Taxis & Ridesharing - articles, discussion ...

[techblitz]

Uber Surge Pricing: $300 fare turned into a $1,000 fare. https://t.co/yQa0KCFrQ6 #Uber #7News https://t.co/h48IHSW1ju

— 7 News Queensland (@7NewsQueensland) January 3, 2016

i dont get it...uber explicitly says that the upfront cost is there for the customer to agree to or not....if they think its too expensive then so be it......so why does that expected say 300 dollars and the real fare 1000 dollars?

[#Metro]

i dont get it...uber explicitly says that the upfront cost is there for the customer to agree to or not....if they think its too expensive then so be it......so why does that expected say 300 dollars and the real fare 1000 dollars?

Because there are some really dumb people on Earth. Maybe they think if they do something dumb, then scream about it later they will get a refund.

It's a penalty rate, just like worker penalty rates. You work special events, public holidays etc - penalty rate for the worker. It's the same thing here.

Uber is also not a monopoly. People can wait, catch a taxi, or catch FREE PT.

[James]

Surge pricing is a very effective mechanism for a variety of reasons.

Look at this from the perspective of the driver - he's just earned $800 (Uber takes a 20% cut of all fares, I believe). Why wouldn't you ditch your friends on New Year's Eve if you can earn $1000+ in a night? The only other jobs which pay that much in a night are the ones that you wouldn't put on your resume (haha). Meanwhile, the cab industry is stuck with the usual Tarrif 3/6/9 fares, meaning a cabbie will earn not much more on NYE than he would on a busy Saturday night. It is likely that the cabbie has been forced on to the roster in this case, and there is much less incentive for them to work.

Surge pricing also ensures that there is always a vehicle available, so if you need to get home quickly, you can do so - no need to wait in a line for a cab for over an hour. If the surge pricing is so high that nobody will use Uber, the surge price will reduce to a level where people are willing to bear the extra cost in exchange for the easier access (no waiting in line, saved time getting home etc.).

Uber merely uses free market forces. They sent out an email about surge pricing to all users before NYE anyway - ignorance is no excuse really.

[hU0N]

i dont get it...uber explicitly says that the upfront cost is there for the customer to agree to or not....if they think its too expensive then so be it......so why does that expected say 300 dollars and the real fare 1000 dollars?

There is definitely something funny with that receipt. The distances are for a 10km, 17min journey, but the numbers add up to a 77km, 1h 40min journey. And the estimated $300 fare would be for a 20km, 30min journey (approximately).

This makes me doubt that the receipt shown in the news report is genuine. In any case, he took a journey that usually costs over $160 (assuming he used uber before), agrees to a 7x multiplier before booking and is shocked when 7x160 is what it has been since the beginning of time.

So he goes on the news and complains, showing a receipt that seems to imply that he originally booked for 20km, only went 10km and ended up 77km from where he started with a 77km fare to show for it.

Right...

[hU0N]

Sorry to harp on it, but best case scenario, this dude agrees to pay $300 for a 20km ride, then once he's in the car decides to travel four times as far, for which he is charged just under four times the estimate. So he quickly Photoshops his receipt to try and make it look like an uber malfunction, then rings channel seven. The first thing he says to them is, "I took a 77km cab ride the other day and I have the receipt to prove it.."

Regardless what you think about Uber or surge pricing or whatever, this guy is a gold plated moron.

[#Metro]

Uber merely uses free market forces. They sent out an email about surge pricing to all users before NYE anyway - ignorance is no excuse really.

Even I got an e-mail a day or two before from Uber saying that there was surge pricing and that I could wait, catch PT etc. There are people who deliberately get themselves really deep into the poo, and then expect to make a big noise about it and use that as leverage to get the thing refunded.

It's a penalty wage for people who have to give up NYE - one day a year that you don't get back - that you could have spent with friends and family etc.

[ozbob]

Uber is a just a money grab in the end.  It seems benign and benevolent at present.  Already issues and cracks appearing all over.

I will be very surprised if Governments continue to give them carte blanche

Some form of regulation will appear no doubt.  Righto !  lol

[ozbob]

Uber merely uses free market forces. They sent out an email about surge pricing to all users before NYE anyway - ignorance is no excuse really.

Even I got an e-mail a day or two before from Uber saying that there was surge pricing and that I could wait, catch PT etc. There are people who deliberately get themselves really deep into the poo, and then expect to make a big noise about it and use that as leverage to get the thing refunded.

