Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 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 a ride sharing program woudl solve my wants.

But everybody knows that it is a livery vehicle service.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by peter12

But everybody knows that it is a livery vehicle service.

By having part time drivers? No it is not. Which would indicate the ride sharing.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by peter12

But everybody knows that it is a livery vehicle service.

It really isn't. Uber cars have no livery. Their paint is straight from the factory.

[ken0042]

Uber could be used as a pure ridesharing. However I understand that it would most often be used as a taxi replacement.

I could set myself up as an Uber driver, and then show myself as being available at 6:30 am in McKenzie Towne. It's pretty safe to assume that most rides at that point would be for the airport or downtown, so I can get my gas paid for to go where I want to go.

With Uber, can the driver reject ride requests based on their destination? That's the only way it would work for people going home from downtown in the afternoon. However the money I make in the morning would cover my gas both way.

Like I said, you are right that it is more likely to be used as a replacement for taxis.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Weitz

By having part time drivers? No it is not. Which would indicate the ride sharing.

Ride sharing is where the driver drives their regular route and picks up and drops off people who happen to be traveling along that same route.

Uber drivers take passengers to wherever the passenger wants to go. That's a livery service.

[redforever]

According to articles in today's Herald, other companies are satisfied with Calgary's new by-law and are looking to start up service.

Uber may have taken its ball and threatened to go home, but local taxi and ride- service companies say the city’s new bylaw legalizing ride- sharing in Calgary has a lot of potential.

“This will just open the doors to allow us to accommodate more people,” said Ginger Greenwood, general manager for Keys Please. “We have had a number of clients over the years that have asked us to perform this very function.”

Keys Please has provided a designateddriver service in Calgary since 1997, but can now broaden its operations under the new rules — something it couldn’t do under the old system, said Greenwood.

“It’s something that we’ve endeavoured to get into for a number of years,” she said. “We’ve always been turned away from the City of Calgary livery because of the strict requirements that they have to enable us to get licences.”

The company already has a smartphone app for its designateddriver service.

It is currently developing a rideshare app it hopes to launch shortly after the bylaw is implemented and once Alberta’s superintendent of insurance approves a new product that would provide ride- share drivers enhanced coverage under their personal insurance policies.

“Assuming everything falls into place ... I would imagine within 30 to 60 days we would be launching,” she said.

While Uber — a company valued at $ 50 billion — complained the fee structure under the new bylaw made its business model “unworkable,” Greenwood said the associated costs are affordable.

“We don’t find it too costly,” she said. “We want our drivers to generate money and we want success as we’ve had with the designated-driving portion.”

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by ken0042

With Uber, can the driver reject ride requests based on their destination? That's the only way it would work for people going home from downtown in the afternoon. However the money I make in the morning would cover my gas both way.

With the rate cuts in most Uber markets, drivers have been forced to increasingly cancel/not accept passengers that are too far away, likely to go short distances, going to a place where there won't be able to pick up or outside of a surge zone. While typically the driver doesn't know the passenger's destination, over time they've gotten better at finding out or predicting the destination.

Because of this, Uber has been penalizing drivers that cancel too much despite drivers being "Independent Contractors".

[peter12]

And that Uber drivers operate through a dispatch - albeit algorithmic.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 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.

If Taxi's are to expensive, that would indicate someone is getting rich from the taxi system, and the city is failing to set rates properly. I don't see many drivers getting rich. Maybe the owners are... But I think what it shows is that the cost of a taxi is essentially the cost of doing business. Uber was able to operate cheaper by dodging costs(and probably operating at a loss). They now have to pay those costs, so I expect their rates to be similar. So you may think taxi's are expensive, but that is what it costs to operate.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 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?

Well, to be fair some other sharing economy products don't, eg) AirBnB.

I think we have seen some of the problems that can arise from not having the proper insurance.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Uber could be used as a pure ridesharing. However I understand that it would most often be used as a taxi replacement.

I could set myself up as an Uber driver, and then show myself as being available at 6:30 am in McKenzie Towne. It's pretty safe to assume that most rides at that point would be for the airport or downtown, so I can get my gas paid for to go where I want to go.

With Uber, can the driver reject ride requests based on their destination? That's the only way it would work for people going home from downtown in the afternoon. However the money I make in the morning would cover my gas both way.

Like I said, you are right that it is more likely to be used as a replacement for taxis.

Uber drivers that reject too many pings get kicked off the Uber network.

Uber actually does offer something akin to a pure ride sharing service in some places. They are currently lobbying the IRS to raise its cost per mile calculation so they can charge more without it becoming commercial in the eyes of the tax man.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Uber could be used as a pure ridesharing. However I understand that it would most often be used as a taxi replacement.

I could set myself up as an Uber driver, and then show myself as being available at 6:30 am in McKenzie Towne. It's pretty safe to assume that most rides at that point would be for the airport or downtown, so I can get my gas paid for to go where I want to go.

With Uber, can the driver reject ride requests based on their destination? That's the only way it would work for people going home from downtown in the afternoon. However the money I make in the morning would cover my gas both way.

Like I said, you are right that it is more likely to be used as a replacement for taxis.

The driver doesn't get your destination till he picks you up and the ride starts.

When the driver cancels on you it is entirely based on how far you are from pick up. The app will miscalculate pickup times when obstacles such as rivers or train tracks skew the as the crow flies distance from the actual road travel distance.

