Transportation in Transition, Again and Always

In 1982 Milton Pikarsky and Christine Johnson published a paper titled "American Transportation in Transition."

Here are the opening paragraphs:

Today, the United States is in a transportation crisis which is of a chronic nature. It may not be sudden like the gas lines of 1974, but it is consistent and the pressures of this crisis are deepening. And because its gradual nature allows people and institutions to adjust, the crisis changes the transportation system more fundamentally than transitory gas lines or transit stop pages.

The current picture of public transportation is bleak. Indeed, each new wrinkle in the financial problems faced by the transit industry brings warnings that a breakdown of public transportation service could initiate a domino effect resulting in an urban economic collapse.

And the conclusion:

Private citizens will have to adjust to the fact that traditional transportation is likely to cost more. To reduce some of those costs, they may have to become vanpool riders or drivers, participate in neighbourhood auto mobile cooperatives, or occasionally rent automobiles or use taxis as alternatives to purchasing second cars. A variety of private transportation providers may once again become party to the transportation social contract. There is evidence that developers, too, may become party to the contract. In an attempt to make their suburban residential and commercial space more attractive, many developers are underwriting bus or shuttle services or arranging van- and carpools.  

Given the position and needs of the various principal actors, it is likely that private employers and providers will become much more involved with the direct provision of surface transportation in the future. In the best and worst of extremes, an individual could face a variety of options and a maze of prices depending on the mode, time of travel, destination, and the number of people travelling. The solution to these new transportation problems may define the future role of the public sector. Rather than owning and operating systems, the public sector may become more of a travel information broker, a facilitator, a technical adviser, and a manager of a set of service contracts.  

There is little question that the process of renegotiating the transportation social contract has begun. Each party is slowly exploring and carving out a new niche. The process will be long and progress slow. We feel certain that at the outcome, when we speak of public transportation, our concept will have grown to include a range of services and providers; rapid rail, bus, vanpools, commuter clubs, subscription services, taxis, jitneys, apartment shuttle, the private automobile, and the rental auto mobile, each serving the trip length, type, and density that is most cost-efficient. 

This piece is over 30 years old. I agree with just about all of it, and I argue many of the same things today. With all of the excitement about ridesharing and transportation network companies it is worthwhile keeping in mind such services are neither revolutionary or new ideas. Perhaps they are finally here to stay, or perhaps not. (I suspect they are, likely with different companies than exist now, but I'll save my reasoning for another time.)

Public transit's demise has been predicted for a long time, as well, and transit operates in a world of permanent financial crisis. Transit finance may not be ideal, but our transit systems have survived and many have improved. Overall, though, transportation is still in transition, and we are still expecting the next big thing to show up.

Welcome to the Future

This past week New York City auctioned 200 new taxi medallions for record prices. The high bid was about $2.5 million for a “minifleet” package, and the accessible medallions fetched record prices as well. These prices and the people who paid them send strong signals about what will happen with the taxi industry in New York. The rent seeking behaviors will continue, the regulators are captured by the industry they are supposed to regulate and taxi policy in the city is expected to remain at the status quo of constrained supply and unmet demand. I suspect that the boro taxi program will barely survive but not be expanded, and Uber and other ridesharing services are screwed. In short, what we have now for taxi services is pretty much all we get. I worry that most or all of our transport systems have similar constraints. Welcome to the future. 

So are we conscripted to a future just like the present? Can we solve pressing concerns?

Recently David Levinson write a nice post about what traffic might be like in 2030. It is a nice future scenario that is dramatically improved on current inefficient systems. I agree with much of it but am concerned that regulatory and labor constraints have cemented too many of our systems in place and the future will end up looking a lot like what we have now. Here are some areas of particular concern and in no particular order:

