Uber VS Taxis

[Bern]

To me, in the Toronto market, taxis have left themselves wide open to competition. The model obviously was a monopoly/oligopoly and gave us a terrible service that was legislatively controlled. As soon as we had an option we unanimously rejected the old model and went with Uber. What's wrong with the free market here? The only concern I have is there should be provisions for a maximum per mile rate.

Thoughts?

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

To me, in the Toronto market, taxis have left themselves wide open to competition. The model obviously was a monopoly/oligopoly and gave us a terrible service that was legislatively controlled. As soon as we had an option we unanimously rejected the old model and went with Uber. What's wrong with the free market here? The only concern I have is there should be provisions for a maximum per mile rate.

Thoughts?

I was discussing this with a friend (a senior bureaucrat) and he felt that regulation of the industry was a "good thing" but couldn't understand why we limited the number of licences available. I don't know how that happened historically, but there was probably a good reason at some point.

Regulation makes sense from a public safety point of view.

I see no reason for a max/mile rate.

[Benz]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

To me, in the Toronto market, taxis have left themselves wide open to competition. The model obviously was a monopoly/oligopoly and gave us a terrible service that was legislatively controlled. As soon as we had an option we unanimously rejected the old model and went with Uber. What's wrong with the free market here? The only concern I have is there should be provisions for a maximum per mile rate.

Thoughts?

If people love Uber so much because it's "cheaper", then why not let the market drive the maximum per mile rate? That is, if Uber is so wonderful because it offers a competitive alternative to conventional taxis, does it make sense to legislate a key element (i.e. pricing) of the service model?

[Bern]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

I was discussing this with a friend (a senior bureaucrat) and he felt that regulation of the industry was a "good thing" but couldn't understand why we limited the number of licences available. I don't know how that happened historically, but there was probably a good reason at some point.

Regulation makes sense from a public safety point of view.

I see no reason for a max/mile rate.

Safety? Why? It's even safer now with the Uber model. I know the car the driver and it's all electronically logged.

If you took an Uber on Halloween this year you would understand why. It's supply and demand with no top end rate.

If people love Uber so much because it's "cheaper", then why not let the market drive the maximum per mile rate? That is, if Uber is so wonderful because it offers a competitive alternative to conventional taxis, does it make sense to legislate a key element (i.e. pricing) of the service model?

It does in that the other model doesn't pay the drivers but rather the license holders.

[Chambokl]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

What's wrong with the free market here?

The problem is that it is not a free market. The taxi industry have rules to follow... Licencing, insurance, safety light, etc...

What would happen if I open a restaurant beside yours and buy all my alcool in the USA and sell it a lot cheaper. I don't need a licence for whatever reason... I wonder how happy you would be.

[MichaelR]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

To me, in the Toronto market, taxis have left themselves wide open to competition. The model obviously was a monopoly/oligopoly and gave us a terrible service that was legislatively controlled. As soon as we had an option we unanimously rejected the old model and went with Uber. What's wrong with the free market here? The only concern I have is there should be provisions for a maximum per mile rate.

Thoughts?

Not quite unanimous (yet).

That said, there is an interesting article by Cheney in the Drive section of today's Globe which refers to Uber as a better alternative to Toronto's "taxi feudal system". An interesting read (if it stays up long enough):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25515301/

.

[Bern]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

The problem is that it is not a free market. The taxi industry have rules to follow... Licencing, insurance, safety light, etc...

What would happen if I open a restaurant beside yours and buy all my alcool in the USA and sell it a lot cheaper. I don't need a licence for whatever reason... I wonder how happy you would be.

The drivers I talked to make more with Uber than a cab.

[Bern]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

Not quite unanimous (yet).

That said, there is an interesting article by Cheney in the Drive section of today's Globe which refers to Uber as a better alternative to Toronto's "taxi feudal system". An interesting read (if it stays up long enough):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25515301/

.

This article prompted this discussion.

I often take a cab, sharing a cab between a few friends is cheaper than the TTC on a short run.

Constant arguments over credit card payments, smoking cab drivers, drivers who don't know major intersections in the city.

Uber is easy.

[mpare]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

If Uber is given free rein not to comply with the regulatory regime, then why would anyone even contemplate trying to regulate the rates they charge? Better yet, why would anyone assume that they would comply with those rates? To date, they have shown no interest in following any rules save those they choose to follow.

[bl8d]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

I can understand the taxi industry being in revolt over Uber.Imagine a mobile food truck parked in front of your restaurant.

but the Uber business model is on par with the discrete high class call girl service, vs the hail'em street corner Taxi where you get in and wish you hadn't.


But Uber needs to step and meet the overhead the city gougers demand otherwise it sends out a blackmarket signal.

[tickyboy]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

I look at Uber and wonder what ancient system is going to be disrupted next.

[Bern]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

I can understand the taxi industry being in revolt over Uber.Imagine a mobile food truck parked in front of your restaurant.

but the Uber business model is on par with the discrete high class call girl service, vs the hail'em street corner Taxi where you get in and wish you hadn't.

But Uber needs to step and meet the overhead the city gougers demand otherwise it sends out a blackmarket signal.

Not quite the right analogy IMO. The city has allowed a very abusive system to exist where drivers make far less than minimum wage and restricted competition. Greed by the cab license owners allowed the cab business in Toronto to degrade. The only issue that Uber should have to deal with is insurance which they claim they have.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

Safety? Why? It's even safer now with the Uber model. I know the car the driver and it's all electronically logged.

If you took an Uber on Halloween this year you would understand why. It's supply and demand with no top end rate.
.

I'm a fan of Uber.

I'm a fan of Tory making noises about how we need to change regulations to allow for it and acknowledging they provide a better customer experience and the City should find ways to accommodate that.

Why regulation?

For one, you seem to think that they need it - but only to limit pricing. That's.... a bit one-sided.

Without any regulation, it would be easy to set up competition to Uber. You could probably beat them on price if you staffed all your cars with ex-cons, people out on bail and those on the known-offenders list. They might not have drivers licences and they might drive dangerous vehicles. But it would be cheap.... I may start this myself. I'll call it "Puber"...

[Fore Warned]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

Both the existing taxi licensing system and Uber models are flawed.

One is steeped in an outdated and unfair regulatory model that was allowed to develop into an oligarchy over the years as a result of political and bureaucratic neglect.

The other relies on a new an innovative technology which invites upstart mavericks to free wheel in flagrant violation of any regulatory controls.

John Tory seems to correctly have recognized the root of the problem as two competing systems which both have to change, and I think, sees Uber as the leverage to change the existing system while bringing some more reasoned legislative framework to the entire industry.

Other cities have also struggled with this issue. Some have developed separate regulatory systems for each model.

I hope Toronto does not do that. We would be perpetuating two flawed systems rather than finding one solution which fixes two problems.

[Bladerunner]

Re: Uber VS Taxis

Uber is a disruptive business model that benefits the passenger and the driver.

The only losers are the bureaucrats and taxi license owners.

In a free market, the former have a much larger collective voice and will win.

Trying to stop progress is futile. Perhaps the printing presses should have fought harder against the dissemination of digital media?

Bladerunner