Please sir, may we have some more?

From City AM:

Taxi drivers have slammed plans to close off key locations in the City of London to traffic during the summer, saying they amount to a “PR gimmick”.

Key City hotspots, including St Mary Axe and Chancery Lane, will be closed for days in August and September to allow workers to enjoy traffic-free lunch breaks, the City of London Corporation announced today.

Yes, it is a bit of a gimmick, but let them try it.

People might prefer it or they might hate it. Some businesses will benefit, others will lose out. There's only one way to find out.

Here's the fun bit:

Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, said:

“While the taxi trade agrees strongly with the need to tackle London’s toxic air, one off stunts like car-free days won’t do much to cut pollution in the long-term.

“Instead of PR gimmicks, the City of London Corporation should make a real contribution to improving air quality by installing more rapid charge points for the 2000 London cabbies who are out picking up passengers in zero emissions capable taxis.

"There are currently only two rapid charge points available to cabbies within the richest Square Mile in the world. This is totally absurd and we need to see many more installed to encourage more cabbies to make the switch to electric.”

The cabbies much prefer the carrot to the stick, especially if somebody else is paying for the carrot.

More London taxi-based rent-seeking fun

From The Daily Mail:

The number of Uber drivers in London should be capped to ensure 'healthy competition and consumer choice', the boss of a rival minicab app has claimed. Kabbee chief executive Justin Peters called for a limit on the proportion of minicab drivers overseen by one company if Uber overturns a decision not to renew its operating licence.

'Nuff said.

From The Evening Standard:

An "extortionate" rise in licensing fees for private hire car operators in London will force thousands of drivers out of work and close hundreds of cab firms, it was claimed today. Transport for London has approved increases that will see five-year fees leap from less than £3,000 to £700,000 for some operators.

The charges, which last rose in April 2013, depend on the number of cars run by firms. Those with between 101 and 500 will see their licence fee jump from £2,826 to £150,000. Operators with 501 to 1,000 cars will see their bill jump from £2,826 to £350,000 over five years, while those with 1,001 to 10,000 cars will see their fee go from £2,826 to £700,000.

1. TfL is doing a bit of bureaucratic rent-seeking here. It's budget is about £200 for each driver and each car per year for monitoring, which is of course way too high.

2. If it really cost this much (which it doesn't), it would seem reasonable to charge £200 per driver and per car a year. So if anything the charges are too low.

3. A minicab business with 10,000 drivers is only paying £14 per driver per year (£700,000 ÷ 5 years ÷ 10,000 drivers). This is a slap in the face for a business with 1,001 drivers, which has to pay £140 per driver per year (the same calculation applies in every band) and acts as a sort of barrier to entry/growth. The marginal hit from going from 999 to 1,001 drivers is more or less infinity for those last two drivers.

4. Nonetheless, those charges aren't huge, absolute maximum about £3 per driver per week, divide that by a few dozen journeys and it's next to nothing. If they add that to their fares, it is not going to make a measurable difference to quantity demanded, so the claim that this "will force thousands of drivers out of work and close hundreds of cab firms" is complete and utter bollocks.

Insane subsidy of the day

From The Daily Mail:

* Uber and other ride-sharing services will be allowed to operate legally [in Queensland]
* Taxis will be allowed to charge surge pricing and will receive $20,000
* QLD Premier announced a $100 million industry assistance package
* Queensland is the fourth Australian state to legalise ride-sharing apps
* The move is expected to anger anti ride-sharing app campaigners

The only reason why taxi licences had value was because they restricted supply, raised artificial barriers to entry, thus pushing up prices for passengers and destroying jobs etc. If the government realises its mistake and changes the rules, why on earth would they compensate the people who have unfairly benefitted in the past? The mind boggles.
-------------------------------------------------
For the benefit of Striebs, this is anathema to left-libertarians; such compensation is the opposite thereof, i.e. rent seeking and wasting taxpayer's money all rolled into one.

I can sort of see the "left wing" argument for subsidising particular activities if at least it increases output and employment or ensures security of supply (although on closer inspection, other factors usually outweigh the apparent gains), but such a subsidy achieves nothing, it does not increase the number of taxis or passenger journeys one iota and costs the taxpayer money so fails from a left-wing perspective as well as from a "libertarian" perspective.

Similarly, I support the "libertarian" case for removing barriers to entry and increasing competition, although this is usually not a left-wing cause (thus putting the lefties in a dilemma - do they want to restrict supply/boost incumbents' wages with permits; or increase supply with subsidies?)

Taxi driver bleating also reminds me of a terrible KLN: "But I paid for my house out of taxed income!" No you didn't, you paid for it out of the money you were saving on rent; by and large, taxi licence holders have collected more in extra income than they ever originally paid for their licences (bearing in mind they were originally issued for low or zero cost).