I also call enviroCAB as my first choice nowadays, thought I did see some problems with a startup. A few months ago, my cabdriver had no idea how to get to National Airport. From major streets in the Clarendon area.

Although the driver was friendly, and the car was nice and new (I think they're all Priuses or hyrbid Camrys), was surprised even a new cabdriver couldn't find one of the most important destinations in the county.

by nashpaul on Jan 5, 2009 8:40 am  

and they save a lot of money on gas.

Are their rates thus cheaper than traditional taxis? Or do they pocket the savings instead of them on to the consumer?

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 9:14 am  

I saw a green cab company "serving Montgomery County" just over the weekend - I'm not sure if their entire fleet is hybrid, but the company was Sun Cab - (301) 252-0575.

by Anonymous on Jan 5, 2009 9:19 am  

EG, cab rates are set by local jurisdictions.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 9:23 am  

EG,

The localities set the cab rates, and it's a lot more expensive to buy a new Prius or Camry Hybrid than it is to buy a used Crown Vic. The used Crown Victoria is what a lot of cabbies in DC will buy or lease to get into the business.

The economics - especially now with gasoline prices low - are in favor of the old gas-guzzlers.

What we need are tax incentives and other incentives by the DC government to help bring cleaner, more fuel-efficient cabs into the District. And, when the right entrepreneur comes along, we must support that person and patronize their company.

by Mike S. on Jan 5, 2009 10:00 am  

Taxi laws are horribly inefficient. Just look at the NYC medallion system. It reminds me of harking back to the old political machine days where the cabbies got a government-supported labor cartel for no other reason than they could get away with it.

Cabbies are in favor of fixed rates for the same reason the railroad trusts were in favor of the Interstate Commerce Commission- on paper it was 'regulation' but it did nothing else but construct a barrier to entry. If I want to become a cabbie, I now have to go through a layer of red tape. Less cabbies=less competition.

So everyone's better off I guess, except for, oh yea, the consumers.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 10:17 am  

What DC needs is a taxi cab commission that isn't controlled by the taxi cab companies. Why do you think they shoot down every motion for cleaner cabs, or more contemporary cars for that matter? The current fleet is ancient, poorly maintained, and nobody is holding the taxi companies accountable.

Cabs in DC are, have been, and always will be a make-work program for the DC government. Dc will never have fuel efficient cabs, let alone a decent cab system like NYC or London, until the taxi cab commission is gutted and overhauled.

by monkeyrotica on Jan 5, 2009 10:19 am  

@Monkey-

But isn't that the point? Ever notice how over time every regulatory board seems to be infected by the very industry it's trying to regulate? Railroads, enviromental laws, taxis, etc.

It's not something that wishful thinking can do away with. It's an endemic issue with any regulatory board: when you give it power over industry X, the members of that industry have an incentive to leverage influence over it, and they invariably do.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 10:28 am  

disregarding any econ philosophy- I like it that the rates are set; i know what to expect, the rates seem reasonable and don't have to haggle. I would choose a hybrid cab too, given a choice, for my own reasons. And then regarding the econ philosophy and set rates: there is no reason to assume deregulation would mean lower rates (See Enron and California electricity). That aside I would, for personal reasons, choose the hybrid cab given the choice.

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 10:56 am  

Going back to the hybrid taxi question. I think it's great that consumers choose to use hybrid taxis and the signaling that such a preference makes is good for the environment. But, before we begin to give tax incentives to get taxis to change over I think we ought to ask two key questions. 1) Is it even necessary? EnviroCab started and operates without any additional tax incentive, so is one needed? 2) Is it the best use of money? If the point is to reduce CO2 emissions and pollutants than how much of these unwanted gases are removed per dollar spent? Is there a better (i.e. cheaper) way to remove the same amount? We should make a list of possible expenditures and rank them by their pollution/C02 reduction to cost ratio and work down the list. If hybrid taxis make it high on the list - great. If not, let them battle it out with non-hybrids.

by David C on Jan 5, 2009 12:12 pm  

I am willing to consider other possible positive externalities to encouraging hybrid taxis by the way.

by David Cr on Jan 5, 2009 12:14 pm  

There's plenty of reason to assume de-regulation would lower rates. This isn't the same as Enron or state utilities. Something like this, taxi service, it's easy to see how competition would force prices down if it were de-regulated or reformed to allow for more competition and innovation. As long as the services are safe, I don't see the reason for making it hard for companies like ones w/ hybrid taxi's to enter the market. DC really needs to get on this IMO if it's going to be known as a "green" city and it shouldn't cost much. Money that needs to be used by gov't to save energy shouldn't be pent up in a unnecessary bureaucracy.

by Vik on Jan 5, 2009 12:25 pm  

Vik,

How do you deregulate taxi fares? Do you mean the taxi driver can charge whatever he wants? Especially when it's raining or snowing? Or when I have a heavy package?

