A Federal judge crushed New York City’s plan to force existing taxi operators to use higher efficiency vehicles (nytimes article). The city’s politicians seem helpless in the face of this decision, which says that only the Feds can regulate emissions or fuel consumption.
Is the city truly impotent? It is the city alone that decides how and to whom to issue taxicab medallions. The number has been fixed for decades while taxi fares have been allowed to rise, resulting in a trading value for the medallions of $600,000 (a return on this investment must be recovered from the hapless customers).
If the city wants to see hybrid or electric taxis on its roads, why doesn’t it issue new taxi medallions to drivers who promise, in exchange, to use high-efficiency vehicles? The fare on these new, presumably smaller, taxis would be set at 75 percent of the fare on the standard gas guzzling taxis. Consumers could choose the spacious gas guzzlers at a higher fare structure or a more cramped ride in a Prius at a lower fare. As most people are cost-conscious, eventually most of the taxi miles driven would be in Prius-style vehicles rather than the current V8 guzzlers.
How could the operator of a Prius survive on 25 percent less revenue per mile than the current operators? The Prius operator wouldn’t have to pay $600,000 for a medallion from an existing owner, but rather perhaps just a $1,000 per year inspection fee. The Prius operator would be paying less for fuel.
Or – just a wild thought – they could just open the market for taxis up, and let drivers decide what kind of vehicles would serve the market best.
I know, I know – that’s just crazy talk 🙂
The planetary gear transmission in a Prius also has much less wear and tear than a conventional transmission, and the gasoline motor is run at peak torque, all of which means the Prius will outlast a conventional car, even a regular Toyota (not to mention the ho-hum offerings of the soon-to-be-bankrupt Detroit big 3).
The taxi medallion system is an anachronistic blight. Why not abolish it entirely and move to cell phone hail, gps tagged taxis and other modern technologies? Or at least threaten to do so as a way to get the taxis better.
The idea of ownership of a monopoly share is silly. If there are to be monopoly shares, they should be leased (and abolished as soon as the monopoly no longer makes sense, which was ages ago.)
To accomplish cell phone hail, have cell companies accept calls for taxis from unactivated cell phones, charging the taxi companies (800 number style). Unactivated obsolete phones are effectively free.
Just finished reading Grisham’s The Appeal, which tells a story about selecting a supreme court judge in Missisippi. It’s pretty horrendous how politicized the election of the judges has become considering the power they have.
I once used a Prius taxi this year in Norway and must say it’s a match made in heaven. In city traffic where the speeds hardly ever rise very high (at least for long periods), the high torque of the electric engine can show its best sides. And since the fuel engine is used much less than on highways, the advantage a hybrid has in consumption and greenhouse emissions is even amplified compared to average driving.
Hell, why not issue N ULEV emission taxi medallions directly from the city for $250,000 a pop and leave the rates the same? The city gets a new infusion of revenue, and gets their way from an environmental standpoint.
(And possibly, allow a one-way conversion of 1 “old” medallion into 2 “new” medallions for no-charge.)
How well would a Prius would stand up to and perform in that role? I am pretty sure the engineers did not design for that sort of usage. Is the back seat easy to get in and out of? (Flip side of the question – why is the Ford Crown Victoria apparently the most often used now, as mentioned in the article?)
A better question is why not force use of a purpose-built vehicle, like the London Taxi (of which there is an American version)? A smaller vehicle (less crowded roads), lots of usable interior room (practical), and better gas mileage (less pollution) – sounds like a good change.
Adding new cheaper permits (with new requirements) would make for a messy transition, but otherwise sounds like a good idea.
Here in Vancouver we don’t have a medallion system, though taxis are licensed so presumably there is some limit on their numbers. But most taxi companies seem to be buying Priuses now anyway — they are coming to dominate our city’s taxi fleet, without any legislation (that I know of) pushing them. I think that’s simply because they are cheaper to run. Why aren’t NYC’s taxi drivers finding the same — i.e., we does the city need to force them?
Rather than a fixed rate lease for new ULEV medallions, you could have 3 year lease terms sold at auction. The city gets the market value of the medallion, keeps ownership, and the lease terms can be staggered so that a certain percentage renew each year.
Hey, two years ago a federal judge tossed out California’s attempt to legislate a higher percentage of clean vehicles than the EPA mandates. Apparently nobody is allowed to under-pollute — that would be un-American.
Utter crap.
I believe NYC has medallions earmarked for clean vehicles, and is free to increase the number of these in response to Judge Crotty’s ruling. The arguments about the fitness of current hybrids to serve as taxis are essentially moot, since the Escape has been in that role for several years and the Prius makes up in economy and popularity what it lacks in space. But if there were a purpose-built hybrid cab, it would make the ruling all the more indefensible.