I forgot to add if they pick you up then you get to rate them; drivers with ratings below 4.2 get cut from the service where I live. This stops the calgary situation where taxis have denied you guys based on destination.

[Fuzz]

^And that makes it a total farce to call it ride sharing. How can you possibly be "sharing" a ride if you have no idea where the person is going?
"hey, you want to share a ride?"
"Sure, I'm heading downtown"
"oh, I'm heading to the airport"
"well to bad, you already agreed, take me downtown!"

It's not ride sharing. It's a taxi.

[Dan02]

Like seriously this is a issue? A office type came up with a buzzword to describe their service and you don't like the word so you want to ban them? In a year or two when merriam-webster and oxford add "ridesharing" to their dictionarys including a definition of using a personal car to provide a casual for hire service that everyone is going to be fine with us calling it "ridesharing" then?

The only reason I can possibly fathom that someone would be against "ridesharing" is if they have a financial interest in the current cab system.

Right now we have a system which is unreliable, expensive and with no accountability. I filed a complaint before about a cabbie violating the livery bylaws and despite a promise by the taxi commission to follow up within 7 business days, they never followed up and ignored my attempts to follow up on it as well.

Ridesharing companys offer a more reliable system at a cheaper price point where both the individual drivers and the company are accountable to their customers.

Yet here we have a whole group of people who don't want to use a rideshare company trying to invent reasons the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to. I get it, when I was 5 years old I didn't want the ball, but like bloody hell i was going to let my sister play with it.

[Fuzz]

That has nothing to do with my objections, and I don't have an issue with reasonable companies challenging the horrible taxi system and giving consumers choice. I take issue with companies pretending to be something they are not(ridesharing) to get around current laws, bullying our elected officials to craft laws suited to them, and pretending to be best friends with the public. Let's face it, the onyl reason they call themselves a ridesharing company is to enter markets and pretend the laws don't apply to them, because they claim they aren't a taxi company. Which they are. Allowing companies to be Orwellian with how they describe themselves to dodge laws is not what I consider a good idea.

Now, we have already seen that a few companies are considering entering the Calgary market, so our bylaws can't be that bad. Uber has come across as a company that doesn't give a crap about the markets it operates in or it's drivers. Perhaps these other companies will show a little more respect.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...able-1.3462386

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The only reason I can possibly fathom that someone would be against "ridesharing" is if they have a financial interest in the current cab system.

I have no financial interest in the current cab system and I am against the term "ridesharing." To me, the term is used emotionally, to make it seem like it's a bunch of friends sharing rides, not a business, therefore making it seem like business laws shouldn't apply.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That has nothing to do with my objections, and I don't have an issue with reasonable companies challenging the horrible taxi system and giving consumers choice. I take issue with companies pretending to be something they are not(ridesharing) to get around current laws, bullying our elected officials to craft laws suited to them, and pretending to be best friends with the public. Let's face it, the onyl reason they call themselves a ridesharing company is to enter markets and pretend the laws don't apply to them, because they claim they aren't a taxi company. Which they are. Allowing companies to be Orwellian with how they describe themselves to dodge laws is not what I consider a good idea.

Now, we have already seen that a few companies are considering entering the Calgary market, so our bylaws can't be that bad. Uber has come across as a company that doesn't give a crap about the markets it operates in or it's drivers. Perhaps these other companies will show a little more respect.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...able-1.3462386

Can you explain to me how Uber is "bullying" the city? You and I obviously have very different views on what bullying actually is. Every large scale company lobbys governments to change laws to benefit their company, from the O&G companies, renewable energy companies, aerospace companies, automobile companies. Uber got the public behind them, just because they say that the current rules prohibit enough drivers from getting into the market for them to operate in Calgary doesn't mean they are bullying the city.

Secondly, I've yet to see a actual legitimate rideshare company say they can work in Calgary. Tappcar is a Edmonton wannabe which isn't even operational and are most likely completely underfunded and don't grasp all the challenges they are going to face ahead. I wouldn't be suprised if tappcar never launches but i did sign up for their email updates none the less. Sidecar was the third biggest player in the industry and raised over $35 million. They already ran out of funds and had to close shop. Just because you say you want to have a rideshare company doesn't mean you are a rideshare company.

There are 2 real players at the moment and both have said they are not moving into Calgary at this time. Given the fact both are in over 100 cities worldwide I think the logical conclusion is that the cities rules probably are prohibitive.

[jammies]

True ridesharing would be where someone comes up with an app that lets you bank rides you give people and redeem them later when you need them. Not sure where the money is in that, though, so instead we get gypsy cabs with a nifty name.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Good grief.

They can call it 'free puppies for children' for all I care.

The anti uber religion some people have is weird. If you come after pizza guys next I'm going to be seriously pissed though.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jammies

True ridesharing would be where someone comes up with an app that lets you bank rides you give people and redeem them later when you need them. Not sure where the money is in that, though, so instead we get gypsy cabs with a nifty name.

Speaking of gypsy cabs.

In the livery cab softball leagues of Upper Manhattan, players' numbers are often retired.
But unlike the big leagues where great players are honored after long, glorious careers, the tributes for gypsy cab drivers are sudden, unexpected -- and more frequent. They happen every time a driver is murdered while on duty.

http://www.taxi-library.org/marosi.htm

I like this part of Uber though and something similar should be in place for cab drivers as well.

Rides can only be requested through the app. And every rider has an Uber account with their personal and payment information—so you always know who you’re picking up ahead of time.