"I'm from the government and I'm here to help" — Edition 5,243,682

Ronald Bailey | September 23, 2009

As a frequent rider in DC cabs, I'm nearly apoplectic! Two exceptionally stupid and mendacious DC City council members, Jim Graham and Muriel Bowser, want to impose a medallion system on DC taxis. Why? As the Washington Post notes:

Graham said the bill is aimed at protecting the market of District cabs. The council member said he is concerned that, without regulation, the city, which he said has more than 8,000 taxicab operators, will be overrun with taxis. Graham said that more than 300 additional taxicab operators are licensed annually. 

Just exactly why would DC residents want to have fewer taxis? If more drivers are entering the market doesn't that suggest strongly that supply has not yet equalled demand? In protest, a 1,000 taxi drivers went on strike against the bill. The Post reports:

Ali Tahmaseb, who has been driving a District cab for 26 years, fears that even with options the bill will hurt his livelihood. He shares [Dominion Cab driver Larry] Frankel's concerns and said that the rate to operate a taxi could go from about $30 a day to more than $100 a day if the bill is passed.

"This bill would enslave us," he said Tuesday while standing with other protesters.

The whole Post article detailing this sad example of deep economic ignorance can be found here.

Comments

robc|9.23.09 @ 10:55AM|#

Fuck off slavers.

(Its entirely on topic for a change)

|9.23.09 @ 11:02AM|#

Graham said the bill is aimed at protecting the market of District cabs.

I wonder where he got that idea...

|9.23.09 @ 11:05AM|#

WTF is with the guy with the bow tie and yellow-rimmed glasses? D.C. elected Charles Nelson Riley to the council?

|9.23.09 @ 11:05AM|#

First of all, I would guess that if DC has any fleet owners (people/companies that own many cabs), they are behind this. Secondly, the medallion system creates vast power for the government bureaucrats who run it, as evidenced in NYC; medallions go for hundreds of thousands of dollars and are coveted, so people will do anything to get them.

|9.23.09 @ 11:07AM|#

Overrun with taxis? How long can a taxi operate without picking up a fare? Ridiculous.

mark|9.23.09 @ 11:10AM|#

as evidenced in NYC; medallions go for hundreds of thousands of dollars and are coveted,

That is a fact. Ladies and gentlemen, cap and trade, in action.

|9.23.09 @ 11:12AM|#

This has been building for a while. They talked about introducing this bill before. I think Reason even covered it. At the very least, I know I mentioned and linked to it in a H&R commenting thread.

It's still unbelievably stupid.

skr|9.23.09 @ 11:17AM|#

@Jim Graham

You keep using that word "overrun". I do not think it mean what you think it means.

skr|9.23.09 @ 11:20AM|#

It makes me wonder if he means that there are too many cabs, or too many brown cabdrivers.

Oh God, I just threw up a little in my mouth for making a racism argument. Excuse me while I go flail myself.

JB|9.23.09 @ 11:24AM|#

No surprise that Jim Graham is a fan of slavery.

That piece of shit has been a fuck-up on the DC political scene for far too long.

T|9.23.09 @ 11:30AM|#

DC City Council keeps trying to give Detroit a run for the money as the worst managed city in America.

|9.23.09 @ 11:34AM|#

Why do cities outright refuse to deregulate transit entirely? I don't get it at all. Eliminate the cap on taxis, sell off the buses, and let the market decide how to move people around.

Places like Charlotte completely fucked themselves financially with light-rail fiascos.

I tried proposing this to a group of New Urbanists and they completely shit themselves. They were not able to grasp the concept of letting the general populace move itself through market forces. They kept trying to restate my argument as favoring "gypsy cabs." Some of the responses were downright hilarious, but it's scary how people just can't grasp the concept of individual freedom without the "gentle" guiding hand of a benevolent, disintersted metro gov't.

|9.23.09 @ 11:45AM|#

"""Why do cities outright refuse to deregulate transit entirely? I don't get it at all. Eliminate the cap on taxis, sell off the buses, and let the market decide how to move people around.""

The people have already decided. They like their cars.

The problem with mass transit is it only really works in really high density areas. Well, depending on your definition of works. Even the NYC subway system needs some subsidies. If the level of NYC ridership can't suppport the cost of it's transit system, I don't think any place in the US can.

|9.23.09 @ 11:45AM|#

But gypsy cabs smell like garlic, and they play that awful music!

|9.23.09 @ 11:47AM|#

"""Overrun with taxis? How long can a taxi operate without picking up a fare? Ridiculous."""

I've heard people say NYC has too many taxis. I always reply, ever try getting one during rush hour?

Colin|9.23.09 @ 11:48AM|#

Graham first announced his intention to regulate DC cabs back in July:

http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2009/07/dc-taxis.html

|9.23.09 @ 11:49AM|#

I've heard people say NYC has too many taxis. I always reply, ever try getting one during rush hour?

