Taxi of Tomorrow: A Bad Idea Today

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg announced the winner of his “Taxi of Tomorrow” competition, the Nissan NV200, a four-door van that will become the all-but-exclusive vehicle of the city’s taxi fleet. The NYT Times story is here, but the news was reported everywhere.

A lot of people argue that Bloomberg and his aides made the wrong choice, preferring one of the other two finalists, the Ford Transit Connect or the Karsan V1. But the real problem is that Bloomberg made the choice at all. Instead, the taxi buyers should choose, with their choice guided in turn by taxi passengers.

For as long as there have been taxis in New York City, there have been a variety of automobile models serving as cabs. Many New Yorkers remember fondly the Checker cab. But Checker, which stopped production in the early 1980s, never had an exclusive. It ran alongside the Dodge Coronet, the Chevrolet Caprice, the Peugot 505 and later the Ford Crown Victoria. Today, Hondas, Isuzus, Chevrolets, Fords, and Toyotas, among others, all serve as taxis.

As a regulator the city and its Taxi and Limousine Commission have always established specifications for taxicabs and then let the cab owners buy what they preferred. Of course, neither the city nor the TLC owns a single taxi. They are all owned privately by fleets or individuals. All are operated by drivers licensed by the TLC, but not employed by the TLC. The city and the TLC sometime forget that.

Given that taxis are privately owned and operated, it is very odd indeed for Mayor Bloomberg, one of the nations most successful capitalists, to order that every taxi owner buy the make and model car of his government’s choosing. It is as if the Securities and Exchange Commission held a contest to determine the best financial information terminal—and then required that every brokerage firm use the one it liked best. Somehow, I don’t think Bloomberg the businessman would cotton to this idea.

A lot of people who have weighed in think the city should have chosen an American company, Ford. Others rallied behind Karsan, which, while Turkish, said it would build its cabs in Brooklyn.

But the problem is not that the city chose badly, it’s that it should not be choosing. If Karsan makes an acceptable taxi, it should be an option for taxi buyers. The same is true of Ford—or Toyota, or Mercedes or Chevrolet. Cab owners will certainly have the best sense of what car models work best under the stress of being driven 12 or 24 hours a day, and of what design or designs taxi passengers prefer. If they are wrong, they can try another model—but not if the Nissan is the only choice. Of course, with an exclusive right to sell, Nissan will have buyers over a barrel.

The City Charter states that the TLC can regulate “standards for equipment safety and design.” But it says nothing about mandating a particular design. That’s not just the law: It’s also a good idea.

Just recently, the city tried to require (first directly then indirectly) that all taxis achieve a certain minimum miles per gallon. These efforts were held illegal by federal courts because it only the federal government, not municipalities, is allowed to regulate auto mileage. But now the city is turning around and deciding not just mileage, but shape, styling, and every aspect the taxi design—right down to the seat-coatings and the sound of the horn. It’s hard to see how this draconian top-down design command will pass muster.

But even if it’s legal, the “Taxi of Tomorrow” is a bad idea today.

Bloomberg for Vice

While most everyone likes Mike, the idea of a billionaire buying his way into office-- or even contention-- is unsettling in a democracy. Since Mayor Bloomberg has at least held public office, his self-financed candidacy would not be as wacky as Ross Perot's, to say nothing of the absurdist contentions of Steve "the inheritor" Forbes.

But still. It would be better if Bloomberg could help someone else gain the presidency. It would be less vain, and would acknowledge that Bloomberg, despite his mayoralty, has relatively little experience in public life. Campaign finance laws make it hard for billionaires to finance others, but there is a way.

Bloomberg should run for vice president and draft Al Gore for the top of the ticket. Mike and Al are sympatico on the issues-- Bloomberg empahasizes global warming. He could free Gore from the drudgery of fundraising and the need to compete in primaries. Meanwhile Bloomberg would not seem like an egomaniac. Since he would be on the ticket, he could pay for the whole thing. And after servinge as vice president, Bloomberg would be a credible candidate--indded the front-runner-- for the presidency following Gore. Moreover, a Gore-Bloomberg ticket could actually win.

Bloomberg's Electoral Math

Mike Bloomberg’s departure from the Republican Party—convenient for a while, but no longer—sets the stage for his presidential bid. Of course, no third party or independent candidate has ever won the presidency. Only Teddy Roosevelt, a former president, has ever come close and that was in 1912.

But Bloomberg has a shot. The first and most obvious reason is that with a personal fortune tagged at anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion, Bloomberg could outspend either party by writing himself a check for $500 million or $1 billion and not even notice the money was gone. This is how he became mayor—though if it was not for 9/11, Mark Green would have won in 2001. Even in Manhattan, it is possible to live off the interest of just $4 billion.

The real interesting question is what he could do with all that money. Ross Perot, for all his 19% of the popular vote, was not close to winning a single electoral vote. But he spent only $65 million. The key is not to win a large share of the popular vote, but a large enough share to win some electoral votes.

In the last two presidential elections, the winner scored just a thin margin of the electoral votes—Bush had 15 to spare in 2004. If the race between the major party candidates is similarly close in 2008, Bloomberg would need to win just a state or two to deny anyone else a majority in the Electoral College. If no one wins a majority, under the Constitution, the new House of Representative would pick the president.

For Bloomberg to win the House’s support, he’d certainly need a plurality of the popular and electoral vote. His charm, record, and media budget will have to take care of the former. Bloomberg could rack up 181 electoral votes (a plurality of 540) by winning California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington—that’s a total of 199. These are either liberal states, or big swing states where the parties are neck and neck. It could happen.