Traditional Taxis in the Uber Era

The rise of Uber and other ride-hailing apps has transformed urban transport worldwide – but not everywhere. In some major cities, traditional taxis remain economically resilient, holding their ground against app-based competitors. Key factors include protective regulations, competitive pricing, stable driver employment models, and enduring public demand for taxis. Below, we explore 10 such cities (excluding Dubai) and why taxis are still going strong there, with comparisons of fares, driver trends, and market share.

Visual Snapshot: Taxi vs. Ride-Hailing Market Share in 10 Cities

1. Tokyo, Japan

Tokyo’s famed taxis have not only survived the Uber revolution – they’ve barely been dented by it. Strict regulations in Japan effectively ban unlicensed ride-sharing; only licensed taxi companies or hire-car services can operate. As a result, Uber’s footprint is minuscule (estimated well under 10% of rides nationally, and less than 1% of monthly rides in Tokyo). Instead, the taxi industry embraced technology on its own terms. Apps like JapanTaxi/Go aggregate tens of thousands of Tokyo’s taxis, offering the convenience of e-hailing without breaking regulations. In fact, Go now commands about 70% of Japan’s ride-hailing market by working with existing taxi fleets.

Despite Uber’s virtually nonexistent role, Tokyo’s taxis remain ubiquitous. Riders appreciate their impeccable service – polite, uniformed drivers, automatic doors, and spotless vehicles. The government maintains fare controls (e.g. a lowered ¥410 base fare for short hops to spur demand). Prices are high – Tokyo ranks among the costliest cities to take a cab – but this hasn’t driven customers to Uber. Many visitors find Uber in Japan is just an expensive black-car service; the cheaper, more reliable option is often a metered taxi, which is readily available and can now be e-hailed via local apps. For drivers, most are employees of taxi companies, enjoying stable incomes (albeit modest) and benefitting from a culture that still values taxi service. In short, thanks to regulation and quality, Tokyo’s taxi trade retains an overwhelming market share and remains economically robust in the face of ride-sharing.

Economic highlights: Protected by law, Tokyo’s ~45,000 taxis face little direct competition from Uber. Taxi fares are regulated (a 5 km ride costs around ¥1,500–¥2,000), and while Uber might charge similar or higher for a licensed hire car, few bother with it. Taxi drivers – though fewer than in past decades – still serve over 1.4 billion passenger trips a year nationally. The taxis’ combination of tech integration and top-notch service quality keeps them competitive without resorting to deep discounts.

2. Seoul, South Korea

In Seoul, the story is very similar – if you open the Uber app, you’ll mostly find regular taxis. South Korea has outlawed private ride-sharing by individuals, bowing to fierce pressure from taxi unions. Uber’s initial foray in 2013 met with legal barriers and protests, forcing it to pull out when courts ruled only licensed taxis could offer rides. The void was filled by local apps like Kakao T Taxi, which connects users to official taxis. Today, Kakao dominates with over 90% of taxi-hailing market share, and Uber’s presence is relegated to a small joint venture (Uber Taxi) that partners with licensed taxi drivers. In fact, roughly 20% of Korean taxi drivers are now on Uber’s platform after a recent re-launch, but they are still driving the same regulated cabs.

Regulatory protection has kept Seoul’s taxis in the driver’s seat – literally. The government tightly controls taxi licensing, fares, and has even cracked down on startups attempting “ride-sharing” with private vehicles (one called Tada was shut after taxi driver protests). The result is that virtually 100% of point-to-point car rides in Seoul are on licensed taxis, whether hailed on the street or via apps. From an economic standpoint, this means taxi drivers have largely maintained their ridership and income. Fares in Seoul are modest (among the lowest in developed cities), often cheaper than what an UberX would cost if it were allowed. For example, a 10 km taxi trip in Seoul might cost around ₩15,000 (~$12), which is competitive globally.

Passenger preferences also favor taxis: they’re everywhere and affordable, and services like Kakao T make them as convenient as any ride-hail. Drivers benefit from stable or growing demand; many are full-time and unionized, and some taxi companies even employ drivers on salary. Seoul’s case demonstrates how robust regulatory support and local innovation (taxi apps) can keep the traditional taxi sector thriving with nearly the entire market share in the Uber era.

