We are dealing with all hands on deck challenges in climate change and peak oil so every little bit counts. In this regard I’m glad to see the limo industry is a willing partner. Fortunately, the same is happening in cities and nations all over the world. London and NYC have both recently announced their taxicab fleets will be transitioning to electric vehicles over this decade. Israel is aiming to make its transport sector “completely free of petroleum” by 2020 and China is set on becoming the world’s largest electric vehicle producer by 2012 (http://www.economist.com/node/17493423). Self interest surely plays a huge role here but it is encouraging to see city and national governments showing leadership in the transition away from dirty energy sources and technologies.

I wonder what the cost would be to convert the limo’s to hydrogen or natural gas and then advertise them as “green”. The city should provide some credit for doing this given they put the rule in place to begin with.

The strange limo rule appears to have been put in place to avoid a direct competitor to cabs, but it’s definitely a ridiculous rule.

The Thought of The Day

“When a City Hall insider gives you Limos, make Limonade.”

In any analysis of a confusing bureaucratic or political matter, the golden rule is to ask: ‘WHO BENEFITS?’ Answer correctly and you’ll get your reward.

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

I applaud the city for this small initiative, but believe it reinforces the need for a more comprehensive review of the taxi/limousine/industy. W also need to examine alternatives to the private auto and public transit.

What ‘other alternatives’ am I thinking about? How about shared taxis and other vehicles, and neighbourhood shuttles that might be privately operated, and modified electric or pedal-powered ‘tuk-tuks’, etc. ?

My suspicion is that the regulations affecting taxis, etc are like many zoning by-laws…they were developed in a different era when we had different values, and have slowly been modified over time. However, the rules that worked then do not necessarily work now…our values have changed, as noted in Frances’ article.

As we slowly begin to accept alternatives to the private auto, I would like to see further reviews of taxis and limos and the related licensing systems. For example whe might assess whether Vancouver should adopt the ‘mini-cab’ system that operates in London and other UK cities. Also, should we change the rules re: sharing taxis and limos…as I understand it, there are rules preventing certain types of sharing; taxi drivers are constantly being fined for stopping or waiting for fares or dropping of fares, etc. It’s tough to flag a taxi in many areas, etc for these reasons.

Three years ago I wrote two columns in the Vancouver Sun…one suggested we need to make Vancouver more ‘bike friendly’ and the other proposed making Vancouver more ‘taxi-friendly’. As readers of this blog well know, we’re making great progress on item 1, but there’s a lot to do re: item 2. The greening of the limousine industry is a start, but there’s oh so much more that needs to be done!

Chris, exactly…..

And while I’m not suggesting that I want to be allowed to take a pedicab from downtown to Surrey, I am suggesting that maybe pedicabs could become less of a novelty and more of a legitimate form of alternative transportation, especially when one considers the potential for electric assist pedicaps, tuk-tuk’s etc

If there’s a public discussion and community desire, we can change the geographic limits on where they can go, and other rules affecting their operation.

I’m not saying we should do this….there may be many unintended consequences that need to be thought through.

But I can say that I would use more public transit if there was a pedicab or tuk-tuk or neighbourhood shuttle to get me and my neighbours from our homes to the transit system. And I know there are thousands of others just like us…

So let’s start with a review of our current taxi and limousine licensing provisions, and then move onto whether we should have mini-cabs, and then whether we can have pedicabs and community shuttles, etc.

Let’s bring in the people who developed our current licensing provisions, as well as people from other jurisdictions to comment…let’s hear from the public…Translink, etc. Just as the rule requiring so many stretched limos per standard limos sounds absurd to some of us, I can assure you that there are many other similarly absurd regulations that need to be changed.

So thanks Frances…maybe the limo story will be a catalyst for a review leading to a complete overhaul of transportation options in Metro!

A minicab is generally a smaller car that operates like a taxi in many English cities (and presumably in other countries as well). However unlike a conventional taxi, it has to be booked in advance. It cannot be flagged on the street. There is no meter; you generally negotiate the fare in advance when booking by phone or on-line.

Dan, you are right, although a lot of people have recently experienced a lot of problems getting cabs at peak times…While I do favour and relaxations and revisions of outdated regulations, may main objective is to create more CHOICES…

While the current system may work for many people, IMO the system is not working…cabbies have to work much too hard and too long to make a decent income…at the same time, cabs seem expensive for certain distances, and we have not managed to create a ‘taxi-culture’ in the city. This is what I would like to see happen.

So, I’m not advocating eliminating regulations that will negatively affect the public good, but I do believe we can provide a lot more choices and a lot better service.

The taxi problem is going to be very difficult to fix. Over the years the city has neglected to increase the number of licenses which artificially increased the value of existing licenses until they now trade in the hundred of thousands of dollars. So now, if you increase the number of taxis (or other substitute such as a minicab) you will reduce the value of the taxi licenses. The other alternative would be to pay compensation the existing license holders for the loss they would take but this is unlikely to be politically palatable. So we will continue to suffer with a shortage of taxis to meet the demand and pay higher fares than economically justified.

As I understand the matter, a taxi licence is a property right that, should the city affect the conditions of the licence, compensation might be payable. A bit like buying back fishing licences. Can be very expensive.
-30-

Provided there are no separated pedicab lanes.
-30-

It’s tough. If we continue with the upkeep of the current system, which many are unhappy with, we’ll continue to marry ourselves to it, but on the other hand if we change, there may be an expense that’s significant enough that folks we’ll hesitate to change anything.

I am continuously seeing this situation pop up. I think it’s usually worth doing the hard thing and killing off something that doesn’t work well as soon as possible.

In the worst case scenario you can develop something that is effectively unkillable but which people hate.

Granted that the status quo is unsatisfactory.

But I hope the earnest transport planners and politicians that want to change the system make sure that the process is self financing – that is the readjustment costs are covered by new licence fees and not underwritten by property tax payers.
-30-

Taxi regulation is a serious business.

I hope our elected representatives and their unelected officials take the time to read “DeRegulation in the Taxi Industry”, published by the OECD in 2007 (Round Table 133).

No more half baked proposals from the city before they have done their own research – please.
-30-