Taxis and ridesharing in Ottawa

[rocketphish]

Amid mixed messages, Uber has no plans to give up on Canada

The Canadian Press ~ OBJ
Published on April 06, 2015

The strong-arm tactics that some Canadian cities have been using against virtual ridesharing company Uber have prompted the organization to try to mend fences with local officials even as it maintains hope for further expansion.

Municipal governments across the country have launched everything from political salvos to court injunctions against the San Francisco-based tech giant in a bid to keep its fleet of both licensed and unlicensed vehicles off city streets.

Their efforts have occasionally succeeded. While Uber still maintains a presence in Ottawa, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax, it was forced to shut up shop after brief sojourns in Vancouver and Calgary.

Uber says there's an effort afoot to cool tensions with the cities it serves before it pursues hopes to offer service in new locations.

Jeff Weshler, Uber Canada's General Manager for Regional Expansion, says those dreams are still very much alive.

"Uber wants to be everywhere and we are constantly evaluating new opportunities," Mr. Weshler said.

Uber has met with varying levels of resistance in nearly every Canadian city it has operated in even as it has won plaudits for its innovative business model.

Municipal officials from Vancouver to Halifax have accused the company of operating illegally at best and endangering the lives of passengers at worst.

They assert that Uber provides the services of a taxi company without complying with the licenses and regulations that govern that industry.

Critics have been particularly vocal about the company's UberX service, which allows unlicensed drivers to offer rides in their own vehicles. Such trips are not eligible under the insurance plans that cover licensed taxi rides, and opponents describe this as only one among many safety risks associated with the practice.

Uber, in turn, argues that developing a mobile app that lets customers hail nearby cars makes it a technology company rather than a transportation firm.

This argument has fallen on deaf ears in several European cities, which have banned Uber's services outright, even as it's been embraced by several American jurisdictions.

The reaction has been similarly mixed in Canada, with Toronto emerging as a microcosm of the various schools of thought.

Mayor John Tory has publicly defended Uber and said companies like it are here to stay, while a recent blitz by a lone city cop saw 11 charges laid against UberX drivers in a single weekend.

Chris MacDonald, professor of Business Ethics at Ryerson University, said there's no doubt the model has caught on in the 300 cities worldwide where Uber currently operates.

Uber has set itself apart from its many competitors as a leader in this field, he said, adding the company is clearly filling a genuine need in the market.

It's approach has also proven highly lucrative for the moment. Wall Street investors recently valued the company at a staggering US$40 billion.

But antagonizing governments by flouting regulations does not mean the company is blazing a trail to future prosperity, he said.

"They're going to need, in the long run, to keep a pretty broad range of stakeholders happy," he said. "They've had such a wide range of stumbles... . Money will only get you so far through so many of those. Eventually they've got to kind of make peace."

Mr. Weshler says the bans and criticisms that have dogged the company are par for the course for an organization that's trying to revamp a long-established system, adding Uber has no plans to shy away from its opponents.

Uber has managed to win over some high-profile supporters.

Former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird publicly tweeted praise for Uber after using it to put an end to a 75-minute wait for a traditional cab in Ottawa.

And the country's Competition Bureau supported the company last November when it cautioned cities to think about whether banning their "innovative business models" was really necessary.

Mr. Weshler said he hopes Uber's relationships with Canadian cities take a more collaborative turn, saying that negotiation is the best way to achieve mutual goals.

"Ultimately we're all committed to the same vision of a safe and reliable way for people to get around."

http://www.obj.ca/Canada---World/201...up-on-Canada/1

[1overcosc]

Help for Uber now coming from the province?

The budget contains a section about working to help support the sharing economy, which includes businesses like UBER, Zip Car and Air BnB. It states the province will “help them comply with existing obligations’ and to ensure they can meet new rules as they are drafted.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...os-2015-budget

[rocketphish]

Judge rejects Toronto's case against Uber

ANN HUI, The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jul. 03, 2015 9:29PM EDT | Last updated Saturday, Jul. 04, 2015 8:04AM EDT

An Ontario Superior Court judge has dismissed the City of Toronto’s attempt to shut down ride-sharing company Uber.

After a month of deliberating, Justice Sean Dunphy delivered his ruling Friday, saying the city failed to prove that Uber has broken any bylaws or that it is operating an illegal taxicab company.

The decision strikes a blow to Toronto city officials and the taxicab industry and is likely to reverberate across Canada as cities struggle to regulate the ride-sharing service.

