Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Dan02]

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.

I do not support a unregulated, insured, untaxes taxi service in this city. But I am completely in support of Uber forcing the city to get off their hands and do something about the situation so that I can count on getting home safely when I'm out on the piss.

[btimbit]

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.

I don't nessesarily support uber, but it's the city that refuses to work with them. I would much prefer that Taxis in this city were so good that a company like uber wouldn't be nessesary, wouldn't even work, and would end up going bust. But uber is popular here because the options we had beforehand were just absolute trash.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I don't nessesarily support uber, but it's the city that refuses to work with them. I would much prefer that Taxis in this city were so good that a company like uber wouldn't be nessesary, wouldn't even work, and would end up going bust. But uber is popular here because the options we had beforehand were just absolute trash.

I believe, based on the results of London and NY, that even if our taxi system was the best in the world, Uber would still come in and try to disrupt things by undercutting the taxi system until it went bust. Then you are left with an Uber monopoly, until somebody else makes an app that does the same thing for less.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I believe, based on the results of London and NY, that even if our taxi system was the best in the world, Uber would still come in and try to disrupt things by undercutting the taxi system until it went bust. Then you are left with an Uber monopoly, until somebody else makes an app that does the same thing for less.

If they reach monopoly status, they would presumably begin to charge higher fares.Won't that open the door for someone else to enter? Or what's to stop a copy-cat company entering and taking a lower percentage from the driver?

[4X4]

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.

Is there something wrong with wanting to go home responsibly while out doing something legal?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Is there something wrong with wanting to go home responsibly while out doing something legal?

Because obviously if you do, you should be a good citizen and leave the premesis of the imbibement-house early enough to fall back on public transit in case you are unable to procure a taxicab.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I believe, based on the results of London and NY, that even if our taxi system was the best in the world, Uber would still come in and try to disrupt things by undercutting the taxi system until it went bust. Then you are left with an Uber monopoly, until somebody else makes an app that does the same thing for less.

This is a bit weird, is anyone arguing that Uber has a monopoly in New York or London?

And we already have a Government backed monopoly of the industry that clearly isn't working as well as it should be. If Uber were to come in and create a monopoly because it's such a good service, isn't that at least better?

Besides, I don't think there's many people asking for it to be unregulated. We want there to be proper insurance, we want there to be laws in place that forces Uber to pick up all passengers, provide services to the disabled, have proper background checks, vehicle inspections, etc. Doing so would still keep the taxi companies competitive. And this is all something that City Hall should have been focusing on years ago. Come up with a bylaw that is fair and open and no one would be siding with Uber if they decided to come in illegally. Instead (at least in my circle) the general perception seems to be that City Hall's backing of the taxi industry or failure to adapt forced Uber to come in and operate illegally as a way to force the city's hand.

I believe there's been roughly 15,000 Albertans laid off, I don't see why the City is taking such (in)action to protect the 1500 licensed taxi drivers. There's been a spur of violent crimes, including four car jackings and five shootings in a week, yet the city has focused resources into an undercover sting to go after Uber drivers? The city was disappointed in the 100 DUIs issued during Stampede this year, yet they are preventing Uber from entering the market when studies have supported the claim that it lowers DUIs. None of it makes sense, no one should be supporting City Hall on this issue.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is a bit weird, is anyone arguing that Uber has a monopoly in New York or London?

And we already have a Government backed monopoly of the industry that clearly isn't working as well as it should be. If Uber were to come in and create a monopoly because it's such a good service, isn't that at least better?

Besides, I don't think there's many people asking for it to be unregulated. We want there to be proper insurance, we want there to be laws in place that forces Uber to pick up all passengers, provide services to the disabled, have proper background checks, vehicle inspections, etc. Doing so would still keep the taxi companies competitive. And this is all something that City Hall should have been focusing on years ago. Come up with a bylaw that is fair and open and no one would be siding with Uber if they decided to come in illegally. Instead (at least in my circle) the general perception seems to be that City Hall's backing of the taxi industry or failure to adapt forced Uber to come in and operate illegally as a way to force the city's hand.

I believe there's been roughly 15,000 Albertans laid off, I don't see why the City is taking such (in)action to protect the 1500 licensed taxi drivers. There's been a spur of violent crimes, including four car jackings and five shootings in a week, yet the city has focused resources into an undercover sting to go after Uber drivers? The city was disappointed in the 100 DUIs issued during Stampede this year, yet they are preventing Uber from entering the market when studies have supported the claim that it lowers DUIs. None of it makes sense, no one should be supporting City Hall on this issue.

No, I think what by btimbit was saying was that if our taxi system in Calgary worked well, then Uber would find no business here. I don't think that's true, because there are a lot of cities with taxi systems that aren't in a dysfunctional state and that have seen Uber come in and taken the position of undercutting their prices. I don't think Uber has anything to offer in those cities besides the lower fares.

I guess I really don't have much problem with Uber, but as a business operating in Calgary they should be paying taxes as right now they are getting free use of our roads and infrastructure to make a profit on. That might be a different topic on how these businesses that operate in the cloud acting as facilitators within the sharing economy, are taxed.

[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.

However, it is still revisionist history to have expected some magical solution to taxi issues that council could have implemented before now. I still await the first person who has a viable solution to the problem that is more than a vague notion that they should have released more licenses. The problems of taxi drivers not wanting to take short fares, or too long fares, or not taking credit cards, or not showing up when pre-booked, and other ancillary issues around taxis would not have been solved by this inchoate "fix". It is also debatable that it would solve the main problem of insufficient taxis at peak hours because the issue is not that there are enough taxis, but that it is *impossible* to have enough taxis - if you also want full time jobs for taxi drivers and not part time drivers that can respond to surges in usage during Friday and Saturday nights, and the Stampede.