3. Hong Kong, China (SAR)

Hong Kong’s iconic red taxis remain kings of the road due to a hardline legal stance against Uber-style services. It is currently illegal for private cars to take paying passengers without a hire-car permit in Hong Kong, and authorities regularly warn and conduct stings against Uber drivers. The city strictly limits the number of taxi licenses – around 18,000 in total – effectively creating a protected taxi cartel. Uber operates only at the margins, in a legal grey zone with a small number of drivers willing to risk fines. This means that for the vast majority of riders, grabbing a cab (street-hailing is the norm) or calling one through official taxi-call apps is the go-to method.

Economically, Hong Kong’s taxis have remained resilient because competition is kept at bay by law. Taxi fares are regulated and relatively affordable compared to incomes – a short ride across downtown might cost HK$40 (about US$5). Uber’s fares, when available, tend to be higher or at best on par with taxis, especially after accounting for frequent surge pricing and additional booking fees. This pricing reality, combined with the risk (passengers know Uber rides are technically unlicensed), leads many locals and visitors to stick with the trusty red taxis or use authorized taxi-hailing apps.

Driver livelihoods have been largely stable. Taxi medallions in Hong Kong are extremely valuable (trading in the millions of HKD), indicating investors still see long-term profit in the taxi trade. Most taxi drivers rent the cabs from medallion owners and continue to earn a living, as consumer demand remains solid – Hong Kong residents took about 1 million taxi trips per day as of a few years ago. While some passengers gripe about taxi service quality, they often have few alternatives. Public preference, or rather necessity, keeps taxis busy at all hours. Overall, Hong Kong’s taxi industry still enjoys a near-monopoly in ride services, its economic position reinforced by strict regulation and controlled supply.

4. Istanbul, Turkey

If there’s any city where taxis outright won the war against Uber, it’s Istanbul. The Turkish government and courts sided decisively with the taxi industry: by 2019, Uber’s main services were effectively banned in Turkey, with President Erdoğan declaring Uber “finished” in Istanbul. What happened? A massive taxi lobby (over 18,000 licensed yellow cabs serve this city of 15+ million) mounted protests and legal action, accusing Uber of unlicensed operations and threatening livelihoods. Amid violent clashes – some taxi drivers even attacked Uber drivers – regulators stepped in to protect taxis. Uber was forced to halt its low-cost UberX and UberXL services; today, it only functions as an app to call… you guessed it, official taxis.

The outcome is that Istanbul’s traditional taxis retain essentially 100% of the market. Economically, they are as dominant as ever, with steady rider demand. Taxi fares are set by the city and remain inexpensive by global standards (roughly ₺12 base plus ₺8 per km, so a cross-town ride might be under $10). When Uber operated illegally, its prices were often higher than a yellow cab’s meter, so there wasn’t a big cost incentive for riders – people mainly valued Uber for cleanliness or driver courtesy, areas which Istanbul taxis have since worked to improve. The government has also pushed upgrades like a new iTaksi app and modern taxi models to boost the sector’s image.

For drivers, the employment and income stability are protected by the tightly controlled taxi license system. A taxi “plate” in Istanbul is costly (formerly around $350,000), which underscores how lucrative the business can be with limited competition. Drivers often lease these plates from owners, paying monthly fees, and in return have a guaranteed stream of passengers since ride-hail can’t undercut them. While customer service issues persist (locals often complain about drivers refusing short trips or other hassles), many Istanbulites have little choice but to use taxis or public transit. In sum, through regulatory might, Istanbul’s taxis have largely shut out Uber, keeping their economic primacy intact.

5. New York City, USA

New York paints a more complex picture – taxis were hit hard by Uber, but a mix of policies and adaptations is helping the iconic yellow cabs stage a bit of a comeback. At one point Uber and Lyft absolutely eclipsed NYC’s taxis, grabbing over 85% of the ride-hail trips by 2023. Yellow cab rides fell from about half a million per day a decade ago to barely 100,000 by the early 2020s. This led to an economic crisis for taxi drivers – many who had bought costly medallions (licenses) saw their value crash and incomes plummet. However, the city intervened with measures like a cap on Uber/Lyft vehicles, a minimum wage for ride-share drivers, and even a medallion debt relief fund to save taxi owners from bankruptcy. Slowly, these moves are stabilizing the taxi sector.

One pivotal change: technology partnerships. In 2022, NYC struck a deal to have yellow taxis available on the Uber app, merging the best of both worlds. This move immediately boosted taxi trip numbers by over 20% as new riders began e-hailing cabs through Uber. Likewise, local apps like Curb allow users to summon a yellow cab easily. The result is that taxis have clawed back some market share (now about 15% of rides, from a low near 10%). Economically, more fares are flowing to cabbies again, and many of the city’s ~13,500 licensed taxis are back on the road (though about 3,400 medallions remain idle post-pandemic).