Right now, the problem is that anybody with $500 can buy a used Marquis or Crown Victoria with 150,000 miles on it that's been jettisoned from the Virginia fleet and bring it into DC and hire some poor stiff from the Third World to drive it around town. Legally. And there have been scandals and convictions involving the sale of safety inspection stickers.

New York mandates what's in the city's taxi fleet. DC could, but considering the city's inefficiency and dishonest bureaucracy, I can't see it happening soon with any degree of integrity.

So if we want hybrid cabs, we might urge the city to give them a break on the taxes and fees. Put a clean air taxi on the street, no license fee and free inspections for three years. That kind of thing. It's not a huge expenditure we're talking about...but an incentive.

by Mike S. on Jan 5, 2009 1:40 pm  

How do you deregulate taxi fares? Do you mean the taxi driver can charge whatever he wants? Especially when it's raining or snowing? Or when I have a heavy package?

Absolutely. First of all, prices aren't really set by the cabbie, but by buyers and sellers in the market. That's econ 101.

Rain and snow is risk to the driver, and thus you pay a premium on the risk. Would you pay higher to a valet service to ensure your car wasn't parked in a ghetto? Same concept, a risk premium.

What difference does it make if you're carrying a large package or not. So your demand curve is less elastic, but if it's 'evil' for him to profit off of that, wouldn't your consumer profit off the transaction if he couldn't raise the price be just as evil? Airlines price discriminate all the time; it's just a matter of charging consumers what they're willing to pay.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 1:56 pm  

I percieve current cab-ride rates to be reasonable so I'm satisfied with the fare regulation system. I do not want to haggle over a fare every time I get in a taxi. I know what to expect and I like it that way.

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 2:01 pm  

I'm not talking about de-regulating so anyone w/ a Crown Vic can go be a taxi-driver. I'm talking about making the process for introducing new cab services easier. Tax incentives and reducing certain fees are great too. Deregulating fares is another issue but I think it can be done. Given that you have paid the fees and obtained approval(meeting certain guidelines w/ respect to safety and equipment, which would have been an easier process than now, you would charge what you and the rider agree upon. I definitely think prices would go down in general, perhaps w/ the summer oil bubble, it would temporarily go up.

And I'm not saying there shouldn't be oversight either, just less regulation, in general. Seems like theres too much corruption and politicking between the gov't and cab companies.

And in general, I'm alright with a set fare system, but conceptually, I think something like deregulating fares would work, it doesn't seem too complex for it not too, it's just a taxi, not like a utility company.

by Vik on Jan 5, 2009 2:06 pm  

I percieve current cab-ride rates to be reasonable so I'm satisfied with the fare regulation system.

You don't want cheaper fare? According the the OP, the hybrid taxis are more fuel efficicent and (not counting overhead) have lower average costs, thus lower fares.

You don't like lower fares?

I do not want to haggle over a fare every time I get in a taxi. I know what to expect and I like it that way.

Haggling isn't involved. They charge a price and if you don't like it you don't take the cab. When I say prices are set by buyers and sellers, it's meant to be taken in the abstract sense.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 2:08 pm  

I have to haggle enough just to get a cab at night from Dupont back to the Hill - I don't want to add haggling over the fare, too. The haggling over zones was bad enough.

The predictability is too important and of far more value to me than the actual cost. This is one of those things where a totally free market sounds good on paper, but that of course assumes all consumers are making their decisions with perfect information - and when people are hailing cabs on the street, that most certainly is not the case.

Instead, there should be a method of auditing and re-evaluating cab rates at regular intervals.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 2:21 pm  

but that of course assumes all consumers are making their decisions with perfect information

And where is this asymmerty of information you preceive? We require that their fares be advertised and you get to choose whether you want to use the cab or not.

How is that different from any other good or service out there?

And do you honestly expect that a regulatory board could ever possibly keep up with all the factors which go into price? I guess since there's no recorded case in history of price controls working, DC taxicabs are a great place to start using them.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 2:27 pm  

EG,

If you remove pre-set prices I would expect prices to go up and quality of service to go down.

