but you are wrong about this. My process was: Google for articles about taxi regulation, and see what percentage of them make the argument that regulation protects the underprivileged. In my sample of 3 or 4, the answer was 0%, which seemed a clear argument against the sweeping claim that protecting the poor is "the entire point of taxi regulation in the first place" (note: not taxis, taxi regulation). Furthermore, your links (or the few that I had time to investigate) do not support the central thesis that taxi regulation specifically protects the poor and underprivileged. In fact, many of them are specifically contrary to your shallow analysis. > Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982). This says nothing about taxi regulation benefiting the poor. And in fact much of this paper is criticizing regulation; it even cites evidence arguing that regulation hurts the poor (emphasis mine): > Others (such as Eckert 1970, Beesley and Glaister 1983, and Frankena and Pautler 1986 advocate removing entry restrictions and eliminating monopoly rents. Beesley and Glaister (1983, 611) estimated that entry and price restrictions lead to nearly $10 million per year in welfare losses in the city of London alone. Embedded in those welfare measures are the poor without cars, the elderly, the disabled, and others who now and then need affordable door-to-door transportation services and would benefit from a more competitive market. They are on the wrong side of the political calculus, with their dispersed costs overlooked in a regulatory process dominated by the concentrated benefiaries (Taylor 1989). > Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicaps by Lower Income Groups The abstract of this paper specifically argues that the poor would benefit from reduced market entry restrictions! "Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor." I have to run and don't have time to see if any of your other evidence is any better. But maybe you can narrow it down to a more compelling list. To prove your point, you can't just show that taxis are good for the poor, you have to show that taxi regulation is good.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  I apologize, I didn't mean to imply dishonesty, but my initial Google search showed very different results than yours and the tone of your last paragraph didn't exactly confer respect. I actually do largely agree that most taxi regulations only serve to increase costs to consumers without much benefit but that's not really the end of the story. You really need to define 'taxi regulation' in order to have a productive conversation. Handicap-accessible vans are much more expensive than the typical Prius. The handicapped market is small enough that no Homo Economicus would buy a van to serve the handicapped population without a subsidy or mandate. It's a big enough problem that just about every jurisdiction on earth has defined the issue and worked on their own solutions (UK for example: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100104171434/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/consulttaxis/consulttaxitaggedpdf.pdf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100104171434/htt... or Houston: http://www.houstontx.gov/ara/regaffairs/Houston_Taxi_Study_Results_20140120.pdf http://www.houstontx.gov/ara/regaffairs/Houston_Taxi_Study_R...). No matter what some people would have you believe, regulations aren't just enacted to entrench power. They're almost always in response to some continuing problem. There's probably a way forward that largely deregulates the existing taxi industry, but acknowledging the reasons for the existing regulations will greatly limit the 'unforeseen' side effects.

aetherson 12y ago

I note that at least in theory, "guaranteeing availability of off-peak and low-density service" is indeed at least partly about providing transit to the "underprivileged" -- that is, to people who live in unpopular/poor parts of town or the elderly who want taxi transit during low-demand parts of the day. That said, I've never seen a lot of signs that taxi regulation was effective in providing service in low density areas and off-peak times. Indeed, it seems pretty clear to me that the main purpose of taxi regulation is either: a. Sincere concerns about "oversupply" b. A revenue generation device with a fig leaf about a nonsensical "oversupply" problem. c. A corrupt institution to guarantee the profits of politically connected people with a fig leaf about a nonsensical "oversupply" problem. d. Or most likely, some mixture of the above. Note that c. is probably not the principal answer here. In any case, I think that there's a terribly high bar of evidence required to imagine that taxi regulations save us from the scourge of oversupply, and I've never seen the slightest whiff of such evidence. Why exactly is the taxi industry uniquely prone to oversupply?