Taxi Medallions Monopoly

nah, the cabbies had government sponsored monopoly, so they had no incentive to improve. For example NY Taxi Medallion (permission to drive a cab) was sold for hundred thousands of dollars.Even when Lyfr/Uber gets more expensive, there would atill be competition, so it should not suck as much.

Thank you for the link. The licence value is the key reason why taxis are pissed. It is also the reason why they organised taxis scarcity, keeping the licence price up, and the service terrible. They kind of created the ideal conditions for alternative solutions developpment. But a proper way of recouping their investment should be provided to them rather than articially distinguishing the Uber businesses and taxis businesses. Its basically the same.

Taxi services are a classic case of monopoly through regulation. The canonical example is the medallion in NYC (and other places). These medallions are required to legally provide a traditional taxi service. They can cost $1M[0] (or can be leased for $1000s/month). The supply of taxis is limited by the restrictions on medallions - already leading to a movement along the demand curve to a point above market-clearing equilibrium (higher cost, lower quantity of transactions). In addition to th

At least in the part of the States I'm familiar with (NYC), there is this whole business with taxi medallions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City which seems pretty dubious in the modern age. Registered taxis have to basically rent a medallion as it's too expensive to own one outright anymore (although that market has been all over the place).

I think a more likely explanation would be incumbents in the cab industry not wanting to see the value of their taxi medallions (for cab companies) or driver permits (for cab drivers) getting diluted. They both stand to maximize their profits if by limiting their competition. And at least for cab drivers, it's not too hard sympathize with them on that front.But Uber does solve some real problems with traditional taxi service. In many cases it does a better job at solving the problems

Cities that regulate taxis usually do that because they treat them as an extension of city's transport infrastructure. Cities put certain burdens on taxis - like the requirement of picking up and driving passengers even if it's unprofitable or inconvenient (e.g. to/from outskirts, to/from hospitals), making some of the fleet accessible to elderly and disabled, carrying appropriate insurance, having somewhat fixed rates. In exchange, the city gives a bunch of privileges to the

I'm guessing that taxis are a protected industry, as a result from lobbying, and that you can't just register as a taxi provider. I'm guessing that, like most cities, they have found taxi licensing to be a nice little earner for the city, and intentionally limit supply in order to keep the prices high.

Is Uber any better? They are their own cartel, much more powerful than taxi drivers.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9771551

Taxis, even in San Francisco, were woefully inadequate prior to Uber. Further, it not as if taxis were driver friendly. The majority of the money went the the medallion holder. The medallion holders artificially constricted service to keep rates high via a monopoly. So, there was no pre-rideshare paradise to return to.

It's the same in NYC and Boston. If you can afford a medallion you have enough money to not be a taxi driver.Honestly, I'm not convinced Uber's fast-and-loose approach is a bad thing. We view disruption as a good thing when it ousts an exploitative private entity -- why is it any different for the government?