The people who say that either (a) ride the subway or (b) have their own car and driver.

|9.23.09 @ 11:52AM|#

I think they mean this DC Cab

|9.23.09 @ 12:01PM|#

Muriel Bowser?

|9.23.09 @ 12:06PM|#

Boston/Cambridge have the worst cab system I've ever encountered. Both cities have their own medallion system, and a lot of people go back and forth from one side of the Chuck (Charles River for non-locals) as there is night life and housing on each side...

The issue is that Cambridge cabs can't pick up in Boston, and vice-a-versa... It is absolute hell trying to catch a cab, and extremely frustrating when you try to hop in a cab that just dropped people off and they say they can't pick up on that side of town.

too ashamed to leave my name|9.23.09 @ 12:06PM|#

DC, Detroit, New Orleans - arguably the 3 worst run, most corrupt city governments in the country - and what do they all have in common?
I'm just saying.......

|9.23.09 @ 12:10PM|#

It occurs to me that as getting a cab becomes more difficult and expensive, less people will take public transit into D.C. and just drive their own car instead.

Other unintended consequences (tourism anybody?) surely exist.

Tricky Prickears|9.23.09 @ 12:10PM|#

Philly's got that shit. Now, I think they even require cabs to have credit card machines/readers.

The fact is, there were a lot of cabs operating without insurance (because it's so damn high) and the city, in all their wisdom, thought that this would be good way to make sure they are all insured (at least, that's what they said publicly). Did it help? Maybe, a little. Are there still illegal cabs operating? OF COURSE.

creech|9.23.09 @ 12:17PM|#

D.C. cabs have fares that are out of sight. Why, just last week, it was cheaper for Mrs. Obamessiah to hail a dozen armored SUVs to take her a few blocks to pick up some groceries.

|9.23.09 @ 12:24PM|#

@DanD,

If there's one thing we've learned from the chronic massive state and local budget shortfalls, it's that different = bad.

If you make the same mistakes that everyone else makes, when the bills come due, you just say, "I had no idea this would happen, and neither did anyone else." If you do something different and that fails, you're out your cushy government job. Follow that template for decades, and eventually, people can't even concieve of a "new and different" plan.

I, Kahn O\'Clast|9.23.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Ah... nice. Fewer cabs + already established and hated zone system = more hell in DC.

All they need do now is pour an inch of brackish water in the passenger compartment to make cab travel in DC perfect*


*props to The Onion.

|9.23.09 @ 12:54PM|#

@Legate

Yeah, I getcha on why cities refuse to relinquish their grip on transit. It's a sad reality.

But what i don't get is why New Urbanists--people who typically aren't working directly for the government--are so appalled at the thought of letting people choose for themselves how they want to get around. Like, if someone commuting to work wants to charge others to ride along in their car, I don't see what's wrong with that. The people riding get to choose exactly what suits them, and the person driving gets a little extra money to help with the costs.

The New Urbanists answer: "won't this lead to more cars on the road? We can't have that! We should demolish lots of perfectly good land and homes to build a rail line to these commuters."

And I bang my head against the wall.

They're just incapable of thinking beyond centralized control of things. It's so very frustrating.

|9.23.09 @ 1:13PM|#

"that supply has not yet equaled demand?"

Supply and demand are curves that never become equal. Quantity demanded might equal quantity supplied at some price.

roystgnr|9.23.09 @ 2:40PM|#

After we sell off the busses, do we sell off the roads, too? Because if not, then we're not really ending government interference in transportation, are we? We're just restricting government interference to "subsidizing modes of transportation I like".

GILMORE|9.23.09 @ 2:50PM|#

TrickyVic | September 23, 2009, 11:52am | #
I think they mean this DC Cab

Damn you for beating me to this.

Opening sequence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtcwmcdeXYA&feature=PlayList&p=8466A788BB998443&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=86

Kyle Varner|9.23.09 @ 3:03PM|#

More taxis=Better. It is a pain in the ass to hail a cab, because so many are already full. How do they not get this!

The real question: Who benefits from this? Then, check their freezer. I'm sure you'll find lots of cash!

JB|9.23.09 @ 8:19PM|#

But gypsy cabs smell like garlic, and they play that awful music!

I was in a cab once and the guy was crazy high and the entire cab reeked of marijuana. Thankfully we were only going a few blocks because the MJ didn't help as he was driving much more crazy than a regular cabbie.

Sean Healy|9.25.09 @ 10:55AM|#

DanD,
I think you are ignoring the fact that all cities are subject to their physical legacies. I live in Dublin, Ireland, which is over 1,000 years old. Apart from buses, there is very little permanent public transport infrastructure (compared to other European cities of its size). So, in a way, we're a living experiment of "let people decide how they want to move around". Indeed, most people decide (for lack of other options) to drive. Traffic is outrageous. At rush hour, there are parts of the city where average speeds are literally one mile an hour. That's what you get when you combine pre-car urban environments with a "choose what you like i.e. drive a car" transport policy. In the last decade there has been some investment in light rail and increasing capacity on existing (pre-20th century) rail infrastructure, but it's disruptive and expensive. But you know what? You can't improve a medieval street plan without huge disruption and expense either. Road capacity is an issue in a lot of cities, too.