Seattle Mulls Higher-Mileage Cabs
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels thinks the city’s taxicabs are guzzling too much gas. So he’s proposing a switch to taxis that get at least 30 miles per gallon by 2013.
According to a report in the Seattle Times, most of the city’s taxis are now Ford Crown Victorias that get less than 20 mpg.
Many cab drivers aren’t thrilled with the proposal, which would still have to be approved by the Seattle City Council. And a proposal similar to Seattle’s is also sparking cabbie criticism in San Francisco.
- » See also: Riding on the Bus
- » Get EcoLocalizer by RSS or sign up by email.
However, higher-mileage taxis are becoming a trend in other cities across the U.S.
New York, for example, recently moved to up the mileage of its black-car, luxury livery fleet from between 12 and 15 mpg to 25 mpg by next year, and to 30 mpg by 2010. (The city’s Yellow Cabs for us regular people are set to go all-hybrid by 2012.) And Chicago is moving in the same direction.
The change is happening even in smaller towns like Iowa City, where Black and Gold Cab recently added two Toyota Priuses to its fleet,
Earlier this month, EnviroCAB began operating an all-hybrid taxi fleet in Arlington, Virginia. It claims to be the first all-hybrid cab operator in the U.S.
It seems like the cab drivers would enjoy the savings in gas. Do you know why they don’t support it?
Hi Sarah — From what I’ve read, the cabbies in Seattle are unhappy about having to invest in new cars, while the San Francisco drivers are upset about the increased gate fees they have to pay (the fee they pay to the cab company, which is raising prices to cover their new car costs).
I’d be interested in seeing a comparison of additional costs to gas savings, though: at today’s prices (which I’m guessing will only go up), I’d bet the switch to hybrid vehicles would be worth it for cab drivers over the long term.
Following up on your comment, Shirley — I think it’s important that the economic and environmental costs of adopting new technologies get taken into consideration when deciding whether or not they make sense.
Switching to all new cars costs money, means that natural resources are used and pollutants created in the production of the new cars, and means that old cars end up in landfills.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about advances like this and think they’re generally the right decision, I just feel that sometimes some of the costs in transitions like this get overlooked.
Rachel, I understand your concerns completely. Making the transition to newer, more efficient technologies typically means getting rid of the old ones and using up even more resources. Figuring out the true economic and environmental costs of such switches can end up feeling like you’re doing one of those old vaudeville tricks, where you have to keep a dozen plates spinning on a dozen different poles!
Just in recent weeks, I’ve seen several stories about the unintended consequences of a switch to more energy-efficient technologies. For example, while U.S. drivers are switching to more fuel-efficient cars, many of their old, inefficient cars end up being resold in places like Mexico, where they continue to consume vast amounts of gas and spew out tons of carbon dioxide.
And then there’s the downside of compact fluorescent lightbulbs. Yes, they last longer and use up less energy, but they also contain mercury, which — when the CFLs break or are thrown away — can end up poisoning the environment.
It all gets very confusing, doesn’t it?