It's a penalty wage for people who have to give up NYE - one day a year that you don't get back - that you could have spent with friends and family etc.

I regularly worked New Years Eve as a medical scientist doing critical laboratory tests and transfusion support.  I did not expect or felt entitled to 800% wage increase.  Many colleagues past and present think like wise.  Uber is a very greedy outfit.  If they were really genuine there would be a surge cap.  A cap of 2 to 3 times should be the absolute maximum, and then reserved for events such as NYE.  Most surge pricing should be in the range of 30 to 50% increase.   

If Uber continues along this massive ripoff surge price approach two things will happen.

1.  People will abandon the service.

2.  Others will come into the game with a much more stable and realistic price structure.

You're welcome 

[#Metro]

There are many companies past and present that went bankrupt because of one thing or another. This is the natural way things evolve. If people want to use taxi, they still can. Free PT options are also available. Or wait.

The surging is the reason why there is little or no wait for the Uber vehicle. If the price is set below this, there will be a waiting period.
You have possibly 100 000 people trying to get home all at once. Taxis offer a long wait, Uber offers a high price. Take your pick.

[petey3801]

Uber may be greedy, but it's not a hidden greed, that's the thing! It is there for all to see before they choose to ride. If someone was actually stupid enough to travel what would normally be a $200 fare after they had been told it was a 6x surge price, then they deserve to be screwed. I think it's time to pull back the nanny state that we've got going in this country and let people learn from their mistakes again.
It's not like Uber is a monopoly business. There are plenty of other options available if one doesn't want to pay the surge pricing!

[#Metro]

And before anyone talks about greed/profit, Uber is a loss making business. It hasn't turned a profit.

Here Are the Internal Documents that Prove Uber Is a Money Loser
http://gawker.com/here-are-the-internal-documents-that-prove-uber-is-a-mo-1704234157

$50 billion Uber is losing $20 million a year
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ubers-revenue-profit-and-loss-2015-8

[#Metro]

Uber may be greedy, but it's not a hidden greed, that's the thing! It is there for all to see before they choose to ride. If someone was actually stupid enough to travel what would normally be a $200 fare after they had been told it was a 6x surge price, then they deserve to be screwed. I think it's time to pull back the nanny state that we've got going in this country and let people learn from their mistakes again.

I guess this is the same class of people that drive their car into the sea because the GPS told them so. 
I didn't know! There was no warning!!

[ozbob]

Uber is a sham.   Couldn't care a fig leaf about their so called loss and profit.  They are out to displace other transport systems to then screw everyone.  Some of us can see that, others well ...  take. your. chances.

[techblitz]

Uber is also not a monopoly

wrong......uber says it is not a taxi company...where have you been the last 12 months? they have been explictly saying that.

Ride-sourcing drivers use their own cars to transport paying passengers who book the ride through a smartphone app. The ATO believes this constitutes taxi services. Uber disagrees.

They say they are a ridesharing company......fair enough...and i say they are a monopoly in the ridesharing market....uber operate in 58 countries........their biggest competitior is lyft which only operates in 65 cities in the U.S.......on a market percentage...UBER dominates and hence is a monopoly.

[#Metro]

wrong......uber says it is not a taxi company...where have you been the last 12 months? they have been explictly saying that.

Irrelevant. The good produced is the same - transporting a person from point to point on demand.

TechBlitz, monopolies cannot charge what they want (believe it or not), because if they charge too much people will leave. The real monopoly is the taxi cartel where there are only two main networks which have gov't supported price-fixing and cost the amount of a house to get into.

http://blackandwhitecabs.com.au/brisbane/buying-a-licence

WHAT DOES A TAXI LICENCE COST?

As of October 2014, standard Taxi Licences are selling at around $525,000.00 plus Stamp Duty (approximately $17,700.00 based on a purchase price of $525,000.00) plus GST if applicable.

If you want to talk about monopolies/cartels/greed/profits, that's where it's at ^^^

If people don't like Uber, for whatever reason, that's fine. Don't use the service then. But I wouldn't go around stopping people who want to. Plenty of other ways to get around. 

[red dragin]

Talking to a taxi licence holder yesterday (who can't get a buyer for his licence due to Uber).

He raised the point, albeit a taxi industry spiel based one, that Uber come in illegally, and then force the government to change the laws to suit Uber.