You will have an unbalanced market place where the seller is significantly more informed than the buyer. In such a system the first price offered by the seller is always well above market rate. Some buyers take it and some, more savvy buyers, don't. So it'll screw tourists. In addition you're talking about pulling a taxi over, asking him his price and then either paying it or rejecting it and sending him on his way. This means every time you need a taxi, you'll need to flag down several to get the right price or overpay. It is better in such a situation for buyers to negotiate one price beforehand.

In addition what happens to patrons who need to go to 'bad' neighborhoods? Now, they're protected by laws, but under a dynamic pricing system a drive need only demand $300 to avoid taking a fare they don't want.

I suppose it could work if taxis printed their prices on the outside of the taxi ($1.00 flag, $75/mile, $1 additional passenger, No trunk fee, etc... With simpler=better) but that would make it tough to modify prices quickly.

by David C on Jan 5, 2009 2:27 pm  

EG,

Right now, I know the rates of any cab I get in just off the top of my head.

If I had to go down to the street and hail cabs and then evaluate their fares, don't you think that would cause a bit of a mess?

If you don't like price controls, then implement some sort of periodic audit and readjustment of the rates. Still, the public benefits from having set rates. They know what fares will be, they can efficiently hail and get in cabs without clogging traffic as they negotiate rates, etc.

Raw economic efficiency is often impractical.

I'm not trying to defend DC's cabs here, I've had more than my share of bad experiences. But the idea that set rates are somehow bad for the public is odd, to say the least.

Can you name me one North American city that has cab rates floating as you propose?

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 2:36 pm  

If you remove pre-set prices I would expect prices to go up and quality of service to go down.

Find any economist that agrees with that statement and I'll take the rest of your post seriously. I don't mean to be snide, but there is essentially no economic literature out there whatsoever that supports that line of thought.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 2:37 pm  

For taxicabs, EG? I'm looking for some applied examples, not some academic, abstract notion of what would and wouldn't happen.

Again, do you have a case study of deregulated taxi cabs for us to examine?

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2009 2:45 pm  

First of all, why should a taxi driver be forced to drive someone to a bad neighborhood if he doesn't want to? Is he somehow a ward of the state or a government employee, unable to determine his own safety? Whatever happened to the right to refuse service?

but omg they'll discriminate against the blacks!!11!.

Possibly, and my guess is there are enough taxi drivers out there would be more than happy to pick up that segment of the demand for taxi customers.

So it'll screw tourists.

And amusement parks, restaurants near attractions and hotels don't?

They know what fares will be, they can efficiently hail and get in cabs without clogging traffic as they negotiate rates, etc.

Would you shop at a place if it didn't post how much it's stuff cost? It's generally bad business to not post your prices.

Can you name me one North American city that has cab rates floating as you propose?

I can't off the top of my head. But it's pretty easy to emprically show that price controls result in shortages and surpluses.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 2:46 pm  

but omg they'll discriminate against the blacks!!11!.

Wow, EG, it sounds like you're incredibly unconcerned about that, or what happens to black people generally. Are they one of your myriad "risks" that "astute", "rational" business people have to "manage"?

Meanwhile, people are choosing a taxicab service for reasons that you apparently don't like or understand: the quality of the service, rather than the price. I'm sure that if you wanted to start up a "market-oriented" tap-tap jitney service like one expects in developing countries, nothing is preventing you but the law.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 5, 2009 2:55 pm  

@Daniel. You tell me. People like money, so there must be something going on in their heads if they're that willing to turn down a fare.

And again, is the taxicab driver a ward of the state? Must he be required to drive someone to Trinidad at 2 AM if he doesn't want to?

@whoever wanted academic support-

"It is found that many of the characteristics of taxi markets that would appear to confirm the monopolistic-competition arise because of the nature of regulation of these markets"

"Capacity Utilization under Alternative Regulatory Restraints: An Analysis of Taxi Markets", 1975

Arthur S De Vany, Texas A&M Univeristy, available on JSTOR

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:01 pm  

"...to confirm the monopolistic-competition thesis arise..."

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:02 pm  

Meanwhile, people are choosing a taxicab service for reasons that you apparently don't like or understand: the quality of the service, rather than the price.