If you don't agree that taxi drivers should be full time (which is defensible for reasons other than unwarranted protection of the taxi industry), that is fair, but at least realize that this is why the situation is what it is, and it isn't malicious or negligent on the part of the City. It definitely has been negligent on the part of the taxi industry, as they are the ones who have resisted changing their business model to align more with the needs of users. However, it's a lot easier to scapegoat someone who has the job of listening to the public, like the politicians, then picketing the parking lot at Yellow Cab.

I still don't think it is wrong of the City to pursue uber drivers, but I will agree that it is definitely losing them the propaganda battle. They are caught in an unwinnable situation where on one hand they cannot cave into what uber wants due to legal and liability issues, and on the other hand they have public outcry to do exactly that.



Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

As I stated before, the taxi issue, despite current public opinion, has not been a front burner issue until now. ]

say what? have you ever read this thread from CP lore entitled, WRGMG?

or this thread started a year ago to the day,
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=141427

Compared to other cities taxi service in Calgary clearly sucks. Why are they allowed to have such a monopoly on the city?

I read the metro newspaper regularly and there is a story about Calgary taxis almost daily. Whether it's the lack of cabs or the steep price to get a cab license in town, they sure seem to focus on something most of us seem to have given up on a long time ago.

or here's one back interestingly enough started by 4x4 way back in 2007, 8 years of no solutions until Uber rams it down their throat, suddenly the best cab service in Calgarys history.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...highlight=taxi

[4X4]

Originally Posted by jammies

However, it is still revisionist history to have expected some magical solution to taxi issues that council could have implemented before now. I still await the first person who has a viable solution to the problem that is more than a vague notion that they should have released more licenses.

WTF? Revisionist history? Clearly there are people willing to actually give rides at 2am on the bloody weekend. Uber has proven it. So why is it some "magical" solution for the City to grant more licenses? It's a pretty fricken obvious solution.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by jammies

However, it is still revisionist history to have expected some magical solution to taxi issues that council could have implemented before now.

Before now? Toronto had Uber 4 years ago, Calgary should have seen it coming. If they didn't then, why not in 2013...when Uber was first launched in Calgary?

Originally Posted by jammies

I still await the first person who has a viable solution to the problem that is more than a vague notion that they should have released more licenses.

It's not vague though.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...lief-1.1376084

The number of cabs in Calgary hasn't changed much over the decades. The city hit the brakes in 1986, capping the total at 1,311 taxi plates. Today there are 1,466 cabs, despite the population nearly doubling.

That's an article from 2013, before the whole Uber issue. If a population of 500,000 could "support" the 1311 taxi plates, a population of a million should have required more than 1466. The city was issuing plates that were being sold on the 'grey' market for 150,000. It's absurd.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Dan02

or here's one back interestingly enough started by 4x4 way back in 2007, 8 years of no solutions until Uber rams it down their throat, suddenly the best cab service in Calgarys history.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...highlight=taxi

Hah. Yep, I remember that. I lived in Auburn Bay for a spell, after getting back from a place where you could actually catch a cab.

Almost 10 years ago, and still the same problems. Bravo, CoC.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by jammies

They are caught in an unwinnable situation where on one hand they cannot cave into what uber wants due to legal and liability issues, and on the other hand they have public outcry to do exactly that.

Over the last 5 years the city could have easily come up with a bylaw that prevented them from legal and liability issues, one that they will come up with anyways, if they wanted to.

Uber exists in over 64 countries, it operates legally in dozens of cities. Calgary could have easily come up with a bylaw outlining what was required of Uber and if Uber or it's drivers didn't (or couldn't in the case of something like insurance) want to follow those requirements no one would be blaming the city at all. They didn't. The bylaw stills simply states:
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis...edirect=1&sf=1

No Person shall advertise or offer a Motor Vehicle for hire unless that Motor Vehicle
has:
(a) a valid T.P.L. or A.T.P.L. ; or
(b) a valid L.P.L.;
joined to the Motor Vehicle.

(I.E. If you ain't a taxi you're #### out of luck)

And then they hide behind public safety issue, while studies have shown that the introduction of ride-sharing programs and companies, like Uber, reduce the rate of DUI deaths. Bull####.

[FNL]

Originally Posted by Wormius

...Then you are left with an Uber monopoly, until somebody else makes an app that does the same thing for less.

You mean, like LYFT?

Well, the same thing better, for about the same price...using the same drivers and cars.



Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[Buster]

I can't believe we are still arguing about it.

Two adults want to exercise their right of free association. End of story.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

We want it regulated, we want it insured and we want it taxed. What we want is for it to become legal. It's City Hall that doesn't want that, for some strange reason.

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.

[jammies]

Oh yes, now I remember the great taxi debate in the last municipal election. I stand corrected. If only that guy whose name I don't remember hadn't been assassinated by the taxi thugs before his inevitable electoral victory!

Or, just because something is *an* issue, and people have complained about it, doesn't mean it's been an *important* issue. Nor, because a particular person finds it important, does that mean it's been all that important in the context of the entire city. Snow removal, tax rates, suburban sprawl, new LRT lines: these are issues that campaigns have revolved around. Taxis, not so much.

And once more, and hopefully for the last time, saying the city should have added more licenses is not proposing a solution. How many more licenses? How do they determine how many licenses? Why is it that the studies undertaken to determine how many licenses were needed were apparently so wrong? And finally, given that the system of granting licenses has one of its main purposes that taxis be driven by full time drivers, how can that be reconciled with extremely uneven demand?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Buster

I can't believe we are still arguing about it.

Two adults want to exercise their right of free association. End of story.

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

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[pgsieve]

Clearly the solution is more bike lanes