Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by polak

What? I don't see how you get to that conclusion.

I think you're VASTLY overestimating how closely Uber and Mass Transit are competing for people. People who take transit aren't taking cabs and vice versa.

I see it based on how Uber continually drops rates well below local taxi rates and even below the estimated cost of driving; going as low as 30c/mile in Detroit before retreating after driver declines. And the implementation of UberPool services and especially the flat rate and monthly passes.

How do Taxi's compete against transit and private cars in your world?

They don't, taxis have always been a premium cost service designed to move small numbers of people around point-to-point for urgent reasons.

[polak]

Originally Posted by accord1999

They don't, taxis have always been a premium cost service designed to move small numbers of people around point-to-point for urgent reasons.

So how is Uber any different?

Plus they just take a cut and don't have any of the vehicle expenses like a regular cab company?

Don't get me wrong, they might be losing money as company and their valuation might be out of whack, but I'd say that's due to their market entry practices and other corporate issues. I think the ride share model is pretty solid and it's take over of the cab industry is unavoidable, whether it's Uber or someone else.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by polak

So how is Uber any different?

Plus they just take a cut and don't have any of the vehicle expenses like a regular cab company?

Don't get me wrong, they might be losing money as company and their valuation might be out of whack, but I'd say that's due to their market entry practices and other corporate issues. I think the ride share model is pretty solid and it's take over of the cab industry is unavoidable, whether it's Uber or someone else.

Please don't call it that. It's a taxi company with a different model. There is nothing "sharing" about the sharing economy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

You will have to give us way more detail. If you are talking about valuation of the company, maybe. But the business model is good. I was just in Vegas and used the service, it was very good way better than cabs there and much cheaper.

Cheaper because of investor subsidies.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by polak

So how is Uber any different?

Plus they just take a cut and don't have any of the vehicle expenses like a regular cab company?

The rates and the need to have enough drivers to make response times as low as possible are the difference. Everybody complains about taxi rates and they're clearly too high to use to replace regular motorized transportation. But the Uber rates are so much lower that in order to maintain the number of drivers, they need to subsidize them with guarantees, bonuses for referrals and signups, etc.

I think the ride share model is pretty solid and it's take over of the cab industry is unavoidable, whether it's Uber or someone else.

But it's not large enough to justify the valuations for Uber; taxi services are ultimately a tiny part of transport when everybody drives, takes mass transit, bikes or walks for almost every trip. The only reason that it has such valuations is the belief its investors have that Uber has a chance of replacing bus transit and private cars.

[TheAlpineOracle]

I spent a lot of time in the US for work, and I take Uber the minute I step into any City that has it. Cost isn't even in the equation for me because most of the time i'm expensing it. These socialist shrills on here can poo poo it all they want, and make up whatever nonsense they want to back up that position, but the fact of the matter it anyone who uses uber will tell you they will take it 10 times out of 10. The service is ten fold better than any cab experience, is quicker, more reliable, and most of the time the cars are newer and cleaner.

I was just in Seattle this weekend, and a couple of the guys picking me up in an Uber showed up in their actual cab licensed by the City of Seattle. I asked them why they were driving for Uber, and they flat out told me it was easier to get customers and they ended up with more money in their pocket at the end of the night as a result.

The only argument against Uber is if you are pro-union or a socialist who doesn't value free enterprise which describes Nenshi to a tee. I would actually pay more than the cab rates to use Uber here if it was available.

[Resolute 14]

Uber subsidizes to build that critical mass of drivers. Then they cut back. To the point that drivers in several jurisdictions have ended up making minimum wage or lower once their costs are factored in. That is a large part of Uber's business model. As a consequence, they need to bring on new drivers at least as fast as they lose old ones, or the model falls apart. And that is why Uber was apoplectic about the city's bylaws. Not because it is onerous, but because Uber can no longer hide the costs and risks to the driver as easily as before, and that in turn makes it harder to pull the wool over their eyes.

As far as Uber's valuation goes, I can only surmise that a large part of it comes from speculation about what an IPO could bring.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The only argument against Uber is if you are pro-union or a socialist who doesn't value free enterprise which describes Nenshi to a tee. I would actually pay more than the cab rates to use Uber here if it was available.

