Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The facts don't support your assertion. While City Hall can draft regulations, they can't impose a solution to the insurance problems or GST and other tax issues.

It seems to me that City Hall is scrambling like mad to find a compromise solution that will work.

See again, there's a city bylaw that prevents the operation of Uber period. It's plainly written, without a taxi licence you can not operate a for-hire vehicle. I've linked to it in previous posts.

There was absolutely nothing stopping them from proposing a bylaw to allow Uber, and other vehicle for-hire and ride-sharing companies, entry into the market under the circumstances that City Hall wanted. Why do I say this? BECAUSE EDMONTON DID SO. Edmonton is also in the province of Alberta.

City Hall could have shown they were working to allow Uber to enter the market. They didn't do anything except make it known that Uber was illegal and set up an undercover sting targeting the drivers. Scrambling for a solution? They've had 4 years to come to one. Come on. Uber has forced them to do something, and now they are doing it. They didn't do anything two years ago when Uber first ended their test run, why do you think they would have done something now if not for Uber?

If Calgary was proposing a similar bylaw that Edmonton was, and Uber wanted to cry about the $1000 city vehicle licence like they are with Edmonton's proposal, I can guarantee you that we would be seeing a lot less support for Uber. If people didn't want to get the commercial insurance, or it was simply unavailable to them, then we would be seeing it as an issue with the province. But it doesn't matter, you can have the best commercial insurance and it's still illegal to operate in Calgary because it's illegal under any circumstance. That's entirely on the City, it's asinine to believe otherwise.

[getbak]

As I understand it, the city has been working with Uber to come up with a revision that will work. That's why there was the reaction to Uber's announcement in October that there was. Council was under the impression that Uber was going to wait until rules were in place before they launched in Calgary, and Uber decided to do it when they did.


Was the City dragging its feet? Was Uber impatient? Would Uber rather operate illegally and pay the fines rather than go through the red tape of obtaining proper approvals that will cost them more out-of-pocket than just paying off some tickets?


I think the biggest problem is that technology moves quickly in the modern world, but governments move slowly.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

See again, there's a city bylaw that prevents the operation of Uber period. It's plainly written, without a taxi licence you can not operate a for-hire vehicle. I've linked to it in previous posts.

There was absolutely nothing stopping them from proposing a bylaw to allow Uber, and other vehicle for-hire and ride-sharing companies, entry into the market under the circumstances that City Hall wanted. Why do I say this? BECAUSE EDMONTON DID SO. Edmonton is also in the province of Alberta.

City Hall could have shown they were working to allow Uber to enter the market. They didn't do anything except make it known that Uber was illegal and set up an undercover sting targeting the drivers. Scrambling for a solution? They've had 4 years to come to one. Come on. Uber has forced them to do something, and now they are doing it. They didn't do anything two years ago when Uber first ended their test run, why do you think they would have done something now if not for Uber?

If Calgary was proposing a similar bylaw that Edmonton was, and Uber wanted to cry about the $1000 city vehicle licence like they are with Edmonton's proposal, I can guarantee you that we would be seeing a lot less support for Uber. If people didn't want to get the commercial insurance, or it was simply unavailable to them, then we would be seeing it as an issue with the province. But it doesn't matter, you can have the best commercial insurance and it's still illegal to operate in Calgary because it's illegal under any circumstance. That's entirely on the City, it's asinine to believe otherwise.

Uber launched in Edmonton in December 2014. Edmonton announced their proposed bylaw in September 2015.

Uber launched in Calgary in October 2015. Council will debate the Taxi and Limousine Advisory Committee's recommendation on Monday and can request a draft bylaw be prepared for the middle of December.

It looks like things are moving a lot quicker here than they did in Edmonton.


Also, has the proposed bylaw been passed yet in Edmonton? According to this link, if the proposed bylaw passes, Uber will shut down in Edmonton: https://action.uber.org/edmonton/

[Oling_Roachinen]

I believe Uber launched in Edmonton in December 2014, by September 2015 it had a proposed bylaw ready - of course with it's own rough patches. Neither the taxis or Uber were thrilled with the proposal, but it was clear that in Edmonton progress was being made and there was some headway less than a year after it's first introduction into the city.

