
Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber - petethomas
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-08/vancouver-doesn-t-have-uber-it-boggles-the-mind
======
doublerebel
Public transportation is fine in Vancouver, but getting a taxi is still as bad
as ever. Many taxis simply choose not to show up, claim they have arrived when
they have not, and dispatch is mostly indifferent.

The Vancouver taxi app suffers from the same problems. No rating system, so
your driver can just abandon you or take a weird route.

These are the reasons Uber became so popular in other cities. If you are a
businessperson in Vancouver with an urgent need to get somewhere you basically
need a private driver.

Car2go and Evo car sharing services are good, but in competitively high
demand. (I have found myself literally racing others on foot for the available
ones.) Locals are desperate for driving solutions that don't involve long-term
parking. And that still leaves visitors out of luck.

------
untog
> Saks has used Uber in more than 60 cities; in Vancouver he paid a private
> driver $1,000 to ferry him around.

Then he is an utter idiot. How many of those 60 cities do you suppose had
perfectly workable public transit systems he could have used? I'd bet quite a
few of them.

Uber is great because it allows you to be lazy. Turn up in a city you've never
been to, hit a button, go. That doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to
do whatever they want, wherever they want.

When I'm in Vancouver I either use the (pretty good) public transport options,
or an app I found to reserve a taxi, which works just fine. Or (gasp) walk
around the beautiful city.

------
madiator
The article sounds one-sided in favor of Uber, but as a tourist who visited
the place recently, it would have been much easier for me if Uber/Lyft
operated.

The public transit may be nice, but as a tourist, I didn't bother with the bus
timings and such: it was way easier to get a cab. Under such circumstances,
Uber/Lyft may have made it much easier, especially since, at times we felt
flagging down a cab was impossible.

~~~
RodericDay
If you're not used to public transport in your home city, you probably
wouldn't know how to use it in a different city. For example, you can send a
text to any bus-stop, and immediately get a list of upcoming bus times. They
were also fully integrated to Map apps.

This is the sorest spot of "Uber culture" for me: wealthy and educated people
who would put skills and pressure into keeping public transit sharp and usable
for themselves (and therefore everybody else), instead "opt out" for their own
private needs and leave public transit to rot.

~~~
Grishnakh
It's not the job of wealthy and educated people to use their skills to fix
public transit, any more than it's my job as a private citizen on the East
Coast to reform the police department in LA (take your pick which "LA"). That
job belongs to the local government. If the local government is incompetent at
running public transit in an efficient manner so that both locals and visitors
can easily use it to get around, that's the fault of the local government. The
"wealthy and educated" people you refer to are not government officials, and
have no business telling the government what to do (they probably aren't even
constituents). So they're doing the only thing they can: making a private
service that solves a real problem and provides a real solution for many, many
people.

If local governments would like to learn from this and come up with their own
solutions, perhaps even hiring some of these smart people to help them, that'd
be great. But I don't see them doing any of that.

~~~
jessriedel
Los Alamos, NM!

------
caiob
Spotty public transit? Vancouver has one of the best public transportation
systems in North America. Honestly, Vancouverites aren't at all bothered by
the fact that Uber doesn't exist out there. The author clearly has never been
to other cities in Canada such as Toronto and/or Ottawa where commute is a
nightmare.

~~~
stealthefocus
I'm a Vancouver resident and the transit is great. The Skytrain is spotty in
its coverage. No East/West travel, which I believe is what they're referring
to.

Also after using Uber in Toronto, I am super jealous and want it here.

~~~
caiob
Jealousy is one thing, but do you _really_ need it?

~~~
wvenable
Why can't we have it?

------
RodericDay
Vancouver has an excellent SkyTrain + bus network, as well as a thriving
biking scene. Suprised to not see any of that mentioned in the article.

Although, the note the article ends in, it's pretty clear that it's an ad.

~~~
dsaum
The best source they could find for the article is someone who spent $1000 for
a private driver for two days... I visit Vancouver twice a year to spend time
with family. Downtown core is walkable. SkyTrain and express buses are often
significantly faster than driving when you factor in parking and traffic... An
extensive and affordable bike share system would be a great addition but the
same forces (incumbent lobbying) plus strict helmet laws seem to be
roadblocks...

~~~
wvenable
I don't understand the point of anecdotes like this. Simply because we have
reasonable transit (daytime hours only) and bike lines (if you have bike) that
we don't need any more options? That's not much of an argument. I'm not biking
home at 2:00am in December from a Christmas party.

------
optimali
Cab service is bad inside Vancouver and utterly miserable outside Vancouver
proper. If you are in the North shore, Burnaby, Tri-cities or further, you
pretty much have to book a cab well in advance and then call in to remind
them, and even then you may be better off just taking transit. Good luck
getting anywhere in a reasonable amount of time with out a car.

------
bhouston
Uber has a great PR team to get articles like this planted.

------
xemoka
Vancouver has called Uber exactly what it is: a limousine service. There is no
ifs, ands, or buts. The fact that they are able to masquerade in other regions
as they please because of the perceived benefit to consumers does not negate
the fact of what they really are.

