Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Weitz]

I just want to point out: Anyone who still calls' for taxis is way behind the times. Get the apps and the cabs come super quickly. Even at midnight and later.

Not that I support cabs, and I actually used Uber on the weekend haha.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by jammies

Any of you that truly believe politicians are on the take from what is a small time business like taxis are deluded. I would like to be more circumspect, but it is such a ridiculous idea that I cannot take anyone who has such a wrong headed idea seriously.There is zero chance that decade after decade every council has been in the pay of the so-called taxi cartel. Are you under the impression that taxis make money like the real estate industry or the oil companies? How much money do you think the mayor would need to get to risk his political career? Do you think the cab companies have that kind of cash just lying around in a slush fund? Do you think hiding bribe money is trivial?

This has gone far beyond a rational discussion into some kind of theological argument between good, as exemplified by uber, and the diabolical, as exemplified by the cab companies and their corrupt minions. Even the stories of uber trips sound more like medieval hagiography than reality.

I'm not saying the taxi companies are doing a good job or that at change is not needed, but the hyperbole has gone past the merely amusing to the absolutely mind bending.

I don't think anyone has been accusing the taxi companies of outright bribery. Representatives from the taxi industry are regulars at periodical fundraising events for council members and a quick perusal of publicly available campaign finance information indicates that the taxi industry (Checker, Mayfair, Calgary Cab Drivers Assoc. etc.) provides funding to a majority of council members. These are not baseless accusations. The industry as it stands is very profitable for those who own licences (most of which belong to the larger companies); to think that it is a small scale operation is naive.

Given city council's reluctance to fix something that has been an issue for over a decade, a reasonable and logical conclusion to draw is that the industry (including the drivers) enjoys a position of undue influence. There is a very simple solution to the problem and that is removing the cap on taxi plates and deregulating fares. Why is council acting against public interest?

[peter12]

Uber-skeptical post on the unit economics of being an Uber driver. Casts some doubt on the long-term viability of Uber.
http://justin-singer.org/blog/2014/0...ful-illusions/

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

I doubt very much that, until Uber came along, the majority of council and the bureaucracy gave more than a cursory though to the taxi situation.

Wrong. The lack of availability of cabs at peak demand times has been an issue in this city for over a decade. Look at the archives of newspapers as far back as the 90s and you'll see columns about the problem. City council has wrangled with the taxi commission for decades.

Originally Posted by jammies

Why WOULDN'T they trust the results of these studies? In this particular case, maybe the shouldn't have, but you can't run a city on your gut feel and anecdotal evidence from angry people on the internet.

Angry people on the internet? People are angry in the real world. And yes, I expect councillors to react to the displeasure of their constituents. That's their job.

Originally Posted by jammies

I think there is a vast overestimation of the importance of this issue to your average Calgarian. For every drunk hipster stuck on the side of the road at 2 AM in a blizzard, there's another 99 citizens who take a cab once a year to get to the airport during offpeak hours and never ever see a problem. Nobody has ever gotten elected on challenging "Big Taxi", and assertions to the contrary, no one ever will.

The same could be said about a great many issues that only bother a minority of Calgarians. Stray cats pooping in gardens. Noise from backyard fire pits. Clearing snow from bike paths. That hasn't stopped council from addressing those issues.

Sure, this may only be an issue to about 20 per cent of Calgarians, who are mostly 18-35. But I'd suggest an issue that affected 20 per cent of Calgarians who are mostly 55-70 would make our politicians jump up and take notice.

And it's not just hipsters who are affected. I've talked to a lot of people who consider the cab situation the worst thing about this city, and the thing that has caused them the most personal aggravation. I'm a 45-year-old suburbanite, and these are some of my experiences with cabs over the last few years:

• Booked a cab to a Christmas party the day before. It was scheduled to arrive at 5:45. By 6:30 it had not arrived, we had no communication of when it might arrive. So my wife and I got my elderly dad to drive us to the party instead. Several of my co-workers couldn't make it to the party at all, even though they booked cabs days in advance.
  
  
• Exact same thing happened the next year. Cab was a no-show. Got my dad to drive us again. Again, several co-workers cannot make it because scheduled cabs did not show up. Many Calgary companies holding Christmas parties have resorted to booking hotel rooms for employees because there's no reliable way for employees to get home. That's absurd.
  
  
• It's December, -20 out. Spend 30 minutes trying to get a cab to come to the convention centre. Give up and take a train south. Spend 30 minutes at station trying to get through to a cab. Eventually walk into bitter cold and walk up and down Heritage drive waving frantically at any passing. Eventually one stops and agrees to pick us up, but only if we pay cash.
  