You aren't this stupid.

But you are this arrogant.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I spent a lot of time in the US for work, and I take Uber the minute I step into any City that has it. Cost isn't even in the equation for me because most of the time i'm expensing it. These socialist shrills on here can poo poo it all they want, and make up whatever nonsense they want to back up that position, but the fact of the matter it anyone who uses uber will tell you they will take it 10 times out of 10. The service is ten fold better than any cab experience, is quicker, more reliable, and most of the time the cars are newer and cleaner.

I was just in Seattle this weekend, and a couple of the guys picking me up in an Uber showed up in their actual cab licensed by the City of Seattle. I asked them why they were driving for Uber, and they flat out told me it was easier to get customers and they ended up with more money in their pocket at the end of the night as a result.

The only argument against Uber is if you are pro-union or a socialist who doesn't value free enterprise which describes Nenshi to a tee. I would actually pay more than the cab rates to use Uber here if it was available.

I don't think anyone in this thread is against uber. They want uber to follow reasonable legislation like drivers needing insurance and having safe vehicles. Currently the city bylaw does nothing to stop uber from operating.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Uber subsidizes to build that critical mass of drivers. Then they cut back. To the point that drivers in several jurisdictions have ended up making minimum wage or lower once their costs are factored in. That is a large part of Uber's business model. As a consequence, they need to bring on new drivers at least as fast as they lose old ones, or the model falls apart. And that is why Uber was apoplectic about the city's bylaws. Not because it is onerous, but because Uber can no longer hide the costs and risks to the driver as easily as before, and that in turn makes it harder to pull the wool over their eyes.

As far as Uber's valuation goes, I can only surmise that a large part of it comes from speculation about what an IPO could bring.

Who gives a ####? That's business and life. If people don't want to drive for them, don't. I don't personally care what the driver makes. If he doesn't think it's enough, than quit. Company will not have enough drivers and the service won't exist. Clearly that isn't happening though. They are even adding Uber pickup spots at most major airports in the US.

[Resolute 14]

You should give a ####, TAI, because fooling the driver is the only way Uber works. And since it can't fool the driver in Calgary at present, it won't operate here.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think anyone in this thread is against uber. They want uber to follow reasonable legislation like drivers needing insurance and having safe vehicles. Currently the city bylaw does nothing to stop uber from operating.

Oh there's a couple in this thread that are clearly against Uber and keep making the same arguments, that really have nothing to do with the point you just made (not talking about Resolute).

Uber is a desirable service that many, many people want here. While I agree that Uber needs to be meeting city by laws, you can't deny that the City has gone out of their way to ensure they can't operate here. All you need to do is watch that video of Nenshi spewing his Uber hate and see that's the case. What works in Edmonton, should work here.

[TheAlpineOracle]

The only reason council isn't still feeling the heat over this is because the Economy is so crappy that you can just walk out anywhere and flag a cab down anywhere and they had to industry had to clean their act up a tiny bit just due to the threat of Uber.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You should give a ####, TAI, because fooling the driver is the only way Uber works. And since it can't fool the driver in Calgary at present, it won't operate here.

With 2 million drivers worldwide and 500K in the US, they must have some magical fooling powers.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Oh there's a couple in this thread that are clearly against Uber and keep making the same arguments, that really have nothing to do with the point you just made (not talking about Resolute).

Uber is a desirable service that many, many people want here. While I agree that Uber needs to be meeting city by laws, you can't deny that the City has gone out of their way to ensure they can't operate here. All you need to do is watch that video of Nenshi spewing his Uber hate and see that's the case. What works in Edmonton, should work here.

Edmonton's policy is anti competitive and ensures that entrance to the market for large providers like uber and cab companies is far cheaper then groups with less than 200 cars.

There are people in this thread who find the business model of uber exploitive. This does not mean they are anti ubers entrance to the market.

I would disagree that the city has went out of their way to make it difficult once they actually decided to act. The inaction on the city prior to uber operating was terrible and their handling in general of the livery bylaw was clearly in the best interests of plate owners and not Calgarians.