• ·      Concession agreements are in place that are far longer than existing technologies will last. For instance, the Chicago parking meter concession requires that the city compensate the LLC for any loss of value to street parking during the course of the 75-year agreement. This means that even if cars and driving decline, Chicago may have to pay a penalty.  This affects Chicago’s incentives for reform.
• ·      Labor contracts require too many people working jobs that should be automated, such as train drivers.  This limits new options and services. There will also be a persistent bias toward historical rush hour service even though rides demanded will spread out across nights and weekends. We will also likely replace all passenger cars with driverless cars before we get any driverless transit vehicles. 
• ·      Taxi services are not regulated for the benefit of passengers, nor are the taxi industries all that interested in expanding services.  They prefer to protect their rent seeking. Taxi interests will block new entrants and ridesharing. This is especially problematic because of the nights and weekends issues raised above.
• ·     Cities are branding themselves and this will reduce their economic competitiveness in the long run. Brooklyn, Portland, Austin and others all cultivate their identities at great expense and effort. This suggests that they will fiercely protect what they see as core features, including the built environment and transport technologies. Building restrictions and business preservation will become more restrictive over time, reducing the dynamics of city change.
• ·      Municipal budgets are strained from obligations that do little to improve the lives of current and future residents. Pension obligations are of particular concern as it is extremely difficult to raise taxes to pay for salaries to retired people. These obligations do not have an easy policy answer but will limit future investment resources and flexibility to address currently unknown concerns.
• ·      Much of the infrastructure expansion that has occurred over the past few decades (roads, transit, stadia, etc.) makes municipal budgets worse off in the long run. How cities and states decide to dismantle infrastructure is a crucial issue over the next few decades. As the public rarely has the option of exit deliberate decline will be slower than needed.
• ·      Public investment in infrastructure is not currently aimed at or promoting the greater good. Business elites, downtown interests and others are capturing public spending on transit to serve private interests at the expense of riders. See the streetcar trend as an example. Cities, regions and the nation are not bound together by clear goals, so policy is directed to do something, anything, without a good sense as to what is supposed to be achieved. Again to the streetcars, if they are good for economic development then the budget spent on them should be judged against all other economic development uses of that money. Yet we never discuss opportunity costs like this. Infrastructure investment is pursued as an end unto itself. We tend to focus too much on physical changes (which are small in aggregate) at the expense of service changes that may have larger effects on travel and economic activity.

We are also in a prolonged period of sclerotic governance. While all levels of government have strong roles for ensuring access to opportunities, public safety and economic health, the process of governance is currently not up to the tasks. I see stronger forces protecting the status quo than pushing for reform (see the taxi industry as an example).

So traffic may decline but we may not be able to adjust our systems adequately to address the changes that occur. If our systems of governance work to maintain what we have then the future will look very much like the present.  So how might we re-orient our governance systems to meet future needs? I will return to this in a later post.

Big Week in Taxi and Jitney News

There was lots of stuff the past few weeks about taxis and jitneys. Here are a few links to the action with brief comments below each:

"All-Borough Taxis (Like Yellow, But Green) Hit the Streets" NY Times
(Anyone see one of these out in the wild yet? I will post if I see one in northern Manhattan)

"Ending the Jitney Menace" NJ.com
(There are a lot of calls for jitney reform as an 8-month old was killed with one recently. Sounds like the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration may get involved. See next link.)

"Bayonne Police Have Issued Jitney Buses 200-plus Tickets in Last 18 Months" NJ.com
(However, enforcement doesn't seem to be the problem. The driver that crashed and ultimately caused the death of infant was on the phone at the time, it seems. Perhaps this is a problem specific to jitneys, but I suspect the real problem here is with letting people drive.)

"Taxi hailing apps off to slow start in New York, but could still accelerate" The Verge
(This isn't surprising. The apps will allow taxis to find new markets, not serve existing ones, so it will take time to develop. You don't need an app to find a taxi in Midtown, which is where the Yellows are already. People and drivers in areas where Yellows are not pervasive will ultimately benefit.)


These next links are all about ride-sharing and the legal  and economic challenges that must be overcome. There is a lot here. The status quo is untenable but a fully deregulated environment isn't likely to work, either. I think part of the problem facing cities and planners (and entrepreneurs and others) is that few have a firm understanding of the intent of regulations within the taxi/ride-sharing industry. We've been regulating these services so long that the purpose of regulation is not clear. Regulations don't appear in a vacuum. Somebody wants them, designs them and fights for them. Now, many are fighting to keep what we have while others want to tear them down. It seems that this has caught many planners and regulators off guard, and we need new models of how to think about transport supply and regulation. I actually think the California utility model is promising and can maybe be expanded to bus services and conventional transit agencies.

