Editorial: Prioritizing Taxis as Public Transit
Tags: cabs, Greenest City, Public Transportation, Sustainability, taxis, traffic, Transportation, Vancouver
Daniel Fontaine is a co-editor of CityCaucus.com and an active political commentator with a background in political science, writing and strategy. CityCaucus occasionally teams up with PlanningPool.com to cross-post articles of common interest… like this one, originally published here.
Should taxis be treated the same way as other public transit vehicles?
Thanks to Travis Nep Smith on Flickr for this great Creative Commons photo of a taxi in rainy Vancouver.
For many of us who live in major urban centres and choose not to own a vehicle (or can’t afford one), taxis are an essential form of public transit that helps us to manage our daily affairs. In my own case, our family decided years ago that we’d sell our second car and use cabs and transit to get around when necessary. Not only are we saving thousands of dollars each year in unnecessary maintenance and fuel costs, we’re also reducing our carbon footprint. I must admit that we are also lucky enough to live in a community that has 5 star taxi service (Royal City Taxi) that gets you to and from where you want to go quickly.
There are few who could argue that cabs aren’t a vital part of keeping our cities operating efficiently. They also play a big role in helping to cut our overall carbon emissions by reducing the number of vehicles we need to purchase in high density neighbourhoods. If this is the case, why do they get treated the same as the SUV your neighbour drives to work each day?
For years the Vancouver taxi industry has put forward the argument that taxis should be afforded the same treatment as buses. If they were, this would allow them permission to drive in HOV lanes during rush hour and be exempt from certain rush hour restrictions. For example, if the sign at a busy intersection says “left turn only for buses”, they too could turn left. A number of restrictions such as “no stopping” signs also wreak havoc with the taxi industry trying to pick up elderly or disabled customers.
If you recall, during the 2010 Games the taxi industry went ballistic when it was revealed that they would not be permitted into the special Olympic only lanes. The policy decision was apparently made behind closed doors with little to no industry consultation. I never did hear if it got resolved, but it did help to highlight the problem our local cabbies face when it comes to being treated as second class public transit.
In the case of Vancouver, I don’t think moving to ease restrictions on the taxi industry is a major policy leap. After all, they continually boast they want to become the greenest city in the world. Isn’t allowing taxis to be officially considered as public transit a “green” and low cost initiative that can be moved on quickly?
In addition to significantly adding more taxis onto Vancouver’s streets, City Council should put this issue on their “green” agenda. With the stroke of a pen, they could decide to make taxis quasi members of the TransLink fleet and encourage even more of us to leave our cars behind. Meanwhile, other cities should follow suit and provide taxis with the same flexibility on our roads that people driving transit buses have.
What do you think? Let us know by leaving a comment!
The Buzzer blog » Links and tidbits, Thursday May 6 said:
May 06, 10 at 1:01 pm[...] Planning Pool & City Caucus asks if taxis should be prioritized on roads like public transit. [...]
Daniella said:
May 06, 10 at 2:28 pmI’m not totally convinced that taxis should be afforded the same transportation rights as public transit. Often taxis only have one passenger and the driver, compared to the scores of people on buses. Also, many taxis idle when they are waiting for customers, emitting lots of carbon.
While taxis are more convenient than car-sharing services for last-minute trips, because taxis can be hailed in an instant, I’d be curious to know if (and suspect that) car sharing services overall would be a greener choice than taxis, as they are only on the road when they are absolutely needed. Otherwise, they are parked and turned off!
I mean, taxis are still cars and should be treated as such, if the agenda is to get people using active and public transit. Maybe a compromise could be to give taxi companies a business tax credit if their fleet becomes electric or has an average city fuel efficiency standard that is very high. Or, electric cars/ very fuel efficient passenger vehicles could be allowed more transportation rights, like use of HOV lanes, encouraging taxi companies to improve their fleet.
I’m definitely not convinced that just because an auto is a taxi that it should be considered “green.”
Tim S said:
May 09, 10 at 9:12 amI enjoyed reading this post. Including taxis as part of the TransLink fleet and public transit in general is a good idea. Yes taxis do constitute a form of automobility, but with more widespread municipal support, they could very well reduce the number of motorists on the road. However, real incentives need to come into the picture in order for this to work. Why for example, should I take a taxi to work (20 minute drive) when I could easily drive my car? Would the taxi get me to work faster? Could it be less stressful? Is this better for the environment? I guess I would not have to worry about parking. I personally don’t drive but merely wanted to illustrate a scenario.
I agree with Daniella that taxi companies could be provided a business tax credit if they use more fuel efficient cars or switch to hybrid and/or electric car fleets. These are the sorts of incentives that could be used to make taxis greener and a greener method of transit for cities. From a planning perspective, it would be sensible to have shared bus and taxi lanes to increase efficiency and discourage automobility.
East Vancouverite said:
May 10, 10 at 8:52 pmI would not support taxis being given access to transit-only lanes for the simple reason that they will stop in the lanes to pick up and drop off people and thereby force buses to detour around them. Transit-only lanes are one of the highest payoff allocations of road space in that they guarantee that the dozens and dozens of passengers in each bus are given priority over a handful of people in cars and taxis.
William said:
May 12, 10 at 8:42 amI agree with Daniella and East Vancouverite. Those are valid points and I’ll try to add to them.
And I would’ve liked to have seen at least a minutia of evidence that taxis are, in fact, “green.”
As far as I see it, clogging up general traffic with taxis isn’t a bad thing because it might provide people with an incentive to get out of their cars and find a more sustainable way to get around.
As for taxis, while they might be convenient to some, they are only guaranteed to contain one person (the driver)at all times. They aren’t always taking someone to a real destination (other than toward the next pick-up). I see them as taking a lot of unnecessary trips, and this seems hardly efficient no matter what “green” fuel the car is using.
Now, if taxis then disrupt transit by stopping in bus lanes–which are probably the only justified portion of the roadway to defend and fight to keep unclogged–it’ll make public transportation slower and less desirable to use.