Ride-hailing in Metro Vancouver: Uber, Lyft, Sidecar - emerging technologies

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by casper

The way uber becomes sustainable is autonomous vehicles. That is the goal. They are ok having a loss while they are building scale and developing uber 2.0.

As for the class 4 I don't see what the issue is. That is the class of license you require to operate a taxi, ambulance, or small bus. Basically what is required to be a commercial driver.

The ever elusive autonomous cars. I'm impressed with the progress that Tesla and others have made. It's really amazing. But the gap between what we have now, and cars running around without drivers is still a big one. Uber is losing $1B per quarter. Lyft's IPO was a bit of a bust, Uber could be similar.

You're right about current class 4 requirements. But what does it actually do? The only thing I see that's reasonable is the health screening.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The ever elusive autonomous cars. I'm impressed with the progress that Tesla and others have made. It's really amazing. But the gap between what we have now, and cars running around without drivers is still a big one. Uber is losing $1B per quarter. Lyft's IPO was a bit of a bust, Uber could be similar.

You're right about current class 4 requirements. But what does it actually do? The only thing I see that's reasonable is the health screening.

I hold dl class 1 with air brakes. Health screening is when I payed clinic $150 and they checked my blood pressure and asked me if I’m ok and also asked me 20 questions that I answered all no. Thats what health screening is- money grab. IMO.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Lexus

I hold dl class 1 with air brakes. Health screening is when I payed clinic $150 and they checked my blood pressure and asked me if I’m ok and also asked me 20 questions that I answered all no. Thats what health screening is- money grab. IMO.

It's a liability thing though, no?

Just helps prove my point though. Class 4 is more red tape than anything else.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's a liability thing though, no?

Just helps prove my point though. Class 4 is more red tape than anything else.

A Class 4 license holder doesn't automatically make the person a better or safer driver; take for example, all of Vancouver's taxi drivers...

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You're right about current class 4 requirements. But what does it actually do? The only thing I see that's reasonable is the health screening.

A class 4 also provides vetting for insurability, having at least 2 years of non-learning driving experience and any recent driving penalties and driving-related convictions in the past 2-3 years.

Alberta and Quebec also ask for class 4 licences for uber drivers.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

A class 4 also provides vetting for insurability, having at least 2 years of non-learning driving experience and any recent driving penalties and driving-related convictions in the past 2-3 years.

Alberta and Quebec also ask for class 4 licences for uber drivers.

That's not the argument being made though. There is no practical reason for Class 4 restricted (Taxi) to exist other than a money grab. A Taxi car is no different from a regular car. A Taxi driver often has far more education (the proverbial "all the taxi drivers are doctors from another country that Canada doesn't recognize their degree") and those that are currently Taxi drivers could be in better jobs if there wasn't yet more red tape.

Like the entire argument about removing red tape, regulations, and such has to come from the "why does it exist in the first place?" Well prior to the concept of ride sharing, we called them carpools. The regulations exist not for the benefit of the passenger, but to ensure that there isn't 10,000 taxi's on the road not paying taxes. Taxi Medallion systems became investments, and those people who own them don't want their "property" made worthless.

That has nothing to do with Class 4. Nothing. You can get Class 4 and not drive a Taxi, what has actually changed? What changes when you drive an Ambulance? An Ambulance is not a car, but at one time they were.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Kisai

That's not the argument being made though. There is no practical reason for Class 4 restricted (Taxi) to exist other than a money grab. A Taxi car is no different from a regular car. A Taxi driver often has far more education (the proverbial "all the taxi drivers are doctors from another country that Canada doesn't recognize their degree") and those that are currently Taxi drivers could be in better jobs if there wasn't yet more red tape.

the way i see it, ensuring a commercial driver is experienced, has no outstanding fines or balances with ICBC and has a relatively clean driving history is important, and that this vetting cost should be born by the independent contractor or the ride company.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

the way i see it, ensuring a commercial driver is experienced, has no outstanding fines or balances with ICBC and has a relatively clean driving history is important, and that this vetting cost should be born by the independent contractor or the ride company.

