Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[accord1999]

A deal can't be struck with Uber since that's not in Uber's playbook. Regulation only occurs when a city government is strong enough to maintain its stance in the face of Uber opposition and Uber realizes it won't be able to change the city's mind no matter what, and it then grudgingly accepts it.

If you want to deal with Uber, then they will simply want the right to regulate themselves.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by accord1999

A deal can't be struck with Uber since that's not in Uber's playbook. Regulation only occurs when a city government is strong enough to maintain its stance in the face of Uber opposition and Uber realizes it won't be able to change the city's mind no matter what, and it then grudgingly accepts it.

If you want to deal with Uber, then they will simply want the right to regulate themselves.

So what about Edmonton's deal?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So what about Edmonton's deal?

Uber didn't like it very much at first either:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/1...-cease-says-gm

And after a few small changes it grudgingly accepts it. Just like a will probably accept Calgary in a few months.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by accord1999

If you want to deal with Uber, then they will simply want the right to regulate themselves.

And giving the industry too much control over the rules it's regulated by is exactly why the taxi situation in Calgary is where it currently is.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Uber didn't like it very much at first either:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/1...-cease-says-gm

And after a few small changes it grudgingly accepts it. Just like a will probably accept Calgary in a few months.

So what you are saying is that Uber didn't like it, but the city of Edmonton was willing to sit down with them and come to a compromise. Amazing how the works when your mayor isn't an egomaniac.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

So what you are saying is that Uber didn't like it, but the city of Edmonton was willing to sit down with them and come to a compromise. Amazing how the works when your mayor isn't an egomaniac.

Rather, that after Edmonton put in its rules and wouldn't back away from it, Uber had no choice to accept it, unlike say some cities in the State with weaker local governments like:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...gulations.html

And because Calgary is better than Edmonton, Calgary will probably get more of the things it wants then Edmonton did.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Uber didn't like it very much at first either:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/1...-cease-says-gm

And after a few small changes it grudgingly accepts it. Just like a will probably accept Calgary in a few months.

From what I can see, in Edmonton, the initial proposal would have seen charges of:

• $1,000 per year for a Dispatch licence
• $100 per year for a city "For Hire" Driver's licence
• $500 per year or $820 for 2 years per vehicle licence
• $50 per vehicle Accessible Vehicle Licence surcharge (if I understand this correctly, this surcharge is in place of requiring the non-taxi companies to provide adequate Accessible options)

Plus the requirement for a Class 1, 2, or 4 Driver's Licence and an annual vehicle inspection.

These fees would have been the same for all For Hire vehicles whether Taxis, Limos, or Uber-like services.


----------


The approved bylaw sees the creation of two classes of Private Transportation Providers (PTPs) -- one, like Uber, will be Commercial PTPs operating 200 or more vehicles; the other will be Regional PTPs which will have fewer than 200 vehicles.

The Regional PTPs will still have the same regulations as the taxi companies, with the same fees:

• $1,000 per year for a Dispatch licence
• $100 for two years or $60 for one year city "For Hire" Driver's licence
• $400 per year per vehicle licence
• $50 per vehicle Accessible Vehicle Licence surcharge

The Commercial PTPs will have their own fees:

• $50,000 per year for a Dispatch licence
• $20,000 Accessibility surcharge
• $0.06 Per Trip Fee
• No additional fees to drivers for licence
• No additional fee for vehicle licence

[GGG]

You see how that bylaw stifles competition. For a small company they charge $510 per driver instead of 220 like Calgary. Until you are paying 102000 for you 200 drivers.

This is why uber likes the Edmonton model rather than Calgary's

[Amethyst]

Now Uber is threatening to pull out of Edmonton if the provincial government doesn't approve their insurance by March 1 (Uber guy talking on Global news this morning).

Edit to Add: Keys Please spokeswoman says they think the new Calgary bylaw is great and will allow them to expand their services.

[Fuzz]

Good thing it's a leap year so the govt has some extra time to work on it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Now Uber is threatening to pull out of Edmonton if the provincial government doesn't approve their insurance by March 1 (Uber guy talking on Global news this morning).

Edit to Add: Keys Please spokeswoman says they think the new Calgary bylaw is great and will allow them to expand their services.

I can't argue the taxi service in Calgary doesn't need a revamp but who the fruck is Uber to make demands. Don't let the door hit in you in the ass.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Now Uber is threatening to pull out of Edmonton if the provincial government doesn't approve their insurance by March 1 (Uber guy talking on Global news this morning).

Edit to Add: Keys Please spokeswoman says they think the new Calgary bylaw is great and will allow them to expand their services.

The Edmonton situation is different. The Edmonton bylaw required insurance to be in place by March 1, Uber can't operate after that date if the insurance is not in place. So if Uber suspends operation on the 1st, it's a matter of them complying with the law, not them picking up their toys and leaving.

[para transit fellow]

Did someone already mention this article?

The Sharing Economy Is Not Your Friend
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-c...irbnb-and-uber

[Weitz]

Well, Uber has officially shut down in Edmonton due to the bylaw kicking in and the delay from the Province.

TappCar claims they will be firing up soon, but from what I have heard they can't get any drivers due to their requirements.

[llwhiteoutll]

TappCar won't have anyone driving for them except taxi drivers off shift. Even then it will be unlikely.

Class 4 or better license, full blown commercial insurance and fees up to $250/week.

[Resolute 14]

Everything one needs to know about Uber's hypocrisy is contained in the fact that it is shutting down in the City of Edmonton because the province is allegedly dragging its feet, but continuing to operate in the suburbs of Edmonton. Makes me wonder just what sort of insurance drivers in St. Albert and Sherwood Park are using.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Everything one needs to know about Uber's hypocrisy is contained in the fact that it is shutting down in the City of Edmonton because the province is allegedly dragging its feet, but continuing to operate in the suburbs of Edmonton. Makes me wonder just what sort of insurance drivers in St. Albert and Sherwood Park are using.

You think they should continue to operate in Edmonton and break the bylaw?

[Fuzz]

Well they are breaking the law operating anywhere in Alberta now, as before.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well they are breaking the law operating anywhere in Alberta now, as before.

Uber's argument is that their insurance meets current provincial law. I don't believe that has been tested in court yet.

Their insurance doesn't meet the Edmonton bylaw which requires commercial insurance be held by drivers in ride sharing applications (I think)

It's typical of Uber's letter of the law approach and push the law until instructed not to by a court.

[Fuzz]

They are still required by provincial law to have a class 4 license:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/1958.htm

A Class 4 licence is required for a driver who is operating a vehicle under the condition
for hire, as defined below from the Operator Licensing and Vehicle Control Regulation.

For hire with respect to a vehicle, means that the vehicle owner or operator, or the operator’s employer, is being paid for the service that the vehicle is being used to provide, but for the purposes of sections 23 (Class 3 licence) and 25 (Class 5 licence), a motor vehicle is not for hire when the operator drives a private passenger vehicle for the transportation of passengers on an incidental or occasional basis and receives compensation in respect of the transportation of those passengers only in one or more of the following forms:

Uber only stops doing something when the lawyers come out. They just ignore laws until they get challenged on them. I guess they haven't been challenged on this yet?