Taken for a ride
Victoria’s secrets
The province is running out of excuses for not allowing ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft to operate in B.C.
After seven years of delays, excuses, doubletalk and plain old political hogwash, the John Horgan government says ride-hailing services will finally arrive in B.C. later this year.
For anyone who has had trouble getting a taxi on a rainy night in Vancouver, this is welcome news. Ditto for those weary travellers who head out to the taxi stand at YVR, only to find dozens of angry people waiting — and no taxis in sight.
But before you install the Uber app on your smartphone, be aware that the New Democrats — just like the Liberals before them — have never been co-operative or welcoming to this industry.
We’re not going to be sending our four-, seven- or nine-yearyear-old in a ridesharing vehicle (alone).” Uber’s Michael van Hemmen
In fact, they have been downright hostile. Both parties have been obedient to the powerful taxi lobby. And there are signs the deep-seated opposition to Uber and Lyft is still in place, despite the latest promises and lip service.
The NDP keeps insisting the long wait for ride-hailing is because the government wants to keep the travelling public safe from psychopathic Uber drivers.
It’s a scare tactic that repeated itself last week at a meeting of an all-party committee of the legislature stud- ying the ride-hailing issue (because, you know, it hasn’t been studied enough after seven years).
New Democrat MLA Ravi Kahlon used the occasion to challenge Michael van Hemmen, the public policy manager for Uber.
“You talked about your kids and how ride-sharing will be able to help transport them,” Kahlon said. “Would you feel comfortable letting your child get in a car with somebody who hasn’t done a national criminal record check?”
“My children are four, seven and nine, so my wife or I is going to be with them,” van Hemmen shot back. “We’re not going to be sending our four-, seven- or nineyear-year-old in a ride-sharing vehicle or even a taxi by themselves!”
No kidding. But the whole argument is a specious one to begin with. Nobody is suggesting a ride-hailing driver should be licensed without a full criminal background check, spotless driving record, vehicle-safety inspection, and full insurance coverage.
It’s only the New Democrats who want you to think those issues are in dispute. They are not.
The real ride-hailing fight in B.C. is over the government’s sneaky efforts to bring in restrictive operating regulations that would keep Uber and Lyft out of the market.
The committee, for example, sought input on the government’s proposal to impose geographical boundaries on where ride-hailing vehicles could operate, similar to the boundaries faced by taxis.
The government has also suggested strict caps on the maximum number of ride-hailing vehicles allowed on the road, to prevent traffic congestion and to protect the existing taxi industry.
When these issues came up for discussion at the committee, the government got an earful from some surprising sources.
TransLink officials told the committee that caps and boundaries were both bad ideas.
“Caps may actually end up preventing the travelling public from seeing the full potential of these new services,” said TransLink vice-president Geoff Cross.
Cross used the example of thousands of fans spilling out of Rogers Arena or B.C. Place after a major sporting event, all looking for a ride at once.
“We’re concerned about having too-narrow service boundaries,” he said.
This take seemed to surprise NDP members of the committee, who have argued that ride-hailing vehicles would discourage public-transit use.
“Yes, it might affect our ridership to a certain degree,” said TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond. “But if there’s a net benefit in mobility, then we have to hurry up and get with the times.”
Dan Hara, an industry expert brought in by the government, also argued against overly restrictive caps and boundaries.
“Supply would have to be pretty liberal,” he said, adding there was an economic upside to having plentiful ride-hailing vehicles on the road. “If it means that people are going out more to your B.C. restaurants, that’s money being spent in the province instead of elsewhere.”
Sgt. Jeff Rice of the Vancouver Police Department urged the committee to approve sufficient ride-hailing vehicles in wide operating areas in the interest of public safety.
“Boundaries could be counterproductive,” he said. “Restricting somebody from only picking up in a very limited area — driving out to the suburbs and not being able to take somebody back — is one of the problems we’re trying to solve.”
The Competition Bureau of Canada also weighed in.
“A fundamental feature of competitive markets is that of ‘free entry’,” the bureau said in a written submission. “Drivers should be given the flexibility to choose the geographic areas they wish to serve. Market forces should be relied on to balance supply and demand.”
Of course, there was input against Uber and Lyft from more-predictable sources.
The left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said only non-profit co-ops should provide ride-hailing services. And the B.C. Federation of Labour slammed the lousy wages earned by Uber and Lyft drivers.
On the whole, though, the committee got a plainenough message: The time for ride-hailing is here. And any supply-managed regulations that could keep Uber and Lyft out of B.C. should be rejected.
We will see if the New Democrats listen and respond — or continue caving in to the taxi monopoly.