Are cabs "public transport"?

[1fast1]

Inspired to ask this by yet another thread on "f***ed up cabbies" - I've always wondered about one thing - why are taxis often classed as public transport vehicles? I've seen this propaganda on "go green" posters in Sg. Taxis are no better than private cars for the environment, and in fact, can be much much worse, given that a lot of their time is spent riding around, burning fuel, looking for prey...I mean passengers.

 

Maybe the gahmen realises that going "hard" and uncompromising on the "go green" message - telling people to take BMW (Bus, MRT, Walk) only won't work because the public transportation network is already creaking near capacity at peak times, and isn't run all that efficiently or priced all that competitively. And Singaporeans do love their comforts when they can afford them (and why not?) - hence they'd rather take cabs if they can manage. Could also have to do with the fact that the cab companies pay healthy amounts of money into their coffers, and our gahmen loves nothing more than regular, healthy infusions of cold cash to keep that spring in its step.

 

But it's still the wrong message - taxis pollute more than private cars - if every fare that takes a cab on a regular basis buys their own car and uses them to take the exact same route, the fuel burnt and the CO2 emitted would still come out to be less than the cab within the same time period (because of the "prowl-time" of the cab between fares). The inherent assumption here is that commuting would not go up significantly when one buys their own car, and I accept it may be a flawed one.

 

Buses aren't all that hot pollution/consumption-wise, but I think they edge out private cars on a per-person basis. I'm not a 100% on this though, since I haven't done the math. I think MRT is still the most green way to travel (but this still needs proof).

 

Thoughts?

Edited July 9, 2010 by Turboflat4

[Ultramega]

Taxis are public transport because any member of the public can board them. Simple as that.

[1fast1]

Taxis are public transport because any member of the public can board them. Simple as that.

 

Duh, thanks, Captain Obvious.

 

But my question had more to do with whether it's fair to lump taxis with the other modes of public transport in reckoning "green transport". I should've titled the thread better.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Turboflat4

[Puteh]

if they are public transport then why is it some of them can suka suka pick or refuse a fare......hmmm

[Kangadrool]

GREEN???

 

Only 100% pedal-powered bicycle is GREEN!

 

Our city state is actually the perfect place for bicycling. The roads are lined with trees, many many trees. Just create another path under the trees and viola...... you have a perfect place to cycle under the hot sun.

 

But, we all know what our scholars and ministars will say lah.

[Bulls_is_back]

"Only 100% pedal-powered bicycle is GREEN!"

 

Not true. Pedal power came from YOU. To generate that power you need to eat.

Since we import most of our food supply, CO2 generated by the lorries and ships should be added to our carbon footprint when we consider pedal-power.

 

Some considerations when advocating pedal power:

 

Increase wear in certain parts of our bodies (you only have one body ... public transport is replaceable)

Eat more to replenish the energy expended. (maybe ... maybe not)

Danger in traffic (putting your body at risk of severe injuries)

Reduced efficiency and effectiveness at workplace and home. (hot and sweaty ... how to perform at work or at home)

 

Just some of my seriously biased thoughts. :) peace

[Ultramega]

One way for taxis to be greener is SCRAP THE BOOKING SURCHARGE (referring to fees related to calling for a cab).

 

Once that is scrapped, people will no longer wait by the road side for taxis. They will just call a cab. And since nobody waits by the road, taxis will not ply the streets for passengers anymore. They will just wait at strategic places for calls to come in. And they can wait with engines off.

 

This will translate to better rest for drivers (wait in a parked taxi instead of plying the streets), convenience for passengers, and of cos, fuel savings and less environmental pollution (cos less driving).

[Sw20]

THE ONLY WAY TO GO GREEN IS TO WORK AT HOME!

[Bulls_is_back]

The only way to be green is to be dead. Go 6 feet under to help the grass grow ... All in good time ... not now for most people I suppose.

[1fast1]

THE ONLY WAY TO GO GREEN IS TO WORK AT HOME!

 

Actually, I agree with that. I'm a big proponent of tele-commuting. Unfortunately, getting anyone in a position of power to support it is not going to be easy, especially in an Asian country where the "show face" ethic (coming to work early, going home late, not taking MC, etc. etc.) is often accorded more importance than actual work output and quality.

[Mikethm]

Inspired to ask this by yet another thread on "f***ed up cabbies" - I've always wondered about one thing - why are taxis often classed as public transport vehicles? I've seen this propaganda on "go green" posters in Sg. Taxis are no better than private cars for the environment, and in fact, can be much much worse, given that a lot of their time is spent riding around, burning fuel, looking for prey...I mean passengers.

 

Maybe the gahmen realises that going "hard" and uncompromising on the "go green" message - telling people to take BMW (Bus, MRT, Walk) only won't work because the public transportation network is already creaking near capacity at peak times, and isn't run all that efficiently or priced all that competitively. And Singaporeans do love their comforts when they can afford them (and why not?) - hence they'd rather take cabs if they can manage. Could also have to do with the fact that the cab companies pay healthy amounts of money into their coffers, and our gahmen loves nothing more than regular, healthy infusions of cold cash to keep that spring in its step.

 

But it's still the wrong message - taxis pollute more than private cars - if every fare that takes a cab on a regular basis buys their own car and uses them to take the exact same route, the fuel burnt and the CO2 emitted would still come out to be less than the cab within the same time period (because of the "prowl-time" of the cab between fares). The inherent assumption here is that commuting would not go up significantly when one buys their own car, and I accept it may be a flawed one.

 

Buses aren't all that hot pollution/consumption-wise, but I think they edge out private cars on a per-person basis. I'm not a 100% on this though, since I haven't done the math. I think MRT is still the most green way to travel (but this still needs proof).

 

Thoughts?

 

My thought is right there with you that drivers like you and me are fully entitled to burning 100L of petrol monthly into the environment whereas the 500 passengers that board a particular taxi in a month which burn up 500L should not be allowed to do so. Non car owning members of the public shouldn't be so ungreen. They should take BMW 100% of the time. If they are late, too bad as they shouldn't oversleep. This is right up there with our divine right to have comfortable material lives as opposed to starving Africans who do not.

 

[Ultramega]

THE ONLY WAY TO GO GREEN IS TO WORK AT HOME!

 

provided all those who work at home don't individually turn on aircon, communication devices, lights, printers and so on. Else it's less green actually.

[1fast1]

My thought is right there with you that drivers like you and me are fully entitled to burning 100L of petrol monthly into the environment whereas the 500 passengers that board a particular taxi in a month which burn up 500L should not be allowed to do so. Non car owning members of the public shouldn't be so ungreen. They should take BMW 100% of the time. If they are late, too bad as they shouldn't oversleep. This is right up there with our divine right to have comfortable material lives as opposed to starving Africans who do not.

 

Amen!