Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Resolute 14]

Also a new company called Wave YYC: http://waveyyc.ca/

It will be curious to see if a start up like that can make it work. One thing Uber really has going for it is name recognition. Harder for an unknown to go.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Also a new company called Wave YYC: http://waveyyc.ca/

It will be curious to see if a start up like that can make it work. One thing Uber really has going for it is name recognition. Harder for an unknown to go.

That's just Delta cabs app, not a entrant into the rideshare market. No different then Checkers app other then a fraction of the vehicles on the road, though it does seem to allow you to pay for your ride through the app.

[corporatejay]

Rideshare isn't a thing. It's a taxi without a plate.

[Dan02]

Do we need to come up with a name like the part time taxi supplement on demand service or can we not be difficult and go along with the rest of the world and call it ridesharing?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dan02

That's just Delta cabs app, not a entrant into the rideshare market. No different then Checkers app other then a fraction of the vehicles on the road, though it does seem to allow you to pay for your ride through the app.

Well. That helps alleviate my immediate question about where their initial pool of drivers will come from.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Well that is one potential scenario. I didn't get that you were suggesting it was all a bluff before.

I think the differences are a bit more meaningful. I also dont think this is over.

An aside, but i saw a good article on the economics today.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/econo...regulate-uber/

The economics on who makes more are pretty poor as they use 25 cents/km and fail to realize include ghost kilometres but that aside an interesting read. They also fail to account that Ubers 70k license fee eventually is paid for by the customer and not Uber so that 70k needs to be distributed across all drivers.

What I think it fails to see though is that Edmontons ride sharing creates a barrier to entry for ride sharing that doesn't exist in Calgary at the company level. If us on CP wanted to start a ride sharing company it's easier to do it in Calgary then Edmonton.

This is what Ubers fight is really about. Limiting competition for its drivers so it can drive down fees so drivers don't have options to quit.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Now we're gonna get the worst of it. Surge pricing with a restricted numbers of cabs.

I see this happening too. Why run as a cab when you can surge price for more money?

[Resolute 14]

Hey, y'all bitched about how there aren't enough cabs on the road at high demand times, and you demonstrated that you are willing to pay high prices in those times. Seems you will get what you want.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

The economics on who makes more are pretty poor as they use 25 cents/km and fail to realize include ghost kilometres but that aside an interesting read. They also fail to account that Ubers 70k license fee eventually is paid for by the customer and not Uber so that 70k needs to be distributed across all drivers.

What I think it fails to see though is that Edmontons ride sharing creates a barrier to entry for ride sharing that doesn't exist in Calgary at the company level. If us on CP wanted to start a ride sharing company it's easier to do it in Calgary then Edmonton.

This is what Ubers fight is really about. Limiting competition for its drivers so it can drive down fees so drivers don't have options to quit.

Exactly. This is precisely why their new driver contracts have a weekly app-use threshold. Most Uber drivers could only hack it by bouncing back and forth between the Uber, Lyft and other competitor apps.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hey, y'all bitched about how there aren't enough cabs on the road at high demand times, and you demonstrated that you are willing to pay high prices in those times. Seems you will get what you want.

Not enough cabs, but if you finally get one it will cost more??

Nice! Thats exactly what we wanted!

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hey, y'all bitched about how there aren't enough cabs on the road at high demand times, and you demonstrated that you are willing to pay high prices in those times. Seems you will get what you want.

I'm convinced you never take a cab in this city, and that you are just a contrarian looking to pick an internet argument.

If you haven't noticed by the many, many posts of complaints and bad service in this thread, there's a huge problem with cabs in this city. I'm sure you haven't though since you plug your ears and complete ignore it every time someone brings it up. People's support for rideshares and throwing the city bylaws aside has nothing to do about being some Uber fan boy, it's because they are deprived of a essential service for a large metropolitan area, have been for year, and no legitimate effort has ever been made to do anything about it by the City.

This new city policies do not change the cab problem at all, in fact it has unintendedly made them worse. We now do not have a company to pose a threat to the taxi industry, and they now have the means to charge whatever they want to get people home safe from the bar late at night. This will in no way shape or form change the amount of cars that are on the road, but will make it so the same guys that causes the problem can continue to pick and chose fares and now charge a premium on top of that.

The new policy was specifically designed to make sure the city could say they tried, but ensured that rideshare companies like Uber cannot operate in Calgary. $500-$1000 bucks or whatever the cost is is not a lot for a career driver, but rideshare companies like Uber rely on casual drivers looking to supplement their income, not make a career out of it. There's just enough to the new legislation to keep those casual drivers away. As a city, we would have been better off if nothing had changed because we are now stuck with the same cab companies and they now have the ability to charge even more for their spotty, ####ty, and borderline reckless service. People are willing to pay a premium, if they are getting a premium service. Now we will be paying a premium for the garbage we already had.

The city should have sat down with Uber from the beginning and negotiated because a company like Uber targetting a large, affluent city was only a matter of time. That didn't happen for years, so Uber says screw you we are bullying their way. Obviously that hurt Nenshi's feeling, but you know what, a mayor who serves his city instead of his ego sits down with the company and works something out, but that's not what he did. He relentlessly campaigned against Uber on twitter (borderline insulting) drafted legislation with next to no consultation with Uber, and said here you go,we tried sucks that it doesn't work for your business model. There has been zero good faith discussion or negotiations on the City's behalf in the entire process. There was a deal to be made there (just like there was in Edmonton) and quite frankly there still is, but our city council is following the lead of the mayor and acting like petulant children because Uber dared come in their playground without permission despite asking for the invite for many years in advance.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I'm convinced you never take a cab in this city, and that you are just a contrarian looking to pick an internet argument.