The company’s UberX mobile app, which was the subject of the city’s legal action, allows ordinary drivers to use their private vehicles to pick up paid fares. While the city argued in its case that this constituted an illegal taxi service, Justice Dunphy instead questioned whether the rules themselves have been sufficiently crafted. He took specific aim at the city’s narrow definition of “taxicab service” and the fact that a taxi broker is defined only as a person who “accepts” requests for transportation – and not necessarily a person who arranges it.

“Have the city’s regulations, crafted in a different era, with different technology in mind, created a flexible regulatory firewall around the taxi industry sufficient to resist the Uber challenge,” he wrote in his decision, “or have they instead created the equivalent of a regulatory Maginot Line behind which it has retreated, neither confronting nor embracing the challenges of the new world of Internet-enabled mobile communications?”

In a statement, Uber Toronto’s general manager Ian Black said he is pleased with the ruling.

“Our hope is that this decision helps further pave the way for ride-sharing regulations and we look forward to continuing our work with Mayor [John] Tory and Toronto City Council.”

Already, Mr. Tory has said publicly that he supports creating new regulations to account for Uber-like technologies. Friday evening, his office issued a statement saying he intends to have the taxi industry and Uber meet with him together to come to a “mutually agreeable solution.”

But he is likely to face strong opposition from at least a few members of council, as well as from the vocal taxi industry.

Earlier this week, a group of taxi-industry representatives gathered at City Hall to demand the mayor and police crack down on Uber, and threatened to stage a strike during the Pan Am Games if their demands are not met.

A spokeswoman for the city's licensing division said that officials are still reviewing the decision and will provide further comment next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle25273958/

[JHikka]

$7.99 each for my girlfriend and I once we fare split our ride from the airport to Somerset street. If i'm taking a taxi it's roughly $18 each. Uber is far and away a better service than cab companies following the dozen trips i've taken in Ottawa thus far.

[rocketphish]

City of Ottawa sics cops on Uber drivers

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Monday, July 06, 2015 09:01 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 08:05 AM EDT

Expect the police to start busting more Uber drivers.

It's just the news cabbies in this city have been waiting to hear.

On Monday, the city asked the Ottawa Police Service to increase its enforcement of a section of the Highway Traffic Act that allows police to charge motorists driving passengers for money without the necessary permits.

Fines under the provincial law, which police can levy, range between $300 and $20,000.

The request came the same day taxi union honchos met with Mayor Jim Watson and two other council bigwigs to talk about escalating the Uber crackdown.

The ride-sharing company has been driving cabbies crazy, with many saying their business has been drastically cut since the app launched here in October.

Coun. Eli El-Chantiry, chair of the police services board, said the city can't give police direction on operations but it can request that police help bylaw officers crack down on illegal taxis.

"That all falls under the priorities of the chief and his staff," El-Chantiry said.

Police received a call from bylaw services Monday asking for help on Uber enforcement.

"They asked if they would work them in the future on this issue and we've agreed to do that," Supt. Scott Nystedt said.

Nystedt said it's too early to say how many police resources will go into the enforcement.

Ottawa taxi union president Amrik Singh, Unifor executive Bob Orr and other local taxi union reps told the mayor the city must strong-arm Uber.

Up until now the Uber blitzes have been run by the bylaw services branch.

"We need police to go out and ticket (Uber drivers)," Singh said.

The way they describe it, cabbies can no longer handle a downtick in revenue in a regulated market that has allowed Uber drivers to skirt municipal laws.

"We need to see an increase in enforcement so the drivers know someone's on their side," Orr said after the meeting.

"For us it's obviously something that's pressing we're not going to let sit."

Georges Chamoun, chair of the Capital Taxi unit of drivers, said the union is urging the city to enforce Uber before cabbies "lose control."

Cabbies are pleased to hear that Watson is upset about Uber breaking municipal rules.

"When a mayor says Uber is operating illegally in his view, that's a pretty strong statement," Orr said.

Watson's spokesman said the mayor wasn't unavailable to comment Monday afternoon.

Coun. Diane Deans, chair of the protective services committee, and acting deputy city manager Susan Jones were also in the one-hour meeting.

Council on Wednesday will be asked to commit $300,000 for a taxi bylaw review. The review -- which will consider how technology-based ride-sharing companies like Uber can fit into city regulations -- is scheduled to be finished by March.

In the meantime, the city says it continues to write bylaw tickets for taxi drivers operating without permits.

