Re: “We don’t need second-rate taxis,” letter, Jan. 4.
The letter regarding not needing “second-rate taxis” seemed close-minded, but does highlight the need for an even playing field.
I believe that most people use “alternatives” due to various reasons, but generally for cost and convenience. Why are those not valid reasons? Isn’t innovation typically driven by people seeing a need not met or a cost too high? Isn’t the reason for taxis for the convenience of not owning a car?
I have nothing against taxis, as my use and the cost of them has been acceptable, yet my need is minimal. I also understand the argument that they face considerable costs for operators and owners, something ride-hailing drivers do not. Perhaps we need to look at what is driving those costs?
In the end, not enough taxis or alternatives at peak times does cause a real problem. Trying to do that with full-cost taxis does not seem viable. Having a flexible fleet to meet that need does.
How do we make it so that it is fair for all involved? So that the public gets safe, reliable transport at reasonable costs and full-time taxi operators are not edged out by other services that don’t face the same costs.
Bill Pybus
Esquimalt