"City Taxi Systems Struggle with Change" Governing.com

"Taxi drivers sue, claim monopoly" Atlanta Business Chronicle

"Proposal Offered for County to Take Over City's Taxi Regulation" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

"Seattle's ride-sharing debate reaches it's boiling point" Crosscut.com

"Sharing economy drives into trouble with ride-sharing arrests" Guardian.com

"In California, They're Not Taxis, They'e "Transportation Network Companies"" WNYC

"California's New Rules Could Change Rideshare Game" NPR

Watch Uber Accuse Lyft of Regulatory Arbitrage

Watch as the CEO of Uber calls what Lyft does regulatory arbitrage, but when Uber does it they are simply taking advantage of regulatory ambiguity:


I'm not defending the status quo of taxi regulations here, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Beijing Taxis Raise Fares to Increase Access

Beijing taxis will soon be more expensive for passengers. From China Daily:

Beijing transportation authorities confirmed that the municipality will adjust its taxi fare pricing system as part of the measures taken to increase access to taxis, Beijing News reported.
A hearing inviting all stakeholders will be held before releasing the new price plan, and the price increases will mainly go to taxi drivers, the paper reported.
Taxi prices have remained unchanged for years in the capital, causing discontent among taxi drivers.
It has become increasingly difficult to get a taxi during rush hours in Beijing, as many drivers prefer to suspend their business due to high operating costs, such as rising gas prices.

By keeping fares artificially low drivers had little incentive to work during periods of high demand. This situation is only one anecdote, but it does highlight that in many cases raising prices of transportation--road, transit, taxi, etc.--improves service. Should fares, tolls and fees be high enough to ensure lots of service or low enough so that service is difficult to provide?

Should Transit Policy Be Housing and Development Policy?

The LA Times reports on protests against the development policies of Los Angeles Metro. From the story:

More than 200 protesters marched through Union Station on Thursday afternoon, banging drums as they passed train platforms, loudly demanding more community say in how the region's transit agency manages and develops property along its rapidly expanding rail network.
The demonstration, which did not affect transit services, was held as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority continues its plan to aggressively pursue several new rail lines in various areas of Los Angeles County, as well as housing and other developments around them.
Speaking at the rally, Sunyoung Yang of the Bus Riders Union said Boyle Heights, east of downtown, has been particularly affected by Metro development. "Over the years there has been a net loss in affordable housing," she said. "People have been displaced."

The article provides some details about affordable housing that has been built, including  1,222 affordable units near rail transit stops. While affordable housing is a absolutely a good thing--people need quality places to live--a larger question is whether the regional transit provider is the proper agency to supply it.

Most transit agencies have some type of development arm that assists, promotes or spearheads development. This is good in that it helps integrate transportation and land use planning and investment. However, it also moves transit agencies away from their core mission, which is transit provision. If we want affordable housing as a significant feature of transit provision, might it be better to have Housing and Urban Development (HUD) manage transit policy instead of transit agencies managing housing?

The protesters also are upset about big-box retail and gentrification:

Still, protesters, whose march wound from a park near Union Station to Metro headquarters and then on to Boyle Heights, accused Metro of seeking to bring big-box chain stores into neighborhoods, a change they contend speeds up gentrification and pushes out local merchants.
Roger Moliere, chief of property development for Metro, said the agency is not likely to partner with big-box stores because they don't fit with his agency's mission of transit-oriented development, partly because those types of stores rely more on customers arriving by car.

There are a couple of issues to unpack here. First, there are clear benefits to big-box stores that must be considered against the costs. In general their prices are much lower than independent stores, which is good for consumers and especially for low income consumers, and they tend to employ more people at higher wages than independent stores. (See Richard Green's post for a quick summary and links that help support these statements.) Second, big-box stores can thrive without everyone driving to them if other options for travel exist. Fixed route transit, however, is not a viable option for many big-box store visits. Taxis, jitneys, car share and other transit modes that fall between auto ownership and fixed route transit are critical for the economic and social well being of communities, in particular communities that are low income or have a penchant for low rates of auto ownership. In New York a few big-box centers have opened in the past few years, all with generous amounts of parking spaces that are almost always empty. Instead, liveries and for-hire vehicles line up at the stores. Rides are $8 plus $1 per mile. Considering the cost savings on goods, this is a net benefit for the communities. Here is a photo of the sign outside of Target in Harlem:

