New York City to make hybrid private hire limos mandatory from 2009

Auto Industry ^ | 29 Feb 2008 | Auto Industry

[Rb ver. 2.0]

Fugly.

[The Great RJ]

Legalize rickshaws and sedan chairs...two problem solved...air pollution and unemployment.

[SoCal Pubbie]

That response wasn’t that bad. I think it would fall under the category of “sarcasm to make a point.”

Now, as for the merits of this plan, this is not using technology to solve a problem. It is government ruling by decree. If the technology solved the problem businesses would be adopting these new vehicles on their own. This program just creates higher costs and increased regulation that serves to add to the city’s coffers via greater sales tax revenue for more expensive vehicles, as well favoring bigger players by squeezing out the competition. It’s called “barriers to entry.” Business love the regulation because it makes it harder for the little guy to compete.

[Kozak]

So since the city provides the sewers and sewage treatment facilities, and water is a scarce commodity and the government is ultimately responsible for public health and safety, Mayor Bloomberg or the next Liberal Fascist has the right to compel you to wipe with the correct number of squares and volume of water for your flush.

[Kozak]

Also gives the homeless a job....

[Vanders9]

Not neccesarily. They may cost less to run, but then there is the capital cost of buying a new one to consider. No one is going to outlay that kind of cash when they have a perfectly working (if inefficient) vehicle already. This is why I added the original caveat “depending on how they go about it”. The solution is to phase them in - i.e. “from such and such a date, we only licence new vehicles that meet the efficiency criteria, but you can continue to operate older ones”. As time goes by, older cars get to the end of their lifespans and are slowly replaced with newer types. That way you get the efficency benefit with the minimum amount of pain.
A similar kind of process was done with computer monitors in the UK a few years back. Very different system of course, but similar process.

[FreedomPoster]

So you’re saying that government is more able to more accurately assess life-cycle costs for a piece of equipment than private businesses?

OK

[Vanders9]

Less fuel usage and therefore lower costs, less pollution and hence improved health.

[Vanders9]

“If the technology solved the problem businesses would be adopting these new vehicles on their own.”

No they wouldn’t, for the simple reason that businesses do not consider pollution as a problem, and nor will they until there is an economic price tag attached to it.

“This program just creates higher costs and increased regulation that serves to add to the city’s coffers via greater sales tax revenue for more expensive vehicles”

How does this create higher costs?
As for greater sales tax revenue for more expensive vehicles..surely if more of them are being bought, won’t that encourage competition that will drive the cost of the vehicle down?

“as well favoring bigger players by squeezing out the competition. It’s called “barriers to entry.” Business love the regulation because it makes it harder for the little guy to compete.”

Yes I admit I hadn’t thought of that, but again, depending on how the plan is implemented, there should be a way to compensate for that.

[Vanders9]

Heh, ok...

Lets turn this on its head. Hypothetically, suppose water BECOMES really scarce. The sewers are filling up due to increased production and population, and the sewage treatment workers are (literally) up to their necks in their work :) Public health is at risk, there are fears of an outbreak of cholera and similar diseases. How then would you suggest solving such a problem?

Despite the humor, I’m genuinely interested here.

[taildragger]

What a buffoon.

You ever talk to a taxi driver or a Cop about the issues maintaining fleet vehicles?

Example, early 90's Crown Vic's ate through brakes, etc.

Are these vehicles ready for this duty cycle?

These do not strike me as having the utility of cars they are replacing in terms of size. This like the energy bill is doomed for the law of unintended consequences, and may even open up the manufacturers to law suits.

IF the Mayor wants to go green, perhaps strongly suggesting converting the existing fleet to run on gaseous fuels, i.e. CNG/LPG-Propane would be a logical place to start.

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life (and no one with an engineering background) in New York City Hall....

[Vanders9]

Actually, I think large entities of any kind, government or private, are about on a par at accurately assessing anything (i.e. not very good).

Government is not more able to assess life-cycle costs. What they can do is factor in other considerations than just money-in and money-out, which is what businesses are mostly concerned with (and indeed, what they mostly should be interested in).

[Vanders9]

I know a driver who converted his taxi to propane. He reckoned it worked really well. Perhaps someone ought to inform his mayorality about it :)

[SIDENET]

Less fuel usage and therefore lower costs, less pollution and hence improved health.

If the costs and benefits justify it, won't the MARKET sort it out?

Wouldn't that be a much better solution?

[Vanders9]

It would, if it was all just down to dollars and cents. However there is no price tag on pollution and health, so unless one is provided, most companies couldn’t care a stuff.