Since they changed the bylaw I don't believe you can blame the city anymore. Uber believes it has political leverage over the city by leaving Edmonton with the service and Calgary without. Our bylaw is less costly and less restrictive than New York which really set the standard for cities providing effective bylaws for Uber.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

With 2 million drivers worldwide and 500K in the US, they must have some magical fooling powers.

And if driving for Uber is so profitable, then the costs associated with the city's by-laws shouldn't be an issue.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Since they changed the bylaw I don't believe you can blame the city anymore. Uber believes it has political leverage over the city by leaving Edmonton with the service and Calgary without. Our bylaw is less costly and less restrictive than New York which really set the standard for cities providing effective bylaws for Uber.

And between Calgary and Edmonton, the most important difference between the two is that Edmonton puts the burden on Uber to pay for the cost of enforcement ($50,000 annually + 6 cents per trip) while Calgary places it on the driver ($220 ea). And if Uber was that concerned about it, they would just eat that cost on their behalf.

The other differences being that Calgary requires a CPS background and dangerous sector check - same as for any other taxi driver - while Edmonton caved and agreed to a lower standard. I can't side with Uber on that one. Edmonton wants annual, Calgary wants semi-annual for high mileage drivers. And TAI's Great Satan, Naheed Nenshi, is actually on record as being open to reducing that to once annually. Uber is also whining because the city expects drivers operating commercially to have a license that supports operating commercially. OH NOES!

Sorry TAI. Uber is the reason why Uber is not operating in Calgary right now. Not the city.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And between Calgary and Edmonton, the most important difference between the two is that Edmonton puts the burden on Uber to pay for the cost of enforcement ($50,000 annually + 6 cents per trip) while Calgary places it on the driver ($220 ea). And if Uber was that concerned about it, they would just eat that cost on their behalf.

The other differences being that Calgary requires a CPS background and dangerous sector check - same as for any other taxi driver - while Edmonton caved and agreed to a lower standard. I can't side with Uber on that one. Edmonton wants annual, Calgary wants semi-annual for high mileage drivers. And TAI's Great Satan, Naheed Nenshi, is actually on record as being open to reducing that to once annually. Uber is also whining because the city expects drivers operating commercially to have a license that supports operating commercially. OH NOES!

Sorry TAI. Uber is the reason why Uber is not operating in Calgary right now. Not the city.

Sure they are are, but the city is just as big a part of it. I don't honestly even care that much anymore because I can get a cab anytime I want given the economy and my major piss off with the Calgary Cab Industry was they weren't available and not reliable. That said, if I had the choice, I would take Uber over a cab here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And between Calgary and Edmonton, the most important difference between the two is that Edmonton puts the burden on Uber to pay for the cost of enforcement ($50,000 annually + 6 cents per trip) while Calgary places it on the driver ($220 ea). And if Uber was that concerned about it, they would just eat that cost on their behalf.

The other differences being that Calgary requires a CPS background and dangerous sector check - same as for any other taxi driver - while Edmonton caved and agreed to a lower standard. I can't side with Uber on that one. Edmonton wants annual, Calgary wants semi-annual for high mileage drivers. And TAI's Great Satan, Naheed Nenshi, is actually on record as being open to reducing that to once annually. Uber is also whining because the city expects drivers operating commercially to have a license that supports operating commercially. OH NOES!

Sorry TAI. Uber is the reason why Uber is not operating in Calgary right now. Not the city.

Technically Edmonton also has a $500 per driver fee if you aren't associated with one of the big companies so for an independent person to start a livery business is more expensive in Edmonton.

Calgary has the better bylaw.

[ricosuave]

Used an app similar to Uber in Seattle last week called Lyft.

The older lady who was ferrying us around seemed to like to stop at random in the middle of the street to get her bearings, went through some very questionable yellow lights and was very easily distracted by her cell phone, the lyft map and dispatch app that was on it, and the gospel playing on her radio. 20 blocks felt like days. Thank god it was after midnight and traffic was light. No tip.