Car sharing organizations require a driver's abstract, which is a simple email or online form with ICBC and they receive it the same day.

If ICBC wants to charge a quick fee, that's fine. The hassle of a Class 4 isn't warranted though.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Car sharing organizations require a driver's abstract, which is a simple email or online form with ICBC and they receive it the same day.

If ICBC wants to charge a quick fee, that's fine. The hassle of a Class 4 isn't warranted though.

The vetting may be duplicated, but why leave it to the private companies and not have a more transparent government-regulated method to do so?

I wouldn't trust uber to regulate itself.

------

As an aside, today is a big strike day for lyft and uber drivers, right before uber's IPO. I'm glad BC is approaching ride sharing carefully.

Each group has a set of different demands, but most want a firm cap on Uber’s commission from each ride, which varies widely but averages about 33 percent. Drivers in the US also want the company to reverse recent pay cuts, and to guarantee drivers $15 to $20 an hour in take-home pay. Right now, they earn an average of $10 to $12 an hour in the US, after expense, according to several researchers.

...

Uber has been upfront with investors about the risk of a labor revolt. In a new SEC filing, Uber acknowledges that giving drivers the same legal rights as employees would “fundamentally change” the company’s financial model:

If, as a result of legislation or judicial decisions, we are required to classify Drivers as employees...we would incur significant additional expenses for compensating Drivers, potentially including expenses associated with the application of wage and hour laws (including minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest period requirements), employee benefits, social security contributions, taxes, and penalties.

It’s worth reemphasizing this: Uber doesn’t want to pay drivers to take 15-minute rest breaks every few hours because it would cost too much, even though all US employers are required to give hourly workers paid breaks under federal law.

In the filing, the company says that dissatisfied drivers could become a business liability, as recent protests in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States have interrupted business on the platform. Instead of outlining ways to make drivers happy, Uber suggests it will just get worse.


“As we aim to reduce driver incentives to improve our financial performance, we expect Driver dissatisfaction will generally increase,” the company stated.

That dissatisfaction is leading Uber and Lyft drivers to organize.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by casper

The way uber becomes sustainable is autonomous vehicles. That is the goal. They are ok having a loss while they are building scale and developing uber 2.0.

They're betting that being first into the market will give them a better position when the wave of autonomous ride-hailing services hit - but I'm skeptical. Ride hailing will rapidly become a commodity service, just like air travel is. Apps will become available to aggregate the service just like we have today for hotels and air travel. The winners will be the companies who can offer the cheapest rides with a good profit margin. Having sunk tens of billions into being first will turn out to be an anchor on their business, IMHO.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

They're betting that being first into the market will give them a better position when the wave of autonomous ride-hailing services hit - but I'm skeptical. Ride hailing will rapidly become a commodity service, just like air travel is. Apps will become available to aggregate the service just like we have today for hotels and air travel. The winners will be the companies who can offer the cheapest rides with a good profit margin. Having sunk tens of billions into being first will turn out to be an anchor on their business, IMHO.

I agree on the commodity part. It already is to a degree as users and drivers flip between Lyft and Uber whenever they feel like it.

The winners might end up being the vertically integrated manufacturers. Tesla has it's entire setup (cars, hardware, software) in house now. Why would they need an Uber? Uber doesn't own the cars, the hardware, or the (driving) software.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The winners might end up being the vertically integrated manufacturers. Tesla has it's entire setup (cars, hardware, software) in house now. Why would they need an Uber? Uber doesn't own the cars, the hardware, or the (driving) software.

That's a good point - Tesla's got no reason to sell to Uber and create competition, not when they can just run their own rideshare service. Exactly how does a middleman come out on top in this one?

[Galaxy]

It's funny that Uber drivers staged a strike today in a few markets trying to force Uber to pay them more. I only wonder what will happen one day when Uber decides and has the cars and tech that they no longer need those drivers what will happen then ... Should be interesting to see...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's funny that Uber drivers staged a strike today in a few markets trying to force Uber to pay them more. I only wonder what will happen one day when Uber decides and has the cars and tech that they no longer need those drivers what will happen then ... Should be interesting to see...