Two issues I have with Uber:

• It is not "ridesharing" when they are operating like a taxi service
• If I went and set up a rail operator/bottle shop/pharmacy etc without a licence, I'd be up on charges, but Uber hasn't received this treatment

Yes, the taxi industry is a duopoly, but this was to control the amount of cabs on the road to keep the industry safe and feasible.

[techblitz]

Irrelevant. The good produced is the same - transporting a person from point to point on demand.

your talking about transport model...im talking about the fare model...of which both UberX & everyday taxis are vastly different.....where did i say that taxis were NOT a monopoly in the australian passenger transport industry? They are......UBER is currently a monopoly in the "user pays dependant on number of drivers available" market.....
monopolies exert enough market force to contain/shut down current and future competition...in this industry its all about how much financial backing you have in dollar terms.......uber/google reign supreme.....if no-one can compete with them then they THEY ARE A MONOPOLY.....so much so that they exerted enough market force in the states to successfully wipe out one of their other competitors...

[red dragin]

http://blackandwhitecabs.com.au/brisbane/buying-a-licence

WHAT DOES A TAXI LICENCE COST?

As of October 2014, standard Taxi Licences are selling at around $525,000.00 plus Stamp Duty (approximately $17,700.00 based on a purchase price of $525,000.00) plus GST if applicable.

Speaking to the taxi licence holder, he has said that a licence has always cost about the same as the average Brisbane house for as long as he can remember.

Keep in mind, there are a fixed amount of licences (it is for the cab itself, not the driver). The market is/was willing to pay that amount, it is just like selling any business. A McDonalds franchise will be no different.

[petey3801]

Uber is also not a monopoly

wrong......uber says it is not a taxi company...where have you been the last 12 months? they have been explictly saying that.

Ride-sourcing drivers use their own cars to transport paying passengers who book the ride through a smartphone app. The ATO believes this constitutes taxi services. Uber disagrees.

They say they are a ridesharing company......fair enough...and i say they are a monopoly in the ridesharing market....uber operate in 58 countries........their biggest competitior is lyft which only operates in 65 cities in the U.S.......on a market percentage...UBER dominates and hence is a monopoly.

You're kidding, aren't you? That's like saying QR is a monopoly because they aren't a taxi. Just because they say they're not a taxi, it automatically makes them a monopoly? What a load of bollocks. They are a transportation service. They are nowhere near being a monopoly as a transport medium.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Why you were wrong to mock woman who paid $720 for Uber

An office administrator charged the cost of a return flight to Bali for a trip to Blacktown who then had the nerve to complain about it. What thigh-slapping idiocy, right?

Didn't she realise Uber's surge pricing is well known? Besides, it's simple supply and demand.

Congratulations on your recall of high school economics.

The app requires people to acknowledge surge pricing - in this case 7.9.

But here's a thought: we don't live in a textbook, or a weird anarcho-capitalist fever dream.

Quite the contrary.

Australian society is built on the principle of protecting consumers from making disastrous choices against their own self-interest, even when they choose to.

Want to take out a small loan?

A lot more companies would offer one if they could charge 500 per cent. But regulators have capped rates at one-tenth that amount, even if you want to sign for a worse deal.

Many said that this unfortunate passenger was told explicitly that she was in for a gouging on December 31 and so deserves no sympathy.

The app does require people to acknowledge they will pay a higher surge price.

Specifically, they must type in the number by which their regular fare will be multiplied. In this case, this required keying in the number 7.9.

That is consent, sure. But could it be clearer? Certainly.

Uber's app can already provide customers with an estimate of the cost of their fare on a separate screen. Why didn't they ask this woman to sign off on a screen that told her the fare would cost between $600-$700 instead of the more abstract concept of a multiplier?

My guess is Uber makes more money that way.

You can say buyer beware. And it's easy to if you caught your first Uber five years ago on holiday in Brooklyn before anyone here had heard of it. (They call corner stores bodegas there by the way).

But the people who invariably get stung, like our hapless protagonist, are using the app for the first time. And, yes, they might have had a few drinks too.

You can say she should have done the sums herself. But who can't relate to blithely agreeing to pages of terms and conditions before later feeling aggrieved when we find out we've granted Mark Zuckerberg the right to remotely access our camera phones when we're in the bath?

But the big question about surge pricing is whether it serves the purpose for which it is intended, which is putting more cars on the road.

Some recent research suggests that it doesn't.