Comparative pricing in NYC between taxis and Uber is often a toss-up. A standard city trip (say 3 miles in Manhattan) might run around $15 in a taxi vs. $13 in an UberX – Uber had been cheaper due to upfront pricing without tips, but recent fare hikes and new congestion charges have narrowed the gap. In heavy traffic, a cab can actually be the better deal because Uber charges for time as well as distance, whereas the taxi meter’s per-minute rate is relatively modest. And unlike Uber’s surge pricing, taxi rates are regulated and predictable (no surprise multipliers during rush hour). Consumers have noticed: if Uber fares spike to 2x or 3x, hailing a cab on the street often becomes the cheaper option. Many New Yorkers now use both, choosing whatever is more cost-effective at the moment.

For drivers, the city’s efforts mean improved stability – yellow cab drivers saw some relief from crushing medallion loans, and ride-hail drivers got wage protections (which also prevents Uber from undercutting taxis too severely on price). While NYC’s taxis will likely never regain their monopoly of old, they remain an integral part of the transit mix, completing over 3.5 million trips a month and holding economic value through medallion assets (trading around $150,000 now, up from lows of $80k). The New York case shows that with smart policies and integration, traditional taxis can co-exist and stay competitive alongside Uber.

6. London, United Kingdom

London’s black cabs are world-famous, and despite Uber’s popularity in the capital, the Hackney carriages have proven resilient thanks to a blend of tradition, quality, and some regulatory support. As of 2023, there were about 15,000 licensed taxi drivers in London – down from over 22,000 a decade prior, but still a significant force. Uber and other private-hire vehicles (PHVs) now far outnumber taxis (around 90,000 PHV drivers), yet the city’s taxis retain a loyal customer base and certain built-in advantages. For one, only black cabs can legally pick up street hails and use taxi ranks – a protection in place since Uber drivers must be pre-booked. This means for immediate rides or busy areas, many Londoners still stick out their arm for a cab rather than open an app.

Pricing also helps keep cabs in play. While it’s commonly thought Uber is always cheaper, that’s not strictly true in London. Off-peak (low-demand times), an UberX does undercut a black cab (e.g. an off-peak trip from Euston to Archway ~£12 by Uber vs ~£15 by cab). However, during busy periods Uber’s surge pricing can make it far more expensive – riders have reported 2x or 3x surge fares, whereas the taxi meter remains steady, often costing about half of what Uber quotes at surge levels. Moreover, London cabbies are famed for “The Knowledge” – their expert navigation skills – which can save time and money in traffic. Uber drivers reliant on GPS might stick to congested main routes, racking up time charges, whereas a seasoned black cab driver finds a quicker backstreet route. In bumper-to-bumper traffic, a black cab can end up cheaper than an Uber due to these routing differences and the lack of surge. Many locals appreciate this reliability of cost and the cabbies’ professionalism (not to mention the spacious vehicles which are all wheelchair-accessible by law).

From an economic perspective, London’s taxi industry has certainly felt the squeeze – taxi license numbers fell ~25% in five years as some drivers retired or switched to PHV work. But those who remain now have new opportunities: Transport for London has required Uber and others to meet certain standards, and at one point even revoked Uber’s license (temporarily) over safety concerns, signaling that authorities won’t let the playing field get too skewed. There’s talk of Uber integrating black cabs on its platform (a feature announced for 2024), which could further help taxi drivers find fares via apps. Importantly, many corporations and tourists still prefer the trusted black cab for its rigorous driver vetting and historic brand – something Uber can’t replicate. All told, London’s black cabs remain economically relevant: they account for roughly 20–25% of ride-hail journeys in the city (with PHVs taking the rest), and continue to be a £1.5+ billion industry annually. By leveraging their strengths (quality, exclusive rights, and iconic status), London’s taxis stay competitive even as Uber cruises alongside.