  
• Friend has a few too many drinks at my place in the burbs and needs to take a cab. After 30 minutes on phone finally book a cab. 40 minutes later it has not shown up. Eventually we walk to the nearest major road and flag down a passing cab after about 30 more minutes. Cabs are extremely reluctant make a pickup at a suburban location at night. So where does that leave people who don't want to drive impaired after visiting friends?
  

There is no doubt in my mind that the severe shortage of taxis late at night results in hundreds of impaired driving trips every weekend in this city.

And hasn't this city been beating the drum for years about becoming a world-class destination young, urban, talented workers? Isn't that one of the reasons we're doing things like putting in dedicated bike lanes, and spending on public art - to make Calgary a cool and sophisticated destination for knowledge workers? What will those sophisticated young urbanites think the first time they can't get home from a night out because taxi capacity isn't anywhere close to demand on weekends?

[zamler]

Bottom line is if you need to get somewhere a Taxi is far too often not an option. At all. It's not like you have to wait a bit longer, you simply can't get one. Uber on the other hand serves a need, you need a ride at 2:30 AM it's there.

So our mayor can blab all day and night about regulations and the city can fine people for being Uber drivers but it does nothing to solve a serious problem that been festering for years.

[peter12]

The obvious rejoinder would be that you stick with the devil you know.

Uber is novel. It seems that there is some sort of wealth transfer from investors to consumers. For once in this economy, the little guy is actually getting a break. But don't kid yourself, Uber is subsidizing your $1, $24, $65 ride. That is how they break into new markets so quickly, crush the competition, and that is why they are losing so much money.

The question that reasonable people, and I think some of these people work in City Hall, are asking is what is the long game? Taxis have kind of worked for a long time. The economics of maintaining a semi-public good like a city livery service are complex, and it includes maintaining a standard of living for drivers, keep vehicles somewhat roadworthy, providing some choice for consumers, and providing a modicum of security through livery insurance.

Now, what is it that people hate about taxis, and what is it that they love about Uber?

- Well, they clearly hate dealing with drivers that are different than them. That is clear, and no matter how much people want to deny it, the cultural bias comes through pretty loud and clear. Most Uber drivers are university-educated, and come from a house with an excess vehicle. Ie. wealthier (maybe in the short-run) than your average cab driver.
- they clearly hate the state of most taxis. I believe average lifespan of a taxi is 4 years. You tell me what incentive a driver has to maintain his vehicle in perfect condition when it is treated basically like a public good by most passengers. No worse than a public good. It is a pure free-riding principle. People vomit, screw, and leave garbage in taxis. They do things in them that they wouldn't do on c-trains or buses. Uber is temporarily drawing on a fleet of mostly-new excess vehicles. These vehicles will be treated the same, and in a period of time, will suffer the same degradation in condition that all taxis face.
- People love the price of Uber vs taxis. Well, Uber draws on a big pool of cars. They also have surge pricing, that while slimy, does encourage drivers to get out on the road during peak hours. Taxis limit the supply so they can guarantee their drivers some cash. Uber also subsidizes the price of the fare, and also imposes the entire cost of the ride onto the driver, especially the price of his labour. Analysis has shown that Uber drivers, no matter what people say early on, only do as well as the median taxi driver.

So to say that this is all due to a bunch of Northeastern Calgarians bribing City Councillors and the Mayor's office is total BS.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by peter12

The obvious rejoinder would be that you stick with the devil you know.

Uber is novel. It seems that there is some sort of wealth transfer from investors to consumers. For once in this economy, the little guy is actually getting a break. But don't kid yourself, Uber is subsidizing your $1, $24, $65 ride. That is how they break into new markets so quickly, crush the competition, and that is why they are losing so much money.

The question that reasonable people, and I think some of these people work in City Hall, are asking is what is the long game? Taxis have kind of worked for a long time. The economics of maintaining a semi-public good like a city livery service are complex, and it includes maintaining a standard of living for drivers, keep vehicles somewhat roadworthy, providing some choice for consumers, and providing a modicum of security through livery insurance.

So to say that this is all due to a bunch of Northeastern Calgarians bribing City Councillors and the Mayor's office is total BS.

Really interesting post, and I appreciated you spelling out some of the more hidden nuances. I have a question for you though:

What's your take on what their long-term game is? In the medium-run, won't taxi companies have to reduce their fares in order to compete with Uber's prices? In turn, with how unprofitable Uber has been thus far, they'll presumably raise their own prices, to both become more economically healthy, and reflect additional costs they'll incur to meet regulations should they choose to compete. Won't that be better for consumers in the long run? Is this not competition at work?

