So, I've been trying to analyze the design of Crazy Taxi to figure out what developers where thinking, and why they made things the way they are. I was wondering if any of the more game design literate folks over here could help me.

For starters, why did they choose to have the customers always be the same, always same positions and with same destinations? How would randomly generated customers affect the game? My best guess is that it was to make it easier for players to improve through experience, when they develop strategies to increase their high score.
But that brings another question. How much RNG dependency is acceptable in a high score based game? With a lot of random elements you get more varied gameplay, but then you also get inconsistent performance from players when elements beyond their control get in the way. Even an experienced player's high score run could be cut short by something they didn't see coming, and an inexperienced player could get a high score once with a lucky streak. So which one is better in a contest for high score? Consistent predictable conditions, or a notable element of randomness?

Second, the game's arcade map is pretty much just a circuit with a select few more open areas. http://web.comhem.se/zacabeb/repository/crazy_taxi_arcade_map.jpg Why is this? Is it to keep the player from getting lost too easily, considering that the sessions on the original arcade cabinet are relatively short for the player? Less time spent on trying to learn the level and more time spent on playing, maximizing the amount of fun before your turn at the cabinet is over?
However, this doesn't apply to the much more sprawling second map present on the console and PC ports. http://guidesarchive.ign.com/guides/12006/images/crazytaximap.jpg. Was this added because console players have a bit more time with the game due to lack of credits?
Both maps have a specific starting position. How much would the gameplay change if the player could select from several alternate starting points?

Those are just some of my thoughts. I might come up with more questions later. I really want to understand this game on a design level.

I haven't played this game (not a Freddi Fish 2 clone) but to answer the first point, I think randomness doesn't fit in a high score game. Like you said, it would stink if you ran into something unavoidable at the last second while trying to show off any "sik skilz" you may possess. You could however do what Pac-man did and have the behavior of obstacles (the paths of the ghosts or whatever Insane Lift has) be controlled by the player. This would keep things dynamic without being random.

EDIT: Then again, I'm pretty sure most games have enemies that react to what you do...

...so not the most brilliant idea of mine.

I have that game somewhere. I bought it on Gamers Gate but I don;t think I've ever downloaded it.

Which reminds me, we need to get "Chicago 1920" in here so that I can flush my GG account.

Your links are broken (or rather, they point nowhere, meaning they load this very page we're already on).
The URL should got just after the = sign, and the displayed text should go between ] and [. If you want the URL itself to be displayed, put that in both places.

The quoted link fixed:
http://guidesarchive.ign.com/guides/12006/images/crazytaximap.jpg

They probably had bigger hardware overhead than today.

Really, though? Will an amateur ever score higher than someone who has mastered the game? Don't think so, I certainly never scored as high in the beginning as I would even during my lousier sessions later on. The thing is that with good player performance sessions become longer and the random factors get equalised, plus there's a limit to the complexity of the situations the game can generate, from what I recall the game won't really surprise you anymore and you can handle any scenario with sufficient experience.

Fixed it. Thanks!