TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

PUC moves to protect Pittsburgh taxi monopoly

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By Matt Ryan
Wednesday, July 2, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
 

On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ordered Uber and Lyft, popular ride-sharing services, to cease and desist their operations in Pittsburgh. And while the companies have seven days to file a response to the ruling, with a final ruling coming 30 days from the original ruling date, there will be no service in the interim (unless the services defy the order) — meaning Pittsburghers will be without services they have sought with increased frequency and found immensely valuable.

The PUC's ruling, like so many regulatory decisions, is couched in concern for the “public welfare.” But make no mistake, not only are Pittsburghers decidedly worse off, the regulated industry ends up capturing and controlling its oversight commission to better itself by restricting entry, decreasing service and increasing profits.

The outcomes of this particular instance of regulatory protection are plain enough to any Pittsburgh resident who has sought a ride from our own little OPEC. Taxi riders endure filthy vehicles and extensive wait times in the hope that their driver — operating purely in the public interest, of course — actually fulfills his end of the deal.

After all, regulatory protection and rigid pricing schemes lead to persistent shortages of available cabs. It's akin to severely restricting the number of meals served within the city limits — with diners begrudgingly accepting gruel since the alternative is nothing at all. Competition drives companies to serve their potential customers in ever-better ways; regulatory protection staves off this incentive to improve at the expense of consumers who would otherwise be receiving more for their dollar.

Do not let the guise of “public safety” lull you into a sense of obligation to the entrenched taxi industry; the rapid success of Uber and Lyft speaks volumes about taxi services locally. After all, if the public interest is of primary concern, why does the taxi industry need protection? If public interest is being met, what leg do Uber and Lyft have to stand on?

The myth that industries, absent government oversight, persist in undirected chaos must end. The question is not whether regulation exists or not; the question is who will do the regulating. Despite its persistent efforts, “The State” is not the world's largest regulator; that title lies with consumers.

Consumers regulate industries into providing goods people want. Consumers regulate industries into providing valuable service. Short of satisfying consumers, companies are regulated the way of Montgomery Ward. There exists no such thing as an unregulated industry.

Should you feel that our protected taxi service provides unwavering rides independent of destination — that is, it exists purely as a public service and not as a means of increasing profits through regulatory protection — then I offer the following experiment:

The next time you need a ride, call our trusty taxi companies and request two rides from two separate phones, one for one mile and one for 50 miles, both from the same location. See which taxi company — operating purely in the public interest, of course — arrives first.

Should our public servants be gracious enough to act in a manner befitting of our well-being and reinstate Uber and Lyft, I would recommend against trying such an act with Pittsburghers' preferred ride service — that is, unless you and your partner prefer to ride in two separate cars.

Matt Ryan is an assistant professor of economics at Duquesne University.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Steelers OLB coach Porter teaches as passionately as he played
  2. 2014 showing has Steelers RB Harris confident he belongs
  3. Steelers training camp has California University link
  4. Monongahela uses modern technology to connect people to the city’s historic past
  5. 2 killed in single-vehicle crash in Pittsburgh
  6. Scout restores Brownsville paddleboat’s smokestacks to earn Eagle award
  7. Snake bites on the rise in Western Pa.
  8. Rossi: Nothing huge, but Huntington helped Bucs
  9. Pirates trade for Dodgers 1B/OF Morse, Mariners LHP Happ
  10. St. Barnabas 5K provides various reasons to run
  11. Marte’s 2 fine defensive plays rescue Pirates in victory over Reds