7. Paris, France

Paris offers a case of controlled competition where taxis have held their own by pushing for regulations and matching app-based convenience. The French capital strictly limits taxi licenses (around 18,000 taxis in Paris proper) and, after Uber’s arrival, the government imposed rules to level the field – for example, banning Uber’s lowest-cost peer-to-peer service (UberPOP) early on and at one point requiring a 15-minute minimum wait for ride-hail pickups. While that wait rule was later relaxed, Uber and other VTCs (chauffeur private hire) in Paris must follow certain professional standards (special licenses, insurance, etc.), meaning Uber can’t just flood the streets with any driver. These measures, fought for by taxi unions, have prevented the taxi sector from being completely overtaken.

Economically, Paris taxis continue to see strong demand, especially for street hails and airport trips. Notably, Paris introduced flat regulated taxi fares for airport transfers (€53 from CDG to Right Bank, for example), undercutting or matching what an Uber might charge during high-demand times. This kind of pricing reform ensures taxis remain attractive for key lucrative routes. Within the city, UberX fares are often a bit lower than metered taxis for medium rides – perhaps by 5-10% – but when surge pricing kicks in (which it frequently does during strikes, rain, or rush hour), taxis often become the cheaper option. Additionally, major taxi companies like G7 and Taxis Bleus have modernized with their own apps that work much like Uber, allowing Parisians to e-hail a licensed cab and pay by card. Many locals use both Uber/Bolt and taxi apps interchangeably, choosing whichever ETA is shorter or price is better at the moment.

Market share in Paris is now roughly split, with around 25,000 ride-hail (VTC) drivers vs 18,000 taxis in the metropolitan area. That suggests taxis still handle a substantial chunk – possibly around 40% – of rides. One reason is that Parisian taxi drivers are fairly professional (many have been doing it for decades) and taxis have dedicated stands and lanes in parts of the city, which gives them visibility and quick access to customers. The government also offered support to taxi owners when liberalizing the sector; for example, in the mid-2010s when new VTC licenses were introduced, there were compensation and trade-in schemes for traditional taxi permits (which once cost upwards of €240,000 on the market). This helped many taxi drivers adapt without total financial ruin.

From the driver’s perspective, while income for Paris taxi drivers did drop with competition, those who remain have stabilized their earnings through a mix of street hails and app-dispatched rides. They are generally full-time professionals, whereas many Uber drivers work part-time. Some passengers, valuing security, still opt for the official taxi – especially after safety scares with unregulated services early on. Public preference in Paris thus remains divided, which in itself is a victory for the taxis’ economic resilience: even in the hometown of “Uber vs. Taxi” street protests, the traditional taxis are still in the game, backed by regulatory protections and a reputation for reliability.

8. Barcelona, Spain

Barcelona is a city where taxis not only survived Uber – they essentially kicked Uber out (at least for a while). In 2019, Catalonia’s regional government passed a rule requiring ride-hailing trips to be booked 15 minutes in advance, a deliberate move to destroy Uber’s on-demand model. Uber and its Spanish competitor Cabify responded by suspending operations in Barcelona, leaving the field to the city’s 10,000+ licensed taxis. After a two-year absence, Uber re-entered Barcelona in 2021 but in a very limited form: only by partnering with local taxis. In other words, Uber users in Barcelona today might end up getting a regular yellow-and-black Barcelona taxi dispatched – Uber has no private cars of its own there. This “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach highlights the power Barcelona’s taxi sector wielded through protests and legal battles.

Economically, Barcelona’s taxis remain strong. By forcing ride-hail to comply with taxi-style rules (advanced booking, licensed chauffeurs, etc.), the playing field was tilted back toward taxis. Passengers often find it just as easy to hop in a cab at a curb or use the city’s official taxi app (AMB Taxi) rather than waiting for an Uber. Taxi pricing is regulated by the metropolitan authority, and it tends to be reasonable – for instance, a 5 km trip might cost about €10–€12 by the meter. Uber’s prices, when it was operating independently, were similar or slightly lower for off-peak rides, but not so much cheaper as to lure all customers away, especially after accounting for Uber’s surge (in contrast, taxi fares are capped and can’t surge). With Uber now effectively acting as another taxi dispatch channel, pricing for riders has converged; an Uber-booked taxi ride uses the meter fare (Uber has sought permission to offer upfront fares in Barcelona, but authorities and taxi unions have resisted anything that undercuts the meter).

Driver livelihoods in Barcelona’s taxi industry are relatively secure. The number of taxi licenses is tightly controlled (around 10,521 in the city), and many drivers own their licenses, giving them a stake in the system. The Uber episode actually galvanized taxi drivers – they formed strong associations (like Elite Taxi) that continue to watchdog any “unfair” competition. As a result, the city’s approach to mobility now treats taxis and app services as essentially one category, subject to the same rules. Barcelona’s residents have largely adjusted to this regulated environment: when they need a quick ride, they often still default to the familiar sight of a black-and-yellow cab. Tourist demand is also high for taxis, given language support and fixed rates to main destinations.

