[crs1026]

When a union leader sounds particularly outraged, it's a sure sign that someone has touched a vulnerability that the union is afraid of.

It's not a far step from allowing private transit operators, to contracting out operations to any number of contractors. Need I point out that the UK's bus network is virtually all contracted out?

The TTC monopoly is so clearly written, I'm having trouble understanding why legal action isn't under way. Similarly, once Uber entertains 'hail' customers, the taxi legislation is equally clear. But I'm no lawyer.

Since when did Uber have "employees", anyways? That runs in the face of their whole argument that they are a 'sharing' service and not a business.

The City appears to be trying to let Uber succeed, without looking like they had anything to do with it. One suspects that undoing the revenue taken in from all those taxi medallions would be pricey.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

@crs1026

A lawsuit might be hard to prosecute though. The drivers are "independent contractors". So technically the city would have to sue them, I'd think. Uber is merely an app in this case. It's like saying that if you put up a carpool ad in your condo, that the city could sue your condo for running a competing service with the TTC. The legal arguments here are murky at best. That's why the city is reluctantly letting Uber along.

As for cancelling the taxi medallions. Unless there's something written in their licenses, I've always thought that the city could cancel them any time. Unless they've promised them a perpetual monopoly which can't be rescinded, I can't see the city not going against Uber just to lower the value of medallions.

 

[salsa]

You are right but I haven't seen the TTC push hard enough city council for short term solutions. Yes, it's the city's call but the TTC should have pushed this years ago and never let go of the pressure. King and Queen MUST have their own ROW to accommodate all those new passengers that will need to use the service as the downtown core density is increasing faster than the TTC/City can handle.

Actually, the TTC twice proposed a streetcar ROW on King in 2001 and 2007. But a car-friendly city council, under pressured by local businesses, rejected it.

 

[crs1026]

@crs1026
A lawsuit might be hard to prosecute though. The drivers are "independent contractors". So technically the city would have to sue them, I'd think. Uber is merely an app in this case. It's like saying that if you put up a carpool ad in your condo, that the city could sue your condo for running a competing service with the TTC. The legal arguments here are murky at best. That's why the city is reluctantly letting Uber along.

I had understood from the media writeups that the police had posed as Uber customers and had collected data on individual drivers with the intent of charging them individually. They could as individuals be charged for not having a taxi license or medallion (if the city wants to argue that they were effectively taxicabs) or a limousine license (if the city were to argue that they are limo's rather than taxi's).

As for Uber, the recent changes to the Municipal Code includes software for dispatching and brokering of limo and taxi requests -

any person who offers or licenses a smartphone application, website, or any other technology that connects passengers with limousine service or is held out as being for the purpose of connecting passengers with limousine service.

I'm guessing that Uber and drivers would argue that they are neither limo's nor taxi's, but something else. That doesn't prevent the City from passing bylaws regulating whatever Uber describes themselves as - the Municipal Code regulates a pile of stuff. Did you know that it's illegal to sell refreshments from a vehicle pulled by an animal? Item 545-38 G says just that.

As for cancelling the taxi medallions. Unless there's something written in their licenses, I've always thought that the city could cancel them any time. Unless they've promised them a perpetual monopoly which can't be rescinded, I can't see the city not going against Uber just to lower the value of medallions.

I am speculating about what might have been said or put in writing back when the Ambassador medallions were implemented, and/or any Council debates or discussions whenever the number of licenses has been changed. I would think that an argument along the lines of "the City assured me that we would have a monopoly for at least X years, and I relied upon this assurance in deciding to purchase a taxi medallion at a price of $X thousands, and now that value is destroyed" might be used.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, and just speculating. Tory said that they want to watch the existing trials before going any further.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

???

That's not how things work in San Francisco at all. The private shuttles mostly service suburban office campuses that probably would have had a <5% transit modal share without the buses. They're not poaching people from municipal services, or whatever poaching does occur is negligible.

Just so I understand, your argument is that if the city ran the exact same route with the exact same frequency and the exact same equipment and allowed employers to bulk-buy trips, that ridership would drop significantly as compared to current private shuttles?

In my eyes, the shuttles identify a large service gap in the cities transit offerings which might be implemented with significant efficiencies at large scale and much broader customer base. For a city with something like $20B to spend on transit over the next decade, they're missing some low-hanging investments.

I completely agree the modal share in that chunk of town is pretty poor.

