Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlmorton | Hacker News Reader

> At least with medallions, there were caps to prevent overcapacity

That's a really interesting way of describing an artificial monopoly specifically designed to increase earnings for a specific group of rent-seeking, wealthy medallion owners.

It's sort of like describing the De Beers corporation as ensuring the world is not littered with relatively-abundant diamonds. I suppose it might be true, but it certainly is not the point of the arrangement.

View on HN

Besides medallions or a similar registration program, how would you balance vehicle capacity with limited street capacity? The "artificial monopoly" is a physical system, as two vehicles cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

I don't support medallions, by any means, but I do support a fair quota system to balance transportation availability with congestion management.

Offering higher pay at times of high capacity requirements, and lower pay at times when there is a surplus of drivers seems like a great solution to balance out when drivers should take shifts, while still letting people choose their own schedules and priorities. Which is exactly what the rideshare companies do

I thought Uber already did this with surge pricing? Or does it not take supply into account, only demand? Or is the extra money not going to the drivers?

> but I do support a fair quota system to balance transportation availability with congestion management.

The alternative is people using their cars and having to park it. Or taking their business elsewhere in more parking-friendly locations.

Toll roads.

A nice reform would be to make medallions non transferable, and have them expire if you don't prove certain amounts of rides over time

There is already an incentive to provide rides - the payment you get for giving the ride.

What does your system improve about the incentives?

It adds more regulation and low level bureaucracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com