If you haven't noticed by the many, many posts of complaints and bad service in this thread, there's a huge problem with cabs in this city. I'm sure you haven't though since you plug your ears and complete ignore it every time someone brings it up. People's support for rideshares and throwing the city bylaws aside has nothing to do about being some Uber fan boy, it's because they are deprived of a essential service for a large metropolitan area, have been for year, and no legitimate effort has ever been made to do anything about it by the City.

This new city policies do not change the cab problem at all, in fact it has unintendedly made them worse. We now do not have a company to pose a threat to the taxi industry, and they now have the means to charge whatever they want to get people home safe from the bar late at night. This will in no way shape or form change the amount of cars that are on the road, but will make it so the same guys that causes the problem can continue to pick and chose fares and now charge a premium on top of that.

The new policy was specifically designed to make sure the city could say they tried, but ensured that rideshare companies like Uber cannot operate in Calgary. $500-$1000 bucks or whatever the cost is is not a lot for a career driver, but rideshare companies like Uber rely on casual drivers looking to supplement their income, not make a career out of it. There's just enough to the new legislation to keep those casual drivers away. As a city, we would have been better off if nothing had changed because we are now stuck with the same cab companies and they now have the ability to charge even more for their spotty, ####ty, and borderline reckless service. People are willing to pay a premium, if they are getting a premium service. Now we will be paying a premium for the garbage we already had.

The city should have sat down with Uber from the beginning and negotiated because a company like Uber targetting a large, affluent city was only a matter of time. That didn't happen for years, so Uber says screw you we are bullying their way. Obviously that hurt Nenshi's feeling, but you know what, a mayor who serves his city instead of his ego sits down with the company and works something out, but that's not what he did. He relentlessly campaigned against Uber on twitter (borderline insulting) drafted legislation with next to no consultation with Uber, and said here you go,we tried sucks that it doesn't work for your business model. There has been zero good faith discussion or negotiations on the City's behalf in the entire process. There was a deal to be made there (just like there was in Edmonton) and quite frankly there still is, but our city council is following the lead of the mayor and acting like petulant children because Uber dared come in their playground without permission despite asking for the invite for many years in advance.

I feel like its tough to put the blame on Nenshi, solely. He is the face of council, i get it; but he actually voted for the amendments that Woolley was trying to make that would bring the proposed bylaw more in line with Edmonton.

I feel like Nenshi read the writing on the wall in council and sought to put out the majority opinion. Could he have been a little less bombastic on twitter? of course, but you won't get that from him.

There were a few councillors, though, who were purely nonsensical in the debates. Joe Maglicco (I refuse to waste my time looking up his name) kept saying that he didnt want to just copy Edmonton's clearly superior bylaw. that's ego.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Do we need to come up with a name like the part time taxi supplement on demand service or can we not be difficult and go along with the rest of the world and call it ridesharing?

Fee for carry transportation

[kermitology]

Has Uber clearly described what issues it has with the bylaw? If so, I seem to have missed it.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hey, y'all bitched about how there aren't enough cabs on the road at high demand times, and you demonstrated that you are willing to pay high prices in those times. Seems you will get what you want.

I get why you disagree with Uber's tactics, but I don't get the pleasure you get out of the pathetic cab situation. Your smugness is really irritating. Makes you look like an ass.

[Chewy]

The City went a little bit over the top.

But please name a business that doesn't need a city of Calgary business license to operate?

Why should Uber drivers be the only one exempt from a business license fee?

[woob]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I get why you disagree with Uber's tactics, but I don't get the pleasure you get out of the pathetic cab situation. Your smugness is really irritating. Makes you look like an ass.

Sorry, have you never read posts by Res before??

[Cappy]

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPl...11&m=428263736

Interesting NPR post about taxi industry in NYC. Focusing on Medallion owners, the real losers in this scenario.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I get why you disagree with Uber's tactics, but I don't get the pleasure you get out of the pathetic cab situation. Your smugness is really irritating. Makes you look like an ass.

Oh, I get the pathetic cab situation. That just doesn't make me sympathetic to Uber's pouting or to people like Weitz and TheAlpineOracle being good little foot soldiers in Uber's misinformation campaign.

The biggest difference between the Edmonton by-law and Calgary's is not registration or licensing or insurance. It is barrier to entry. Edmonton wrote a law for Uber that adds barriers for other companies. Calgary wrote a law for everybody that adds barriers to hobbyist drivers, but not to companies. Uber has the option of subsidizing the cost of those barriers itself if it so chooses.

But most importantly, I don't believe Uber is going to walk away. They are going to pout, they are going to whine, but when push comes to shove, they will try it again when the insurance issue is resolved. Independent of that belief however, you guys spent many pages of this thread bitching about the unavailability of taxis in high demand periods. One of the benefits of this new bylaw is a system that encourages more taxis to be available in those times. And it allows Uber and other competitors in. Win-win.

Uber wanted a framework where it could operate legally in this city. It got it, but is still whining.

People said they wanted a framework where more options are available at peak times. They got it, but are still whining.

Call me an ass if you like, but I'm not going to exhibit much sympathy for people complaining they got 90% of what they wanted instead of 100%.

[Weitz]

Most people wanted a ride sharing option. The City eliminated it by making the rules for a livery vehicle service. I don't care for Uber specifically but what I want is to be able to get a ride for cheaper than what a taxi is. Because I feel taxi's are much too expensive and often inaccessible. And a ride sharing program woudl solve my wants.