 

[Bojaxs]

Not sure what the TTC Union is comlplaning about. Didn't the Government of Ontario release a less successful "ridesharing" app a year ago? No one complained about the legality of the app.

 

[BMO]

When I was in university a group of students started running a charter bus service on Fridays to transport people between the university towns in southern Ontario and Toronto. That was promptly stopped by the government. I'm starting to get a little ticked off with Uber acting like they don't need to follow the law. Those students had to stop because they couldn't afford to go to court and a bunch of other things that Uber can afford to do. Uber is essentially dipping into parcel delivery, taxi, and transit without having to take any of the hit in terms of taxes or any other capital expenses that are typically required to set these up. While there may be an issue with the system in general that bars these activities, and I think they should be looked at, I do think Uber needs some sort of fire lit under its feet to keep it humble.

 

[the lemur]

Exceptions

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of,

(a) rickshaws;

(b) pedicabs;

(c) railway companies incorporated under federal or provincial statutes;

(d) taxicabs;

(e) vehicles used for providing sightseeing tours;

(f) vehicles exclusively chartered to transport a group of persons for a specified trip within the City, for a group fee;

(g) buses owned and operated by or operated under a contract with a school board or private school;

(h) buses owned and operated by a corporation or organization solely for its own purposes, without charging a fee for transportation;

(i) ferries to the Toronto Islands;

(j) public buses on the Toronto Islands.

(k) Repealed: 2011, c. 9, Sched. 41, s. 2.​

When there was still that Airport Shuttle bus that would go round all the major hotels downtown and then to Pearson for $27, what exception was that covered by?

 

[dowlingm]

When there was still that Airport Shuttle bus that would go round all the major hotels downtown and then to Pearson for $27, what exception was that covered by?

Presumably that was provincially licenced, since I don't think it allowed pickups/dropoffs within the city, just to/from Mississauga International Aerodrome

 

[rbt]

When there was still that Airport Shuttle bus that would go round all the major hotels downtown and then to Pearson for $27, what exception was that covered by?

Great question. I believe (but have no way to confirm) that it was setup like a regional coach and they purchased their route from the province (by bid) in the same way that Grey-Bruce Airbus does.

If Uber was running a fixed-route scheduled shuttle from Square One to Union then they would not have have issues with Toronto or Mississauga by-laws; the province might have some thoughts on it though.

 

[the lemur]

Presumably that was provincially licenced, since I don't think it allowed pickups/dropoffs within the city, just to/from Mississauga International Aerodrome

But if it made scheduled stops and went to the airport, wasn't it competing with the Airport Rocket?

 

[kEiThZ]

I wonder if Uber-Hop can be argued as offering a competing service to the city. It's essentially sharing a cab from one pre-determined point to another. But it's not on a schedule of any kind.

If a taxi company set up a stand in Liberty village and four people jumped into every cab and all paid $5 to get dropped at Union, would the city/TTC have the right to sue?

 

[crs1026]

The vehicle capacity is interesting because it puts the service in the range of the legal definition of a taxi or limo rather than a bus. The legal wording of the TTC's monopoly explicitly excludes taxicabs (but not limos).

The old Airport Express may have been provincially licensed, or the TTC may have granted an exemption, which they have the power to give. Remember that before United Trails (IIRC - or was it Pacific Western?) started the Airport bus, Gray Coach once had service to the Airport, but TTC chose to give it up.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

Great question. I believe (but have no way to confirm) that it was setup like a regional coach and they purchased their route from the province (by bid) in the same way that Grey-Bruce Airbus does.

If Uber was running a fixed-route scheduled shuttle from Square One to Union then they would not have have issues with Toronto or Mississauga by-laws; the province might have some thoughts on it though.

It was a Grey Coach service; Pacific Western took over the Downtown-Airport bus as well as the Islington Station-Airport Bus and the York Mills/Yorkdale-Airport Express. Grey Coach was a subsidiary of the TTC, sold in 1989.

PW got rid of the Islington-Airport bus, and cancelled the North York-Airport run about the same time the TTC 192 was introduced. GO operates a similar express bus service today (Route 34).

 

[dowlingm]

But if it made scheduled stops and went to the airport, wasn't it competing with the Airport Rocket?

I don't think a TTC route that crosses the city boundary has CoTA monopoly protection. 192 does cross the boundary. The hotel buses did not sell journeys that started AND ended within the city limits.