Cabbies and the city are both hoping the province legislates stiffer penalties for unlicensed taxi drivers. Ottawa Liberal MPP John Fraser has a proposed bill to do exactly that. Ottawa PC MPP Lisa MacLeod has also introduced a proposal to increase penalties.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/07/06/...n-uber-drivers

[1overcosc]

I'm very much hoping that the rise of Uber sparks a large scale deregulation and free-market-ization of the overregulated, overprotected taxi industry.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm very much hoping that the rise of Uber sparks a large scale deregulation and free-market-ization of the overregulated, overprotected taxi industry.

Perhaps overregulated, however, we have seen the consequences of large scale deregulation before, and it has not been good. Remember deregulation and the Walkerton water supply failure. There has to be a degree of regulation in order to protect the public. That is the problem here, with Uber using business practices that carefully work around the law. Yes, Uber does have self regulation but that is beyond public control. That is not acceptable.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Perhaps overregulated, however, we have seen the consequences of large scale deregulation before, and it has not been good. Remember deregulation and the Walkerton water supply failure. There has to be a degree of regulation in order to protect the public. That is the problem here, with Uber using business practices that carefully work around the law. Yes, Uber does have self regulation but that is beyond public control. That is not acceptable.

Some sort of happy medium needs to be found between the dangers of a total free market and the overcontrolled taxi industry of today.

The main issue with the present taxi regulations is the way they severely reduce competition through the supply restriction system for plates. The 'barrier for entry' for new taxi companies is outrageously high which allows Coventry Connections to keep their monopoly. The city should stop limiting the supply of plates and allow anyone to buy however many plates from the city that they want.

In Canada we have far too many monopolies/oligopolies propped up by government regulations, in everything from taxis to dairy farms to alcohol to telecoms. We need to gradually break down those rules and allow for genuine competition. It has been proven time and time again that when competition is genuine, it ultimately works in favour of consumers.

Walkerton is a bad analogy because key infrastructure like water is a 'natural monopoly' (you're not going to have two parallel water systems each belonging to a separate company for example), meaning that if privatized, it requires heavy regulation to ensure it functions in the interest of society... which Walkerton didn't have.

[1overcosc]

How about this idea for a regulatory midway?

-Removing plate restriction; the city will sell an unlimited number of plates to anyone who wants them for an annual fee that is set at a price that recovers the municipal administration costs of the taxi system. Existing plate owners who spent huge amounts of money to acquire their plates will get compensated for the lost investment
-Allowing anyone to license themselves as a broker provided they meet certain accountability guidelines; reach a deal with the Uber company so that Uber can become a broker to rival Coventry Connections
-Deregulated pricing; allowing companies to set their own fares
-Reduce regulations to only those required to ensure public safety and accessibility

[acottawa]

I'm rather horrified the city police are wasting their time chasing uber cars. I wonder how much money the taxi unions and companies are giving to local politicians. We're already seen from that youtube star that wouldn't move for the ambulance that the city has no interest in checking up on cabs to make sure they have valid driver's licences, so maybe that should be a higher priority.

I don't know how the economics of the taxi industry work, but certainly the fares exceed any costs associated with the trip (gas, labour, insurance, depreciation on the car) so either some combination of the plate owners, drivers and brokers are making huge margins or taxis are mostly underutilized. I suspect it is like the chicken and dairy farmers (an artificial monopoly that gives huge profits to quota owners at the expense of consumers).

The advantage of uber is it is a reasonable way of matching the supply to demand on a micro level (if it rains or something else creates a spike in demand it will bring uber drivers out of the woodwork as the prices for the day go up) whereas taxis will almost always be supplied in the wrong amount (either there will be too many on the road and the drivers won't make any money or there won't be enough and customers will have to wait).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know how the economics of the taxi industry work, but certainly the fares exceed any costs associated with the trip (gas, labour, insurance, depreciation on the car) so either some combination of the plate owners, drivers and brokers are making huge margins or taxis are mostly underutilized. I suspect it is like the chicken and dairy farmers (an artificial monopoly that gives huge profits to quota owners at the expense of consumers).

Yep, that is exactly the reason.

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Existing plate owners who spent huge amounts of money to acquire their plates will get compensated for the lost investment

Here's the crux of the problem. We can't afford to do this, and if we don't, the city will get sued.

[rocketphish]

Yes to Uber. No to taxi cartels

The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jul. 07, 2015 6:30PM EDT | Last updated Tuesday, Jul. 07, 2015 7:39PM EDT

Mayor John Tory summed up the conundrum facing every city trying to deal with the Uber blitzkrieg when he announced on Monday that he plans to update Toronto’s taxi bylaws.

