The traditional taxi industry is under assault from on-demand disruptors like Uber and Lyft. But this battle is one that has extended beyond simply the business arena and into the regulatory space, forcing governments and city leaders to contemplate how to best preserve the safety and equal access to services of their citizens, while also encouraging free markets and progress.

While this battle is unfolding in hundreds of global markets, the city of Los Angeles and its local Taxicab Commission are taking a unique approach to solving this so-called “Uber problem.” Unlike Portland, Delhi, Germany, Thailand, and other locales, LA has not decided to ban Uber and Lyft. This stems, in part, from a recognition that the city’s infamous traffic and the scale of its urban sprawl make it unusually difficult to street hail traditional taxis in LA, and also in part from a rabid demand among local consumers for these technology powered services. With that in mind, the city is instead looking to force existing taxi businesses to better compete.

“Uber’s value to Los Angeles is different from Uber’s value to any other city in the country,” LA Taxicab Commission president Eric Spiegelman said in a recent interview with The New Yorker. “This is the one city where you have the goals of the civic body running in lockstep with the goals of private entities.”

Spiegelman, an attorney and former video producer, explains that LA mayor Eric Garcetti is at the forefront of an initiative to “ensure equal competition” by making taxis operate more like their modern competitors, rather than taking the unpopular (and ineffective) approach of limiting Uber and Lyft’s ability to operate within the city. Spiegelman will present a plan to the commission later this week that will propose rules requiring that every taxi in LA adopt a certified mobile app platform that supports GPS location, booking, payment, driver ratings, and complaints, among other functions. The idea, to put it bluntly, is to see the city’s taxis become more “Uber-like” according to the New Yorker’s Maria Bustillos.

This begs the question, why don't Garcetti and LA just adopt peer-to peer ride sharing, as facilitated by Uber, Lyft, and their venture capital-backed brethren, as the local transportation solution of the future? The short answer, according to Spiegelman, is that for all their efficiency and good will among consumers, private ride-sharing startups lack many of the traditional consumer protections that cities value, and which, at least in theory, are available via traditional taxis. This includes protections like accessibility options for the disabled and equal access to riders in all neighborhoods. It also includes price transparency and consistency in times of high demand, something that has plagued Uber and its “surge pricing” model.

It bears stating, that taxis in LA (and elsewhere) are far from perfect when it comes to following these accessibility regulations. It’s not uncommon for drivers in LA to insist that riders accept off-meter rates on busy nights, or refuse to accept certain rides that are either too short or end up in an inconvenient (or undesirable) destination.

But the idea with the newly proposed taxi app is to moderate these behaviors through technology. Presumably, taxi drivers would be punished for rejecting too many fares and rider reviews would be more efficiently collected and incorporated into the service. Maybe a universal rating and feedback system can even encourage drivers to keep their cars cleaner, drive more safely, talk on the phone less, and generally treat their passengers more kindly. At least that’s the idealistic theory.

It’s unclear if the city of LA or the Taxicab Commission will be building their own technology platform in addition to partnering with existing, privately funded options like Flywheel and Curb (fka, TaxiMagic), each of which are available in LA. If this proposal results in a technology project built and maintained maintained by the commission, the city, or even an outside consulting firm, the odds of it going well would be slim. Then again, existing platforms are less than ideal as they extract hefty commissions on rides – up to 30 percent – that would likely have to be adjusted if they are going to be mandated through regulation and eventually account for a majority of all rides.

Following this week’s proposal, Spiegelman is hoping to have the commission vote on his plan in January. The next step would be to create a working group to set the certification standards under which existing and new app(s) will be judged. At that point, we should have a clearer idea of how (and when) the new on-demand requirements. Then again, when terms like working group, standards, and certification get thrown around in government, timelines tend to balloon and progress grind to a halt.

Early as we may be in this process, LA at least deserves credit for welcoming competition and focusing on delivering the best experience to riders, rather than protecting incumbent industries. The alternative, as we’ve seen in cities around the globe, is to ban ride-sharing platforms or force them to operate under onerous and outdated rules – like setting pricing at a fixed percentage above standard taxi rates – with predictably ineffectiveness.

Well intentioned as the Garcetti and Spiegelman plan to drag taxis into the 21st century may be, the bottom line is that Uber, et al are thriving in LA and elsewhere because the incumbent taxi industry has proven itself unable to delivered a pleasant user experience. An app is not enough to change that. Uber’s corporate culture may be toxic in its own right, and Lyft may be too nice to succeed in this cutthroat category, but it seems a far stretch that a little technology can reinvent the taxi industry (full of the same leaders and drivers) into a people pleaser.