Uber first launched in Calgary, as a limousine service, in October 2013. More than a year later, in November 2014, Nenshi was calling Uber jerks. Another year after that and the city had no proposal regarding UberX, rejected a proposal with regards to Uber Black, had an undercover sting operation to fine drivers and trying to approve an injunction to arrest Uber drivers.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Here's Uber's comments on the lengthy delays in having anything done in Calgary by City Hall. 14 months and a rejected limousine bylaw that wasn't even applicable to UberX...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ttee-1.3258305

"While we remain committed to working collaboratively, the City took over 14 months to attempt to make minor amendments to the limousine bylaw," said Xavier Van Chau, Uber's spokesman for Canada.

"Given this lengthy process, today's sudden action to rapidly develop ridesharing regulations concerns us as it seems motivated by a desire to prevent a launch of new and affordable transportation alternatives in Calgary."

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm amazed at the number of people who support an unregulated, uninsured, untaxed taxi service operating in our city, just so they can get a taxi when they're out on the piss.

Which is more unregulated and uninsured- using Uber to get home or somebody driving while impaired? I am certainly not saying that driving impaired is the right thing to do; however I have seen that first hand as a result of not being able to get a taxi.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm sorry, are you mistaking a regulated commercial transaction for sex or conversation?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Other than the "mistaking" part, yes.

[Frequitude]

Can anyone on either side of the debate provide a good answer to the following questions:

Why should the City not increase the number of taxi licenses by 1? 100? 1000?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Can anyone on either side of the debate provide a good answer to the following questions:

Why should the City not increase the number of taxi licenses by 1? 100? 1000?

The inevitable answer is: because increasing licenses a) devalues the current licenses on the market (not the cities/populaces problem) and b) lowers the potential income of each current license owner (not the cities/populaces problem, unless you think the city is responsible for regulating a private industry).

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Can anyone on either side of the debate provide a good answer to the following questions:

Why should the City not increase the number of taxi licenses by 1? 100? 1000?

The main purpose regulatory regimes is to protect an incumbent monopoly/ oligopoly.

Limiting Taxi licenses was a way to fix prices by limiting supply, while also giving municipal politicians generous contributions and leverage over an important industry. Increasing the quota would have deleterious effects over the entire system of the politicians and the taxi industry colluding at the cost of the citizen.

The big problem with Uber isn't insurance or axe-murdering drivers requiring regulation, it is that it upsets the apple cart. It represents a loss of power to politicians and their entrenched allies/sugar daddies.


Rent-seekers HATE seeing disruptive technologies.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Can anyone on either side of the debate provide a good answer to the following questions:

Why should the City not increase the number of taxi licenses by 1? 100? 1000?

Buster nailed it. City doesn't increase licenses because the taxi lobby is a powerful voice (for some stupid reason).

This is what happens with thoughtless meddling by government, creates all sorts of distortions in the market usually to the detriment of the consumer. If the taxi industry was a free market, problems of supply and demand would for the most part sort themselves out. Not enough supply of taxis? Prices would go up, leading to more people wanting to drive taxis, leading to increased supply of taxis to fulfill the pent up demand. Which in turn would drive the price down to equilibrium levels again.

Wait! That sounds like Uber!

[Oling_Roachinen]

In fairness to City Hall, they did approve 383 new taxi plates about a year ago. It was a unanimous vote by the Councillors with pretty much each one of them echoing what everyone had known for years, Calgary needed more taxis. A lot more.

I think it begs the question on why it took so long. It was a 25% increase in the number of plates.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

And it actually did help, I think. At least, I noticed a difference in availability afterwards. It's still tough to get one on the busy nights / during stampede or on a Saturday night in December, obviously, but less hopelessly impossible.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

In fairness to City Hall, they did approve 383 new taxi plates about a year ago. It was a unanimous vote by the Councillors with pretty much each one of them echoing what everyone had known for years, Calgary needed more taxis. A lot more.

I think it begs the question on why it took so long. It was a 25% increase in the number of plates.

Nice to know that Druh Farrell and the other rocket scientists at City Hall are better than the combined bandwidth of the consumer and the taxi companies at determining supply and demand.

FFS.

[Tron_fdc]

So I started thinking numbers (math guys can correct me if I'm wrong):

Calgary has a population of around a million, with 1500 taxis (I think, based on this old CBC article).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...lief-1.1376084

That's a ratio of 0.0015 cabs per person (roughly)

I know I always throw out Beijing as a comparable, but I'm there a lot and I use cabs there a lot as well. Beijing population is 21 million (and growing), with 70 000 cabs (0.003 cabs per person). I don't ever have a problem getting a cab there, but there is a shortage looming because of their explosive population growth. People are already complaining about "selective" habits of their drivers (sound familiar?)