[Swarly]

^^ I would have to look up the exact info again but I thought they were heavily partnered/invested with self-driving cars.

I think the long term plan for Uber is to get into every city and be a household name. In the next 5-10 years as self-drivers become viable (gamble time here) they have then busted up the old taxi monopolies, become a household name and can seamlessly come into a city with a fleet of new cars and be up and running. They have always deemed themselves a tech company providing a service app not a taxi company.

A fleet of self-driving cars would be the ultimate answer, a car2go that comes to you, just with better Uber app tech.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Really interesting post, and I appreciated you spelling out some of the more hidden nuances. I have a question for you though:

What's your take on what their long-term game is? In the medium-run, won't taxi companies have to reduce their fares in order to compete with Uber's prices? In turn, with how unprofitable Uber has been thus far, they'll presumably raise their own prices, to both become more economically healthy, and reflect additional costs they'll incur to meet regulations should they choose to compete. Won't that be better for consumers in the long run? Is this not competition at work?

If they raise their prices, then people will stop using Uber. If you take all the absolutely ridiculous stories of people regaling how friendly their driver was, how much glorious free water they received, and how all taxi drivers are basically escaped members of the Iraqi Republican Guard, it really boils down to two things: price and speed of service.

Now, I quibble with the second one. I use taxis to get to the airport or around town for work probably 200 times a year. I use the Checker app, and I have never had a cab show up late to my downtown apartment. In fact, they are mostly early. Even busy hours, it really depends on where I am. Flames games, yeah, for sure. Lots of demand. Anywhere else? I don't know.

So it comes down to price, and the odd convenience. Now, price is subsidized by Uber investors. I remember reading that Uber has a super-high investment to profit ratio. Something like 5:2. Some rich Silicon Valley VP dude is paying for your ride because he thinks that, in the long run, Uber will be the only game in town, and then, people will HAVE to take Uber.

So they continue to lose money, and investors keep betting. Taxis go out of business. They are already on their way out in the US (never mind Europe, people). Uber increases prices. Same situation as before, but worse! And if they do it before they achieve a monopoly, then people will stop using Uber.

After that... who knows? We get an autonomous fleet of cars. Who pays for their maintenance and cleaning? If this means prices can go absolutely rock bottom, then how does Uber make any money? Will you be driving into work in your shoddy semi-public robot Uber car while advertisements based on your particular data pattern are relayed to you over and over again?

In my view, Uber is a garbage company based on a short-run economic model filled with investment money bet on the principle that Uber will one day be a monopoly. Its CEO is a slime bucket toadie who will basically do whatever it takes to get his cars into any jurisdiction in the world (rumours are that in order to get into the Saudi market, Uber executives promised to never allow female Uber drivers). When one really spends time looking at the nuances, it is no different than a cab cartel.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

The obvious rejoinder would be that you stick with the devil you know.

Uber is novel. It seems that there is some sort of wealth transfer from investors to consumers. For once in this economy, the little guy is actually getting a break. But don't kid yourself, Uber is subsidizing your $1, $24, $65 ride. That is how they break into new markets so quickly, crush the competition, and that is why they are losing so much money.

The question that reasonable people, and I think some of these people work in City Hall, are asking is what is the long game? Taxis have kind of worked for a long time. The economics of maintaining a semi-public good like a city livery service are complex, and it includes maintaining a standard of living for drivers, keep vehicles somewhat roadworthy, providing some choice for consumers, and providing a modicum of security through livery insurance.

This isn't uber vs cab though as the mayors office would like to make it out to be.

Its the failure to properly regulate an industry.

Uber doesn't have the opportunity to fight the establishment if the establishment served its consumers.

So regardless of why people like Uber (and in the long run road worthiness of vehicles and types of drivers end up being the same as cabs) it is a complete red herring.

Its real simple:
People want a ride in a reasonable time
People can't get that from a cab
10 years pass.
An alternative appears.

It has nothing to do with race, quality, even cost though people may site those of reasons to choose uber over a taxi when both are available but really the only deciding factor on people using uber right now is availability. ( Calgary Only)

If the regulation was fixed and there were surge cabs available to meet demand no one would back uber entering the market. So it isn't about race, bottled water, cost, gum, odor, conversation or vehicle quality.

Its about getting into a vehicle and getting to or from where you are going.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by peter12

The obvious rejoinder would be that you stick with the devil you know.

