Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a price hike resulting from your suggestion — disabled people should just pay more because (1)they are taking up more time to service and (2)they receive benefits that everyone else doesn’t to compensate for such scenarios. The way it is currently setup is likely the most optimal configuration for all parties involved.
If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't really any different than any other similar legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).
This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.
There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people.
And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause".
It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases".
And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible. Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such that they can be converted to handicap accessible. Current legislation requires that accommodations are available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but it's fine if there are stairs as well.
Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15 minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time than that).
If there was a market for equivalent service for wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force it.
Having a blind family member who encounters similar issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do otherwise would just be greedy and mean.
If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has value). If people were willing to pay more for the service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service, and they would get served faster.
I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax on uber customers.