5 ms·

gasp the market is working

bandrami 11y ago
Yep. But medallions themselves are a deliberate market distortion. And I'm not a Milton Friedman "market distortions are always bad" person, but this distortion is definitely bad. Artificial scarcity is a stupid way to achieve whatever goal you have. Set regulatory standards. Set them as high as you want. But then let anyone who meets them participate in the regulated activity.
- afsina 11y ago
  Regulations for carrying a passenger in a Taxi is also exaggerated. Apart from being able to drive, not much should be regulated IMO. Perhaps price and extra services can be apparent before entering the vehicle (if car has insurance etc..). And let the customer decide the rest.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    > Apart from being able to drive, not much should be regulated IMO. Travel to a number of developing countries where there aren't taxi regulations and say that... In the developed world, a marked taxi carries with it a guarantee of a consistent price, and a certain level of safety.
    - bandrami 11y ago
      OK, but I split time among India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan rickshaws are actually pretty reliable and safe. India's are less so. Bangladesh's are an absolute crapshoot. But my point is all three of these countries have (by US standards) insanely restrictive regulations; the problem is none of it is designed to improve the consumer experience; it's all designed to reward incumbent medallion holders.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        I agree about the medallions, but there's much to be said for regulations. In my wife's country, taxis are basically a no-go, especially if you're white. Minibuses were OK in the day, otherwise you have to get a private driver, preferably one whom you know personally (so that if you're murdered or robbed there's a way to enact revenge). And just when I thought they were being paranoid, we did witness a robbery and subsequent shootout when we were there, one of her friends did get car-jacked and robbed, and shortly after we left one of the people whom we visited was gunned down and murdered by bandits. Lawless countries are less fun than they appear...
  - CaptainZapp 11y ago
    Actually I'm very, very much in favor of regulations, which support my safety. An excellent example are minimum rest requirements. You're strictly not allowed to moonlight as a cabby after a strenuous 10 hour shift. No such restrictions exist for "private" taxis. You may like to gamble with your safety, I sure as hell don't. There are exactly such regulations, which keep the public safe.
    - philjohn 11y ago
      Having had a friend seriously injured in a licensed minicab accident many years ago, I concur.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- maudineormsby 11y ago
  I agree with this and your other comment and would add that the distortion of the market caused by medallions is exactly why the market is crashing as hard as it is, and also why Uber and Lyft are so popular - there's pent up demand for transportation via on demand cars that isn't able to be met under the taxi medallion system. Not just demand for more transportation but more cost effective and available transportation as well.
- joncrocks 11y ago
  The other argument is one of shared resource. 'The roads' in a city can only 'support' a certain level of traffic/automobiles. Allowing the market select for how many taxis it can support could have unintended consequences for other industries/anything that makes shared use of the same limited resource.
  - sveiss 11y ago
    The shared resource argument is a good one, but why are only taxis limited? There are other approaches (for example, congestion charging as used in London) which can be more closely tailored to whatever outcome the regulator is trying to improve, be it reducing overall traffic volumes, reducing pollution, or restricting certain kinds of traffic at certain times of day. A congestion charge scheme akin to London would be a better approach, as it can be more easily tweaked for whatever goals you're trying to achieve (overall reduction in traffic, prioritizing environmentally-friendly vehicles, keeping goods vehicles out of the city during rush out, etc).
    - CaptainZapp 11y ago
      Other European cities, a good example being Zurich, limit the number of available public parking spaces. If you may have a potentially hard time to find relatively expensive parking this could be a big incentive to bike, or use (excellent) public transport. I'd be all for a congestion charge, but politically this is probably a non-starter.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    This would apply to traditional cabs but not to internet dispatched ride services. There's no need for Uber drivers to circulate around the downtown is a city waiting to be hailed. Indeed, if anything Iber/Lyft should vastly cut down on the traffic impact of taxi services

Yep. But medallions themselves are a deliberate market distortion. And I'm not a Milton Friedman "market distortions are always bad" person, but this distortion is definitely bad. Artificial scarcity is a stupid way to achieve whatever goal you have. Set regulatory standards. Set them as high as you want. But then let anyone who meets them participate in the regulated activity.

afsina 11y ago
Regulations for carrying a passenger in a Taxi is also exaggerated. Apart from being able to drive, not much should be regulated IMO. Perhaps price and extra services can be apparent before entering the vehicle (if car has insurance etc..). And let the customer decide the rest.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > Apart from being able to drive, not much should be regulated IMO. Travel to a number of developing countries where there aren't taxi regulations and say that... In the developed world, a marked taxi carries with it a guarantee of a consistent price, and a certain level of safety.
  - bandrami 11y ago
    OK, but I split time among India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan rickshaws are actually pretty reliable and safe. India's are less so. Bangladesh's are an absolute crapshoot. But my point is all three of these countries have (by US standards) insanely restrictive regulations; the problem is none of it is designed to improve the consumer experience; it's all designed to reward incumbent medallion holders.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      I agree about the medallions, but there's much to be said for regulations. In my wife's country, taxis are basically a no-go, especially if you're white. Minibuses were OK in the day, otherwise you have to get a private driver, preferably one whom you know personally (so that if you're murdered or robbed there's a way to enact revenge). And just when I thought they were being paranoid, we did witness a robbery and subsequent shootout when we were there, one of her friends did get car-jacked and robbed, and shortly after we left one of the people whom we visited was gunned down and murdered by bandits. Lawless countries are less fun than they appear...
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  Actually I'm very, very much in favor of regulations, which support my safety. An excellent example are minimum rest requirements. You're strictly not allowed to moonlight as a cabby after a strenuous 10 hour shift. No such restrictions exist for "private" taxis. You may like to gamble with your safety, I sure as hell don't. There are exactly such regulations, which keep the public safe.
  - philjohn 11y ago
    Having had a friend seriously injured in a licensed minicab accident many years ago, I concur.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
maudineormsby 11y ago
I agree with this and your other comment and would add that the distortion of the market caused by medallions is exactly why the market is crashing as hard as it is, and also why Uber and Lyft are so popular - there's pent up demand for transportation via on demand cars that isn't able to be met under the taxi medallion system. Not just demand for more transportation but more cost effective and available transportation as well.
joncrocks 11y ago
The other argument is one of shared resource. 'The roads' in a city can only 'support' a certain level of traffic/automobiles. Allowing the market select for how many taxis it can support could have unintended consequences for other industries/anything that makes shared use of the same limited resource.
- sveiss 11y ago
  The shared resource argument is a good one, but why are only taxis limited? There are other approaches (for example, congestion charging as used in London) which can be more closely tailored to whatever outcome the regulator is trying to improve, be it reducing overall traffic volumes, reducing pollution, or restricting certain kinds of traffic at certain times of day. A congestion charge scheme akin to London would be a better approach, as it can be more easily tweaked for whatever goals you're trying to achieve (overall reduction in traffic, prioritizing environmentally-friendly vehicles, keeping goods vehicles out of the city during rush out, etc).
  - CaptainZapp 11y ago
    Other European cities, a good example being Zurich, limit the number of available public parking spaces. If you may have a potentially hard time to find relatively expensive parking this could be a big incentive to bike, or use (excellent) public transport. I'd be all for a congestion charge, but politically this is probably a non-starter.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  This would apply to traditional cabs but not to internet dispatched ride services. There's no need for Uber drivers to circulate around the downtown is a city waiting to be hailed. Indeed, if anything Iber/Lyft should vastly cut down on the traffic impact of taxi services