Taxis and ride-sharing in Toronto

[ShonTron]

I don't think a TTC route that crosses the city boundary has CoTA monopoly protection. 192 does cross the boundary. The hotel buses did not sell journeys that started AND ended within the city limits.

And it started off as a TTC-related service.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wonder if Uber-Hop can be argued as offering a competing service to the city.

And yet, we see competing service, or competition as a dirty word. Surely we can see that those offering the service under exclusive protections hate this for a reason.

 

[dowlingm]

And yet, we see competing service, or competition as a dirty word. Surely we can see that those offering the service under exclusive protections hate this for a reason.

It's not fair competition if the private entrant gets to cherry pick lucrative trade while TTC must continue to operate overnight services and other expensive route types. That's why in some cities franchising has involved bundling routes rather than just have operators pick and choose.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's not fair competition if the private entrant gets to cherry pick lucrative trade while TTC must continue to operate overnight services and other expensive route types.

Competition is rarely fair. If I organize a car pool with others living and working nearby, and everyone puts in some money to cover fuel and a bonus for myself as organizer, well, this is not fairly competing with other means of obtaining the same service (TTC, taxis, Uber, etc).

 

[muller877]

It's not fair competition if the private entrant gets to cherry pick lucrative trade while TTC must continue to operate overnight services and other expensive route types. That's why in some cities franchising has involved bundling routes rather than just have operators pick and choose.

Or to put it another way...operators will pay for the lucrative services and the city will pay for the costly routes. But there are economies of scale having multiple routes together (e.g. one large bus depot, staffing for sick leave, etc) and that's why they will bundle routes/zones together.

And then the private operator can add complimentary service if he wants that exceeds the stated minimums in his contract (such as UberPop)

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

It's not fair competition if the private entrant gets to cherry pick lucrative trade while TTC must continue to operate overnight services and other expensive route types. That's why in some cities franchising has involved bundling routes rather than just have operators pick and choose.

But what does 'cherry pick lucrative trade' mean in this context? UberHop is not going to build a competing service to the Yonge subway -- the subway is just way too efficient at getting people from Sheppard to King. On the other hand, the TTC needs relief on the Liberty Village trip as the King car is bulging at rush hour, so having a chunk of people pay a premium to be siphoned off the full cars makes sense, at least until the TTC has the ability to deal with overcrowding on its own.

Maybe the TTC should get together with Uber on this one -- use Uber as a 'stalking horse' to show council/HQ what streetcars/buses need augmenting, then take those services back 'in house' when they can do so. UberTTC?

 

[dowlingm]

There are plenty of areas of the city needing more service. Uber started downtown shuttling people from high priced shoebox condos to high salary cube jobs because that segment will pay the premium.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

There are plenty of areas of the city needing more service. Uber started downtown shuttling people from high priced shoebox condos to high salary cube jobs because that segment will pay the premium.

You say that likes it's a bad thing. Let Uber 'build' more service there, and have the TTC 'build' more service in other areas of the city.

You know what? I'm going to have to stop now. This has all the harbingers of another UPX-like conversation about price.

 

[BMO]

You say that likes it's a bad thing. Let Uber 'build' more service there, and have the TTC 'build' more service in other areas of the city.

You know what? I'm going to have to stop now. This has all the harbingers of another UPX-like conversation about price.

I think it's a little more than that...the fact that literally everything Uber does is technically Illegal (currently) and they act like...

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I think it's a little more than that...the fact that literally everything Uber does is technically Illegal (currently) and they act like...

Quite frankly, the 'technically illegal' part is what make Uber great -- they've taken on one of the dumbest and most twisted out of recognition regulated monopolies around. Taxi medallions were a dumb idea, the dumb idea was corrupted to the point of insanity, and yet Uber gets up people's noses because they 'don't play by the rules.' OK -- let's make better rules, then.

 

[crs1026]

I think it's a little more than that...the fact that literally everything Uber does is technically Illegal (currently) and they act like...

The unabashed defiance of the law is unfortunate. This is one of those times when a little non-violenct defiance may be worth the means. If it pries open the minds of a city adminsitration - council and staff - that is really hoping the whole thing goes away.

