Uber-taxis won’t fix the structural problem

Renato Marques

Macau’s transportation woes are not new. Long queues at taxi stands, scarce taxis during peak hours, and residents struggling to get a ride home after work have become part of daily life.

After years of public calls, authorities have finally allowed Uber to operate, but only as a limited service operating in partnership with licensed taxis.

While on paper this sounds like modernization, in reality it does little to address the core problem of the lack of taxis to meet high demand, mainly due to the large influx of visitors.

While technology can help manage resources, it cannot compensate for scarcity. An app cannot improve the management of vehicles that do not exist.

As many experts have pointed out on numerous occasions, the fundamental problem is structural. Macau’s economy is powered by tourism, and millions of visitors arrive in the region every year. Visitors also tend to concentrate in specific districts, and many are day-trippers, which compresses transportation demand into narrow time windows.

When major events, holidays, or peak casino hours overlap, or when it rains, transport demand spikes dramatically. Yet the number of taxis on the road remains limited and is constrained by a highly regulated licensing system that does not allow for a rapid response to changes in demand.

When supply is fixed and demand surges, shortages are inevitable.

Introducing Uber as a dispatch platform for the same limited pool of taxis does not expand supply; it simply redistributes access. Instead of hailing on the street, customers now compete digitally.

The shortage remains – it is just less visible until the app shows “no cars available” or imposes surge pricing.

Supporters argue that Uber can improve efficiency and facilitate taxi booking for non-Chinese speakers, and to some extent, that is true. Apps tend to reduce wait times and simplify payments. They offer convenience, transparency, and tracking, but efficiency gains cannot overcome a numerical deficit.

Relying solely on taxis to address transportation challenges may not reflect the realities of a modern city like Macau, given its density and visitor flow. Many global cities facing similar demand pressures have expanded ride-hailing services beyond traditional taxi fleets, liberalized entry for new drivers under regulated conditions, or invested heavily in complementary public transportation systems. These measures increase capacity rather than simply reorganizing it.

Then there is the economic dimension. Persistent transport shortages push passengers toward higher prices, informal transport arrangements, or simply long waiting times.

For residents, this erodes quality of life. For tourists, it damages Macau’s image as a seamless, world-class destination. A visitor who spends an hour waiting for a ride or encounters a fare that is sometimes unreasonable is unlikely to leave with a positive impression.

The current approach prioritizes regulatory compromise over practical resolution of well-known problems. Authorities appear more focused on avoiding conflict with traditional operators (who have also paid high license prices in tenders) rather than prioritizing mobility outcomes.

If the government is serious about addressing transport bottlenecks, it must confront the supply question directly.

This could mean increasing taxi licenses, allowing regulated non-taxi ride-hailing vehicles, improving late-night public transport frequency, or adopting dynamic fleet management strategies during peak tourism periods. None of these is simple, and all require political will and a measure of courage.

Digitizing scarcity does not eliminate it; it simply repackages it. Macau deserves a real solution, not just a smoother way to discover that no taxis are available.