[Admiral Beez]

Tired of old Ford Crown Vics, I think Toronto's taxi fleet should instead use the new Kia Rondo,

http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/kia/27508/

http://www.autoweb.com/content/shar.../article_page_order_int/6/article_id_int/2744

The Rondo taxi is tall, roomy, has an L-shaped partition to protect the driver while creating a more open social environment for the passengers, has a motorized front passenger seat for those with limited mobility as well as an integrated, fold-down child seat.

Of course, for full wheelchair accessibility there is always the Standard Taxi http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/03/standard-taxi-at-ny-auto-show/ All we'd need is a Charter challenge to force Toronto's cabbies to be more accessible, then we can drop most of the Wheeltrans service in place of vouchers on these cabs.

 

[unimaginative2]

I was just in Vancouver where most of the taxis are Priuses. They're fantastic. All the cabbies seem to love them, saying they save a bundle on fuel. They're also surprisingly roomy.

 

[junctionist]

New York will require new taxis to be vehicles that achieve 30 mpg and achieve some sort of higher emissions standards. That's double to triple the mileage of the current Crown Victoria. But Toronto cab drivers already use a wide range of vehicles from Crown Victorias, to more efficient Impalas and Camries. At 19/21 mpg in city driving, the Rondo doesn't meet the new standards. The L-Shaped partition and seat can be put into a wide variety of vehicles.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Of course, for full wheelchair accessibility there is always the Standard Taxi http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/03/standard-taxi-at-ny-auto-show/ All we'd need is a Charter challenge to force Toronto's cabbies to be more accessible, then we can drop most of the Wheeltrans service in place of vouchers on these cabs.

the TTC contracts out wheeltrans trips to cab companies. most of the trips i make are in accessible taxi's. they're not fun at all. dare i post a list of complaints and grievances? i will.....

-dangerous drivers/driving

-unsafe vehicles

-not enough room

-dangerous overcrowding

-sexual assault & physical abuse

-punctuality issues

-etc.


i hope you aren't suggesting replacing accessible public transit with private taxis. accessible private taxis are extremely expensive to use. i've been on one that has a flat rate, it cost me over $30 to go 300 meters. i kid you not, i just measured it using google earth.

 

[Admiral Beez]

New York will require new taxis to be vehicles that achieve 30 mpg and achieve some sort of higher emissions standards. That's double to triple the mileage of the current Crown Victoria.

Reminds me of the strict emission standards that brought out GM's electric car, which eventually died off.

I've never understood why governments always try to reduce usage of the goods and services they tax and/or sell. Look at Ontario/Toronto Hydro, they charge for electricity, and so should be happy as pigs in mud when demand skyrockets since this means more money for them, but no....they bemoan us to reduce our demand. Same goes for this taxi example, if the government can tax the use of the gas, why would you want to reduce consumption? Now, I can understand controlling emissions, but if a Hummer can run cleanly, that's great income for the government.

Getting back to Hydro, can you imagine any other government corporation asking their customers to reduce demand, take VIA Rail for example, complaining that too many people are taking their trains, and that people should try to reduce their use of VIA trains? No, it's a crazy world when corporations ask their customers to reduce demand. What Hydro should be doing is charging us, their customers, the true cost of the electricity we need plus profit for the corporation, so that when demand spikes the cash flow increases allowing for investment in generating more supply, which results in a price stabilization until the next spike in demand requires more supply. When you've got something to sell, telling your customers to cut back is just silly.

 

[RedRocket191]

Reminds me of the strict emission standards that brought out GM's electric car, which eventually died off.

I've never understood why governments always try to reduce usage of the goods and services they tax and/or sell. Look at Ontario/Toronto Hydro, they charge for electricity, and so should be happy as pigs in mud when demand skyrockets since this means more money for them, but no....they bemoan us to reduce our demand. Same goes for this taxi example, if the government can tax the use of the gas, why would you want to reduce consumption? Now, I can understand controlling emissions, but if a Hummer can run cleanly, that's great income for the government.

Probably because the effects on the environment of increased consumption cost far more than the tax the government receives from the purchase of gas...

Getting back to Hydro, can you imagine any other government corporation asking their customers to reduce demand, take VIA Rail for example, complaining that too many people are taking their trains, and that people should try to reduce their use of VIA trains? No, it's a crazy world when corporations ask their customers to reduce demand. What Hydro should be doing is charging us, their customers, the true cost of the electricity we need plus profit for the corporation, so that when demand spikes the cash flow increases allowing for investment in generating more supply, which results in a price stabilization until the next spike in demand requires more supply. When you've got something to sell, telling your customers to cut back is just silly.

Don't forget that there is limitted supply. If a company sells 600 widgets, but the demand is 800 widgets, then they either have to reduce demand by raising the prices or they must produce more widgets. In the case of Ontario Hydro, they cannot produce any more electricity right now because plants take so long to build, and since the price of electricity is controlled by the Independent Electricity System Operator, hydro's only option is to reduce demand by begging.

In the long run, I do support prices that better reflect the true cost of electricity.

 

[unimaginative2]

Demand management has been a popular option for electric utilities, both public and private, since the 70s. It first emerged when New England utilities realized that they would make more money if they didn't have to build expensive plants to serve new load growth. It remains a very sensible approach for utilities, both from an environmental and economic standpoint, especially at peak periods where ultra-high-cost (usually gas) power must be employed and every kilowatt hour not consumed is a major savings.

Generating more power simply isn't profitable, since nobody would ever pay the actual extreme cost of peaking power. It's always generated at a loss for either the generator or the market operator.