Essentially Beijing, with their cab "shortage", still has double the cabs per capita that we do.

Someone please give me ANY good reason we are restricting cab licenses. No wonder Uber is killing it in this market, it's TOTALLY underserved on the supply side. You could probably put hundreds (a thousand?) of Uber drivers on the road just to get to a decent cab to population ratio.

Maybe that's what the city is afraid of? They know we have a massive cab shortage, and they don't want it filled with an "unregulated" service that has the potential to match the amount of cabs currently running?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

So I started thinking numbers (math guys can correct me if I'm wrong):

Calgary has a population of around a million, with 1500 taxis (I think, based on this old CBC article).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...lief-1.1376084

That's a ratio of 0.0015 cabs per person (roughly)

I know I always throw out Beijing as a comparable, but I'm there a lot and I use cabs there a lot as well. Beijing population is 21 million (and growing), with 70 000 cabs (0.003 cabs per person). I don't ever have a problem getting a cab there, but there is a shortage looming because of their explosive population growth. People are already complaining about "selective" habits of their drivers (sound familiar?)

Essentially Beijing, with their cab "shortage", still has double the cabs per capita that we do.

Someone please give me ANY good reason we are restricting cab licenses. No wonder Uber is killing it in this market, it's TOTALLY underserved on the supply side. You could probably put hundreds (a thousand?) of Uber drivers on the road just to get to a decent cab to population ratio.

Maybe that's what the city is afraid of? They know we have a massive cab shortage, and they don't want it filled with an "unregulated" service that has the potential to match the amount of cabs currently running?

We literally just went over this two posts ago.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Buster

We literally just went over this two posts ago.

Yeah, between work and my "research" it took me about an hour to post that.

Oh, add in a bathroom break on the chive....

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

As I stated before, the taxi issue, despite current public opinion, has not been a front burner issue until now. Uber has done a masterful job of stirring up the citizenry, and city council is done a terrible job of handling that angry populace.

Riders in Despair Over Cab Service (Calgary Herald, 20 Aug, 2009)

Group wants Calgary taxi policy reviewed (The Gauntlet, 11 Feb, 2010)

Wishing Upon a Taxi (Calgary Herald editorial, 18 Dec, 2010)

Council Sets Strategy to Ease Shortage of Taxis in Calgary (Calgary Herald, 19 Dec, 2011)

Editorial: Taxi situation is a bad joke (Calgary Sun, 21 Dec, 2011)

Stampede cab crunch blasted by Calgarians (Calgary Sun, 9 Jul, 2012)

Calgary cab crunch has alderman warning of industry changes (Calgary Sun, 9 Jul, 2012)

Calgary alderman apologize for latest looming taxi terror (Calgary Sun, 24 Oct, 2012)

Taxi shortage needs fixing (Calgary Sun editorial, 25 Oct, 2012)

Hail of a time finding a ride (Calgary Sun, 28 Oct, 2012)

Calgarians need way to get home (Calgary Sun, 28 Oct, 2012)

Alberta justice minister Jonathan Denis scolds city politicians for not moving on taxi shortage (Calgary Sun, 30 Dec, 2012)

City officials begin studying movements of Calgary taxis in bid to improve service (Calgary Sun, 3 Jan, 2013)

Forcing fix for Calgary's broken taxi industry off the road an infuriating proposition (Calgary Sun, 18 Feb, 2013)

Heck, TripAdvisor even recognized the issue in a warning to travellers to Calgary.

You can define 'front-burner' issue however you like. But the taxi shortage has absolutely been a political issue that the media and politicians have talked about for almost 10 years.

[peter12]

For the Uber drivers in here, how is working for Uber anything but a pyramid scheme?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...st-london-demo

[Buster]

Originally Posted by peter12

For the Uber drivers in here, how is working for Uber anything but a pyramid scheme?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...st-london-demo

Pyramid scheme? Uber might be many things, but a pyramid scheme isn't one of them.

Pyramid schemes generally require that the new entrants to the schemes are the source of capital/earnings/profit. Obviously that is not the case with Uber. Also, Uber drivers can build or consumer their own inventory.