“What we need is one bylaw that applies without question to everybody,” he said. “We cannot have the Wild West, but we also cannot have a city that in some way ignores the march of technology and time.”

Exactly. It’s unfair that taxi drivers who have paid for their expensive municipal permits and licences are now watching cities like Toronto do little or nothing while Uber, via its popular ride-sharing app, profits from what are effectively black markets. You can’t blame drivers and fleet owners for being upset – they are playing by the rules. The thing is, those rules are asinine. They limit competition, reduce supply, diminish quality and force up prices. They should have been done away with decades ago.

So how do you level the playing field without ignoring the march of technology? Regulating Uber and other car-sharing services into submission would be self-defeating. Whatever bylaw ecosystem Toronto’s bureaucrats come up with, the final version should look more like Uber than the outdated and indefensible cartel system that currently controls the taxi business in many cities.

In Toronto, for instance, anyone can get a permit to drive a cab as long as they can pass a few minor hurdles and cough up $634. So far, so reasonable. But the number of cars is strictly controlled by the city licensing system. There may be lots of drivers, but there’s an artificial shortage of cabs.

That’s not good for the customer or the economy, because the cab owners and dispatch companies don’t have to compete. The result, among other things, can be run-down, smelly cars that have no business being in service. Or worse. In Paris, for instance, when you call for a cab, the driver immediately turns on the meter and charges you for the time it takes to come pick you up. That’s indefensible, but enforceable through a cartel.

The cartel system also hurts drivers. They know there is always someone coming up behind them willing to work longer hours and for less, for whoever owns the car they drive. In Toronto, if a driver manages against all odds to get a new taxicab licence, they have to pay a ridiculous $4,742 for it. Or they can buy an older, existing licence from its owner for well over $100,000.

For what good reason is it so expensive to get into the business of driving a car for hire? There is no evidence – none – that Uber drivers and cars are less safe than municipally licensed ones. Uber has demonstrated that there is little public interest in defending an artificial cartel system that enriches licence-holders to the detriment of everyone else.

If cities are to keep their hand in the taxi business, let it be a light touch. Require all drivers-for-hire, Uber and otherwise, to buy a modestly priced permit at City Hall. Demand a minimum amount of insurance coverage for each driver. Then get out of the way and let the market roll.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25343745/

[lrt's friend]

If you really read what it says, it is not the taxi companies or the taxi drivers that are the problem, but the municipal regulators that create an artificial shortage of taxi licenses. This automatically creates a market price for the taxi plates and somehow taxi drivers have to recover this cost from the customer.

Interestingly, I remember CTV Ottawa doing a test of Uber versus taxis a few months ago. The conclusion was that you got what you paid for. You pay less for Uber but you wait much longer and it took longer to get to your destination. The competition was not about quality of service but the ease of use of the app. How this sounds like the airline industry where service quality has been declining for decades and it is becoming a most unpleasant experience to fly. Will we really be better off when Uber kills the taxi industry?

Just as we saw the consequences of the Big box book retailers killing the independent book stores, eliminating the taxi industry just replaces one 'cartel' with another. And once they have control of the business, watch what will happen to the prices.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you really read what it says, it is not the taxi companies or the taxi drivers that are the problem, but the municipal regulators that create an artificial shortage of taxi licenses. This automatically creates a market price for the taxi plates and somehow taxi drivers have to recover this cost from the customer.

Interestingly, I remember CTV Ottawa doing a test of Uber versus taxis a few months ago. The conclusion was that you got what you paid for. You pay less for Uber but you wait much longer and it took longer to get to your destination. The competition was not about quality of service but the ease of use of the app. How this sounds like the airline industry where service quality has been declining for decades and it is becoming a most unpleasant experience to fly. Will we really be better off when Uber kills the taxi industry?

Just as we saw the consequences of the Big box book retailers killing the independent book stores, eliminating the taxi industry just replaces one 'cartel' with another. And once they have control of the business, watch what will happen to the prices.

Airlines have seen service quality decline not because of cartels, but because consumers demand low prices at the expense of all else. They're just responding to customer demand.

With a deregulated system, anyone can enter the market and challenge the status quo. The free market is the most efficient system there is.

Uber can't really form a cartel, because the technology they created is ridiculously simple to implement and to copy. In the internet age anyone can organize a rideshare service. Without regulations protecting Uber specifically, this market will always remain free. We've seen this happen... technology ensures competition by reducing the barrier to entry.

