The costs of running a commercial service are always higher. Between insurance, licensing, generally stricter rules on technical aspects (like periodic service checks, etc.) you start spending a lot. The liability is a lot higher for these cases.

This is exactly why Uber went the route of "we're just a tech company even the drivers are basically driving taxis". Having those drivers conform to the same rules would have made the fare just as expensive as a taxi fare.

NYC ubers have always been licensed by the NYC taxi regulators, not as taxis, but they are regulated quite aggressively.

> NYC ubers have always been licensed by the NYC taxi regulators, not as taxis, but they are regulated quite aggressively.

They are taxis - they're a separate class of taxis from the yellow taxis, but they are considered taxis (and regulated by the Taxi and Limousine Commission).

Right, I just mean that they're regulated like for-hire "black cars", which are regulated by the TLC, just not under the medallion system that yellow cabs are

But should the costs be higher?

So much of these costs are protectionist measures implemented by government to protect the interests of established businesses.

To borrow a turn of phrase from the gun rights camp, business licenses, if they exist at all, should be low-cost and shall-issue.

So much of them are necessary measures to protect people, though. The trouble is distinguishing the two.

For example, medallions are obviously and pretty explicitly a protectionist measure. On the other hand requirements to display fares clearly and use an approved meter are there to help customers from being ripped off.

Medallions protect against the negative of there being too many taxis, causing congestion and revenue loss for drivers, which would lead to more dangerous driving and poorly maintained vehicles.

Maybe some costs are protectionist measures but I for one see plenty of value in having an actual insurance, or knowing that the car is properly checked, that the driver understands the concept of driving as a job, etc. Insurance being the biggest chunk, basically to make sure that you (the potential victim) can be compensated. Those costs are there to protect the regular person.

Imagine "home" restaurants, where people can just sell food from their own kitchen with the same kind of regulatory oversight your private kitchen gets. What's the recourse when you eventually get sick or worse? Who do you blame for allowing this? How do you get compensated?

There are good examples now where people argued against the value of regulation right up until they got burned (see the lack of regulation in crypto and how easily this was exploited with no recourse from the victims).

Are they? In the quote at least, the vastly bigger expense is insurance, which is likely provided by the market based on statistics of some kind, not some arbitrary number from the government.

Yes, but "the market" has figured out that you can sue the pants off an insured business whereas an uninsured business is not worth paying a lawyer to go after. Just carrying the insurance makes you a higher risk of costing the insurance company money by itself.

If insurance made financial sense to carry for the average or averagely unlucky operator the state wouldn't need to make it mandatory and drivers wouldn't grumble about it or at the very least it wouldn't be their primary gripe. They'd gripe about labor costs and labor laws like every other business does.

> Just carrying the insurance makes you a higher risk of costing the insurance company money by itself.

Insurance companies aren't typically run as charities.

> If insurance made financial sense to carry for the average or averagely unlucky operator the state wouldn't need to make it mandatory...

The state is worried about the damage they can potentially cause to others. Their employees, their customers, innocent pedestrians, buildings.

> They'd gripe about labor costs and labor laws like every other business does.

That seems unlikely, considering the drivers are largely independent contractors. They don't tend to complain about labor costs, as they call them "profits".

Insurance is for the victims, not the perpetrators who can just declare bankruptcy and go work for their brother's replacement company.

With fleet maintenance, and other economies of scale it can be cheaper to meet those standards

That expensive insurance covers the fact that it's getting substantially more mileage (and thus risk) than a personal-use vehicle, and that ~20 people could be injured or killed in an accident.

There's a reason it's required.

I vaguely remember a news article while back a taxi organization in the city had self insured its drivers and one bad accident has enough claims to bankrupt the entire organization.

Edit: here is the article. They were found liable for $8M for paralyzing a passenger. A chicago company was liable for $26M in another case.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/yellow-cab-bankr...

> Well no wonder there's many unlicensed vans.

Practically and economically, yes, it makes sense. No wonder, indeed.

But I find it really sad that the government fails to simply enforce the insurance requirement. These vans are an important part of the transportation solution for many people and the government is failing to protect these riders. Regulation defiant buses are rewarded and regulation compliant buses are penalized.