And here is a shot of the parking spaces (these photos were taken on a Saturday afternoon):

Getting back to which agency should address housing policy, Metro has a particular transit technology--rail--that they are using to shape housing and development policy. Would the outcomes be any different if housing and development policy was addressed by HUD or a local agency, then that agency focused on a variety of available transportation technologies or policies to serve the needs of their constituents? . Perhaps, like in NYC, non-transit agencies would simply require lots of parking. This is plausible if not likely. But maybe they would consider multiple transportation options such as taxis, cycle facilities or walking. Part of how people think about these issues is what their goals and preferences are. Transit advocates will likely want more transit and argue that development should follow that investment. (Transit leads development.) Housing advocates may argue that housing and jobs should come first and then affordable transportation options should be provided. (Development leads transportation.)  Monopoly issues, investment incentives and biases, financing constraints and other institutional factors complicate these situations. It is not obvious to me that either approach is optimal or clearly superior.

Taxi Links August 14, 2012

What do taxicabs say about a city? Witold Rybczynski suggests that the quality of taxis is indicative of a city's success and proposes a "taxi index" for ranking cities. Robinson Meyer at the Atlantic Cities makes a similar point and argues cities should have distinct taxis. While there are advantages for individual cities to brand themselves with distinct taxis, I think there are also benefits for travelers when they recognize similar services in multiple cities. For instance, yellow is a popular color for taxis in all US cities (though there are other colors) and people recognize yellow cars as taxis. This is an advantage for taxi service even though yellow taxis are just copying New York's color scheme.

The "Data Evangelist" for Uber compares neighborhoods the company serves in this piece.*

This was a couple weeks ago, but Jalopniik had a great Q&A with a New York cabbie.

Marketplace has a story about smart phone apps that help hail taxis. More here and here. ZapKab seems to have a good publicist. These apps mostly focus on the NYC market, but I suspect they will be more useful in other markets and in the boroughs of NYC other than Manhattan.

Samsung has filed a patent on a service that lets passengers put out an SOS call to alert police when their driver in dangerous.** Perhaps Apple already is working on this.


*I hate the title "Data Evangelist." If you are evangelical you do not need data, and you certainly don't conduct robust research because being an evangelist suggests you want to convert other people to your view, nevermind the evidence. Just call yourself the Director of Research or something.

**This is a stupid patent. Good idea, dumb patent.

Call for Papers: Spatial and Land Use Implications of Taxis, Jitneys, Paratransit and Flexible Transportation

The Journal of Transportation and Land Use (JTLU) has issued a Call for Papers on the Spatial and Land Use Implications of Taxis, Jitneys, Paratransit and Flexible Transportation. I will be serving as volume editor for the issue and encourage those doing research in these areas to submit a paper. JTLU is an open access, peer reviewed journal.
Here is the link, and here is more information:

Call for Papers: Call for Papers: Spatial and Land Use Implications of Taxis, Jitneys, Paratransit and Flexible Transportation

JTLU Call for Papers: Spatial and Land Use Implications of Taxis, Jitneys, Paratransit and Flexible Transportation Volume Editor: David King ( dk2475 AT columbia.edu ; Columbia University) The Journal of Transportation and Land Use seeks original research papers that explore issues associated with taxi service, jitneys and other flexible or informal transit systems in cities throughout the world. Ideal papers for this special issue will explore how these transport services influence existing transport networks and urban form, affect travel behavior or negotiate contested urban spaces. Taxicabs, jitneys, low-cost bus services and other paratransit services represent unique, flexible transit services in cities throughout the world, and recent scholarship has explored regulatory, economic and labor characteristics of these services. Areas that have received less attention include how these services influence travel behavior, complement or compete with conventional transit, and the role of land uses for service provision. GPS and consumer data also provides new opportunities for spatial analysis of driver and passenger trip characteristics at a level of detail previously impossible. Researchers working in any area of taxicabs, jitneys, flexible or informal transit, both intracity and intercity, are encouraged to consider submitting a paper. Specific Areas of Interest Include: • Competition among for-hire vehicles at the curb, including taxis, jitneys, intercity buses and jitneys • The effect for-hire vehicles have on demand for parking • Paratransit operations and opportunities • For-hire vehicles as feeder systems for fixed route transit • Locational issues with taxi garages, dispatch sites and other facilities • Land use considerations with for-hire services (stadia, airports, theater districts, etc.) • Spatial dispersion of taxi, jitney and other services • Models and simulation of taxi, jitney and other services • Case studies of novel policies involving for-hire vehicle services, such as use of taxis as paratransit • Travel behavior and mode choice research • Social equity issues with regard to service areas • Urban design characteristics of for-hire vehicle services • GPS and consumer data used for planning and regulatory purposes • Spatial analysis of taxicab, jitney or flexible transit services