Uber is novel. It seems that there is some sort of wealth transfer from investors to consumers. For once in this economy, the little guy is actually getting a break. But don't kid yourself, Uber is subsidizing your $1, $24, $65 ride. That is how they break into new markets so quickly, crush the competition, and that is why they are losing so much money.

The question that reasonable people, and I think some of these people work in City Hall, are asking is what is the long game? Taxis have kind of worked for a long time. The economics of maintaining a semi-public good like a city livery service are complex, and it includes maintaining a standard of living for drivers, keep vehicles somewhat roadworthy, providing some choice for consumers, and providing a modicum of security through livery insurance.

Now, what is it that people hate about taxis, and what is it that they love about Uber?

- Well, they clearly hate dealing with drivers that are different than them. That is clear, and no matter how much people want to deny it, the cultural bias comes through pretty loud and clear. Most Uber drivers are university-educated, and come from a house with an excess vehicle. Ie. wealthier (maybe in the short-run) than your average cab driver.
- they clearly hate the state of most taxis. I believe average lifespan of a taxi is 4 years. You tell me what incentive a driver has to maintain his vehicle in perfect condition when it is treated basically like a public good by most passengers. No worse than a public good. It is a pure free-riding principle. People vomit, screw, and leave garbage in taxis. They do things in them that they wouldn't do on c-trains or buses. Uber is temporarily drawing on a fleet of mostly-new excess vehicles. These vehicles will be treated the same, and in a period of time, will suffer the same degradation in condition that all taxis face.
- People love the price of Uber vs taxis. Well, Uber draws on a big pool of cars. They also have surge pricing, that while slimy, does encourage drivers to get out on the road during peak hours. Taxis limit the supply so they can guarantee their drivers some cash. Uber also subsidizes the price of the fare, and also imposes the entire cost of the ride onto the driver, especially the price of his labour. Analysis has shown that Uber drivers, no matter what people say early on, only do as well as the median taxi driver.

So to say that this is all due to a bunch of Northeastern Calgarians bribing City Councillors and the Mayor's office is total BS.

I'm landing right down the middle on this debate. But I'll tell you, at the end of the day, it's about getting a ####ing ride. I don't even care that much about the "savings" or the "smell" or the "radio station" or any other bull#### excuse people are trotting out.

Yes, cab companies have apps, they suck unless you are being picked up at your house. I've had too many cabs accept my fare and then never show up on the street.

I've had cab drivers get pissed because I'm not going far enough for their liking. That is annoying as eff.

With Uber, I can ping a driver, tell them where I want to go and if they don' want it, they can reject it.

I do'nt have to fiddle around with the credit card machine "not working" or simply just not being able to get one after a hockey game or a night of drinking.

We need more cabs on the street during peak times. Oh and btw, these app services only came into effect once Uber forced the cab companies. Otherwise good luck getting through to dispatch on a friday night.

Like someone said earlier, it seems perfectly acceptable to me that driving a cab is a part time job, so why can't we "flood" the streets during prime time, or have "prime time licenses". Because the livery lobby doesn't want it. Well #### them. This is the mess they've created.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

This isn't uber vs cab though as the mayors office would like to make it out to be.

Its the failure to properly regulate an industry.

Uber doesn't have the opportunity to fight the establishment if the establishment served its consumers.

So regardless of why people like Uber (and in the long run road worthiness of vehicles and types of drivers end up being the same as cabs) it is a complete red herring.

Its real simple:
People want a ride in a reasonable time
People can't get that from a cab
10 years pass.
An alternative appears.

It has nothing to do with race, quality, even cost though people may site those of reasons to choose uber over a taxi when both are available but really the only deciding factor on people using uber right now is availability. ( Calgary Only)

If the regulation was fixed and there were surge cabs available to meet demand no one would back uber entering the market. So it isn't about race, bottled water, cost, gum, odor, conversation or vehicle quality.

Its about getting into a vehicle and getting to or from where you are going.

Yeah, so if it was purely just about a convenient ride, then people would want the regulation. Except Uber doesn't do regulation because it would price them out.

[zamler]

I don't understand why some feel the need to demonize Uber so much.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Really interesting post, and I appreciated you spelling out some of the more hidden nuances. I have a question for you though:

What's your take on what their long-term game is? In the medium-run, won't taxi companies have to reduce their fares in order to compete with Uber's prices? In turn, with how unprofitable Uber has been thus far, they'll presumably raise their own prices, to both become more economically healthy, and reflect additional costs they'll incur to meet regulations should they choose to compete. Won't that be better for consumers in the long run? Is this not competition at work?

Right now, it's illegal competition. There's a million companies that could attempt something similar in any number of industries and get shut down with a shrug of "Of course they got shut down, why did they think they could do that?" from citizens.