One found that surge pricing mostly has the effect of moving cars around, not bringing more onto the road. It can also draw drivers away from areas where prices are rising, because they expect fewer people to buy rides at exorbitant prices. This may have the effect of making cars less available.

Would the service really be undermined if we capped surges at, say, 400 per cent?

For now it's impossible to say what the effect might be, because like so much of its operations, the way Uber's surge pricing mechanism works is not transparent.

And, as the company has expanded into new markets, it's kept squeezing to its advantage. Its commission has grown in new markets in US cities and admitted to effectively sabotaging their competitors by bombarding them with fake orders.

This happens with pricing, too.

In San Diego the company was caught boasting it had not hired new drivers to keep the supply of drivers down and trigger a surge.

It seems inevitable now that Uber will at least decimate or even kill the taxi industry.

You'd need a heart of stone not to feel a tinge of schadenfreude about that, given how unsatisfying encounters with a Sydney cab can be.

But cabs are regulated and provide something that can function like an essential public service, with a certain number reserved by law for people with disabilities or children needing a car seat.

Ordering an Uber does not make you a participant in guerilla war against the establishment. It makes you a client of a $63 billion global monolith backed by venture capital.

Its triumph is going to give it freer rein to set the price of our rides and determine the way in which that happens.

It's worth thinking again whether that's something we ought to be so glib about.

Not all is what it seems ... con job, not many awake yet.  Some of us are ...

Disgusting predatory behaviour by Uber and it should be stopped.  You do not have to agree with me but that is my position after a very careful analysis and observation of the literature the past 6 months or so.

Uber is not your friend.

[#Metro]

Yes, the taxi industry is a duopoly, but this was to control the amount of cabs on the road to keep the industry safe and feasible.

It has nothing to do with safety. For example, private citizens can go to Queensland Transport and get a drivers licence, pass hazard perception tests, L and P plates and get a licence. This does not cost $500 000 and there is no pre-set quota or limit on the number of people that may drive.

[#Metro]

If people don't like the service, don't use it. The poor level of service must be the reason why it is expanding and taking business share away from taxis, right? 

Would the service really be undermined if we capped surges at, say, 400 per cent?

There's already a capped price alternative. It's called taxi or PT. Why couldn't they use that?

In San Diego the company was caught boasting it had not hired new drivers to keep the supply of drivers down and trigger a surge.

Really, and limiting the number of people who can own and hold taxi licences, which is what taxi licencing is is supposed to do - hold down the supply - is somehow different???

But cabs are regulated and provide something that can function like an essential public service, with a certain number reserved by law for people with disabilities or children needing a car seat.

A poor argument. Uber isn't regulated in QLD because the QLD government did not want to regulate it and banned it. By definition, you cannot regulate something that is already banned. In addition to this, Uber is regulated in both NSW, ACT and soon WA as well. As for the public service aspect - offer the same subsidies the government gives to the taxi industry to Uber and you too can transport people with disabilities and children.

Ordering an Uber does not make you a participant in guerilla war against the establishment. It makes you a client of a $63 billion global monolith backed by venture capital.

And what is Cabcharge, Taxi Licences of $500 000 etc? A non-profit charity??

I will also point out that 'surge pricing' is also used on public transport networks during peak hour, as the peak hour fare. It's purpose there is to limit demand, in addition to raise revenue.

I think the best protection is to have a decent PT network that goes all over the city, with reasonable fares and frequent service and things like surges etc will be a non-issue because a decent alternative will exist.

[James]

Talking to a taxi licence holder yesterday (who can't get a buyer for his licence due to Uber).

He raised the point, albeit a taxi industry spiel based one, that Uber come in illegally, and then force the government to change the laws to suit Uber.

Two issues I have with Uber:

• It is not "ridesharing" when they are operating like a taxi service
• If I went and set up a rail operator/bottle shop/pharmacy etc without a licence, I'd be up on charges, but Uber hasn't received this treatment

Yes, the taxi industry is a duopoly, but this was to control the amount of cabs on the road to keep the industry safe and feasible.

Well if Uber didn't come in illegally, what would have happened? Nothing! If you came in and said "Deregulate the taxi industry" 24 months ago (pre-Uber), people would have given you strange looks and the taxi industry would have walked all over the argument.

