Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
In multiple European cities now I see taxis being allowed to use the bus lane (while of course regular cars are not). What's the policy justification for this?
112 replies
139 recasts
3352 reactions
Mac Budkowski ᵏ
@macbudkowski
I like it. When I need to move fast to e.g., catch a plane, I take a taxi. Taxi drivers need to have a license, so they pay back some money to the city for utilizing the bus lane.
4 replies
4 recasts
26 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
If the goal is to charge for priority access to give a way for people who really need it to get priority and raise revenue, why not decouple the "taxi vs car" aspect from the "paying for priority or not" aspect?
1 reply
1 recast
11 reactions
Mac Budkowski ᵏ
@macbudkowski
IMO because: - rich people would just buy this access and use the lanes even when they're not in a rush, - taxis are shared and utilized most of the time vs. private cars that move from point A to point B and get parked.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
I know plenty of rich people who don't even have their own cars, and uber everywhere. (I'm one of them, but as a nomad having my own car is impractical; I mean more stationary types) The parking thing is legit, but could be addressed by parking fees?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Mac Budkowski ᵏ
@macbudkowski
I guess it depends on the local culture. In Warsaw - where I saw this "taxi bus lane" policy working well - most rich people own 2-3 cars. And I pretty am sure they'd buy the fast lane access if they could. Also, the number of taxis is regulated so you control how many cars will use bus lanes, so you control their impact on buses. You could theoretically sell the limited amount of "bus lane spots", but then the price might skyrocket, just like car licences prices in Singapore. Re: parking, if you raise the fees you just make it impractical for poorer people which is imperfect :(
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