This co-opting of the 'sharing economy' to mean unregulated subcontractors is
ridiculous. It removes the risk from Uber as a company and places it on the
clients and the drivers. Vancouver (and BC) has determined this a risk to
great.

If Uber wants to operate in this jurisdiction, they must play by the rules of
that jurisdiction. If they refuse, then so be it. They certainly aren't losing
money because of it, just losing OUT on it.

~~~
wvenable
They are limousine service because the law defines them that way, it's
circular logic. And the regulations on limousines exist to keep the taxi
monopoly running.

These regulations are not commandments from God, they can be changed. And it's
not immoral to try and change them. The current rules are terrible for
consumers.

~~~
RodericDay
"This zoning is residential because the law defines it that way" is only
"circular" if you dismiss all the history that led to that classification in
the first place.

The idea that literally all zoning and transport regulation came as a result
of the hotel/taxi lobby is ridiculous.

~~~
wvenable
"The idea that literally all..." is a straw man. Nobody has said that here.
But if they did, I agree it would be ridiculous.

------
serge2k
> Vancouver Is Silicon Valley North

What?

Since when?

Are they going to have big tech companies paying big tech company?

Is this just based on the outrageous housing prices?

> With spotty public transportation and a dearth of taxis, Canada's third-
> largest city seemed built for ride-sharing

Never had a problem with transit in vancouver. Taxis are stupidly expensive,
but skytrain + a bus is usually not too bad.

~~~
Grishnakh
Did you try taking public transit at 2AM? In many cities, the public transit
shuts down at some time in the evening, forcing people to use cabs (or Uber).
It's great if a city has decent public transit, but there's a reason why other
services have a role: some people are in a big hurry, others are caught out at
a time when there's no public transit available. There's also plenty of cases
where the public transit option just isn't very good for a particular route
(such as, in the NYC area, try going from Jersey City to Staten Island on
public transit).

------
tzs
> In May Daniel Saks, who runs a San Francisco cloud-services startup called
> App Direct, flew in for a two-day business trip. Saks has used Uber in more
> than 60 cities; in Vancouver he paid a private driver $1,000 to ferry him
> around.

He could have rented a car for around $50/day for a compact. Want something
more flashy? Mustang Convertible for around $80/day.

------
yladiz
I don't understand the apprehension to using public transportation, especially
in a city that has a genuinely good system. If the issue is time, fair enough,
Uber could be better, but with good enough planning you can get almost
anywhere with buses, the Skytrain, and just walking. If you have an absolutely
urgent need to get somewhere, I'd argue that you didn't plan well or you can
hire a driver for the day, because even with Uber unless you're in a city that
is at a high saturation level you're still gonna wait 5-10+ minutes for the
Uber to arrive.

Also: > "It's the only city in the world that I need to hire a driver"

He's never been to Seoul, one of the largest cities in the world, which also
has effectively no Uber presence...

~~~
wvenable
> I don't understand the apprehension to using public transportation

I use public transportation twice a day every weekday but that doesn't mean I
wouldn't also, occasionally, need to have need of Uber. They serve different
needs, is that so hard to understand?

> If you have an absolutely urgent need to get somewhere, I'd argue that you
> didn't plan well

If only there was a service that existed to help you get somewhere if
something goes terribly wrong with your plans! Somebody should turn that into
a business and make money.

~~~
yladiz
> They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand?

Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another.
They have different uses, sure, one being for something time sensitive and one
for something potentially not, but they do not serve different needs. It's not
fair to conflate need with want, because while humans generally need to get
from one point to another, they don't _need_ to use Uber. There are other
options.

> Somebody should turn that into a business and make money.

That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service.

~~~
wvenable
> Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to
> another.

By that argument, you don't need airplanes either because we have greyhound.
They don't serve the _same_ need, they serve _similar_ needs.

> They don't need to use Uber. There are other options.

So what? We don't need transit either, everybody could just take 2-4 hours to
walk to work. What's the difference? I'm taking your poor argument and
extending to the absurd conclusions that result from it. Why _must_ we have
fewer poorer options when we could have more better options? Is that not
progress?

> That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service.

Unfortunately, in Vancouver, that service is a monopoly that has too few
vehicles to serve the population. It has poor customer service that more often
than not fails to deliver. If this were a free market environment, competition
would come in and solve the problem but it is not.

Uber could be a better business model, could it not?

~~~
yladiz
Again, from walking to buses to airplanes, they serve the same need, to get
you from one point to another. How those methods do it is independent of their
purpose, even if one is demonstrably better at serving the need. Arguably the
only major difference in _need_ is that it's not physically possible to get to
some places with some methods of transportation, e.g. you cannot get from San
Francisco to England using a bus.

