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

[Sheba]

B.C. NDP to introduce ride-hailing legislation in November

The provincial government is expected to introduce long awaited ride-hailing legislation this month.

Premier John Horgan said Tuesday he expects to have it before the House and passed before MLAs rise for their Christmas break.

"Within the next two weeks it will be introduced and I expect that with the amount of support that we have in the legislature that it will be passed," Horgan said.

While a ride-hailing bill may be passed into law by the end of 2018, don't expect to see Uber and Lyft on the roads by January. ​

Horgan said the government has to look into changes to insurance packages and a requirement for criminal record checks for drivers.

He says the government wants to make sure the playing field is level for new entrants and those already in the sector.

"A lot of work to do, but we're confident that we're well on our way, and the legislation will set the table for that into the new year," said Horgan.

A Lyft spokesperson said in an emailed statement the company was looking forward to reviewing the upcoming legislation "with the hope of bringing Lyft to B.C. as soon as possible."

The province has said the fall of 2019 is expected to be the target date for ride-hailing companies to operate legally in B.C.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Sheba

B.C. NDP to introduce ride-hailing legislation in November

Ohh there really going to try to fight the Indian taxi lobby, did not expect this.

[osirisboy]

All of this is nonesense. So much legislation and red tape here.

I still don't get how ride sharing is even "illegal". If I pick my friend up at the airport and they give me money for that, have I broken the law? Ugh

[misher]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

All of this is nonesense. So much legislation and red tape here.

I still don't get how ride sharing is even "illegal". If I pick my friend up at the airport and they give me money for that, have I broken the law? Ugh

The government highly regulated the taxi industry setting prices, selling licenses at a premium, etc.

So of course taxis are mad because a huge amount of money went to the government in order for them to follow the rules.

Its like you bought a piece of land from the government, paid taxes, did all this work to develop it, got your permits, built your house and suddenly squatters set up shop on the land beside it and built their own house with no permits and without paying for the land.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

All of this is nonesense. So much legislation and red tape here.

I still don't get how ride sharing is even "illegal". If I pick my friend up at the airport and they give me money for that, have I broken the law? Ugh

Because characterizing Uber or Lyft as the above is disingenuous. They may have initially promoted themselves as a way of connecting to people who are going the same way as you and might need a ride, but let's be real. They are taxi companies you order from your phone.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily against them, but I have the opposite view - I'm shocked they've become legal with such little relative resistance across North America, considering the heavily guarded regulation of taxi medallions.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Because characterizing Uber or Lyft as the above is disingenuous. They may have initially promoted themselves as a way of connecting to people who are going the same way as you and might need a ride, but let's be real. They are taxi companies you order from your phone.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily against them, but I have the opposite view - I'm shocked they've become legal with such little relative resistance across North America, considering the heavily guarded regulation of taxi medallions.

I don't think it's disingenuous, that's exactly what it is. And there hasn't been a lot of resistance is Because we are a free market place. Governments role should be limited to public safety etc. Other than that it should get out of the way

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by misher

The government highly regulated the taxi industry setting prices, selling licenses at a premium, etc.

So of course taxis are mad because a huge amount of money went to the government in order for them to follow the rules.

Its like you bought a piece of land from the government, paid taxes, did all this work to develop it, got your permits, built your house and suddenly squatters set up shop on the land beside it and built their own house with no permits and without paying for the land.

So let's continue over regulating everything so it's fair for the taxi industry? sorry that's not a valid reason. And that's not the governments role.

[misher]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

So let's continue over regulating everything so it's fair for the taxi industry? sorry that's not a valid reason. And that's not the governments role.

No I'm saying the taxi industry played by the rules and paid a huge amount of money for their licenses. You can't just say too bad and kick them to the curb. The taxi industry has been heavily regulated with the government setting the amount of taxis that can operate. That level of control can't just be given up. Plus the taxi industry has played by the rule and spent millions on licenses that would then become worthless. Even the prices taxis charged are set by the government.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by misher

No I'm saying the taxi industry played by the rules and paid a huge amount of money for their licenses. You can't just say too bad and kick them to the curb. At least if you want their votes you don't.