Taxi Links of Interest

James Fallows writes a post defending taxi company Uber against proposed vicious fare requirements:

"Here's the headline version of what comes below: As a longtime resident of DC, I am accustomed to misadventures in governance in our "taxation without representation" existence here. But a fight over a new competitor to the District's (often horrible) taxi service offers something I haven't seen in a while. Not routine retail-level corruption, nor skillful top-level favor trading, but instead what appears to be a blatant attempt to legislate favors for one set of interests by hamstringing another. I know, I know, this happens all the time -- but the seeming crudity of this one gets my attention."

Sommer Mathis at The Atlantic Cities wonders if the taxi model is dying.

 [DK: I think there are major challenges to the taxi model and broadly speaking there may be something to her thesis. However, it is an open question if entrenched taxi and transit interests will squash new competition into for-hire vehicle services. History suggests that the old, flawed regulatory model will be hard to break. Let's hope, but we'll see. The optimal amount of regulation is less than we have now but more than none.]

New York City taxi fares are set to increase by 17 percent. Here is a NY Times story about this. Also in the Times, Michael Powell writes about the  plight of the taxi driver.

New York Magazine just published the Everything Guide to Taxis. There is lots of great stuff there.

Taxi Links

In New York City a federal appeals court ruled that the Taxi and Limousine Commission is not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act even though only 231 of over 13,000 medallions are required to be wheelchair accessible. Here is a DNAinfo.com story about last week's ruling. Here is a story about the legal options disability rights advocates are considering. One potential benefit of more taxis being fully accessible is that taxis can then be used to offer rides now served by contracted paratransit. Access-A-Ride services cost way too much (about $60 per ride) and need to be fixed. Chicago has been expanding their accessible taxi fleet through a Taxi Access Program. See details here and this story that notes the number of accessible taxis in the city increased from 92 to 139 due to Mayor Emanuel's work.

Also in Chicago, the taxi drivers had a brief strike yesterday over lease rates and fares. And a new law allows drivers to charge passengers who vomit in the cab $50.

This story from the New York Post about the Master Cabbie Taxi Academy notes that New Yorkers don't really know their way around the city.  Part of the gap in knowledge may be related to the cognitive maps that people develop are related to their modes of travel.

In Sydney, Australia Allan Fels' work has prompted interest in improving taxi services. Here is an op-ed about some poor service issues.

Uber, the unlicensed for-hire taxi service, is opening up a lower cost service. See here and here. I'm not certain if Uber will break the existing regulatory structure for taxi licenses or ultimately succumb to it.

Designated Driver Services Sprout in Chinese Cities

China recently increased the severity of drunken driving penalties. As intended, people are less interested in driving around after drinking and there are fewer drunken driving cases than before. However, a new market for designated driver services has sprung up and is realizing tremendous growth according to this China Daily article. From the story:

According to the Ministry of Public Security's Traffic Management Bureau, from May 1 last year to April 20, traffic police handled 354,000 cases of driving under the influence of alcohol nationwide, down by 41.7 percent compared with the same period in the previous year. Drunken driving cases totaled 54,000, registering a 44.1 percent drop.
Instead, the designated driver business is booming in big cities.
"There are about 50 companies registered that provide designated driver service in Chengdu (capital of Sichuan province), and most of these were set up in the past year," said Chen Xu, vice-president of Chengdu Designated Driver Service Association.
"We received about 80 orders to chauffeur drunken passengers every day in the first four months of this year, an increase of more than 40 percent compared with the same period last year," said Wang Wei, manager of Beijing Luantai, which provides driver training, car rental and designated driving services.
Many hotels and entertainment venues have also cooperated with companies that provide designated driver service for the convenience of customers who consume alcohol.
"At least seven or eight of our customers ask us to call the designated driver company to arrange drivers for them every night," said Wang Jianbin, service director of a branch of Partyworld in Beijing's Chaoyang district.

