Did you watch the video? The idea* seems the same as (electric) Kei-trucks or Tuk-tuks yet more limited on who can have it (like the thumbnail, also in the video “you live up a hill? Sorry, you can take a taxi”). With the restrictions in place, I’d imagine people bike to work and likely do use a(n e)bike for jobs/conditions that allow it. Also “but not the shops, also not the restaurants. We are really strict that, since 20 years we have around 520 vehicles”
*=Smaller footprint of vehicles, higher visibility, less weight to propel (+less momentum), less damage to infrastructure, more efficient usage for smaller (most common) trips etc
A taxi is not really better than any other private vehicle, other than being less affordable. That, in turn, means that poor people will be further disadvantaged.
For people with good enough mobility, we should facilitate walking, cycling, and public transit. That said, I understand some people have such poor mobility that they can’t walk to a bus stop, so there will always be a need for taxis, but private vehicles need to be the last resort for human transport.
A taxi is not a personal vehicle though, it means less risk (higher scrutiny on driver, less people driving) and less parking.
I was just quoting the video, and also yeah it’s understandable that their town is designed a specific way and appears to be higher wealth. Depending on gaps with public transport, I could very well see some systems for residents for free transport (shuttles, vouchers for home/work travel etc) but I can see why such a thing wouldn’t make it into the video.
A taxi fleet has minimal ability to transport amounts of people, just like any other car. It is not an efficient use of public resources, such as roads. Active transport and transit are both more efficient and more equitable.