Vancouver Rideshare Discussion

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It would be great if we could get reliable taxi services in Vancouver to begin with.

Get rid of the cartel and you'd have the service that consumer actually want.

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Meanwhile in Toronto...

Meanwhile in Vancouver...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...nces-1.3358455

There could be 58 more taxis on the road in Vancouver over the holidays, but the Vancouver Taxi Association says it's disappointed it didn't get the full 198 it applied for.

The temporary licences were approved by the province's Passenger Transportation Board, but they still need to be approved by city council.

"I was shocked at their decision," said Carolyn Bauer with the association. "It makes no sense to me. Would they tell McDonald's that they're only allowed to sell 100 hamburgers a night?"

How is it reasonable that in a major city it is just a given that you can't get a taxi on a Friday or Saturday night in December? It's just ridiculous. Let Uber in, and let the market figure itself out.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Get rid of the cartel and you'd have the service that consumer actually want.

Something tells me that taxi companies like developers are major contributors to muni parties...probably all of them ;-)

[Klazu]

I am not sure Uber will be a savior either. Take away the taxi monopoly, but give Uber a monopoly for ride sharing? Prices will very likely start going up as soon as they would have a dominant market position. What is more worrisome is that their monopoly could one day be global. That's a dangerous path as well.

So I would not be giving Uber any exclusive status, but instead be encouraging more similarly operating systems on the market. Best solution would be to have a non-profit organization like Wikipedia taking over offering a global system for ride sharing.

Just my 2c.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am not sure Uber will be a savior either. Take away the taxi monopoly, but give Uber a monopoly for ride sharing? Prices will very likely start going up as soon as they would have a dominant market position. What is more worrisome is that their monopoly could one day be global. That's a dangerous path as well.

So I would not be giving Uber any exclusive status, but instead be encouraging more similarly operating systems on the market. Best solution would be to have a non-profit organization like Wikipedia taking over offering a global system for ride sharing.

Just my 2c.

Uber right now is simply at the same stage where Netflix was when they had their mail-in DVD business. The end goal of Uber is automation probably not just in moving people but also cargo. I am sure that there will be alternatives to it, but they are likely to dominate globally (or at least in NA) just like Amazon dominates online sales or Netflix dominates entertainment.

The issue here is legislation that creates unneeded monopoly for taxi companies. Sure maybe legislation was needed a long time ago, but today this legislation needs to change to accommodate different business models.

Imagine if government imposed and controlled delivery companies by limiting the size of their fleets? Sorry, FedEx you can only have 15 trucks to deliver packages in Vancouver...And UPS you can have 10 trucks....And nobody else can deliver anything without applying for a license (which you cannot get)

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am not sure Uber will be a savior either. Take away the taxi monopoly, but give Uber a monopoly for ride sharing?

Why would Uber have a monopoly? Simply get the government out of granting monopolies, allow competition, and consumers will choose the best product.

[excel]

I still don't get this whole thing. Vancouver has a taxi shortage and is probably one of the last major cities that Uber does not operate in, out of the countries that it does.

[SOSS]

It is time for the taxi monopoly to end and time to allow companies like Uber and Lift operate. I compare this to the days when car share programs started which was in direct competition with traditional rental companies and even taxi. It's really just a new form of the same service. Time to get on with it. I undestand taxi drivers are concerned for their income, companies are concerned about there income and the city is concerned for its income. Oh look. It's all about money.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by SOSS

It is time for the taxi monopoly to end and time to allow companies like Uber and Lift operate. I compare this to the days when car share programs started which was in direct competition with traditional rental companies and even taxi. It's really just a new form of the same service. Time to get on with it. I undestand taxi drivers are concerned for their income, companies are concerned about there income and the city is concerned for its income. Oh look. It's all about money.

I'm certainly not going to agree with the Taxi companies, but I think we're looking at the wrong metric from which to compare.

The lack of Taxi's in Vancouver and inability of taxis from outside Vancouver to pickup inside Vancouver is caused by rules set by the City of Vancouver.

Likewise the problem of a Limo service having a minimum 70$ charge, is a problem, to prevent them from competing with the Taxi service.

If there were too many Taxi's, then it just adds to congestion in Vancouver, and the quality of the service rapidly goes down the toilet. What needs to happen is that the entire "taxi medallion investment" that no doubt some companies sit on to reduce competition, has to end.

If the Taxi companies would share a dispatching system so that any taxi company can pick up any prepaid fare through an app, then it makes it that much easier to justify keeping Uber out. But such a system needs to be extended to include limo services and Uber-like services when all available taxis are not available.