Yet these services are unregulated and have difficulty buying insurance:

Designated driver service is a new sector in China and laws and regulations are absent, Chen said. "There is no government department in charge of the service."
Liu Jing, the manager of Changyinwuyou in Beijing, holds a similar opinion.
"Many problems still exist in the sector," said Liu. "For example, we cannot buy insurance for our designated drivers as there is no such type of insurance in China. So things become thorny, if a car accident happens."

Auto insurance is a bit weird in China anyway, and many (most?) crashes are settled for cash at the time of the event.

These types of one-way taxi services are critical for cities. Hopefully Chinese cities will figure out how to support the services and other cities will adopt similar measures.

GPS Tracking is Still Illegal. Should It Be?

Legal issues with what is allowable spatial tracking will likely become major issues for scholars/developers/planners who want to use GPS data for their work. We focus a lot on legal issues of data ownership but the Fourth Amendment may prevent many applications. This case was decided partly on the SCOTUS' ruling from January ruling about GPS tracking. it's too early to know how this will all play out but it is worth keeping an eye on. From the story:

"In this case, the DEA agents had their fishing poles out to catch Lee," Thapar wrote. "Admittedly, the agents did not intend to break the law. But, they installed a GPS device on Lee's car without a warrant in the hope that something might turn up." 

 ...

The U.S. Supreme Court in January struck down law enforcement's use of GPS tracking in investigations without a warrant. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the 5-member majority that it was the attachment of the device that violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. That case involved a GPS placed on the Jeep of suspected Washington, D.C., drug kingpin Antoine Jones. The ruling overturned Jones' conviction and life sentence.
Lee's attorney, Michael Murphy of Lexington, said the only evidence against Lee was the marijuana found in the truck. Murphy said he based his argument in part on the Jones case.
"If they are going to be that intrusive on our lives, they should do it under the supervision of a court," said Murphy, a former federal prosecutor.

Obviously these cases are drug related, but if the argument is that the state cannot track people without a warrant there will likely be challenges to other public uses of tracking data. We know there are limits to when taxi cab GPS data can be collected, such as only when the meter is on. This limits research on interesting and important questions about what cruising taxi cabs do between fares. Hopefully mutually beneficial solutions can be negotiated before our data rich future gets swamped in litigation.

Taxi Deregulation: Evidence From Minneapolis

Minneapolis lifted the limits on the number of taxis licenses in 2006 and the number of cabs has increased from 373 to 799. Many taxi drivers are upset according to the StarTribune:

Frustration spills from the front seats of Minneapolis taxis these days. With few fares in the back seats, some drivers have plenty of time to vent about an influx of cabs in the city.

Around the corner from the downtown Hilton Hotel one recent afternoon, a neat row of cabs waited hours for what could be a $5 fare. Said Ali Said was parked last in line, lamenting that his dispatcher hadn't radioed a call in two hours.

"I don't blame them," he said. "I blame the business. And I blame the city. Because they put too many cabs on the street."

The Minneapolis taxi industry has undergone a period of remarkable growth since the city lifted a longstanding cap on the number of licenses in 2006, with benefits for consumers and frustrations for drivers who now face unprecedented competition to make a buck. In the past five years, the number of licensed cabs in Minneapolis has more than doubled from 373 to 799.

"To the delight of the Convention Center and the government downtown, it's pretty easy to grab a taxi in Minneapolis," said Zack Williams, owner of Rainbow Taxi, one of the city's oldest companies. "But it's not so good for the guy trying to make a living behind the wheel."

Don't expect the city to jump in with a regulatory solution. Just like the number of restaurants, city business licensing manager Grant Wilson expects that the market will eventually determine how many cabs is appropriate -- the number has already fallen slightly from last year. If they don't make money, drivers will hang up the keys and do something else.