I think it will be at least a decade before cars will be fully autonomous. When that happens though, Uber should be way cheaper. Prices should be in line with what Car2Go charges - $0.32/min. Should be close to the same in theory anyways. It's a taxi level service where you are taking the paid driver out of the equation. At that price point, you are competing with public transit, considering how much more comfortable the ride is.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's funny that Uber drivers staged a strike today in a few markets trying to force Uber to pay them more. I only wonder what will happen one day when Uber decides and has the cars and tech that they no longer need those drivers what will happen then ... Should be interesting to see...

Just like any other industry that can be replaced with automation. That doesn't mean that employees shouldn't be concerned about their current working conditions.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by logan5

I think it will be at least a decade before cars will be fully autonomous. When that happens though, Uber should be way cheaper. Prices should be in line with what Car2Go charges - $0.32/min. Should be close to the same in theory anyways. It's a taxi level service where you are taking the paid driver out of the equation. At that price point, you are competing with public transit, considering how much more comfortable the ride is.

Public Transit would also become much cheaper without drivers, too, though.

For example:http://www.freightmetrics.com.au/Calculators%7CRoad/BusOperatingCost/tabid/671/Default.aspx

For example, setting driver bus costs to 0 in the default scenario on this calculator results in the cost per km decreasing from $3.21/km to $2.35/km.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Public Transit would also become much cheaper without drivers, too, though.

For example:http://www.freightmetrics.com.au/Calculators%7CRoad/BusOperatingCost/tabid/671/Default.aspx

For example, setting driver bus costs to 0 in the default scenario on this calculator results in the cost per km decreasing from $3.21/km to $2.35/km.

In a driver-less car scenario, Translink having a fleet of driver-less cars becomes more cost effective and efficient than having buses, where a lot of the time they (buses) are running while near empty. Buses are going to be phased out in the coming decades.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

In a driver-less car scenario, Translink having a fleet of driver-less cars becomes more cost effective and efficient than having buses, where a lot of the time they (buses) are running while near empty. Buses are going to be phased out in the coming decades.

But the streets are already near-gridlocked at rush hour. What happens when you distribute a bus full of transit riders into twelve cars? More gridlock.

The solution is to try and get more people out of cars and into buses, freeing up the streets, and in turn making buses more reliable, more popular and therefore most cost-efficient - a full bus is definitely cheaper than a dozen full cars.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The solution is to try and get more people out of cars and into buses, freeing up the streets, and in turn making buses more reliable, more popular and therefore most cost-efficient - a full bus is definitely cheaper than a dozen full cars.

During rush hour buses are full, but outside of that (averaging Metro wide) they run at less than half capacity and a lot of the time near empty. Even the Vancouver routes get empty when they get near their terminus points.

But the streets are already near-gridlocked at rush hour. What happens when you distribute a bus full of transit riders into twelve cars? More gridlock.

With a car service the passenger load would be spread out over a wide area. And driverless car technology would increase road capacity because they can react to the traffic much quicker than humans who are inattentive, especially at red lights. You would only need to increase road capacity by 20% or less, except for going into the dt peninsula.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

During rush hour buses are full, but outside of that (averaging Metro wide) they run at less than half capacity and a lot of the time near empty. Even the Vancouver routes get empty when they get near their terminus points.

That's traffic in general - all the roads are suddenly empty past 8 or 9pm. Even the SkyTrain is empty... yet it still turns a profit, because it carries hundreds of people at peak. One driverless car is going to be about as expensive as a half-full driverless bus, to say nothing of a full one.

Originally Posted by logan5

With a car service the passenger load would be spread out over a wide area. And driverless car technology would increase road capacity because they can react to the traffic much quicker than humans who are inattentive, especially at red lights. You would only need to increase road capacity by 20% or less, except for going into the dt peninsula.

Ever driven or been driven in Vancouver? There is no wide area to spread out over; all the side streets have been calmed - if not closed off entirely - to deter rat racing and force people onto the main roads. One closure like Nanaimo right now, and no amount of RAM or ingenuous programming will be able to prevent the Tesla sitting on Pender or Hastings for an hour.