Risk of doing business. Things change, industries change

Also, as shown in other cities. People will still use regular taxis.

[theKB]

I wonder how this will unfold when services like waymo come calling where there is no driver. The death of the taxi industry is imminent as it is today. If this service, daimler and any other services in the works (GM expects to have an autonomous vehicle next year). The "cab driver" will be max a decade before they are irrelevant.

Waymo is expecting to roll out initial services by years end.

https://9to5google.com/2018/11/14/waymo-self-driving-car-service-nears-launch/

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by misher

No I'm saying the taxi industry played by the rules and paid a huge amount of money for their licenses. You can't just say too bad and kick them to the curb. The taxi industry has been heavily regulated with the government setting the amount of taxis that can operate. That level of control can't just be given up. Plus the taxi industry has played by the rule and spent millions on licenses that would then become worthless. Even the prices taxis charged are set by the government.

The taxi industry set all the rules, they didn't play by them. They don't donate money to politicians for no reason. They are the ones that created a horrible service for consumers to the point where even the NDP can't protect them.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I don't think it's disingenuous, that's exactly what it is.

I definitely disagree here, but it doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

And there hasn't been a lot of resistance is Because we are a free market place. Governments role should be limited to public safety etc. Other than that it should get out of the way

I meant resistance on the part of governments. We may be overall a free market place and you may think that governments should be limited to keeping us safe, but in the taxi industry, this definitely hasn't been the case. It has been very, very heavily regulated for many years, and for that reason, I'm surprised governments just went and said "oh well, just have at 'er now!" Again, not saying good or bad, just surprised that's how it went down for the most part.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The taxi industry set all the rules, they didn't play by them. They don't donate money to politicians for no reason. They are the ones that created a horrible service for consumers to the point where even the NDP can't protect them.

Yup! Exactly.

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by misher

No I'm saying the taxi industry played by the rules and paid a huge amount of money for their licenses. You can't just say too bad and kick them to the curb. The taxi industry has been heavily regulated with the government setting the amount of taxis that can operate. That level of control can't just be given up. Plus the taxi industry has played by the rule and spent millions on licenses that would then become worthless. Even the prices taxis charged are set by the government.

What industry and the employees in that business have ever been protected by the government from technological change, bad management, competition or changing consumer tastes.

To the best of my recollection (outside of Quebec), none. So all the share holders, investors, employees and debt holders of thousands of companies who have lost money and jobs as a result of becoming redundant, because of technology or competition or bad business decisions or whatever get nothing.

So why should taxi drivers, companies and owners get anything because their companies are put out of business because of technology, completion, etc get protected by the government? What makes them different from every other industry?

[240glt]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

All of this is nonesense. So much legislation and red tape here.

I still don't get how ride sharing is even "illegal". If I pick my friend up at the airport and they give me money for that, have I broken the law? Ugh

The term "ride sharing" as applied towards Uber or Lyft is disingenuous. It's not ride sharing. That term is just tossed around because the so-called sharing economy is a trend these days and the term makes people feel good about themselves.

I use Uber a fair bit, more in the states because the cabs suck so bad. I do like Uber but basically what happened in Edmonton is that all the cab drivers just started driving for Uber. At the beginning you'd get rides from a dude who's just trying to earn a few buck in his spare time but I think everyone's pretty much realized that you can't make any money doing that so most of the Uber drivers now are driving full time in cars that are specifically used just for Uber. So yes the quality of the service has gone down.

But holy crap does Vancouver need it. We got stuck at a restaurant on Commercial a few years back when it started to snow and there were zero cabs available. Luckily we know the owner of the restaurant so after we waited two hours he gave us a ride back downtown.