Now Uber has a following, such an argument gets far more credit because there are people who use and enjoy the service. There is no need to control the number of taxis on the road, nor is there any need for the state government to set fares. There is no incentive for competition or innovation if all operators are forced to charge the same fares. If there are too many taxis on the road and people are making losses on their investment, they will leave the market. Too few, and people will enter the market seeking a profit.

Keep in mind, there are a fixed amount of licences (it is for the cab itself, not the driver). The market is/was willing to pay that amount, it is just like selling any business. A McDonalds franchise will be no different.

But the government doesn't artificially drive down the supply of McDonald's restaurants, no? The reason the licenses cost so much is because the value is artificially inflated by barriers to entry created by the state government.

I am all for forcing Uber drivers to pay a nominal licensing fee per year (say $200) to have a TMR rep inspect the car, do a background check and ensure the driver/car owner is of good character. But $500,000+? Ridiculous!

monopolies exert enough market force to contain/shut down current and future competition...in this industry its all about how much financial backing you have in dollar terms.......uber/google reign supreme.....if no-one can compete with them then they THEY ARE A MONOPOLY.....so much so that they exerted enough market force in the states to successfully wipe out one of their other competitors...

The irony in calling Uber a monopoly in a market which before their entry in April 2014, was essentially a monopoly. Any idea that Yellow/B&W cabs compete against each other is a sham, akin to how TAA & Ansett "competed" before airline deregulation. They leave from the same ranks, charge the same, serve the same destinations, have the same kinds of vehicles and both act in the same way.

[#Metro]

monopolies exert enough market force to contain/shut down current and future competition...in this industry its all about how much financial backing you have in dollar terms.......uber/google reign supreme.....if no-one can compete with them then they THEY ARE A MONOPOLY

No. A feature of a monopoly is the lack of competition. It is not possible to argue that Uber is a monopoly but also a threat to the taxi industry because it is taking 'taxi' customers. That is a mutually contradictory thing. Either there is no rival business competing with it (no competition - customers cannot go elsewhere) and thus it is a monopoly, or there is competition (customers can leave the taxi industry), and thus it is not a monopoly.

The simple observation that customers are leaving taxis is evidence that there is no monopoly. The fact the taxi licences are being devalued is a second piece of evidence also.

[#Metro]

There is no need to control the number of taxis on the road, nor is there any need for the state government to set fares.

In countries overseas there is no restriction on the number of taxis or the fares that they charge. And this is totally independent of Uber. NZ, Sweden and Ireland have a deregulated taxi pricing. How much the taxi charges is up to the taxi company.

[#Metro]

"The surge model is rampant in other industries, and we accept it. Why does a $200 a night hotel cost $1,000 a night (with a 3 night minimum) near Sydney Harbour on New Year's Eve? Because someone is prepared to pay the money. If no-one was, it would be cheaper. Why is is always more expensive to travel during school holidays? Because that's when families can travel.

Where is the moral outrage at the tourism industry? I am not a big fan of Uber, but the surge pricing is a legitimate part of the business - if we allow the business to operate, then we have to accept the costs. If no-one is prepared to pay the cost, then it will fall. Simple."

Commenter
Suzanna

Location
Date and time
January 04, 2016, 1:25PM


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/why-you-were-wrong-to-mock-woman-who-paid-720-for-uber-20160103-glyp8n.html

[ozbob]

No comparison.  Hotels etc. very substantial investments and so forth.  It is regulated as to standards, eg. fire act, WHS and so forth.

Uber vehicles charging 1000%  or more for what?  They haven't paid for the infrastructure they use, they are even arguing about paying GST and other taxation and so forth.  No LD, it is just a gouge to rip people off.  On this we differ. 

A number of interesting legal cases will come to a conclusion during 2016.  Will be very interesting the outcomes. 

[#Metro]

Uber vehicles charging 1000%  or more for what?  They haven't paid for the infrastructure they use, they are even arguing about paying GST and other taxation and so forth.  No LD, it is just a gouge to rip people off.  On this we differ. 

Yes. I agree we differ on this (and so do others). All I can do is put my case, and you can put yours.
I think history will be on my side, however, I am more than happy to be proven wrong.

The purpose of a price isn't just to cover production costs. Indeed, almost nothing is priced this way. The second function of a price is to meter demand. High prices discourage usage (important if there are thousands of people), encourage people to seek alternatives (such as carpool, walk, wait, taxi or public transport). In addition, the higher prices also encourage drivers to come out.