And you're more than welcome to patronize taxi services which offer 'better' service for higher prices. As long as I have the choice myself to take 'worse' service for a lower price, that's fine by me.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:14 pm  

When you pay for a taxi most of the fare isn't going to the car or the gas, it's going to pay the driver. That's why you can rent a sedan at Enterprise for $20 a day or a ZipCar for $9 an hour but could never get a cab for those rates.

So to add the discussion, regulated cab fares also constitute a kind of minimum wage. They guarantee a homeless person who lives in his car doesn't drastically undercut the price of a cab.

Is that a good thing? :shrug:

by BeyondDC on Jan 5, 2009 3:15 pm  

Is that a good thing? :shrug:

Price floors lead to overproduction (surpluses). We refer to surplus labor as unemployment.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:19 pm  

Also, it's worth noting that catching a cab isn't necessarily an activity that for which people in the city want to be bothered to comparison shop.

If I'm calling a cab to be dispatched or picking one up from a busy cab stand, then sure, I'm willing to comparison shop. But if I'm standing on a streetcorner trying to hail the first cab that comes along, then I don't want to have to watch 3 or 4 go by because they're too cheap or too expensive for my tastes.

So, from the perspective of the city serving its citizens, I can understand why uniform service is a desirable trait.

What would happen, I wonder, if regulations were written to make all street cabs uniform, but to allow call-a-cabs to set their own fares.

by BeyondDC on Jan 5, 2009 3:20 pm  

EG, You're oversimplifying a very complex economics position - "that price controls result in shortages and surpluses." That's true. But that's only half the story. The lack of price controls results in transactional costs as the buyer shops for the best price. Those are real costs. So while the price might go down, (if there is a surplus of taxis instead of a shortage) the cost will go up. Niranjan Rajadhyaksha at CafeEconomics writes "The economic rationale for price control is as follows. The taxi market has information asymmetries—which means that the seller knows more than the buyer. A consumer tends to sit in the first taxi that comes his way and has little idea whether the fare quoted by the cabbie is worth accepting or whether he should wait for another taxi, or yet another. He cannot compare prices without high transaction costs. So, a government body fixes taxi fares."

Here's a paper on the subject which argues that "the use of a centralised intermediary in deregulated taxi markets can overcome these problems so that the benefits of competition are maximised, without the need for government fare regulation."

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118587807/abstract

So even here an intermediary, other than the government is needed. And this appears to be only a theory.

It's pretty common economics thinking. I am resisting the urge to be snarky here so instead let me ask that you be more cautious with your snideness. Perhaps the statement

"That is an interesting theory that differs with everything I've been taught. Do you know of any literature that backs it up?"

Would be less offputting.

by David C on Jan 5, 2009 3:21 pm  

should read "So while the price might go down... the cost MAY go up." That again depends on many factors. But you must subtract the transactional costs from the price gain and that may be a negative number.

Additionally, for the price to go down for buyers there must be a surplus of taxis due to the artificially high price. If the price went down some taxis would leave the market and we'd all be waiting longer for a taxi. There's a cost to that too.

by David C on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 pm  

Vik, I concur generally with the notion of incentivizing(sp?) in some way fleets of automobiles (and trucks and busses) to be less polluting. I was responding to the notion of being forced to haggle for a fare each time I hail a cab. The predictablitiy and convenience of set fares is far more important to me than saving a few bucks on a ride every now and then. More likely I'd be paying a higher fee every time compared to now because i only take cabs when I'm in a big hurry. I'm not going to pass one by in that situation. If I had time to "shop around" for the best cab fare I'd walk or take metro!

EG, I have not noticed a shortage or surplus of cabs where I generally catch them. Like i said I don't have any complaints about cabs in DC generally. Well, maybe now I have one: I want to be able to choose a hybrid...

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 pm  

So you're saying that the consumer will likely take the first cab that comes to him and not compare the price of that cab to other cabs, we are guessing due to the preference to save time and get where he wants to go quicker.

They are certainly transaction costs, but in most other cases, transaction costs are certainly borne by the conusmer anyways. I go back to the price discrimination example with airlines: The business traveler who books the day before a flight will be charged more than a family who booked 3 months ago.