The difference here is A) Citizens are so upset with the status quo, and B) They've developed a cult like following by drivers who feel that they're a part of a really caring company that gives them extra spending cash, when in reality the company only works because these drivers aren't driving legally but have been convinced they kind of are, and "Uber has promised us they have our back".

There'd be a lot less back and forth if supporters of Uber spoke with clarity like 4X4. He came along and said something to the affect of "Our taxi situation sucks horrendous balls, it sucks so bad that Calgarians are willing to use an illegal service, and I would use them even if they were more expensive out of spite for the stupid taxi industry".

See that is a great post about Uber, it illustrates EXACTLY what's happening here and why Uber is revered, it's simple honesty. All the other mud about city officials taking bribes to awkwardly defending the fact that they're blatantly ignoring Canadian legal regulations that would have most companies shut down to the World Financial Group style reviews of a damn ride home are all just silly.

And I say that as someone who knows and supports the fact that the taxi industry has operated like **** for too many years and is now getting what it deserves. But that's everyone's opinion, so call a spade a spade, no need to hold up a horrible, ethically poor company as a cult like hero company, just say you're happy with better, cheaper service and be done with it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, so if it was purely just about a convenient ride, then people would want the regulation. Except Uber doesn't do regulation because it would price them out.

I think people do want regulation. -- They want a ride first, but a safe ride that provides the driver with at least minimum wage is probably something that most would agree to. The problem is that the first need of a ride supersedes the other nice to haves and uber is able to exploit this.

Of course Uber doesn't want regulation and would fight against it. That's the business model. And so this is the problem with the city failing to regulate properly in the first place. Uber gets to be a white night instead of being seen as a predatory company that pushes risk onto its drivers and can't sustain quality automobiles. And in the absence of regulation follow more or less how capitalism should work. A race to the bottom while focusing on the consumers pressure points.

So Uber is behaving how it should. Consumers are behaving how they should, Taxi companies are behaving how they should. Its the regulatory bodies that are failing to act in the best interest of the consumers.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I just want to point out: Anyone who still calls' for taxis is way behind the times. Get the apps and the cabs come super quickly. Even at midnight and later.

Not that I support cabs, and I actually used Uber on the weekend haha.

The app works great, until the driver forgets to manually end the trip. Then you can't make any future reservations, because you have an incomplete trip.

In summary, it's

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GGG

So Uber is behaving how it should. Consumers are behaving how they should, Taxi companies are behaving how they should. Its the regulatory bodies that are failing to act in the best interest of the consumers.

Haha, it's not quite as rosy as you forgot a couple groups.

Police have started behaving how they should against Uber.

Insurance companies are behaving how they should against Uber.

Drivers are not behaving how they should and the only reason Uber works is because they're willing to drive without proper insurance.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I don't think anyone has been accusing the taxi companies of outright bribery.

Well...

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But the reality is what the city is doing is illegal (accepting bribes). So, who cares, right? City looking after their own financial well being, people looking after their financial well being.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Right now, it's illegal competition. There's a million companies that could attempt something similar in any number of industries and get shut down with a shrug of "Of course they got shut down, why did they think they could do that?" from citizens.

It's legality is another debate entirely. Regulations have stifled competition in this industry, and afforded taxi companies undue leverage over it's consumers. If the driver wants to incur the risk of driving without the mandated insurance, and the consumer receive a lift without the mandated documentation, they both full well know the risks, and accept them because the price(at the moment) reflects as much.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by peter12

So they continue to lose money, and investors keep betting. Taxis go out of business. They are already on their way out in the US (never mind Europe, people). Uber increases prices. Same situation as before, but worse! And if they do it before they achieve a monopoly, then people will stop using Uber.

After that... who knows? We get an autonomous fleet of cars. Who pays for their maintenance and cleaning? If this means prices can go absolutely rock bottom, then how does Uber make any money? Will you be driving into work in your shoddy semi-public robot Uber car while advertisements based on your particular data pattern are relayed to you over and over again?

Won't this again just give rise to competition though? I appreciate the depth you've gone to spell out Uber's end-game, but isn't that Google, among other investors, betting on Uber being able to achieve said cartel? There's no guarantee someone else can't penetrate this industry, just as taxis were able to deter competitors for decades, but in this case we're seeing the industry evolve, and it has the potential to completely reinvent itself in a relatively short time frame to go from what we have now, to as you see it, ordering a self driven car. There is plenty of room for competition in there, and all it takes is another group of large investors to want a piece of the pie and engage with their own ride-for-money service.