If you care about mobility, access and transit then the more cabs the merrier. This should be a great deal for the city that more cities should try.
...
Unrelated, Grant Wilson has been on the job a long time. He was the guy I worked with on licensing my restaurant in the early 1990s. It's nice to see that he is still open to and encouraging of new ideas!  This is evidence of good governance.

Legal Challenges to New NYC Livery Rules

The New York Taxi and Limousine Commission is voting today on the proposed rules for outer borough livery cabs. Just in time, the yellow cab medallion owners have filed suit to block the program. From the NY Times:

A group representing owners of New York City’s signature yellow cabs filed suit on Wednesday over plans to allow livery cars to pick up passengers on the street outside the heart of Manhattan.
The State Legislature authorized the change in February, and the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission is expected to vote Thursday on whether to enact it.
City lawyers said they were confident that the plan, proposed by the Bloomberg administration last year, met legal requirements. It would allow 18,000 livery drivers buy permits to collect passengers when hailed in Upper Manhattan and the four other boroughs. Advocates of the plan say it would benefit millions of people in areas where yellow cabs are not common.
But the taxi owners’ group, the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, said the plan violated the rights of yellow cab owners who paid hefty fees for what has been an exclusive citywide right. It is seeking an injunction.

The proposal will also add 2,000 new yellow cab medallions. One of the issues here is that the medallions are worth about $1 million each, so the owners of the medallions seek to protect their economic rents and maintain the NYC taxi industry as a capital intensive industry with high barriers to entry. However, the goals of the taxi medallion owners do not perfectly align with broader social goals of mobility and access to transportation choices.

Perhaps more to the point, the new livery program is designed to legitimize activity that is already happening. It remains to be seen if it will work, but it is an attempt to provide a regulatory structure that will allow the market for street hails in New York City to expand beyond parts of Manhattan and the airports.

...........

Here is a bonus link about regulating New York City's Green Carts and food vending. From the Washington Post:

Fruit-and-vegetable carts might seem like an idea that everyone can get behind in a city where some areas only have one supermarket per 60,000 residents. But New York’s Green Cart initiative was hotly debated here when it was proposed. City planners worried about congestion on the sidewalks and by busy subway stations. Small grocers objected to new, non-bricks-and-mortar competitors, especially those who didn’t have to pay high rents and utilities. But legislation ultimately passed in June 2008, granting up to 1,000 permits to vendors to sell fresh produce in underserved areas.

Open questions about these local regulations involve  what should the regulatory priorities be. Safety? Competition? Wages? Health? Traffic? The optimal number of bananas? These are all good issues deserving policy interventions, but regulating all of them simultaneously is next to impossible. What is most important to one actor in the process is not necessarily the highest priority for another actor.

New News about Flying Cars and Taxis

The Terrafugia flying car, or roadable airplane, has received the high honor of NMA animation! See above video. The future is, as always, almost here.

New York City's Taxi of Tomorrow was officially debuted. This is a unique vehicle in that it has been designed specifically to be a taxi rather than some other car adapted to taxi use. Nissan hopes to market the vehicle elsewhere.

At NRDC's Switchboard blog Mark Izeman wonders about losing some of the recent environmental gains from hybrid engines with the conventionally powered Taxi of Tomorrow:

Nearly seven years ago, the first hybrid yellow taxis rolled onto the streets of New York City as part of an effort to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions. Today, about5,000 of these cleaner, greener taxis—nearly 40 percent of the total fleet—are in operation, working to cut air pollution, lower noise levels, and lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. The city’s hybrid taxi program was one of the first of its kind, and has served as a model of urban sustainability for other cities around the country.

I'll note that New York's efforts to require hybrid technology was blocked by a lawsuit brought by taxi medallion owners, and the courts found that New York City does not have the authority to regulate emissions standards. This lawsuit hasn't really made waves, but it seems like a big deal as cities expand their interests in environmental regulations. In addition, it seems cities should be able to regulate pollution that affects public health, or at least they should be able to if the federal government won't and citizens want it. Here is what Mayor Bloomberg said about the lawsuit last year:

“The cities are those that are addressing real-world problems, like climate change and energy policy,” he said. “The federal government seems unable to address those issues.”

Meet Stanley Wissak, an 84 year old taxi dispatcher, who owns 140 NYC yellow cab medallions. That means he is worth about $140 million. Read about him here.