If price discrimination is legal in other industries, why ban it in the taxicab industry? Besides, I see two scenarios where someone would take a cab: A- where he calls a cab to come and pick up him, whereby he can shop around before making the appointment, or B- the rush-hour patron who is trying to save time (as I mentioned above), but since it tends to be a large market at that time of day (rush hour), we would expect a larger supply of taxis to meet demand, thus giving the customer a chance to compare prices of the cabs.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:30 pm  

For cab fares, the Third World (paragon of deregulation) has plenty of people willing to bring you to your destination, demand $100, and then sic the police on you when you fail to pay. Or forget your destination. Or write a long contract in a foreign language and then serve tourists. You are in the cabbie's power for the duration of the ride, and most people don't expect "taxi service" to screw them over (they prefer it to function as a transit mode rather than a private bad-faith negotiation), so we regulate it to mean a certain thing.

At some point, our consumer protection laws (which allow us to dictate the definitions of advertised words, like "taxi service") have to cut in and prevent either unscrupulous after-the-fact demands, or before-the-fact haggling which stops a lane of a busy street for five minutes.

A clear, concise, non-exploitative cab fare which is generally agreed upon is of major utility to a city, whether it's moderately overpriced or not. It can be adjusted by fiat if complaints are loud enough.

For a cab fleet, I see no reason to go to NYC's restrictive tactics unless we're actually restricting downtown traffic (and implicitly cutting out most normal cars).

Yes, a safety-inspection medallion & standardized fare collection should be used, but they shouldn't be limited to a set number of cars every year. If they want to distribute authorization along corporate lines (so they can appoint an overseer to one location, say), then as long as they keep the barrier to entry low, the service & fleet size should remain responsive to demand.

by Squalish on Jan 5, 2009 3:37 pm  

silly dialogue but I can't help myself-

So EG, what happens at the taxi stand at National? (The other time i often take a cab). Currently departing travellers stand in line and take the next cab available while there is an airport employee organizing the process. What chaos to you propose in the name of "market forces" in that situation? Won't that be fun after a 12 hr flight.

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 3:38 pm  

If the system was a bit less regulated, we'd have more cabs and prices would come down. Cab drivers would need to make a living and therefore would operate more efficiently. Overall, it would work out a lot better for the passenger. Perhaps an audit and adjust system could work, but again, it wouldn't make me more comfortable compared to what we have now since the cartel of cab businesses would be colluding with the gov't to set prices. If there's one thing I'm sure about, cabs would be cheaper. Maybe the quality would be lower in some, not all cases, but I'm almost positive that the prices would be cheaper, service more efficient, and hopefully safer, and also we'd have more cabs. Again, w/ something like cabs that shouldn't require a lot of meddling from the gov't, as much as utilities or infrastructure for example, the prices will be set at the most appropriate level.

We'd need lots of oversight to make sure that companies aren't cutting corners to increase their margins if the competition was high, though. Perhaps the gov't and a private company w/ some external review or something.

by Vik on Jan 5, 2009 3:40 pm  

I am in legal favor, by the way, of regulation via definition - so we slap certain words (like "cab" & "taxi") with these restrictions, but allow other words (like "vanshare" or "jitney" or "limo") to have their own service levels.

by Squalish on Jan 5, 2009 3:42 pm  

@Bianchi- That's an issue with National Airport. They're free to implement whatever kind of system for distributing passengers they want. No one is forced to use National Airport.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:43 pm  

You cannot seriously compare airlines to cabs. The nature of the service they provide and the trips customers use them for is too different.

For the transaction cost of waiting for the right cab to be worth it to me (and I suspect for most riders who hail cabs), there would have to be a drastic oversupply of them. If I'm going to watch 3 or 4 empty cabs go by before picking one I want, then there had better be an empty cab going by every 10 seconds. Unfortunately, we don't have the cab-riding population density in DC to support that level of cab service. Very few places do.

Now, dispatch services, different story. I'd totally be willing to comparison shop for a dispatch. Indeed, comparison shopping is already available for *some* such services. If I need a ride to the airport (and for some reason aren't using transit), I can pay less for a SuperShuttle that will make a handful of other stops and therefore be less convenient.

by BeyondDC on Jan 5, 2009 3:45 pm  

For cab fares, the Third World (paragon of deregulation) has plenty of people willing to bring you to your destination, demand $100, and then sic the police on you when you fail to pay. Or forget your destination. Or write a long contract in a foreign language and then serve tourists. You are in the cabbie's power for the duration of the ride, and most people don't expect "taxi service" to screw them over (they prefer it to function as a transit mode rather than a private bad-faith negotiation), so we regulate it to mean a certain thing.