In summary, Barcelona showcases how a major city’s taxis remain economically dominant when regulators back them up. Even Uber had to conform to the taxi model to operate, which speaks volumes. The taxi sector here enjoys robust ridership and pricing power, proving that with the right policies, traditional taxis can thrive alongside – or even without – ride-hailing apps in the mix.

9. Copenhagen, Denmark

Copenhagen’s taxi market is another example of how law and policy can preserve the classic taxi’s fortunes. Denmark imposed regulations in 2017 requiring ride-share drivers to have taxi licenses and install fare meters and seat sensors in cars – effectively making it impossible for Uber’s model to function. Uber chose to withdraw from Denmark entirely rather than comply. For about eight years, Copenhagen had no Uber service at all, leaving residents with traditional taxis and a few local hire car services. In that time, the taxi industry continued much as before, with stable or growing demand (especially given Copenhagen’s busy airport and tourism). Only in 2025 is Uber poised to return to Copenhagen, and notably it’s doing so by partnering with a local taxi firm under the new rules – not by reintroducing a swarm of private cars.

During Uber’s absence, taxi fares in Copenhagen remained high (Denmark has among the highest taxi prices in Europe, reflecting high wages and taxes – a 10 km ride can easily cost $30+). But riders paid it because the alternative was simply not there, aside from public transit. Taxi companies also innovated by launching apps like Drivr and others, so people grew accustomed to app-booking a taxi with transparent pricing – negating some of Uber’s tech advantage. Comparative pricing shows that even if Uber had been around, it wouldn’t necessarily have been dramatically cheaper, because Danish regulations would require similar fare components (and Danish Uber rides would have to include 25% VAT and other costs). In essence, taxis didn’t lose much price competitiveness.

Driver employment in Copenhagen’s taxi sector is characterized by professionalization. Drivers must go through training and licensing, and many are actually employees of taxi firms (or independent owner-operators of a single cab). This contrasts with the gig model of Uber. Because of this, taxi driving can be a relatively stable middle-class job in Denmark, with drivers receiving benefits and steady schedules. The regulatory shake-up in 2017 did reduce the number of taxi permits temporarily (licenses were reformed), but those who remained saw less competition on the streets and could earn a decent living with consistent fares. Now, with Uber coming back in a taxi-hybrid form, it’s likely to supplement drivers’ income (by giving them more dispatches) rather than siphon it away.

In summary, Copenhagen’s taxis weathered the Uber storm by essentially shutting it out. They maintained economic resilience through a period when many other cities saw taxis decline. As Copenhagen reintegrates ride-hailing under taxi-friendly terms, it stands as a model where traditional taxis remain the cornerstone of ride services and continue to operate profitably.

10. Casablanca, Morocco

Casablanca, Morocco’s largest city, illustrates how traditional taxis can hold their ground when new entrants lack a legal foothold. Uber tried operating in Casablanca in the mid-2010s but faced immediate resistance from authorities and taxi drivers. By 2018, after two years of struggle, Uber suspended its service in Morocco due to regulatory impasse. The government simply did not have provisions for ride-hailing – Morocco “only recognizes conventional taxis and has no provisions for private hire vehicles” – so Uber’s activities were deemed illegal. Taxi drivers, some of whom engaged in aggressive protests and “Uber hunting,” made sure the point was clear. The end result: Casablanca’s entrenched network of red “Petit Taxis” and larger “Grand Taxis” continue to serve virtually all of the city’s taxi transport needs without competition from Uber or similar apps.

Economically, this has allowed the taxi sector to remain un-disrupted and stable. Fares are relatively low (the petit taxis – small red cars – use a meter with a low base and per-kilometer rate; a short ride might be just 10–20 Moroccan dirhams, under $3). Uber’s attempted operations didn’t significantly undercut those prices; if anything, Uber was targeting a more premium segment with nicer cars at higher fares. Thus, average consumers in Casablanca stick with the plentiful petit taxis that can be hailed on the street. For longer suburban or group trips, the grand taxis (often shared) fill the gap. The absence of app-based competition means taxi drivers in Casablanca did not face the kind of income erosion seen elsewhere – they still pick up street passengers as usual and often negotiate fares for longer trips.

