> Why are these social arguments missing from pre-2009 (when Uber was formed) literature?
Potentially because you only cited two studies when discussing a massive industry and are probably purposefully ignoring all of the work done to support the point you claim is ignored?
There are decades of research on the very points you claim are ignored. A small sample:
> Because taxis are more expensive than other transit services, they must offer something that other transit modes do not. In particular, taxi services are important to certain segments of the population. Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982).
> Previous studies and our data suggest that the poor often choose taxis because they are the principal option when an automobile is not available. Taxis appear to be chosen over conventional transit (when it exists) because they offer greater service flexiblity, convenience, and duration of service, as well as better meeting the security demands of the poor. Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor.
> The objectives of the report are: (1) to describe six programs which deliver transportation service to elderly and handicapped persons utilizing the subsidized taxi mode; (2) to identify the essential similarities and differences among these programs; (3) to illustrate, in qualitative terms, the nature of the costs, efficiencies and impacts on taxi operators, subsidizers, and users of the six approaches; and (4) to interpret this information and identify those findings which appear to be transferable to planners in other localities. The subsidized taxi programs are successfully delivering transportation service to elderly and handicapped residents in all locations as evidenced by rising client enrollment and ridership volumes. Overall, response to the programs has been and continues to be extremely favorable.
> This report describes the results of a programme of ergonomic research undertaken to provide a scientific basis for the generation of regulations concerned with the introduction of accessible taxis in the UK.
> One of the main issues is the provision of several modes of taxi services in many large cities. For instance,
there has recently been a concern about the provision of easily accessible taxis for the handicapped, whose travel characteristics are very different from those of other customers.
> While major advances have been made over the last twenty years in the planning and provision of transport that is accessible to all, the links have not yet been effectively made between applied work on transport planning and the major developments in theoretical understandings of disability which have been taking place during a similar period. Existing studies have attempted to measure transport disability, but have generally failed to link it to wider theoretical or structural concerns, or to explore disabled people’s responses to transport disability.
> Municipal policies have also been developed to combat the problem, some demanding automatic confiscation of the cab if a complaint is alleged, others requiring cab drivers to take at least one fare a day to underserved neighborhoods or face suspension.
Thank you for the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, but you are wrong about this. My process was: Google for articles about taxi regulation, and see what percentage of them make the argument that regulation protects the underprivileged. In my sample of 3 or 4, the answer was 0%, which seemed a clear argument against the sweeping claim that protecting the poor is "the entire point of taxi regulation in the first place" (note: not taxis, taxi regulation).
Furthermore, your links (or the few that I had time to investigate) do not support the central thesis that taxi regulation specifically protects the poor and underprivileged. In fact, many of them are specifically contrary to your shallow analysis.
> Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982).
This says nothing about taxi regulation benefiting the poor. And in fact much of this paper is criticizing regulation; it even cites evidence arguing that regulation hurts the poor (emphasis mine):
> Others (such as Eckert 1970, Beesley and Glaister 1983, and
Frankena and Pautler 1986 advocate removing entry restrictions and
eliminating monopoly rents. Beesley and Glaister (1983, 611) estimated that entry and price restrictions lead to nearly $10 million per year in welfare losses in the city of London alone. Embedded in those welfare measures are
the poor without cars, the elderly, the disabled, and others who now and
then need affordable door-to-door transportation services and would
benefit from a more competitive market. They are on the wrong side of the
political calculus, with their dispersed costs overlooked in a regulatory
process dominated by the concentrated benefiaries (Taylor 1989).
> Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicaps by Lower Income Groups
The abstract of this paper specifically argues that the poor would benefit from reduced market entry restrictions!
"Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor."
I have to run and don't have time to see if any of your other evidence is any better. But maybe you can narrow it down to a more compelling list.
To prove your point, you can't just show that taxis are good for the poor, you have to show that taxi regulation is good.
I apologize, I didn't mean to imply dishonesty, but my initial Google search showed very different results than yours and the tone of your last paragraph didn't exactly confer respect.
I actually do largely agree that most taxi regulations only serve to increase costs to consumers without much benefit but that's not really the end of the story. You really need to define 'taxi regulation' in order to have a productive conversation.
No matter what some people would have you believe, regulations aren't just enacted to entrench power. They're almost always in response to some continuing problem. There's probably a way forward that largely deregulates the existing taxi industry, but acknowledging the reasons for the existing regulations will greatly limit the 'unforeseen' side effects.
> but acknowledging the reasons for the existing regulations will greatly limit the 'unforeseen' side effects
There was a nice quote I found the other day, known as Chesterton's fence[0]:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
I probably should also apologize for getting as snippy with you as you picked up on.
I'm a bit sensitive to these sorts of arguments, and not because I'm deaf to arguments about social justice -- actually the opposite. Most of us on this website were born into incredible privilege that we did nothing to earn. We grew up able to focus on our studies without being distracted by instability in our homes or violence in our communities. We didn't struggle to feed ourselves. Some kids that grow up in poverty acquire mental habits and social patterns that they will never be able to shake completely that identify them as poor and limit their mobility no matter how hard they try (or anyone else tries to help).
This is heavy stuff that all of us who are privileged have to live with. The world is deeply unfair and we're the beneficiaries of it. Nothing we can do can undo all the unfairness. All the money in the world can't buy a magic wand that will turn Africa into Europe. The best we can do is try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, as much as we reasonably can.