[SOSS]

There definitely is a bureaucratic mess when it comes to how taxis operate in Metro Van. Maybe it needs to be regulated on a provincial level or at least a GVRD level.

Changes are happening in the industry and it will continue to change. The local companies are/have released a common app complete with driver reviews. I think/hope Uber is inevitable. I would like to see Lyft arrive too. They are more geared towards commuters.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am not sure Uber will be a savior either. Take away the taxi monopoly, but give Uber a monopoly for ride sharing? Prices will very likely start going up as soon as they would have a dominant market position. What is more worrisome is that their monopoly could one day be global. That's a dangerous path as well.

If you look at the very long term (over the period of decades, even centuries), it's very very rare to see sustained monopolies that haven't been propped up or at least passively encouraged by government intervention in the market of some form.

In the complete absence of government regulation and anti-trust laws, monopolies aren't uncommon, but they come and go.

Generally there is first a period where consumers actually benefit from increased economies of scale, and lower prices than competitors. A great example is Amazon. They control a massive portion of online retail, and despite this, their prices are still better than almost anywhere else.

Then comes a period where the monopoly has matured to the point where competition has been all but eliminated. At this point, prices do rise, and consumers certainly get gouged, at least for a time.

This period doesn't last though. The more monopolies take advantage of their market power, the greater incentive there is for new companies to compete, and generally a technological breakthrough renders the monopoly obsolete.

Historically governments have likely created more monopolies than they have broken up. The taxi monopoly wouldn't exist without government introduced licenses and regulation. There are plenty of other examples as well. The government could certainly do more to encourage competition amongst firms.

TL/DR I wouldn't be too worried about an Uber monopoly. Eventually some other technology will come around and replace it. Alternatively, improvements to public transit would make Uber less necessary.

[casper]

The currently system is one where the city is managing the market. It is deciding how many cars are permitted in and who has a right to operate. It needs to get out of doing that.

If Uber becomes a defacto standard, that does not in itself make it a monopoly. Anyone can come in the next day with a better Uber. The city should be picking winners and losers in a free market.

[djmk]

I recently took both taxis and Uber in California. The taxi driver thought Uber was really unfair because the government forced him to get a brand new expensive hybrid car while the Uber drivers can drive anything they want. I can understand that.

although I enjoy Uber, I found it impossible to find one after the big sporting event I went to in San Jose. That kind of pissed me off. But I LOVE seeing my Uber arrive in real time. Don't like that I really don't know the bill until I get an email couple minutes after my drop off.

And no tipping!!!! that is the best

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

If you look at the very long term (over the period of decades, even centuries), it's very very rare to see sustained monopolies that haven't been propped up or at least passively encouraged by government intervention in the market of some form.

This is true outside of government/state organizations.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by SOSS

This is true outside of government/state organizations.

Which are... Wait for it.. Created by governments.

Take government out of the equation all together and longterm monopolies are exceptionally rare.

Back in the day, Milton Friedman made an interesting observation that almost every monopoly that had existed (to that point in the 70's or 80's) either didn't last all that long, or could be directly or indirectly attributed to government legislation.
The only exception he found was the De Beers diamond monopoly that was both long-lived and couldn't be traced back to government.

[djmk]

Mircosoft Windows basically had a monopoly for about two decades (still does in the business environment)

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by djmk

Mircosoft Windows basically had a monopoly for about two decades (still does in the business environment)

Yes, but in the grand scheme of things, 2 decades is not all that long. Windows is unlikely to have a monopoly 2 decades from now. The market these days is much better described as a duopoly. Not all that much better, but certainly a slight improvement as there is much greater incentive to improve the product.

The other thing to consider is that there are benefits to monopolies in certain fields. Personal computer operating systems is a great example. By having few competing products on the market, you achieve significant standardization. Imagine how much less productive workplaces would be if you had 50 different competing OS's which were all incompatible and filled with proprietary software. I'd argue that the benefits of standardization exceed the costs of monopoly pricing.

[WarrenC12]

Taxi regulation is a provincial matter, the Passenger Transportation Board regulates all commercial passenger vehicles like Limos, Shuttle buses, and so on.

[Conrad Yablonski]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Taxi regulation is a provincial matter, the Passenger Transportation Board regulates all commercial passenger vehicles like Limos, Shuttle buses, and so on.

^ this

So much ignorance on this thread and other threads like it across the net either people aren't paying attention or have never actually taken a taxi.

[Klazu]

On Global BC they mentioned that it doesn't matter how many licenses they give out, as most taxis end up praying at the airport, where fares are higher. Apparently it is difficult to get a taxi in the suburbs since most are at YVR.

Stupid if the case...