[rbt]

Same, used Hailo before they withdrew from the TO market. My issues with Uber isn't the concept - but the ethical behaviour of the company itself, which I consider as exploitative (not to say that existing taxicab operators aren't doing the same thing to their drivers either)

The whole system really should be razed to the ground.

I tend to agree. One way or another all operators need to be running with the same set of laws. Whether Uber steps up to the more strict set or regulations for existing cab companies are significantly loosened.

There's a reason why Uber doesn't simply sell a dispatch service to existing cab companies; their profit isn't from the app, their profit comes from brazenly breaking existing law around the service.

 

[Tuscani01]

Same, used Hailo before they withdrew from the TO market. My issues with Uber isn't the concept - but the ethical behaviour of the company itself, which I consider as exploitative (not to say that existing taxicab operators aren't doing the same thing to their drivers either)

The whole system really should be razed to the ground.

AoD

The company itself provides a much superior service than the existing services we have. The CEO may be a douchebag, but that doesn't mean the company is terrible too. They have a good product, and at the end of the day, the product stands on its own two feet.

I wouldn't say the company is being exploitative, as it does warn you when they 'price gouge'. Surge pricing helps them manage demand. On a day like yesterday, you'd be waiting for an hour to catch a regular cab. Uber charged more, but the wait was much less than traditional cab services. Why should you not be paying more for this?

The existing cab rules aren't there for consumer protection, they are there to protect the big cab companies. Anyone thinking that the rules in place are there to make the customer experience safer and better is being fooled by the existing cab companies who want to keep their monopoly on the market going. More competition will force them to step up their act, and loosening the rules will also make it easier for the little guys to operate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wouldn't say the company is being exploitative, as it does warn you when they 'price gouge'. Surge pricing helps them manage demand. On a day like yesterday, you'd be waiting for an hour to catch a regular cab. Uber charged more, but the wait was much less than traditional cab services. Why should you not be paying more for this?

I am not referring to the price gouge - more how the company exploited the drivers and locked them into the system.

The existing cab rules aren't there for consumer protection, they are there to protect the big cab companies. Anyone thinking that the rules in place are there to make the customer experience safer and better is being fooled by the existing cab companies who want to keep their monopoly on the market going. More competition will force them to step up their act, and loosening the rules will also make it easier for the little guys to operate.

I don't consider a transnational with a market value of $20B "little guys" by any stretch of the imagination. Just because the traditional cab companies aren't saints doesn't make newcomers saviours either.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

I don't consider a transnational with a market value of $20B "little guys" by any stretch of the imagination. Just because the traditional cab companies aren't saints doesn't make newcomers saviours either.

AoD

I wasn't referring to Uber as being the little guy. There are other companies out there offering the same service with different business models, however, our system is keeping them away.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wasn't referring to Uber as being the little guy. There are other companies out there offering the same service with different business models, however, our system is keeping them away.

No disagreement here - hence my position of the existing antiquated system should be raised to the ground.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

No disagreement here - hence my position of the existing antiquated system should be raised to the ground.

AoD

It needs to be rebuilt by cab drivers themselves, not the companies behind them. One thing I noticed when using Hailo was that every driver I spoke to was afraid of getting in trouble for using it. Not a single driver I asked was in favour of the existing system, and they all had some level of resentment towards the company they worked for.

If the companies aren't serving their driver's needs, or the consumer's needs, they are clearly only trying to serve themselves by lobbying hard against Uber and similar services. I'm glad Tory is finally stepping up and talking tough. Hopefully that translates to action.

 

[CDL.TO]

No disagreement here - hence my position of the existing antiquated system should be raised to the ground.

Razing it to the ground is tempting and my initial response, too. But what would a new system look like? I don't trust anything "self regulating" (which is why taxis got licensed in the first place). What would a system look like that permits flexibility while still ensuring a system that meets the needs of society?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It needs to be rebuilt by cab drivers themselves, not the companies behind them. One thing I noticed when using Hailo was that every driver I spoke to was afraid of getting in trouble for using it. Not a single driver I asked was in favour of the existing system, and they all had some level of resentment towards the company they worked for.