There are also government initiatives supporting taxi renewal – for instance, programs to subsidize drivers upgrading old vehicles – which keep the taxi fleet reliable and relatively affordable to operate. Most Casablanca taxi drivers are independent owner-operators or lessees working full-time, and their livelihoods remain secure as the primary option for riders. While some tech-savvy riders lament the lack of Uber (especially for the convenience of in-app payments or better air-conditioning), the public by and large relies on the familiar sight of red taxis. Local entrepreneurs have even launched taxi-hailing apps specifically for Casablanca’s taxis, attempting to modernize without introducing new vehicles.

In short, Casablanca’s traditional taxis remain dominant because the playing field was kept in their favor. Through regulatory closure and the taxis’ willingness to fight off competition, they preserved their economic turf. This means consumers still use taxis almost exclusively, and drivers continue to earn a living in the same manner they did before Uber – an outcome many taxi industries elsewhere might envy.

Comparative Insights: Why Taxis Prevail in These Cities

To summarize the common threads in these resilient taxi cities:

• Protective Regulation: In many of these locales, authorities imposed rules that level the playing field or exclude ride-hailing. Whether it’s outright bans (Istanbul, Casablanca), strict licensing requirements (Tokyo, Seoul, Copenhagen), or special restrictions on app services (Barcelona, Paris), regulation often shields the taxi industry. This prevents the unfettered flood of cheap ride-share vehicles that overwhelmed taxis in other cities.

• Competitive Pricing: Traditional taxis often benefit from regulated fares that keep them economically viable. While Uber and its ilk initially undercut taxis in many markets, in these cities either taxis are subsidized or set at reasonable rates, or Uber’s pricing isn’t dramatically lower. For example, in London and New York, a taxi can be cheaper than Uber during peak traffic or surge times. In Tokyo and Seoul, Uber’s services are premium-priced, so the cheaper everyday option remains the taxi. Many cities also introduced flat or fixed taxi rates for popular routes (airports, etc.) to compete with app quotes, as Paris did for airport trips.

• Technology Adoption: Rather than ceding the tech advantage, taxi fleets in these cities embraced apps and e-hailing on their own terms. Tokyo’s Go app, Seoul’s Kakao T, London’s Gett and others, New York’s Curb, Paris’s G7 app – all provide Uber-like convenience with real taxis. This mitigates one of Uber’s biggest selling points (easy app booking), allowing taxis to retain customers who prefer using a smartphone to hail a ride.

• Driver Employment & Stability: Traditional taxi driving tends to be a more stable profession in these cities, often with stronger labor protections or higher professional standards. In places like Copenhagen and Tokyo, taxi drivers must be trained or employed by companies, which can mean more reliable service and driver commitment. Some cities (e.g. Dubai, which is excluded, or Casablanca) even have drivers on regular salary or formal contracts, whereas Uber drivers are gig workers. This difference can translate to better service or at least a more established industry that authorities are inclined to protect. Moreover, where governments have compensated taxi license holders (Australia, parts of Europe) or refinanced medallion debt (New York), they have signaled a willingness to invest in the taxi sector’s longevity.

• Consumer Preferences and Trust: Finally, in these locales the public hasn’t abandoned taxis – in fact, consumer demand remains high. Whether it’s Tokyo’s spotless cabs and courteous drivers, Istanbul’s cultural familiarity with taxis, or Parisian trust in regulated, professional cabbies, there are intangible preferences at play. In many of these cities, taxis have built decades of trust and brand recognition. Tourists often seek out London black cabs or New York yellows for the experience (and in foreign cities, many feel safer with a licensed taxi). In some cases, negative perceptions of ride-hailing (safety incidents, surge pricing “shock”, or drivers who lack local knowledge) have nudged riders back toward traditional taxis. Public sentiment, combined with the factors above, ensures a steady customer base that keeps the taxi industry financially afloat.

In conclusion, traditional taxis in these 10 cities demonstrate resilience by adapting to competition, leveraging regulatory support, and continuing to deliver value to riders. While app-based services dominate many global markets, these cities show that with the right mix of policies and innovation, the classic taxi can still thrive economically in the Uber era. Each city’s scenario is unique, but the overarching lesson is clear: where taxis remain competitive on price, protected by sensible regulations, and in tune with consumer needs, they remain a strong (and sometimes the strongest) player in urban transportation.