[WarrenC12]

Worth noting that Uber just lost $1B during Q3, on revenue of $3B, and bookings of $13B. That's a hell of a lot of money that Silicon Valley bros are still subsidizing their rides. Growth of 6%, so nothing crazy anymore.

Uber has a much more convenient interface (app), doesn't require the awkward money exchange, and there's a rating system for passengers and drivers. All of those are good things.

However, they haven't magically solved the cost of driving people around. The company is bleeding incredible amounts of money, and drivers aren't making much when accounting for their expenses. This shows that the "cheap" rides of Uber aren't a reality.

I hate cabs, but ride-hailing isn't perfect.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Worth noting that Uber just lost $1B during Q3, on revenue of $3B, and bookings of $13B. That's a hell of a lot of money that Silicon Valley bros are still subsidizing their rides. Growth of 6%, so nothing crazy anymore.

Uber has a much more convenient interface (app), doesn't require the awkward money exchange, and there's a rating system for passengers and drivers. All of those are good things.

However, they haven't magically solved the cost of driving people around. The company is bleeding incredible amounts of money, and drivers aren't making much when accounting for their expenses. This shows that the "cheap" rides of Uber aren't a reality.

I hate cabs, but ride-hailing isn't perfect.

Yep. Uber's story isn't even close to being finished yet. Their only hope for success is to get to fully automated vehicles before the investment capital subsidizing all of their rides runs out. A race that is in no way guaranteed to finish in Uber's favour.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by 240glt

The term "ride sharing" as applied towards Uber or Lyft is disingenuous. It's not ride sharing. That term is just tossed around because the so-called sharing economy is a trend these days and the term makes people feel good about themselves.

I use Uber a fair bit, more in the states because the cabs suck so bad. I do like Uber but basically what happened in Edmonton is that all the cab drivers just started driving for Uber. At the beginning you'd get rides from a dude who's just trying to earn a few buck in his spare time but I think everyone's pretty much realized that you can't make any money doing that so most of the Uber drivers now are driving full time in cars that are specifically used just for Uber. So yes the quality of the service has gone down.

But holy crap does Vancouver need it. We got stuck at a restaurant on Commercial a few years back when it started to snow and there were zero cabs available. Luckily we know the owner of the restaurant so after we waited two hours he gave us a ride back downtown.

Exactly. Uber even publishes guides to their drivers now on where to hang out and find more passengers. Even if they're not full time workers, this isn't a case of people giving one ride a day or anything like that. People driving Ubers do it specifically for that purpose as a job, whether full-time or part-time.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Worth noting that Uber just lost $1B during Q3, on revenue of $3B, and bookings of $13B. That's a hell of a lot of money that Silicon Valley bros are still subsidizing their rides. Growth of 6%, so nothing crazy anymore.

Uber has a much more convenient interface (app), doesn't require the awkward money exchange, and there's a rating system for passengers and drivers. All of those are good things.

However, they haven't magically solved the cost of driving people around. The company is bleeding incredible amounts of money, and drivers aren't making much when accounting for their expenses. This shows that the "cheap" rides of Uber aren't a reality.

I hate cabs, but ride-hailing isn't perfect.

Valid points. As much as I want ride-hailing to come here, I'm not entirely sold on the business model or practices of Uber or any other company.

On the other hand, the legislation is still sorely needed. Why are we still trying to protect and subsidize the failing and antiquated taxi industry? As long as we have proper laws and protections in place, let the market decide how best to deliver ride/taxi services.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yep. Uber's story isn't even close to being finished yet. Their only hope for success is to get to fully automated vehicles before the investment capital subsidizing all of their rides runs out. A race that is in no way guaranteed to finish in Uber's favour.

Yep. Uber made some big strides in driverless testing a few years back, but I haven't heard anything lately.

Meanwhile Google seems to have leapfrogged everybody:

https://9to5google.com/2018/11/14/waymo-self-driving-car-service-nears-launch/