So I can understand the argument for taxi regulation and prohibiting unlicensed taxis: when I hail a taxi for a 5 minutes drive, I don't want to expend resources looking at competitors, checking to make sure the meter is legit, checking proof of insurance, etc. Since most people want the same thing out of a taxi (as opposed to, say, buying a car), it makes sense for a centralized government agency to do some regulating.
But what is the rationale for limiting the number of medallions? Why not just allow anyone who wants to become licensed to do so, while charging a fee which covers the cost of the licencing process?
The OP's article lists the obvious dangers of completely deregulating, but it doesn't explain the cap on medallions.
(Please, no comments about "because the taxi cartels control the government!". I understand the incentives for existing taxis to erect barriers to the market. I'm more interesting in the rationale of those who argue that a limited number of medallions is in the public interest.)
Well, on the progressive side, when they want rent they argue that market prices are "unfairly low" (or high). Creating artificial scarcity is one way to inflate prices to "fair" levels, e.g. "living wages":
>Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham introduced legislation Tuesday to limit the number of taxicabs in D.C. through either a medallion system, like ones used in New York City and Chicago, or a certification system. [...] A glut of drivers could jeopardize the chances of any cabbies making an adequate living, Graham has said.
> The experience of other cities over many years has shown that open-entry "deregulation" of taxis is poor public policy. . . . In a nutshell, the problem is that the capital costs of entering the taxi business are low. In an unregulated market, anyone with the price of a used car can enter the business. While this may sound good to free-market fans, experience with taxis has shown that quality goes down, prices go up, and public safety is compromised.
So there you have it: the taxi cartels want regulation to keep prices low.
The reason seems to be to make traffic manageable.
It's similar to the idea of cap-and-trade pollution regulation. Each individual producer profits with pollution, but people believe the environment can only sustain some level, after which we have serious harm to both polluters and non-polluters. This environmental capacity is analogous to SF's (assessment of) traffic capacity.
I don't know why SF doesn't allow trading or transferring the medallion, the way many other cities do.
I built a Taxi-related app for iPhone, specifically for Singapore [1]. I got several calls and emails from cab companies, first trying to brand my app with their company. Then, trying to buy the app off me for little-to-nothing. Then, threatening to "shut [me] down" claiming that this stuff wasn't allowed.
Months later, they've all tried to copy the crap out of my app. It's OK if they do it, but not anyone else.
A "cab" operating in San Francisco without a medallion is illegal...is [not] subject to..meter inspections
Perfect example of regulations not keeping up with technology. If I request a "cab" via an iPhone app, I know exactly how far I'm going and how much its going to cost me before I even get in the cab.
Not only that, but there could be a simple review system for drivers. It could actually improve quality by giving riders recourse. ("A+++ WOULD RIDE AGAIN")
This has nothing to do with UberCab because they are not dispatching cabs to their customers. UberCab is pre-arranging a limo/professional chauffeur/personal driver service with valid license and insurance policies required for private transport services to pickup a customer at a select location.
I don't understand the laws; my link was to show that S.F. taxis operate as a cartel, and use city laws to enforce their cartel (through medallions and their quota). I don't know if this is precisely what the UberCab C&D is about (it's not been published), but it does show that the S.F. transport market is explicitly and intentionally anti-competitive.
That said, the other TechCrunch post seems to say the taxi licensing may be relevant -- the functions UberCab is doing can only be legally done by licensed taxis:
>* Ubercab operates much like a cab company but does not have a taxi license.
>...
>* Limos in U.S. cities usually have to prebook an hour in advance, by law, while only licensed taxis can pick someone up right away but Ubercab picks people up right away (again without a taxi license).
If limos need to wait an hour to make a pickup, and taxis do not, then UberCab (I think) is doing what only taxis can do and thus needs that license, not the limo one. The fundamental problem is not that UberCab is licensed as a limo rather than a taxi, but rather that it is impossible for it to be licensed as a taxi -- that (as I understand) there is no reasonable way for them to legally do what they are doing.
> UberCab is pre-arranging a limo/professional chauffeur/personal driver service with valid license and insurance policies required for private transport services to pickup a customer at a select location.
The limo/chauffeur/driver has a valid license to operate a limo service, not a cab service. They are operating as a cab service when dispatched by UberCab, and so if they do not have a cab license, it would seem that they are operating outside the law.