In the context of NYE, when there are 100s of 1000s of people all wanting a ride home, this is understandable. People are paying "1000%" not only just to cover operating costs, but because they are also paying for the privilege of using a scarce resource that lots of other people want at the same time.

There is nothing unethical about surge pricing, provided that (a) people give informed consent, (b) it is voluntary and (c) there are alternatives to using the good/service, of which there are. Traditional taxis also ran on NYE, and so the question has to be, why didn't this person just wait for a taxi?

Introducing, cap would mean there would be a shortage of services during high demand times, and long waits. We see this already with taxi queues. If people prefer to wait hours, they have the choice of doing this already.

I agree that a fare estimate should be shown in addition to the surge multiplier. I think people who make that point do have a valid point there. It is not illegal to be greedy, just like it is not illegal to be stupid (and authorise things one shouldn't really authorise).

People who disagree with Uber are free to start their own transport company, sans surge pricing, and can run it however they like. How did people go home before Uber existed? Uber would not be anywhere near as successful if the taxi industry had not this licencing cartel going, and they had better service.

What can the government do? The Government should look at (a) better PT network and (b) more services in high demand times. (Of course, they would have to pay penalty rates for the workers, as who wants to work NYE?). Uber can only be regulated if it is legalised, that is, unbanned. ACT, NSW and WA all going this way.

Price Gouging Explained

[hU0N]

I haven't made up my mind about UBER.  I have used the service and found it speedy and convenient, but a little too expensive for any time that I have the time to use PT instead.  But that's just me.

Let's at least be straight about what we are comparing. Largely it's all about fares and profits. All the stuff about insurance and background checks etc. etc. is at best, a marginally relevant distraction.  The long and short of it is, there are two ways to make money in the for hire vehicle business.

Method 1: Charge a premium for a premium service wherever possible.  Many, if not most journeys are charged at the just barely profitable base rate, and, after taking into account the time spent finding the fare, are generally not at all profitable for the driver.  But every so often, the driver will get an upsell (for example, by going to a crowded rank and offering to take the third person in line if they will pay extra, or by stopping for a street hail on a rainy evening and telling the passenger that the price is double). This is where profit is made.

Method 2: Ensuring the taxi is always full.  This way, all journeys are charged at the same just barely profitable rate, and the money comes from limiting or eliminating the time that the cab is vacant or idle.

For method 1 to work, drivers (or car owners) need to be allowed to vary their prices as they see fit.  For method 2 to work, there needs to be system in place to suppress supply to a level well below demand (ensuring that another fare is ALWAYS ready and waiting).

Obviously the disadvantages of each business model to the consumer are closely related to the above requirements. Method 1 results in passengers in most need of a car having to pay extortionately high fares.  Method 2 results in passengers in most need of a car having to wait extortionately long times.

I don't have a philosophical preference one way or the other.  Some people might say that it is courting disaster to allow a private company like UBER to dictate how much I will pay for transport.  Others might say that it is courting disaster to allow a different private company like Yellow Cabs to dictate when and where I am allowed to travel, and how long I will have to wait if I wish to do so (which is in fact what currently happens). Both feel like uncomfortable invasions of my freedom.

[hU0N]

It just occured to me actually that the traditional taxi industry is really very dependent for profit on the government suppressing the supply of mobility to a level that ensures a steady stream of potential taxi passengers ready and waiting at all hours of the day and night.  Which might not actually be in ideal situation for public transport.

To explain:
In QLD, the government nets around $18,000 in taxes every time a set of taxi plates is sold, plus about $500 per vehicle in taxi vehicle registration fees per year, plus around $600 per vehicle in taxi drivers license fees per year (assuming it takes four full time drivers to operate the taxi full time).  That's about $3.6m every year in registration / licensing fees plus the taxes.  In short, that's $3.6m+ that is generated by keeping transport options just bad enough that passengers are on the point of giving up and catching a cab.

The upshot is, what happens when you improve alternative transport options?  What happens when a company like UBER comes along, flooding the market with extra capacity and bleeding the dry the supply of frustrated travellers that the taxi industry absolutely needs to be viable?  I think we are seeing the answer to that question play out.

But equally, what happens when the government improves public transport to the point that many if not most people can reliably get from A to B in a reasonable time for a reasonable fare by bus, train and ferry; and therefore would not consider catching a cab?  Would this not have the same effect on the supply of frustrated travellers that the taxi industry aboslutely requires just to be viable?  And would the taxi industry respond in similar fashion? Pressuring the government to wind back public transport service levels to "create space for our traditional and important taxi industry"?  If you think an industry would be unlikely or unable to wield this sort of power, have a look at the backward trading hour restrictions in this state, largely justified on the grounds of "creating space for our traditional and important convenience retail sector".