Squalish: you're arguing with a "libertarian" on the Internet. Not only does EG encourage these things to happen, he considers it ideal for minors to be paid slave wages to drive taxicabs, thus enabling him to have both full employment and the lowest fare possible. Furthermore, it is more important that things are negotiable than functional, and Haiti and the Philippines are seen as ideal providers of transportation services on this level.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 5, 2009 3:45 pm  

@Beyond DC

I'm talking about the concept of price discrimination. I should have picked an example outside of the transportation industry. But the truth of the matter is that as someone's time-frame of purchase decreases, their willingness to pay a higher price to ensure they receive that good or service increases.

by economic geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:48 pm  

The National Airport situation also happens at several of the suburban Metro stations.

by BeyondDC on Jan 5, 2009 3:49 pm  

EG: This is getting comic. So if National Airport's taxis are too much of a rip-off, then someone will just start up their own airport to compete with National? We should have a thousand airports so everyone can choose whichever one they want?

Economics starts with the equation of supply and demand, but doesn't end there. Real economists know that when there are big barriers to entry, markets don't function freely.

The more genuine libertarian argument would be that National shouldn't have just one taxi stand, but taxi companies and operators can run their own kiosks in the airport and compete for customers where customers can compare choices. That still probably wouldn't work, but it's at least not as patently ridiculous as "National Airport [a public entity] is free to [use their monopoly power to] implement whatever system they want [because] no one is forced to use National Airport."

by David Alpert on Jan 5, 2009 3:49 pm  

EG, I see. My arms are sure going to be tired next time I fly in.

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 3:49 pm  

@Daniel

lolwut?

The only way we'll see rickshaws in the streets is if that's what people want to get around on. Somehow I think the tastes of the average DC area resident involves cars that function.

Of course regulation is so much better and never fails the consumer, just look at Metrolink's impeccable safety record in Southern California. I was so silly to assume otherwise.

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 3:51 pm  

>as someone's time-frame of purchase decreases, their willingness to pay a higher price to ensure they receive that good or service increases.

But their willingness to spend time haggling over the price goes down, which explains why consumers favor restricting the market in order to ensure quick/easy service on a mode of travel generally used by people who need quick/easy service.

The point of taxis is not to get around at whatever cost I want. If I want to do things more cheaply, I can take transit. If I want to do things more expensively, I can buy a car. The point of street taxis is to make quick/easy transportation available on an as-needed basis. It defeats the entire purpose of the mode if you have to go to a lot of trouble to use it.

by BeyondDC on Jan 5, 2009 3:54 pm  

Huh -- wasn't there a discussion about hybrid cabs at some point?

by Gavin on Jan 5, 2009 3:54 pm  

Yes the discussion was about hybrid cabs - here's a mode of transportation available for hire in DC that's even less polluting than a hybrid

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010300057.html

This was on the front page of yesterday's WashPost Bussiness section! Did someone say rickshaws would never be found in DC??? ;-)

by Bianchi on Jan 5, 2009 4:16 pm  

Kosmo Kramer and Newman seen holding tryouts among the cities homeless for an experimental new version of carbon-neutral public transit...

by Economic Geography on Jan 5, 2009 4:24 pm  

Also, if there are a lot of cabs, which would be the result of a less regulated taxi system w/ more providers and cabs, drivers would know that the rider could just wait a sec. and find another cab if the fare was too high. So I doubt we'd have a situation where you'd be waiting long for a cab, unless you're like some of my relatives.

But yeah, we need hybrid cabs stat, it's ridiculous a city like DC doesn't have any yet.

Rickshaws are fine for certain distances and purposes. Again, the option of having a rickshaw if there is demand is something we ought to have and we do, fortunately.

by Vik on Jan 5, 2009 4:26 pm  

Haha, Gavin, this. IAWTC so bad.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 5, 2009 4:27 pm  

I also with David here. Understanding supply and demand may be Econ 101, but understanding barriers to entry is Econ 102. (I'd also say understanding the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is Econ 203, but that's a different thread....)

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 5, 2009 4:30 pm  

The primary reason you won't see hybrid cabs in DC is because the Taxicab Commission has declared that there can be no no cab companies opening in DC.

That means the large suburban cab companies that would have the resources and the desire to do hybrid cabs can't open shop in DC.

So we are left with the crappy cab companies we currently have.

Nothing quite like an unelected city agency dictating policy and creating a monopoly to protect a dismally substandard status quo.

Until that changes, cabs in DC will suck forevermore and a day.

by Hillman on Jan 6, 2009 1:39 pm