Hailing cabs street-side is really only implementing what Ubercab is doing, but with stochastic pre-distribution of roaming service providers. It's an early industrial-revolution way of doing things because back then we didn't have electronic networks. Really, it should be irrelevant in modern countries.
Would you prefer "Roma Cabs"? In all seriousness, I do agree although I don't think the average American even realizes that Gypsies/Roma are an actual, modern-day ethnic group.
It's an unlicensed cab, roaming around taking what work it can get. Historically, the name probably arose from the similarity to Gypsies, who roam around, taking what work they can get.
[+] [-] jessriedel|15 years ago|reply
But what is the rationale for limiting the number of medallions? Why not just allow anyone who wants to become licensed to do so, while charging a fee which covers the cost of the licencing process?
The OP's article lists the obvious dangers of completely deregulating, but it doesn't explain the cap on medallions.
(Please, no comments about "because the taxi cartels control the government!". I understand the incentives for existing taxis to erect barriers to the market. I'm more interesting in the rationale of those who argue that a limited number of medallions is in the public interest.)
[+] [-] uvdiv|15 years ago|reply
>Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham introduced legislation Tuesday to limit the number of taxicabs in D.C. through either a medallion system, like ones used in New York City and Chicago, or a certification system. [...] A glut of drivers could jeopardize the chances of any cabbies making an adequate living, Graham has said.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Cap-on-D_C_-cabs-sug...
...Though in this particular case the backstory turned out to be "the taxi cartels control the government".
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/24/dc-council-m...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Ethiopian-comm...
[+] [-] dpatru|15 years ago|reply
So there you have it: the taxi cartels want regulation to keep prices low.
[+] [-] aamar|15 years ago|reply
It's similar to the idea of cap-and-trade pollution regulation. Each individual producer profits with pollution, but people believe the environment can only sustain some level, after which we have serious harm to both polluters and non-polluters. This environmental capacity is analogous to SF's (assessment of) traffic capacity.
I don't know why SF doesn't allow trading or transferring the medallion, the way many other cities do.
[+] [-] scott_s|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fizx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebaysucks|15 years ago|reply
The need for positive freedom does not proof the legitimacy of positive rights.
[+] [-] sahillavingia|15 years ago|reply
Months later, they've all tried to copy the crap out of my app. It's OK if they do it, but not anyone else.
[1] - http://taxilah.com/
[+] [-] jluxenberg|15 years ago|reply
Perfect example of regulations not keeping up with technology. If I request a "cab" via an iPhone app, I know exactly how far I'm going and how much its going to cost me before I even get in the cab.
[+] [-] nostromo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp4rki|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uvdiv|15 years ago|reply
That said, the other TechCrunch post seems to say the taxi licensing may be relevant -- the functions UberCab is doing can only be legally done by licensed taxis:
>* Ubercab operates much like a cab company but does not have a taxi license.
>...
>* Limos in U.S. cities usually have to prebook an hour in advance, by law, while only licensed taxis can pick someone up right away but Ubercab picks people up right away (again without a taxi license).
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/24/ubercab/
If limos need to wait an hour to make a pickup, and taxis do not, then UberCab (I think) is doing what only taxis can do and thus needs that license, not the limo one. The fundamental problem is not that UberCab is licensed as a limo rather than a taxi, but rather that it is impossible for it to be licensed as a taxi -- that (as I understand) there is no reasonable way for them to legally do what they are doing.
I am not a lawyer.
[+] [-] tzs|15 years ago|reply
The limo/chauffeur/driver has a valid license to operate a limo service, not a cab service. They are operating as a cab service when dispatched by UberCab, and so if they do not have a cab license, it would seem that they are operating outside the law.
[+] [-] varikin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lolname|15 years ago|reply
2 mile luxor cab: $7.15 5 mile luxor cab: $13.90 10 mile luxor cab: $25.15 1 minute idling luxor cab: $0.45
2 mile yellow cab: $7.15 5 mile yellow cab: $13.90 10 mile yellow cab: $25.15 1 minute idling yellow cab: $0.45
2 mile ubercab: $17.80 5 mile ubercab: $32.50 10 mile ubercab: $57.00 1 minute idling ubercab: $1.25
I fail to see the expense the article implies.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fleitz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShabbyDoo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|15 years ago|reply