Fact is, we have given the power to decide how good or bad our transport should be to a private company that has nothing but a selfish interest in seeing service quality remain low.  And we did this years or decades ago, so we never even think about it, or how weird a thing to do it actually was.  At the very least I think, giving a company like UBER the power to decided how high or low our taxi fares should be is not that much of a worse option.

[hU0N]

I know that sounds a bit alarmist, and obviously taxi services coexist with public transport and have for a long time. I was just following through the argument that the taxi business model is better for society and should therefore be defended by governments, even to the detriment of competitors.

And of course seeing if this is compatible with the aspirational goals of groups such as this one, specifically improving public transport to the point that it can be the primary mode of mobility for many in our cities.

[red dragin]

James & LD, have you ever been involved in the purchase or sale of a business? The "licence" is a term used to describe the operation of a single taxi business. Yes McDonalds aren't capped directly, but the market determines how many of them exist. $500,000 is what the market will pay for a taxi business.

LD, by safety I was referring to the vehicles. Yes most of the taxi's are flogged but they are heavily scrutinised when compared to "a car worth more than $10,000". Once a car passes its first roadworthy in QLD, unless it changes hands, it is never inspected again unless it draws the attention of the authorities.

As I said before, if I started up a new rail business and just started driving wherever I liked on the QR/Aurizon network, I'd be up on charges. Why are these people exempt from similar action.

I'm not against Uber, but their bully tactics I am against. And if I had $500,000 tied up in a business I'd be fighting them too.

[#Metro]

NZ Taxi Industry was deregulated in 1989. When you regulate fares and numbers of taxis, you are not regulating quality, but quantity.

Who needs a transport service licence? NZ Transport Agency
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/commercial-driving/transport-service-licences/

"application fee of $449.80"

But equally, what happens when the government improves public transport to the point that many if not most people can reliably get from A to B in a reasonable time for a reasonable fare by bus, train and ferry; and therefore would not consider catching a cab?

UBER has already come out and said that the profitable parts are exactly where there is very poor PT. See:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/uber-chalks-up-25-million-rides-in-brisbane-in-just-18-months-20151021-gkf1lk.html

The company puts its popularity in Brisbane down to the "transport desert" across the city, where it says 59 per cent of its rides either end or begin.

"Our data shows residents of public transport deserts are using Uber to extend the reach and use of existing public transport networks," a spokesman said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/uber-chalks-up-25-million-rides-in-brisbane-in-just-18-months-20151021-gkf1lk.html

[#Metro]

The "licence" is a term used to describe the operation of a single taxi business. Yes McDonalds aren't capped directly, but the market determines how many of them exist. $500,000 is what the market will pay for a taxi business.

No. The market does not determine how many licences exist. The government determines how many licences exist, and the resulting market determines the price level ($500 000). This is different from the usual situation where a business being profitable is what determines whether the business stays open or closes.

I don't like the word taxi licence, because it sounds like a driver licence, which it is not. State Cartel Privilege or cartel rights is more appropriate.

In economics, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

LD, by safety I was referring to the vehicles. Yes most of the taxi's are flogged but they are heavily scrutinised when compared to "a car worth more than $10,000". Once a car passes its first roadworthy in QLD, unless it changes hands, it is never inspected again unless it draws the attention of the authorities.

Controlling the fare level and number of vehicles is not a safety or quality control, it is a quantity control. It is not possible to regulate something that is banned. If vehicles need to be inspected, inspect them, you don't need a fare control or a vehicle quantity control to do that.

[ozbob]

Uber has had some questions raised as to its organisational behaviour and practices, there will more on this as 2016 proceeds.

Taxis are essentially a regulated flat rate fare (it does not surge, it might have minor loadings for night etc. but nothing like the huge variation with uber fares).  Uber, is just a venture capital float.  Uber uses people to generate money for them, in a rather suspect business, financial and legal framework.  The Government has allowed them to get away with it, undercutting taxi fares to establish a base and then they go rippo, let's shaft them eg. surge by 8 times etc.  If Uber does displace proper taxi services they will have a captive market and screw everyone.  The garbage with uber hop is laughable.  Uber even cited jitneys as being a fore-runner. (Jitneys, private operated small passenger vehicles.).  Jitneys were introduced on busy transit routes.  They displaced the then transit and once that happened they screwed the passengers financially.  Passengers lost transit and were then faced with high cost fares.  Eventually the jitneys were displaced by transit.  It is kind of funny that uber wants to do that, shaft you all. But then again, 'we' have seen it all before.