If the companies aren't serving their driver's needs, or the consumer's needs, they are clearly only trying to serve themselves by lobbying hard against Uber and similar services. I'm glad Tory is finally stepping up and talking tough. Hopefully that translates to action.

Indeed, the cab industry's opposition to Uber is protecting their turf, and has nothing to do with either improving cab service or empowering drivers. What I wanted to see is a system that does the latter - and Uber unfortunately isn't it - it's replacing one master with another.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Razing it to the ground is tempting and my initial response, too. But what would a new system look like? I don't trust anything "self regulating" (which is why taxis got licensed in the first place). What would a system look like that permits flexibility while still ensuring a system that meets the needs of society?

Oops, bad spelling on my part (razed not raised). Anyways, I think it should be a driver-based licensing system, with health/safety requirements being met at the level of the individual drivers. Individual drivers are free to organize their own cab cooperatives, hired by existing cab companies and/or some Uber/Hailo like system. There should be a separate set of regulations for said companies, mainly around maximum overhead, labour standards, etc.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

Razing it to the ground is tempting and my initial response, too. But what would a new system look like? I don't trust anything "self regulating" (which is why taxis got licensed in the first place). What would a system look like that permits flexibility while still ensuring a system that meets the needs of society?

Because the current system of regulation has really done wonders... We still deal with cabbies who harass passengers, cabbies who rip off passengers, unsafe cabs on the road, companies using illegal labour, and companies that have had ties to organized crime. The current system has not done a thing to improve conditions, and has only made it easier for existing companies to break the rules since there are no other alternatives for customers.

At least Uber lets you rate your specific driver, puts their drivers through much more rigorous background checks, provides more than adequate insurance for drivers, and makes all of this information public. How is the existing system better than this?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At least Uber lets you rate your specific driver, puts their drivers through much more rigorous background checks, provides more than adequate insurance for drivers, and makes all of this information public. How is the existing system better than this?

The existing system is awful, Uber is no better - and besides, an online rating system by a company is never about the quality of the drivers, or customer feedback per se, but monetizable advantages.

http://qz.com/299655/why-your-uber-driver-hates-uber/

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Removing the Gardiner will cause A LOT of traffic headaches (as we probably know already). Probably why the three majors were not in favour.

Not the part they were going to take down. Given that it's the least-cost option, they'll probably go through with the least-cost option.

 

[Tuscani01]

Not the part they were going to take down. Given that it's the least-cost option, they'll probably go through with the least-cost option.

Actually, the EA did say that it would cause more traffic and increase commute times, so yes... the part they were going to tear down would have caused traffic.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I agree with Tory's position. We should allow the system to evolve while still maintaining the core principles of what regulation is for in the first place. That being said, the city should decide how and when the system will evolve. They should take no direction what-so-ever from Uber or anyone who supports their service in particular.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Actually, the EA did say that it would cause more traffic and increase commute times, so yes... the part they were going to tear down would have caused traffic.

From the committee report:

Removal of the six-lane elevated Gardiner Expressway from Jarvis Street east;

* Widening of Lake Shore Boulevard east of Jarvis Street by two lanes into an eight-lane landscaped at-grade boulevard;
* The lowest overall public investment at $240 million net present value (NPV) because of significantly lower lifecycle costs despite a higher upfront capital cost than Maintain;
* Public land disposition proceeds of approximately $80 to 90 million NPV from the release of about 4 hectares of land (which could support 260,000 square metres of development)
* Highest compatibility with Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan principles and objectives as well as approved plans, such as the Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection EA, Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, Keating Channel Precinct Plan and the Port Lands Acceleration Initiative.

However, as discussed in Section 3.3 of this report, the Remove option was also estimated to increase travel times of some corridor trips by 5 to 10 minutes longer than the future 2031 Maintain condition (itself an additional 5 minutes over today's condition).

We could remove this abomination, get rid of an aestetic eyesore for residents, get $80-90 million in land sales, achieve 260,000 m2 of development, and adhere to our other development plans. And we aren't willing to do it because we don't want to burden car owners (who are a minority of transportation users going into and out of downtown) with an extra 5-10 minutes of drive time?!

Gutless politicians. There, I said it.