Posts Tagged ‘uber’
[URBAN NOTE] “Transit’s “last mile” solution may be mobility-as-a-service companies”
Spacing Toronto’s John Lorinc reports.
I loath Rogers just as much as the next red-blooded Canadian, and, on certain days, possibly even more. But I have to give the telecom conglomerate, and others like it, credit for figuring out how to promote the idea of bundling all sorts of services and options, plus financial incentives, into an all-in-one offering.
My question is whether there’s something positive to be learned from this particular marketing/pricing strategy that could build on the proliferation of mobility options now available in large urban areas that still struggle to deal with the so-called first mile/last mile problem.
The explosive popularity of Uber has certainly prompted policy-makers to consider the prospect of joining forces with ride-sharing companies as a means of providing more coordinated options in areas not well served by transit.
According to a 2015 article in CityLab, cities like Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis have established service or payment partnerships with Uber. Late last month, the Toronto Transit Commission accepted a recommendation from CEO Andy Byford to study how the agency (and the City) might pilot an on-demand ride sharing service that conforms with the TTC’s policy of requiring transportation providers to only use accessible vehicles.
Metrolinx in August also put out a report prepared by the University of Toronto’s Mowat Centre calling for more coordination between transit agencies, including Metrolinx, and ride-, car- and bike-sharing organizations, with a proposal that the integration should be delivered to riders via the Presto card.
[URBAN NOTE] “Embrace new transit technology or else, U of T study says”
The Toronto Star‘s Jesse Winters notes the call to assimilate Uber into GTA transit planning.
Transit planners across the Toronto and Hamilton region can either embrace new and disruptive technology like Uber, or resign themselves to a future of endless gridlock compounded by striking taxi drivers and a gutted public transit system that hardly anyone uses, according to a new report by the University of Toronto’s Mowat Centre.
“That’s a pretty decent takeaway from the report,” said co-author Sara Ditta with a laugh.
While that dystopian vision comes from the report’s somewhat stylized worst-case-scenario description, Ditta said the themes underpinning it are serious and pressing.
“The fact is that shared mobility is here,” Ditta said. “It has and will continue to change how people travel, and policy makers need to take steps to address that.”
“Shared mobility” is the term Ditta and her colleagues use to describe the current shift away from personal ownership of things like bikes and cars toward shared use of those resources though apps such as Uber and Lyft, publicly-owned bike share programs and other innovations of the so-called “sharing economy.”
[URBAN NOTE] “Mississauga City Council Was Right to Reverse its Ban on Uber”
Torontoist’s Erik McLaren makes a fervent case that Mississauga city council should not have tried to regulate Uber, on account that such was not within its purview. I’m skeptical of this: Regulating transit obviously is, and for good reason.
Toronto isn’t a hub of innovation. The venture capital community is famous for its stinginess, and we’re regressive when it comes to any disruptive technology. Fintech companies, for example, are having a hard time breaking in to Toronto, while their peers thrive in London and New York. There’s a reason we need to look to America to give us an imagined idea of our entrepreneurial spirit. That’s why we invent phrases like “Silicon Valley North,” so we can feel like we’re moving the right direction.
The problem is uniquely Canadian: we move too slow. In the modern economy, workers like cab drivers, who ideally work an eight-hour shift five days per week and take home enough money to make a solid living, will soon disappear. Canadian cities are at a crossroads where they can accept companies like Uber, the most divisive organization in the sharing economy today, or they can try their damnedest to ignore what consumers in their cities want, like Mississauga did.
But even the City of Mississauga has failed in this regard when it reversed its ban on Uber this week. It’s a sign of changing times: Canadian cities must accept the new norm that Uber brings, or face the consequence of irate citizens.
Mississauga councillors’ move to order Uber to cease operations in the city was done for ostensibly sound reasons. “I doubt the City of Mississauga is gonna sit down with someone who’s not willing to follow the rules at all,” said Mississauga Councillor George Carlson, who voted to ban Uber in April.
Uber, however, has been involved in the regulatory frameworks that have been established by Toronto, Edmonton, and Ottawa. While the company has pushed for its best interests—that is, to exist without regulation in cities like Mississauga—it is still playing by the rules.
[URBAN NOTE] “Meet the Montrealer who gave Uber a jolt”
Sunday, the Toronto Star printed Sandro Content’s article about a Montréal businessman who is challenging the Uber model with a fleet of electric cars.
Alexandre Taillefer’s father taught him to read a newspaper upside down at the age of 5. It seemed no more than a game at the time, certainly less practical than the lessons that soon followed in how to play the stock market. But it taught him to look at things differently, an ability that helped make him a rich man.
As with so many of Quebec’s public figures, Taillefer’s high profile is largely restricted to the province. But that could soon change. He’s the Quebec poster boy for the battle against Uber, a crusade he plans to bring to Toronto next year.
[. . .]
The head of Montreal’s board of trade, Michel Leblanc, calls Taillefer the bearer of a “third way” business philosophy between scorched-earth “disruption” and ossified status quo. The best example, Leblanc says, is Taillefer’s fledgling taxi company, called Téo.
It’s a bizarro-world reflection of both Uber and the traditional taxi industry. Its name a French acronym for “optimized ecological transportation,” Téo’s only similarity to Uber is the app-based hailing and payment service.
The differences begin with Téo’s fleet, which are all electric cars owned by the company. App software glitches since the launch last November often kept its initial 60 cars off the road until fixes were completed in early April. Taillefer plans to have 1,000 cars by 2018, a total investment of $250 million.
The more radical difference is Téo’s model of drivers as company employees. They earn $15 an hour ($4.25 more than Quebec’s minimum wage), work eight-hour shifts, receive benefits including two weeks of vacation and company contributions to Quebec’s pension plan, and are eligible for workers’ compensation in case of injury.
A Bit More Detail 