If there is one thing you should note, it is this.  The retro-spectroscope is a very useful instrument.  Uber is not what it seems.

It is just a matter of ...  you got it!       I am off to Adelaide,  err no uber this trip.

[techblitz]

You're kidding, aren't you? That's like saying QR is a monopoly because they aren't a taxi. Just because they say they're not a taxi, it automatically makes them a monopoly? What a load of bollocks. They are a transportation service. They are nowhere near being a monopoly as a transport medium.

they are essntially a platform monopoly....think google,air bnb,amazon books etc
under the "user pays dependant on amount of drivers available" ridesharing economy they are virtually untouchable by current and future competition due to thier enormous venture capital backing....they are set in stone and in for the long haul......

they are even arguing about paying GST and other taxation and so forth.

i would term it sooking/whining about the gst...they are master tax minimisers and pulling off some interesting strategies to keep as much of that 20% as possible...."ocean income" about sums it up....

James & LD, have you ever been involved in the purchase or sale of a business? The "licence" is a term used to describe the operation of a single taxi business. Yes McDonalds aren't capped directly, but the market determines how many of them exist. $500,000 is what the market will pay for a taxi business.

LD, by safety I was referring to the vehicles. Yes most of the taxi's are flogged but they are heavily scrutinised when compared to "a car worth more than $10,000". Once a car passes its first roadworthy in QLD, unless it changes hands, it is never inspected again unless it draws the attention of the authorities.

As I said before, if I started up a new rail business and just started driving wherever I liked on the QR/Aurizon network, I'd be up on charges. Why are these people exempt from similar action.

I'm not against Uber, but their bully tactics I am against. And if I had $500,000 tied up in a business I'd be fighting them too.

well said.....although your flogging a dead horse with that one.....LDT et al are just glad to see uber in operation...regardless of the taxation(minimsation)/insurance/safety/dda issues..

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> 'That's not how things are done here': How Frankfurt stopped Uber

[ozbob]

Coming  in to BNE this morning on the Airport Flyer service, was interesting to note that a major topic for conversation was uber.  The NYE surge pricing news items have been a PR disaster for uber, not surprising really.  Passengers were of the view that uber was just an attempt to displace and make money.  Hasn't taken long for punters to start to wise up.  Just an observation ...

[#Metro]

they are essntially a platform monopoly....think google,air bnb,amazon books etc
under the "user pays dependant on amount of drivers available" ridesharing economy they are virtually untouchable by current and future competition due to thier enormous venture capital backing....they are set in stone and in for the long haul......

No. If it was a monopoly, there would be no impact on the taxi market. The fact that there is demonstrates that there is compeition and thus it is not a monopoly. Monopolies cannot charge what they want also, if it were Uber would be surging 24/7.

i would term it sooking/whining about the gst...they are master tax minimisers and pulling off some interesting strategies to keep as much of that 20% as possible...."ocean income" about sums it up....

Corporations do not pay taxes - ever. All taxes collected by a corporation are ultimately paid by workers, investors and customers.

well said.....although your flogging a dead horse with that one.....LDT et al are just glad to see uber in operation...regardless of the taxation(minimsation)/insurance/safety/dda issues..

Ultimately it should be up to the passenger to decide if they want to use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. As for your other claims, nonsense. You can't regulate something if you already banned it. ACT, NSW and WA all legalising it. Other states soon to follow.

[#Metro]

And to back up my claim that corporations don't pay tax. Only collect them:

Economist Antony Davies Discusses the Impact of Taxing Corporations

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen says Labor accepts that company tax falls hardest on workers rather than wealthy shareholders, and aims for a 25 per cent company tax rate to spur economic growth.

Asked if he accepted former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson's statement that company tax falls hardest on workers, Mr Bowen told the AFR Tax Reform Summit on Tuesday "It's a statement of fact, which I agree with."

http://www.afr.com/news/special-reports/afr-national-policy-series/chris-bowen-says-labor-aims-for-25pc-corporate-tax-rate-20150922-gjrym0