Ultimately, we cannot, as a society, just shut down new ideas and loudly protect the status quo. We must always move forward and progress. Ride sharing is dirt simple nowadays with the internet age... the traditional taxicab model is becoming an anachronism and we can't stop it no matter how hard we try.

[ars]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you really read what it says, it is not the taxi companies or the taxi drivers that are the problem, but the municipal regulators that create an artificial shortage of taxi licenses. This automatically creates a market price for the taxi plates and somehow taxi drivers have to recover this cost from the customer.

Interestingly, I remember CTV Ottawa doing a test of Uber versus taxis a few months ago. The conclusion was that you got what you paid for. You pay less for Uber but you wait much longer and it took longer to get to your destination. The competition was not about quality of service but the ease of use of the app. How this sounds like the airline industry where service quality has been declining for decades and it is becoming a most unpleasant experience to fly. Will we really be better off when Uber kills the taxi industry?

Just as we saw the consequences of the Big box book retailers killing the independent book stores, eliminating the taxi industry just replaces one 'cartel' with another. And once they have control of the business, watch what will happen to the prices.

The article absolves taxi drivers, because they have to play by the ridiculous rules given to them, but it definitely does not absolve taxi companies, as they are the ones who form the cartel. The regulators do get the lion's share of the blame, but it's pretty clear that they're lobbied by the taxi companies because this artificial shortage doesn't benefit anyone but them, what's better than being in a high traffic business where you don't have to compete?

My experience with Uber was better than any taxi I've ever taken. I knew exactly where the driver was coming to pick me up and he knew exactly where to pick me up from. The ride didn't take any longer than a taxi would and was $15 to $20 cheaper to boot. The airline industry is a really poor comparison.

And I completely disagree with your assertion that getting rid of the taxi cartel will usher in a new one.

[1overcosc]

I don't take either Uber or cabs (avoid them like the plague cuz I'm cheap, I bus and bike everywhere instead), but everyone I've talked to says that Uber has better customer service than the cabs. Uber has a rating system where customers are asked to rate the quality of the driver. Drivers who get a lot of bad ratings are given less work.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

Here's the crux of the problem. We can't afford to do this, and if we don't, the city will get sued.

We could pay out the value of the plates now, and pay it off very gradually over the next 50 years or so using a dedicated fee on top of the annual license fee.

[1overcosc]

What this really speaks to, is the need for our regulatory systems to be capable of adequately evolving in response to technological progress. Problems like these would go away if it weren't for the constant status-quo favouring interia that governments always abide by.

Much bigger problems than taxicabs will happen in the future if we don't break this habit... I mean, self driving cars and bionic/cybernetic body parts are likely inventions in the next few decades that could both wreak havoc with our regulatory systems.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Airlines have seen service quality decline not because of cartels, but because consumers demand low prices at the expense of all else. They're just responding to customer demand.

With a deregulated system, anyone can enter the market and challenge the status quo. The free market is the most efficient system there is.

Uber can't really form a cartel, because the technology they created is ridiculously simple to implement and to copy. In the internet age anyone can organize a rideshare service. Without regulations protecting Uber specifically, this market will always remain free. We've seen this happen... technology ensures competition by reducing the barrier to entry.
Ultimately, we cannot, as a society, just shut down new ideas and loudly protect the status quo. We must always move forward and progress. Ride sharing is dirt simple nowadays with the internet age... the traditional taxicab model is becoming an anachronism and we can't stop it no matter how hard we try.

As someone who works in IT, I disagree with you on the bolded part. As technology becomes more sophisticated and complex, the bigger the barrier to entry becomes. It isn't simple to copy and implement. That is the great simplification of how we don't fully understand how software works. Presto was a perfect example of how creating simplicity can be so complex. Also, timing becomes all important. An idea has to come out at the right time and be designed the right way and on the right platform and be marketed the right way and have the right investors. I expect there is competition but who would know? Uber is the only name we hear about and the only one that is successful. So we talk about local taxi companies being cartels. Well, what is a business that is killing the taxi industry worldwide in no time? Competition is great, but the real goal of business is destroy the competition and create a monopoly. If there is not a level playing field, that is exactly what could happen. As it stands, Uber is not following the same rules as the taxi industry. Whether the rules are valid is another story and something that Toronto City Council is trying to resolve.

Meanwhile, the airlines find other ways to get more cash out of us and offer less and less service. Not because the public demands this, but because the very limited competition makes it easy for one company to follow another like sheep. That is also the reason why the cell phone industry works the way it does. Give choice, but don't really give choice.