It's because this injustice is so real that I get so cranky when the social justice card is, in my view, played without sufficient foundation. A human's most natural state is to value themselves and the people close to them more highly than everyone else. When you make a social justice argument, the only people who will be impacted by it are the people who have accepted the idea that they have a moral obligation to care more about justice than their own personal well-being. So you are, in essence, cashing in on the blank check they have written to the world promising to value the welfare of other people more highly than their own wants and needs.
This might sound a bit melodramatic for a discussion about a ride-sharing service. But people who like Uber and Lyft really like it. If you confront them and say "your joy dance is deaf to the poor and sick that you're trampling under the soles of your shoes," that is a very serious charge.
So if I see someone say that "the entire point of taxi regulation" is to protect the poor, handicapped, etc. and then I find that the first several articles I find concerning taxi regulation have nothing to do with this (and in fact, some authors argue the opposite, that reduced regulation would benefit the poor), I get a little cranky. Because it, in my view, overstates the connection between this issue and the very real injustices of the world, and makes an unwarranted claim on the moral obligation of people who have decided to value justice above themselves.
> No matter what some people would have you believe, regulations aren't just enacted to entrench power.
I would never argue that they are. Few things in life are just one thing.
And I wouldn't argue that 100% of taxi regulations are automatically bad. Some are probably worth keeping. The handicapped-accessible issue is likely one of them. (I don't know much about the specifics of that regulation, but it certainly doesn't seem to apply to 100% of taxis since I see plenty of Crown Victoria or Prius taxis that are just like what you'd get from UberX.)
But some regulations are clearly obsoleted by the innovations of Uber/Lyft. And I am really opposed to a reactionary stance that says we have to protect the existing taxi industry against Uber/Lyft or the poor and sick will suffer (the implicit assumption being that taxis serve the poor and sick in a way that Uber/Lyft never can).
Uber could write itself a code of conduct that states that they maintain X accessible cars per Y inhabitants in any covered area. And that they will cover the entire region with certain price controls (which is a form of network neutrality), not just the meaty routes. And so on.
Those things likely cost extra, and that will shuffle money around a bit in a non-linear way - Uber will have to find a way to sort that out, one way or the other (unless they're shut down). It might be better for them if they find a solution on their own terms, before the regulators step in.
This is such a beautiful, earnest response I read it aloud to my wife. Thank you for eloquently describing your experience of a kind of helplessness in the crevasse between the lucky few and the needy many. I am touched by your writing.
Potentially because you only cited two studies when discussing a massive industry and are probably purposefully ignoring all of the work done to support the point you claim is ignored?
There are decades of research on the very points you claim are ignored. A small sample:
* Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Taxi Deregulation (http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf)
> Because taxis are more expensive than other transit services, they must offer something that other transit modes do not. In particular, taxi services are important to certain segments of the population. Seniors, housewives, the disabled, and the poor each account for a much higher share of taxi trips than their share of the population (Rosenbloom 1985; Weiner 1982).
* Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicaps by Lower Income Groups (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=92135)
> Previous studies and our data suggest that the poor often choose taxis because they are the principal option when an automobile is not available. Taxis appear to be chosen over conventional transit (when it exists) because they offer greater service flexiblity, convenience, and duration of service, as well as better meeting the security demands of the poor. Increased availability of taxi service by reduced market entry restrictions and reduced cost of taxi service by permitting group riding and providing subsidies would increase the mobility of the poor.
* Subsidized Taxi Programs for Elderly and Handicapped Persons in the SFBay Area (http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=70030)
> The objectives of the report are: (1) to describe six programs which deliver transportation service to elderly and handicapped persons utilizing the subsidized taxi mode; (2) to identify the essential similarities and differences among these programs; (3) to illustrate, in qualitative terms, the nature of the costs, efficiencies and impacts on taxi operators, subsidizers, and users of the six approaches; and (4) to interpret this information and identify those findings which appear to be transferable to planners in other localities. The subsidized taxi programs are successfully delivering transportation service to elderly and handicapped residents in all locations as evidenced by rising client enrollment and ridership volumes. Overall, response to the programs has been and continues to be extremely favorable.
* The determination of acccessible taxi requirements (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/2284)
> This report describes the results of a programme of ergonomic research undertaken to provide a scientific basis for the generation of regulations concerned with the introduction of accessible taxis in the UK.
* Modeling urban taxi services with multiple user classes and vehicle modes (http://front.cc.nctu.edu.tw/Richfiles/22015-Wong-Wong-Yang-W...)
> One of the main issues is the provision of several modes of taxi services in many large cities. For instance, there has recently been a concern about the provision of easily accessible taxis for the handicapped, whose travel characteristics are very different from those of other customers.
* Compromise & constraint: Examining the nature of transport disability in the context of local travel (http://invent.newmobility.org/library/wt8-2.pdf#page=42)
> While major advances have been made over the last twenty years in the planning and provision of transport that is accessible to all, the links have not yet been effectively made between applied work on transport planning and the major developments in theoretical understandings of disability which have been taking place during a similar period. Existing studies have attempted to measure transport disability, but have generally failed to link it to wider theoretical or structural concerns, or to explore disabled people’s responses to transport disability.
* Taxi - Why Hailing a New Idea about Public Accommodation Laws May Be Easier Than Hailing a Taxi (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/v...)
> Municipal policies have also been developed to combat the problem, some demanding automatic confiscation of the cab if a complaint is alleged, others requiring cab drivers to take at least one fare a day to underserved neighborhoods or face suspension.