Compared to, say, Ackman and Harrison, Uber's style of militancy is fairly restrained. Uber must be a fairly big corporation - their enterprise is pretty far flung. So far, they seem to be giving a fair share back to their little guys (the drivers) and haven't crossed any lines in the public ethos. But like, say, Facebook, the day may come when they cross the line and are seen as just another filthy rich corporation whose product is as annoying as it is useful.

What would it take for the City to just throw in the towel and legalise Uber? It would take a fairly small number of words added to the Municipal Code. The problem is that if you open the door up to Uber, you have to open it up to other vendors too. You would have to have some sort of bureaucracy handing out 'registrations' and keeping track of it all. You would have to impose some minimum standards for driver qualifications, vehicle standards, insurance, etc and you would have to inspect and enforce all that. And, you would have to endure litigation from unions and the taxi industry.
Eventually there will be a drunk Uber driver who causes fatalities. Are we ready for that?

In short....you will end up with a whole new city bureaucracy that will have a huge learning curve.

Uber isn't going away, and a transformation is inevitable. If it fixes TTC and taxi flaws, that's a good thing. Personally i would like to see Council take the bull by the horns and do what we pay them for - grasping and solving issues, not avoiding them - rather than this thing evolving along whatever lines of defiance Uber chooses to employ.

- Paul

 

[muller877]

I think it's a little more than that...the fact that literally everything Uber does is technically Illegal (currently) and they act like...

Didn't the courts throw out the case against Uber? Why then is it technically illegal? Please explain your logic.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...down-uber-dismissed-in-court/article25273958/

I would say after the court win Uber is technically LEGAL and the harassment of Uber by the City is pushing the boundaries of the city being in contempt of court.

 

[kEiThZ]

Uber can and should be regulated. However, the taxi monopoly thought they could use regulation to shut Uber down. That's why Uber is now breaking the law. When the law is unjust....

The mayor keeps saying we have to adapt new technologies. Yet, I see no sincere regulatory framework for these technologies. The city should have a livery licensing office that licenses UberX drivers and cars. This would go a long way for UberX insurance issues too. They could agree on some definition of part-time and full-time. Create insurance categories. Etc. They could even work with Uber on accessibility requirements for vehicles. However, all this will sharply devalue those medallions. And there's a lot of entrenched interests that don't want that. A pity really. Consumers would be better off.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not fair competition if the private entrant gets to cherry pick lucrative trade while TTC must continue to operate overnight services and other expensive route types. That's why in some cities franchising has involved bundling routes rather than just have operators pick and choose.

This is the sooooo the wrong way of thinking that leads to such crap services in this city.

Think from the customer's perspective. TTC isn't meeting their needs. Yet, you want to outlaw services which would provide them what they want? If the TTC can't provide required services, and alternatives are not allowed, it's not that these people will just wait for the 5th streetcar before jumping on. They'll simply drive (if they can afford it) or live somewhere else eventually, and areas like Liberty Village will lose value.

We need a customer focused approach. Not one that protects monopolies (TTC or taxi).

 

[BMO]

Quite frankly, the 'technically illegal' part is what make Uber great -- they've taken on one of the dumbest and most twisted out of recognition regulated monopolies around. Taxi medallions were a dumb idea, the dumb idea was corrupted to the point of insanity, and yet Uber gets up people's noses because they 'don't play by the rules.' OK -- let's make better rules, then.

Yea I don't have any doubts about the REASON it's become a prominent service. But I do think that if they are making money off of breaking the rules there's gotta be some give-back to the community. Uber is the equivalent of a sport event scalper who is technically doing something illegal but is the result of market forces. Not saying it's not nice to have the cheaper option, but they're benefiting off of the roads, infrastructure and other services that help keep their company afloat and I think shifting the onus of tax claiming to the drivers is a lame way of going around the whole tax issue. How many mobile app developers who make $100 - $500 per month actually claim their income on their taxes? Probably not a whole lot. Except the government isn't funding the internet and servers that host the apps, unlike Uber where the government is literally funding the production lines of their services. The difference is this is a company who's making a mint off of it and shifting the true taxable costs onto people that we wouldn't want to go after because it just wouldn't be worth it on a one-by-one basis and it's too difficult to do anyway.