Transportation Minister Claire Trevena acknowledged the public demand for ride-hailing when she finally got up to explain details of the NDP’s new policy.
But what do she and her cabinet colleagues really think of it all?
Not much, judging by the tone of her defence of the legislation over the course of several days.
Ministers usually try to manufacture some enthusiasm for their bills, but Trevena left the impression she introduced the measures only because she had no choice.
The NDP campaigned for ride-hailing, and the Greens have been urging it on government for several years. So although there was lots of stalling, there was no backing out once the NDP took power.
When Trevena got into the nitty-gritty of the bill, she dutifully cited the perceived advantages, but attributed the perceptions to others.
People fret about waiting for cabs, some of them see that phone apps will replace cabs and others think it will improve rural options, she said.
“We know that people want new, convenient and safe options to get around, and this legislation will open that door.”
But she was quick to point out the potential problems that come with ride-hailing, such as the gridlock in New York, or an accident in Toronto blamed on lack of regulation.
In fact, if you want to know all about the problems, Trevena is the person to see.
On surge pricing — where the cost fluctuates with demand — she said: “In Edmonton, we had … a New Year’s Eve customer charged more than $1,100 for a ride. He did then get offered a refund of $500. We don’t want to see that in B.C.”
In Honolulu, some sailors were quoted $221 for what would have been a $40 cab ride.
“In Toronto, somebody was charged, just last year, $18,518 for a 20-minute ride. It was a mistake. It was rectified … They’re not always rectified.”
Meanwhile, in London, “they are really concerned about what has been happening. … There is the question of safety of passengers, and attacks.”
She also said there are unintended consequences developing in other cities with ride-hailing. The use of app-based ride-hailing in Denver has increased vehicle miles travelled by 85 per cent, she said, creating “massive congestion.”
San Francisco congestion is up 50 per cent in six years, she said. Authorities there blamed ride-hailing for longer delays.
Back to New York, she said the mayor is looking to cap the number of ride-hailing cars and establish a minimum wage for the drivers.
The litany of problems she cited is being used to defend how comparatively heavy-handed the policy will be in B.C. There will be price caps, stricter driver requirements and a much bigger Passenger Transportation Authority to regulate all kinds of details.
By contrast, the B.C. Liberals’ attempt just before their government fell had few barriers to the companies and no restrictions on supply or fares. The Liberals basically tried to placate the taxi industry with about $4.5 million to modernize its online presence, then proposed to throw the doors open.
They put up a second effort last week just as a point of comparison, and it’s a lot lighter on the red tape and regulation.
Trevena is fond of saying B.C.’s approach will be demand-driven and rooted in data. It’s not clear what that means. Everything is demand-driven. Everything is rooted in data.
She also cited experts from elsewhere who say B.C. missed ride-hailing 1.0 and is moving directly to ride-hailing 2.0.
That’s a polite way of saying the province missed the boat the first time around.
Part of her skepticism is justified.
One of the leading firms — Uber — acted like a pirate ship for the first few years, ignoring local laws and setting up shop in cities at will.
It even managed online guerrilla warfare against authorities trying to regulate it, taunting officials with misleading data.
But the companies have strong support and aren’t shy about using it to mount email campaigns about the cautious B.C. model.
Based on Trevena’s remarks, when ride-hailing eventually gets to B.C. it would be a surprise to find her using it.