I'm also not saying that there _must_ be fewer options, and I'm saying there
are other options, not one single option (e.g. walking). I'm saying that it's
not necessary for Uber to exist because other options currently exist that
fill the exact same niche, even if those other options are potentially not as
efficient.

~~~
Malician
Then most anything is not necessary.

In theory, we could replace restaurants and kitchens with Soylent. I wouldn't
want to do that, because food tastes good and I like having that option.

On the list of things that are _useful,_ Uber is very high.

------
serge2k
While I disagree with the idea that Uber should have to charge $75/ride as a
limousine service, it's honestly refreshing to see a place that doesn't let
them flout regulation.

~~~
Grishnakh
No, it's really not. First off, it's not unique: there's a bunch of places
where they're outright banned or prevented from operating, such as Austin.
Second, forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive
them out of business altogether, without the government doing anything to
actually make the situation better for its citizens.

What enlightened local governments would do is figure out how to enact some
_sensible_ regulations on these new Uber-like services, and then let them set
their own prices and compete fairly. Sensible regulations would have to do
with employee treatment, such as the whole controversy about employees being
"contractors" (which is a hard problem: many of them _like_ working part-time,
and even work for multiple services simultaneously, taking calls from one
service or the other), and the controversy about how to deal with the auto
insurance (this one's easier: they could simply require Uber to self-insure
while a driver is on a call, but there's still an issue about when drivers are
between calls). But I don't see any attempts by cities to do anything like
this; they only want to prop up the existing taxi cartels, and do a terrible
job with public transit.

~~~
serge2k
> No, it's really not

Yes, it really is.

> forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive them out
> of business altogether, without the government doing anything to actually
> make the situation better for its citizens

They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some
great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you
rather they get lumped in with Taxi's and forced to follow all those regs?

> What enlightened local governments would do is figure out how to enact some
> sensible regulations on these new Uber-like services, and then let them set
> their own prices and compete fairly.

I agree. I support any efforts to bring in law changes to let Uber operate.

I don't support letting them just jump into the market and do what they want.

~~~
Grishnakh
>They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some
great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you
rather they get lumped in with Taxi's and forced to follow all those regs?

No, I'd rather the local governments get their heads out of their asses and
enact some sensible regulation instead of trying to kill the golden goose
that's finally giving people a service that actually works well and that they
like to use, unlike the taxis, and at a price that's affordable, unlike limos.
Uber is a great thing, but it's in uncharted territory regulation-wise and
does need some regulation to make sure that employees (yes, that's what they
are when they work for you) are treated fairly, that issues about insurance
are known and consistent, etc. I don't see anyone attempting to do this at
all.

>I don't support letting them just jump into the market and do what they want.

What's your alternative? The problem is that governments actively refuse to
govern properly, and instead work to protect incumbents. If Uber waited around
for good regulations to be enacted, they'd be waiting decades, if it got done
at all (in reality, it wouldn't). The only way to force governments to act is
to do what they've done. As the old saying goes, "it's better to beg
forgiveness than to ask permission". There's a reason this saying came about:
if you ask permission, most likely you'll be told "no", because people
(especially organizations, and most especially governments) hate change. If
you go and do it anyway, then the other parties just have to deal with it and
are forced to work with you.

~~~
serge2k
> What's your alternative?

Pressure governing bodies to bring in regulation to allow you to operate
legally.

Uber isn't some small business fighting against an unfair market. It's a
multi-billion dollar multinational corporation that deliberately flouts
regulation to attempt to gain a foothold and then strongarm their way to a
favorable outcome under threat of pulling service and pissing off voters.

~~~
Grishnakh
Uber only became a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation by
deliberately flouting regulation. They never would have gotten that way if
they had followed all the existing taxi regulations instead of lawyering up
and fighting it. Disruptive companies never succeed by playing by the rules
the incumbents set.

I'm really curious how you think a company would amass billions of dollars
without actually being in business first, providing a service, having
customers, and gaining revenue. Companies don't just start out as multi-
billion dollar multinational corporations.

------
kerkeslager
I got a popup with a countdown forcing me to leave it open for at least 5
seconds before I could close the popup, with the following text:

 _> We noticed that you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the
performance and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please
whitelist the site._

I've stated before[1] here how I feel about anti-adblock popups. If you don't
want me to view your content because I refuse to view ads, I'll respect your
wishes and move on.

However, I _don 't_ like being lied to.

Sure, in an indirect economic sense, viewing Bloomberg's content without
viewing ads will use their server cycles without providing them income, which
in the long run could cause them to run low on funds and have to cut spending
on servers, which could adversely affect the performance and content on the
site, _if_ Bloomberg continues to choose to operate on this business model. So
_technically_ yes, going on the website with an ad blocker is one factor (of
many, and not the primary factor) which could hurt site performance and
content.

But the wording here is very ambiguous. Nontechnical users reading this text
would likely believe from reading this that there is some technical reason
that ad blockers directly slow down website performance and content. And this
is _not_ the case; the direct impact of ad blockers is to _improve_ the
performance of websites and _improve_ the viewing of content. Unless we are to
believe that Bloomberg is technically ignorant, this ambiguity is intended to
deceive.

I'll add this to the list of unethical behaviors encouraged by advertising.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11901684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11901684)

